Divergent and Intentionally One Dimensional Characters

One of the criticisms I've seen of Guardians of the Galaxy is that Drax's literal-mindedness isn't consistent.  For example, when Quill says, "This is our chance to give a shit," Drax's response should be more like what is shown in this HISHE video.

But I don't agree with that.  He isn't magically literal-minded.  He hasn't been enchanted with some sort of anti-slang spell.  He just grew up in a culture that didn't use metaphors.  He's since been living among people with more normal speech patterns, and some of it is creeping in.  His first instinct is still to take everything literally, but he's spent enough time away from his people that his instincts are going to be inconsistent.

That's kind of the problem with intentionally one-dimensional characters, though.  If they truly adhered to their defining character trait at all times, most of them wouldn't survive a week.  A 100% literal version of Drax would have starved to death the first time he saw a stop sign.

It's said that Drax is in prison for 22 counts of murder, which he probably committed while on his quest to avenge his family.  But I'd rather believe he just accidentally broke a few laws based on his misunderstanding of some culture's metaphors.  Maybe he heard an actor say "break a leg", or complied with a valley girl's request to "gag her with a spoon."

One dimensional characters make me think of those "One of us always lies, the other always tells the truth" people they have guarding dungeons.  I mean, what are these people like at home?  How do they even begin to live a normal life, if they can't control their honesty/dishonesty?  Or do they only follow that rule when they're on the clock?

I'm currently reading the Divergent series, which is all about one dimensional characters.  It features an entire society of people who each have one of five personalities.  You're either brave, kind, selfless, honest, or inquisitive, and if you're more than one of those, you're considered a criminal.  

Of course such a society could not work.  In fact, that might be the point of the series - it shows us why such a system couldn't work, by showing us how it breaks down.  But I'm also finding the story a bit inconsistent.  At the choosing ceremony, 16-year-olds are expected to commit to a faction, a decision that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.  

But they're still allowed to choose.  Even though they're given tests that tell them which personality type they have (which should be obvious by that age anyway), they're given the freedom to pick the wrong faction, which will undoubtedly lead to them being factionless.

To me, this is where Divergent fails as a dystopia.  In the totalitarian dystopia the author was going for, the tests should indicate where the kids go, period.  You obviously want this society to work like a machine, so why give them free will?  You might say that giving the kids the illusion of free will makes them less likely to revolt, but they already know they don't have a real choice.  They know their lives will be ruined if they choose the wrong faction, fail, and become factionless.  Just going with the computer assessment would be more efficient.

And it's obvious why the author couldn't do that.  It's a form of the Anthropic Principle. If Tris hadn't been allowed to choose her own faction, the story couldn't happen.  And if she'd been required to retake the computer test until they got a clear result, she would have been executed before she even knew what a Divergent was.

Also, in a true dystopia, the factionless would just be executed.  For one thing, they would be considered a drain on society's resources.  Secondly, they're statistically more likely to be Divergent (who are executed), since they obviously couldn't cut it in their own factions.  And third, they have the most reason to rise up and overthrow the system.

Anyway, I've finished the first book, and I'm a couple of chapters into the second.  I'm taking a break at the moment because my attention is too divided by D&D stuff.  I don't know if I'm going to bother reading the third book, because I've heard bad things about it.  The third movie sure didn't impress me.

Minor Distractions In Media

Sometimes weird little things distract me when I'm watching movies or reading books.  For example, thanks to TVTropes and other nitpicky websites, I now notice certain sound effects more often than I would like.  There's a specific "rusty gate opening" sound that to me is as distinctive as a Wilhelm scream.  Plus there's that one owl hooting everybody uses, that standard cat yowl when someone throws something out of a window, and let's not forget that red-tailed hawk screech that's used to show a scene takes place in the desert.

