@Strength:
Your post is weird, he/she said:
“Sanji's ridiculous convictions are being treated as [quirks], I see them as [flaws]. It's not even a personal agenda, setting up a character flaw creates the expectation of an arc and a payoff scene where it's made clear the character has moved past it. But this expectation is not being met because Oda views the character differently, and it's frustrating.”
This person brings up Sanji’s convictions as something that holds not just Sanji back, but also real life persons. And then goes on to imbue these convictions with a sense of foreboding: Everyone around the, real or imagined, conviction holder will and does come to some form of harm and pain because of those held and practiced convictions.
This person expects convictions this bad, primitive, stupid to be worked on, for there is no clearer validation and acknowledgement, that then this person was right in their beliefs. That then those convictions are bad, primitive, stupid, and that there's an almost-successful, universal gaining traction for seeing convictions like Sanji’s as bad, primitive, and stupid and so should be done away with – both in the real world and the imagined world of One Piece.
And well… what you’ve brought up (categorical flaws, kant) and what bringing those two up afforded you (a chance to go off about yourself, your thoughts; e.g. which category you would put Sanji’s convictions in; tangents on right on wrong on just on being a true chef and on cooking), it’s like you weren’t listening.
The philosophy referred to and the categorizing of flaws has nothing to do with this person’s expressed frustration, cognitive dissonance, and views. His/her frustration, cognitive dissonance, and views didn’t even get a head nod, instead in its place all you had to offer was a post that could be liken to talking with the goal of hearing yourself talk. Especially since your post is largely derived not from what was already there (said) or given (what she/he last said) but from categorical flaws! From kant! Your post is largely derived from yourself… and that's not listening.
But maybe I'm wrong and Capt M did feel listened to, and your post was appropriate of someone who was listening.
@theackwardstation:
That's a difficult conversation. Anyway, let me give you my perspective on what we're talking about…
Captain M had already successfully explained that there's this dissonance between the story and readers because, in his understandment, Oda portrays Sanji's sexism as a quirk instead of a flaw. His definition of "quirk" and "flaw" is important here, because he says that a quirk is only a funny trait while a character flaw is something that must be worked on in the story. Therefore, in his view, if the author is not willing to work on something, he's not acknowledging it as a flaw… and that's harmful for the character and those around him or even hurtful in the real world.
I disagreed with him because I've always understood that Oda's writing was accusing Sanji of being flawed (not only quirky) when it comes to his sexism, for the reasons I've explained before. Therefore, I can't say that Oda is not acknowledging this as a flaw in a person, even though Oda himself has his own shortcomings in this regard. So, as long as the narrative points it out as a problem, I don't think Sanji's portrayal is truly harmful.
The question is then… how can I say that Sanji's sexism is being portrayed as a flaw (not a quirk) if the author is not willing to change it? This is an important question because it challenges our definition of "character flaw" in fiction, especially Cap M's definition that something is only acknowleged as a flaw if it's overcome in the narrative. In order to answer that question, I made the distinction between a "strong flaw" and a "weak flaw" in storytelling, a weak flaw being one that is acknowledge as a flaw (something beyond a quirk), but it's not hindering the character's journay in the story, therefore it's a characteristic that can keep on going despite being portrayed as a defect.
I'm listening to Captain M's complaints, but all I can do is to give him my perspective on Oda's writing, so I hope it helps. Does my suggestion that Oda acknowledges Sanji's sexism as a flaw instead of merely a quirk makes him feel better? Does it make any difference? Is it actually a huge change of perspective? Or am I just wrong that Oda is acknowledging it as a flaw? I don't know. All I know is that we feel what we feel, so if he's uncomfortable around Sanji, I probably cannot do anything about it… or maybe I could take him to a bar and pay him a beer and start an epiphanic rant about sexism. That could make him lighter, I guess.
I don't think Captain M is wrong or right for feeling what he feels. To look for acknowledgement of social problems in art is reasonable to me, therefore anyone can hope that human flaws should be fixed in literature. Having this principle in mind, all I'm saying is that art can acknowledge something as a flaw without the need of fixing it.
Hey, an exchange to remind me I forgot to reply to Ackwardstation's last post. Lemme get into that, and some of the other stuff here. Strength, if it seems like we're just throwing points up without really acknowledging each other at this point, I think it might be because we're close to an "agree to disagree" kind of impasse in the debate.
I didn't mean to say Sanji's had no development whatsoever. Yeah, his decisions regarding Pudding show some growth away from putting the entire female gender on an unhealthy pedestal, and it could, could, be argued that his attack against Big Mom during the escape from the wedding is also forward motion, even though it obviously only hit the seemingly male Zeus, and that's great, but it only skirts around the edges of his women problems, really. He would probably not be so easily trapped if he was written into another Viola situation, but I have this unfortunate feeling that come another kalifa, he would act the same way.
You can say all you like that a true, literary character flaw specifically stands between the character and their goal, but it's hard to say that Sanji's idolisation of women doesn't do that. It's been made clear time and time again that in One Piece you need a crew to explore the ocean, it's not something that can be done alone. If Sanji's policy will keep him from protecting the crew that will help him keep exploring for All Blue, it's in his way. Simple as that. As for his compulsion to feed the hungry, that's undeniably a risky trait, but a positive one. It turned out poorly with Krieg, yes, but the kindness Sanji showed Gin earlier saved everyone's lives in that arc. Everyone likes to shitpost about Big Mom bouncing back after eating the cake, but the fact is that the cake saved the Sunny by drawing her away from it. It's a strong positive trait, and even when there are negative consequences to following through on it, it's still made clear that it was the right thing to have done. And besides all that, back on the topic of literary flaws, in a 18,000 page, 90 book series, Oda has more than enough time to give his characters arcs unrelated to their final goals. Maybe it's not purely literary, but it fleshes them out as people. Nami's eased off on the greed, for example, and that doesn't have a thing to do with making a map of the world.
The argument that it's still treated as a flaw because people make fun of Sanji for it sometimes doesn't hold water for me because it sounds like someone saying "well I'm an asshole, but at least I'm not like those assholes who don't even know they're being assholes, at least I'm self aware." Great, you know you've got a problem, but you're not fixing it, you're just paying lip service to the fact that everyone knows you're an asshole in hopes it's a substitute for self-improvement. If it was really a problem to the individual it would be worked on, and if Sanji's sexism was a problem in Oda's eyes the same thing would be happening. Just acknowledging something like that isn't enough.
(plus the main time Sanji gets called out is by Nami after his loss to Kalifa, and even then, after calling him an idiot and telling him off, she still manages to conclude by saying she's "pretty impressed" by how he stuck to his ideas, undermining all the rest of it)
Maybe I'm being too meta about this, holding exaggerated, cartoony characters to the same standard I would real people I have to interact with in real life. And maybe the characters around Sanji find him tolerable at worst and the narrative will always give him an out or someone else to pick up the slack if he's caught in a 1 on 1 with a woman. Maybe when you read fiction you have to accept that some settings and groups will have different values to your own, take certain pairings on Game of Thrones for example. But maybe also little character arcs revolving around "minor" flaws that don't stand directly between characters and goals make those characters feel more well-rounded and human. Maybe no other quirk - like Zoro's lacking sense of direction, which can also create minor problems for him and has its existence acknowledged by other characters making fun of it - has had the same kind of dissonance as Sanji's sexism.
I think we've reached the point where we just have different views on this kind thing and trying to debate more is just going to be loops of "it's this," "it's not." Oda's writing on this one point really doesn't work for me at all, but if you're cool with it, that's fine too. It's all subjective, it's all relative.