Help! I'm stuck in MPDG mode!

UndergoingMitosis

Waiting for interphase to start
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
300
Reaction score
55
I think it's a good time to point out again that tropes aren't bad. There's no reason a MPDG can't be a three-dimensional, fleshed-out character. When you give a MPDG her own motivations and dramatic arc and in-depth, realistic characterization, that doesn't mean she ceases to be a MPDG, nor should it. It just means she's an example of a good, well-done MPDG.

With most tropes, I would agree with you. With the MPDG? The whole point of the phrase is to put a name to bubbly female stock characters who are only there to show their male love interests that there is indeed whimsy in the world. MPDGs are by definition shallow and two-dimensional.

I think you can have a bubbly, whimsical, free-spirit sort of girl who is interesting and three dimensional, but she's not a MPDG. She's a good character who happens to be cute and bubbly.
 

ellio

a hardback life on an ebook budget
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
465
Reaction score
57
Location
london city
I think it's a good time to point out again that tropes aren't bad. There's no reason a MPDG can't be a three-dimensional, fleshed-out character. When you give a MPDG her own motivations and dramatic arc and in-depth, realistic characterization, that doesn't mean she ceases to be a MPDG, nor should it. It just means she's an example of a good, well-done MPDG.

You know, I think I disagree. I say *think* because I don't have full conviction when I say this, but I wouldn't personally consider a fully fleshed out three-dimensional character to ever synonymously be a manic pixie dream girl.

I personally think any character that is fully fleshed out and has their own motivations seems realistic, even if they're a crazy magic fairy demi god that breathes fire and is on a baseball team. Whatever, I'll buy it, as long as they're fully fleshed out. The reason MPDG is a trope is that a lot of the time it's not the fact that these girls have quirks, it's that they're not realistic. They're unbelievable. They're inconsistent. They usually serve very superficial purposes. If they weren't, the trope wouldn't have such a bad rep.

Also a lot of people seem to really be in to this idea that John Green is a great trope de-constructor (and like, I respectfully disagree, I think he's just a fantasist with convincing excuses) but let's just say that he is deconstructing a trope - is deconstructing a trope beneficial at all in the way MPDG or female LIs in general are perceived?

Or, a better question, should we really be writing in MPDG characters just to flip it and show that there is more going on under the surface or would creating a character with depth from the start that doesn't need to be deconstructed achieve the same aim?

Can there ever really be any aim of writing an MPDG character beyond trying to make the MC look good?
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
With most tropes, I would agree with you. With the MPDG? The whole point of the phrase is to put a name to bubbly female stock characters who are only there to show their male love interests that there is indeed whimsy in the world. MPDGs are by definition shallow and two-dimensional.

A manic pixie dream girl fulfills the role of bringing meaning and adventure to the love interest's live, but there's nothing about the trope that says that must be her only purpose. Just because there are lots of unfortunate examples where that happens to be true, that doesn't make it the definition of the trope.

I think you can have a bubbly, whimsical, free-spirit sort of girl who is interesting and three dimensional, but she's not a MPDG. She's a good character who happens to be cute and bubbly.

If she fulfills the role of bringing life and whimsy to her love interest (or other characters) then IMO she's still a MPDG, regardless of how three-dimensional her characterization is.

You know, I think I disagree. I say *think* because I don't have full conviction when I say this, but I wouldn't personally consider a fully fleshed out three-dimensional character to ever synonymously be a manic pixie dream girl.

I personally think any character that is fully fleshed out and has their own motivations seems realistic, even if they're a crazy magic fairy demi god that breathes fire and is on a baseball team. Whatever, I'll buy it, as long as they're fully fleshed out. The reason MPDG is a trope is that a lot of the time it's not the fact that these girls have quirks, it's that they're not realistic. They're unbelievable. They're inconsistent. They usually serve very superficial purposes. If they weren't, the trope wouldn't have such a bad rep.

Just because something is "usually" true doesn't make it the definition of the trope.

I lived with a real-life MPDG for 4 years. Unless I imagined it, I'm pretty sure she was three-dimensional.

