Thoughts about IDW's Dark Leo
Aug. 25th, 2013 08:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rainwatersparkCut for length and ramblyness.
I have complicated feelings about Dark Leo and the direction IDW is going in with TMNT.
On the one hand, the reader in me who loves character suffering and angst is all for the brainwashing/joining-the-dark-side plot. It's interesting, it's never been done before, and it's throwing a really interesting wrench in the turtles' + Splinter's relationship; namely, if the turtle who's most loyal and dedicated to the family can be corrupted, what happens next?
But on the other hand, I can't help but feel that this conflict is excluding certain other kinds of conflict from this particular version of TMNT, which are often equally as interesting and often central to Leo's character.
If we were to have Leo later angsting about his leadership abilities/ability to protect his family, it would just feel like too much angst, and it doesn't feel as though there is enough space for these two angst episodes. What do I mean? Any good writer uses an angst episode (for lack of a better term, I'll keep calling it this) to take a character apart so the character can return stronger than before. Otherwise, there is no point to subjecting a character through endless and/or extreme episodes of mental and/or physical torture.
But let's assume this is what happens. Leo is brainwashed into joining the Shredder and gets aclichéd accompanying jerkass personality switch. Then, after he gets some sense knocked into him, he'll have an extended "My God, what have I done?" character arc before he either (1) finally comes to terms with what happens, realizes it wasn't his fault (more on this later!) and moves on, or (2) recognizes a "dark" side to himself that gave rise to his "Dark Leo" persona, comes to terms with it, and moves on. To have him mentally knocked down again after this would be meaninglessly sadistic, considering he's already been through a major, major trauma. It would also mean Leo disproportionately becomes the protagonist of the overall narrative. I mean, Leo is almost always presented as the closest to a protagonist that TMNT has, but well-written TMNT iterations rotate the four turtles in and out of the spotlight.
Personally, I think it would be interesting if the second scenario is the one at play: that "Dark Leo" is a manifestation of some "dark" side of Leo's personality, and it's something he has to come to terms with. But that brings me to my next point: agency.
Usually, in good writing, characters who go through suffering are put through that ordeal in order to teach them a lesson. In TMNT 2003, for example, Leo's angstfest in season 4 is to show how the role of being a leader can take a serious toll on him, as well as to show that despite the way he excels in his training and strives to be the perfect son/elder brother/student, he isn't perfect by a longshot. His angstfest is caused by his own internal torture; while what happened to him and his family wasn't his fault, he chose to react to it in a certain way, and he learned to stop blaming himself. In other words, his angst was a direct result of a choice he made; it was the result of his agency, and the consequences of it.
But one troubling aspect of the Dark Leo arc is that Leo has had NO agency throughout. He didn't choose to be knocked out, dragged to Shredder's HQ, and brainwashed. Nothing he chose to do even remotely led to his capture, because the whole thing was meticulously planned out by Shredder. By all appearances, he's not even really in control of himself as Dark Leo. This is not to say that events that happen to characters without any of their agency are all bad, or can't result in a good narrative. But it almost feels as though you can see the authorial hand at work, moving pieces on the board and pushing them in certain directions. Oh, the turtle family is too tight? Let's put them through a meat grinder to shatter their bond. Oh, Leo seems to be pretty comfortable as the leader and eldest brother? Let's destroy him mentally to produce drama and see how he reacts. It feels as though nothing in the proceeding narrative made this arc necessary for Leo's growth. Even if Dark Leo is, as I suggested before, a manifestation of Leo's darkest thoughts and urges, we've been given nothing to suggest this is something that even faintly affected Leo before.
Do you see my point? One form of conflict is organic, a natural outgrowth of a character's personality and choices. The other is manufactured, something caused by the author in order to stir up drama. Again, it's not to say the latter is bad; it's a common storytelling device in fiction, after all. But the former is almost always more meaningful than the latter, when it's possible to be utilized.