Some people like to watch the glasses when characters are drinking in movies.  The liquid levels tend to go up and down a lot, since the takes are often re-shot or spliced in a different order than was filmed.  That's never been one of my distractions, but I do have a tendency to watch smokers a lot.  When a character is smoking, I subconsciously keep track of their inhales and exhales.  Sometimes a character will take a long draw on a cigarette, but thanks to editing, they never blow it back out.  This bothers me, and makes me feel like I'm choking.  And I don't even smoke.

Another thing that bothers me is characters who don't go to the bathroom.  I know, it's boring to show the mundane part of people's lives.  I'm not saying they should show characters in bathrooms more often, that's not my point.  I know a lot of this stuff happens off screen and between scenes.  But I'm talking about the times when there is no "between scenes".

I'm bothered by the times you specifically know a character didn't have time to go to the bathroom.  For example, right now I'm reading Divergent.  There's a scene where Tris wakes up and she's running late for a field trip.  We know she didn't get up in the middle of the night, because she's so sore from fighting the previous day it would have mentioned how difficult it was to get out of bed.  Her friend runs off to get her a muffin, and it takes the entire time she's gone for Tris to change shirts.  Then they run off, jump on a train, and so on.  

In fact, the book explicitly lays out her every waking moment from around mid day the previous day, until they take the train to the fence.  There is no time for her to have gone to the bathroom for nearly 24 hours, and yet - in a first person novel written in the present tense - she never even mentions trying to find time for a bathroom break.

I can't imagine waking up in the morning and not having to use the restroom.  It bothers me in stories when they don't mention this normal part of a morning routine.  I'm not asking for a detailed description of what transpires on the toilet, but stories where it's obvious they couldn't have gone to the bathroom fill me with anxiety.

I'm also bothered by novels that don't make clear a character's state of undress.  I've read several fantasy novels where (this is a made up example) a fighter is woken by a noise and ends up in battle for the rest of the day, and it's unclear whether he ever found time to don that exquisite plate armor the author described when the character was first introduced.  Am I supposed to believe he's fighting in a loincloth, or that he sleeps in his plate armor?  Because he jumped directly from his bedroll to his horse, and you can't tell me he put his armor on while riding.  (He probably didn't go to the bathroom either.)

Divergent again - there's a scene where Tris - who is shy about undressing around others - goes into the bathroom to put on her pants.  The pants no longer fit because she's put on muscle, so she puts on a towel when she leaves the restroom.  Then she gets assaulted.  Her attackers take her towel, and she runs off naked.  Maybe.  It's implied that she's nude, the attackers even make fun of a birthmark on her rear.  But at the same time, I'm surprised she isn't wearing underwear.  She wouldn't have been putting on her pants without putting her underwear on first, and there would have been no reason to take her underwear back off before leaving the restroom.  Is there no underwear in the Divergent universe?  If so, that seems like something the author should have mentioned.

There's a scene in the Doctor Sleep novel that screams "clothing continuity error" to me, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.  I mean, it's Stephen 'effing King, for crissakes, I hate to think he's capable of such a mistake, but we're all human.  

But it's the first scene with adult Dan Torrance.  He wakes up with a hangover, next to a nude woman who's name he has trouble remembering.  He looks down and sees he's nude too.  He runs to the bathroom to throw up, grabbing his underwear on the way. He goes through the woman's medicine cabinet, finds three pills he wants to save for later, and he puts them in his pocket.  Then he puts on his underwear and goes back to the bedroom.  He disentangles his clothes from hers, then puts on his t-shirt and jeans.

In case you missed the problem - he's naked when he puts the pills in his pocket.  The only piece of clothing in the room is his underwear, which probably doesn't have pockets. 

Anyway, those are the only examples I have at the moment, and I might be misremembering some of them.  But this is the kind of thing that stands out to me while I'm reading or watching movies.  I'm not obsessive about a lot of things, and I'll accept a lot of unusual fantasy tropes.  But bathroom breaks and clothing status are vital to my suspension of disbelief.