Or, a better question, should we really be writing in MPDG characters just to flip it and show that there is more going on under the surface or would creating a character with depth from the start that doesn't need to be deconstructed achieve the same aim?

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. You can start with the exact same character, and whether she's a MPDG will largely depend on the other characters' perceptions of her.

You could even have the MPDG as the main character and narrator rather than the LI, if the other characters perceive her as bringing meaning and adventure to their lives.

Can there ever really be any aim of writing an MPDG character beyond trying to make the MC look good?

Eh? But MPDG tend to make the MC look bland and boring by comparison.
 
Last edited:

ellio

a hardback life on an ebook budget
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
465
Reaction score
57
Location
london city
I lived with a real-life MPDG for 4 years. Unless I imagined it, I'm pretty sure she was three-dimensional.

Ah, but I am guessing then that she was also not fictional.

Analysing the purpose an MPDG character serves in literature or film or whatever is different from analysing whether or not a MPDG personality can exist in real life.

When talking about MPDGs in YA I personally think the requirements have to be that her personality is created only as a tool for the MC to bounce off and learn about himself through. I don't think a well developed female character with quirks constitutes being a MPDG unless she also comes with the unrealistic and inconsistent character traits too.

That's just how I read it. I think the trope exists as a problematic one, and an MPDG without badly developed character traits just can't exist semantically.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
When talking about MPDGs in YA I personally think the requirements have to be that her personality is created only as a tool for the MC to bounce off and learn about himself through. I don't think a well developed female character with quirks constitutes being a MPDG unless she also comes with the unrealistic and inconsistent character traits too.

But at least if we go by the definition and examples here, unrealistic and inconsistent character traits simply aren't requirements.

A MPDG does serve the function of bringing adventure and meaning to another character's life (usually a male MC but not always), but there's nothing about the trope that says that must be her sole function or the only reason she exists. It's not even strictly necessary that a MPDG must be a girl.

That's just how I read it. I think the trope exists as a problematic one, and an MPDG without badly developed character traits just can't exist semantically.

Many MPDGs are as you describe, but not all of them.

If that's not how you want to define it, there are lots of listed examples of MPDGs who are not actually MPDGs.
 
Last edited:

The_Ink_Goddess

we're gonna make it out of the fire
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,210
Reaction score
313
Location
England
But at least if we go by the definition and examples here, unrealistic and inconsistent character traits simply are requirements.

A MPDG does serve the function of bringing adventure and meaning to another character's life (usually a male MC but not always), but there's nothing about the trope that says that must be her sole function or the only reason she exists. It's not even strictly necessary that a MPDG must be a girl.



Many MPDGs are as you describe, but not all of them.

If that's not how you want to define it, there are lots of listed examples of MPDGs who are not actually MPDGs.

I'm totally struggling to reconcile this with your overall point, which I'm not entirely sure what it is.

The majority of LIs bring meaning to another character's life. A small proportion of those are MPDGs.

If MPDGs are inherently "unrealistic", how can one ever exist in real life? I mean, you call your ex a MPDG and then say that a MPDG is naturally unrealistic.

I see what separates MPDGs from your standard, well, loving love interest as being those very things: totally orientated around the MC and 99.99999% female. It's right there in those two words: dream girl. Sure, you can gender-flip the vast majority of tropes, but I generally only find the manic pixie dream girl troubling because very few male LIs are allowed to be totally defined by their relationships. Also society isn't really into fetishising male mania and childishness. (Much more into fetishising domestic abuse.)
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I'm totally struggling to reconcile this with your overall point, which I'm not entirely sure what it is.

That's because it's a typo. My bad.

That should read "unrealistic and inconsistent character traits simply aren't requirements."

My point is simple. MPDGs aren't automatically problematic or shallow. There are unfortunately many examples which are, however. If you find yourself writing a MPDG, the question to ask yourself is whether you want to write a good and well-developed MPDG, or do you want to avoid writing a MPDG entirely?
 

The_Ink_Goddess

we're gonna make it out of the fire
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,210
Reaction score
313
Location
England
That's because it's a typo. My bad.

That should read "unrealistic and inconsistent character traits simply aren't requirements."