Now to get back to a point that I made earlier: Leo's characterization. Having Leo doubt his leadership and ability to carry out elder brother responsibilities is usually pretty central to his characterization. Even the 2012 series, which has simplified and exaggerated the turtles' defining characteristics and has subpar characterization in general, featured this conflict in one of its episodes. There's nothing particularly wrong with wanting to shake things up and chart a new path in a new TMNT iteration, but considering that Leo is always presented as the leader and the disciplined one, this is simply a logical conflict for him to have. In the same vein, it's difficult to write Raph without having at least one episode focusing on his temper problems, simply because his major personality trait is anger.
I have complicated feelings about Dark Leo and the direction IDW is going in with TMNT.
On the one hand, the reader in me who loves character suffering and angst is all for the brainwashing/joining-the-dark-side plot. It's interesting, it's never been done before, and it's throwing a really interesting wrench in the turtles' + Splinter's relationship; namely, if the turtle who's most loyal and dedicated to the family can be corrupted, what happens next?
But on the other hand, I can't help but feel that this conflict is excluding certain other kinds of conflict from this particular version of TMNT, which are often equally as interesting and often central to Leo's character.
If we were to have Leo later angsting about his leadership abilities/ability to protect his family, it would just feel like too much angst, and it doesn't feel as though there is enough space for these two angst episodes. What do I mean? Any good writer uses an angst episode (for lack of a better term, I'll keep calling it this) to take a character apart so the character can return stronger than before. Otherwise, there is no point to subjecting a character through endless and/or extreme episodes of mental and/or physical torture.
But let's assume this is what happens. Leo is brainwashed into joining the Shredder and gets a
Personally, I think it would be interesting if the second scenario is the one at play: that "Dark Leo" is a manifestation of some "dark" side of Leo's personality, and it's something he has to come to terms with. But that brings me to my next point: agency.
Usually, in good writing, characters who go through suffering are put through that ordeal in order to teach them a lesson. In TMNT 2003, for example, Leo's angstfest in season 4 is to show how the role of being a leader can take a serious toll on him, as well as to show that despite the way he excels in his training and strives to be the perfect son/elder brother/student, he isn't perfect by a longshot. His angstfest is caused by his own internal torture; while what happened to him and his family wasn't his fault, he chose to react to it in a certain way, and he learned to stop blaming himself. In other words, his angst was a direct result of a choice he made; it was the result of his agency, and the consequences of it.
But one troubling aspect of the Dark Leo arc is that Leo has had NO agency throughout. He didn't choose to be knocked out, dragged to Shredder's HQ, and brainwashed. Nothing he chose to do even remotely led to his capture, because the whole thing was meticulously planned out by Shredder. By all appearances, he's not even really in control of himself as Dark Leo. This is not to say that events that happen to characters without any of their agency are all bad, or can't result in a good narrative. But it almost feels as though you can see the authorial hand at work, moving pieces on the board and pushing them in certain directions. Oh, the turtle family is too tight? Let's put them through a meat grinder to shatter their bond. Oh, Leo seems to be pretty comfortable as the leader and eldest brother? Let's destroy him mentally to produce drama and see how he reacts. It feels as though nothing in the proceeding narrative made this arc necessary for Leo's growth. Even if Dark Leo is, as I suggested before, a manifestation of Leo's darkest thoughts and urges, we've been given nothing to suggest this is something that even faintly affected Leo before.
Do you see my point? One form of conflict is organic, a natural outgrowth of a character's personality and choices. The other is manufactured, something caused by the author in order to stir up drama. Again, it's not to say the latter is bad; it's a common storytelling device in fiction, after all. But the former is almost always more meaningful than the latter, when it's possible to be utilized.
Now to get back to a point that I made earlier: Leo's characterization. Having Leo doubt his leadership and ability to carry out elder brother responsibilities is usually pretty central to his characterization. Even the 2012 series, which has simplified and exaggerated the turtles' defining characteristics and has subpar characterization in general, featured this conflict in one of its episodes. There's nothing particularly wrong with wanting to shake things up and chart a new path in a new TMNT iteration, but considering that Leo is always presented as the leader and the disciplined one, this is simply a logical conflict for him to have. In the same vein, it's difficult to write Raph without having at least one episode focusing on his temper problems, simply because his major personality trait is anger.
