Amazingly Awesome Animals
Once again I have to point out the doylist vs watsonian approach. The term comes from Sherlock Holmes fandom. Basically, when you ask a question, it can be answered from Watson (in-universe) or Doyle’s (meta) perspective.
If we are discussing a story critically, it would often be from a doylist perspective. “Why did the author write them that way?” Or “The character portrayal is inconsistent.”
If we are trying to write a character study/headcanon, it would often be from a watsonian perspective. We would explain a minor character’s behavior using our empathy in a way the author might never have considered? Why did they behave OOC in that scene? Perhaps it’s because this event happened prior, which was never shown on-screen.
Character discourse often mixes between watsonian and doylist because we want to relate to characters as people, not narrative devices. That’s the whole reason for transformative fandom, we don’t want to simply review the work as is, we want to more out of it.
Why did the character do the thing? The doylist perspective is that the story needed conflict, or the character represents the patriarchy. But with the watsonian perspective, we think “but seriously, why would a flesh and blood person with feelings, who is capable of reason, do that thing? Why would I, if I were in their position, do this terrible/stupid thing.” and we make it deeper than what it is. That’s the beauty of transformative fandom, we go beyond what is provided. In our minds, the characters are far more real than their purpose as narrative device.
Like, as a fan of villains and minor characters? I know that often they’re just plot device. They needed to do the thing so the protagonist can have shit to do. But it’s more interesting to think “what if they’re people? What would make them behave this way?”