My point is simple. MPDGs aren't automatically problematic or shallow. There are unfortunately many examples which are, however. If you find yourself writing a MPDG, the question to ask yourself is whether you want to write a good and well-developed MPDG, or do you want to avoid writing a MPDG entirely?

I disagree, because I think if they're "good" and well-developed, they're not MPDGs. I don't think a well-developed character can ever be described as a "dream girl." Particularly not in the traditional male-gazey way implied by this trope name. (And I think that the character trait of "manic", if you want her to be flawed/realistic, particularly pushes up against the "dream girl" label.)
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I disagree, because I think if they're "good" and well-developed, they're not MPDGs. I don't think a well-developed character can ever be described as a "dream girl." Particularly not in the traditional male-gazey way implied by this trope name. (And I think that the character trait of "manic", if you want her to be flawed/realistic, particularly pushes up against the "dream girl" label.)

I think the "dream girl" part is more about perception than reality.

It's easy to have a good and well-developed character who is also a "dream girl" or "dream boy" if you have an unreliable narrator. You just have to work a little harder at it than John Green apparently does.
 

The_Ink_Goddess

we're gonna make it out of the fire
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,210
Reaction score
313
Location
England
I think the "dream girl" part is more about perception than reality.

It's easy to have a good and well-developed character who is also a "dream girl" or "dream boy" if you have an unreliable narrator. You just have to work a little harder at it than John Green apparently does.

Ah, yes, but, with a few exceptions for obvious "unreliable narrators", in one-person first/close third POV (which seems to dominate YA), perception = reality, surely?
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Ah, yes, but, with a few exceptions for obvious "unreliable narrators", in one-person first/close third POV (which seems to dominate YA), perception = reality, surely?

I tend to assume all narrators are unreliable until the author suggests otherwise.
 

Emmet Cameron

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
598
Reaction score
44
Location
Canada. Probably.
MPDG is more about a relationship dynamic than a set of character traits. Personally, I think it's problematic to act like quirky girls are always problematic.

Two things to consider: a) boyfriends/girlfriends compulsively construct their girlfriends (and sometimes boyfriends) as MPDGs, and b) girls (and sometimes boys) construct themselves as MPDGs for the (supposed) benefit of their partners, people they want to date, and just regular friends (although hopefully not the closest ones because that's fucking unhealthy and irritating).

I'm a naturally kinda weird person who's pretty much over the phase of performing my own weirdness that I felt like I had to do to get people to like me in high school. I didn't start dating *until* I was pretty much over that phase, and I've still found myself struggling to break down the MPDG perception in pretty much every romantic relationship I've had, regardless of my partner's gender and how boring I felt like I was being. Conclusion: people want to be dating a MPDG. It makes them feel special. It makes the supposed MPDG feel like an object. An adored and fawned over object, but an object. It's hard to sustain any enjoyment of a relationship where only one of you feels like a person. Any self-respecting MPDG will tell their partner to cut that shit the fuck out at some point. If the relationship is worth keeping and the partner is willing to work on it, you develop a code. With my current boyfriend, he's allowed to talk about me like I'm a work of art until I say 'I've reached my quota.' Then he better start engaging me in some legit conversation like with a regular person (a kinda weird regular person with a brain full of hippy-instilled values and some mental health issues, but a regular person nonetheless). So far, it works. (And for what it's worth, we use John Green references to talk about stuff like this, and that works too.)

missesdash's advice to write some stuff from the MPDG's perspective is good. I would add that you should write some scenes of her where she's not interacting or even thinking about her love interest or anybody else she might be inclined to play up (or down) her MPDG-ness with. What's she like alone in her room, or eating dinner with her family? (Family's good. It's hard to play the MPDG card with family.) Watching movies in sweatpants with her best friend? Or even doing some MPDG-ish thing, like stargazing from a stranger's roof, or whatever she's into -- but in a situation where she definitely isn't doing it to impress anyone, just for the enjoyment of the activity itself. Write as many of these scenarios as you can come up with. The more aspects of her that have nothing to do with him that you know about, the better.

Now. How can you let the love interest in on that version of her? Because if you can't, that relationship is going nowhere.