User blog:Justsomeordinarydude/Incorrect use of the term ‘Mob Mentality’ and more on Identical Behaviour between the Siblings

The Loud House Discussion: Incorrect use of the term ‘Mob Mentality’ and Clarification regarding my criticisms of Identical Behaviour between the Siblings (Also Happy New Year)!



Consider this a little sequel of sorts to my recent discussion about Narrative Conflict and Mob Mentality, where I referred to the latter term when explaining a problem I found to be constantly present within the show. Essentially, because all the siblings often demonstrate the same behaviour and attitude on so many occasions, even when their individual personalities, as well as what we’ve learned about them from instances in previous stories, do not align with such identical behaviour in said instances.

I posted this discussion piece on both DeviantArt as well as the Loud House Wiki. On the latter site, someone posted a comment responding to my work, stating they respectfully disagreed (which is fine; in fact, I actually encourage constructive views of opposition and even insightful debate on my written pieces, providing such activity does not descend into petty insults and aggression). Their argument was they disagreed that the concept of mob mentality existed within the show. At which point, another user then began debating with them the cause of identical behaviour between the siblings in so many episodes; was it due to herd mentality being applied or merely a coincidence that all the siblings were just naturally in character to act that way. The following debate was actually rather interesting, and I suggest you take a read as they both make some very good points (theloudhouse.wikia.com/wiki/Us…).

But one thing I found exceptionally intriguing (and even a little concerning considering my previous use of the term to address various criticisms against the show) was how this person explained the basis of their perspective. He said the reason for so many of the siblings acting the same a lot of the time has nothing to do with a presence of mob mentality, but is rather due to “a matter of coincidence that all of the sisters just happen to have similar viewpoints in arguments.” But here’s the thing… that was my central criticism in the first place. My entire argument was based around the fact that in so many stories, the sisters (and sometimes even Lincoln, too) are portrayed as thinking exactly the same, even in instances when direct evidence taken from other stories, showing their thoughts and reactions to certain situations and occurrences, contradicts the sense of them all thinking and acting in sync.

But I can’t blame this other person for misunderstanding what my central criticism was based on in the first place, because it’s really my own fault for constructing said misunderstanding, via a misuse of the mob mentality term. The actual definition for the term mob mentality is as follows… “Herd mentality, or mob mentality, describes how people are influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors.” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=GghPKJ…) Interpreting this definition of the concept with absolute accuracy, I can only think of one instance in the show off the top of my head where all the sisters act in accordance with the term mob mentality. That would be one of the Lincoln’s flashbacks in the episode One of the Boys, when all the sister vote against his suggestion for DairyLand (despite a previous episode showing that some of the sisters like DairyLand even more than Lincoln), and instead seem to follow the influence of Lori (the oldest sister, hence the one who has the highest “social status” in the group), and even then, that was a dream sequence inside Lincoln’s head, so that’s not even a very straightforward example.

But what this tells me is that when I used the term mob mentality to criticise instances in which all the siblings act identically despite it not necessarily making sense for them to do so in that given circumstance, I was using the term incorrectly to do so. My main argument is that in some cases, scenarios where the siblings all acted the same made no sense and was not befitting with what was already established regarding their characters, and the writing lazily rejected this fact and had them act in sync for the sake of either a quick gag or making a nonsensical event within a narrative work. Honestly, I don’t agree with the notion that the siblings are all influenced to act the same way because of peer influence, or following the leader/person with a higher status in the household. I do believe that the writing was trying to convey that, in those cases where the siblings all demonstrated identical behaviour, it was because of the fact that they coincidentally all share the same viewpoint and stance on things. But that was the criticism I really addressed all along; that some of those occasions of coincidental in sync behaviour made no sense and were examples of lazy writing.

But that point perhaps not getting across as clearly as I intended is really my own doing, because I applied a term of use to describe and explain my criticisms, which wasn’t the correct or appropriate term to actually use to do that. I didn’t really believe it was peer influence causing the siblings to act the same way, rather the writers trying to convince us that they all coincidentally think alike in every 10vs1 situation, but the mistake I did make was using the term of the former to explain the latter, hence my overall argument was presented in a confusing manner. So, it appears I misused the term mob mentality when it really wasn’t a relevant or applicable concept in relation to what I was actually trying to articulate. As such, there’s no other way of putting it… I screwed up. I wrongly applied an irrelevant concept to a criticism I was attempting to state, and in doing so, confused the message I was aiming to send. But I think it’s an underrated virtue these days to admit when you made an error and own up to it, so that’s what I should do (so yeah, I’m sorry guys! ).

But I have to ask, is that what a lot of people have been doing when using the term mob mentality to address a critique they have. In the context of addressing the behaviour of the siblings in some episodes of the show, I’ve seen a lot of people use the term to discuss instances when they all act the same, and criticise accordingly. But when people use this term, are they actually referring to instances where they thought the siblings were all being influenced to act the same way due to peer influence encouraging them to adopt a certain behaviour, or are they just using the term incorrectly, when discussing the problem of the writing portraying the siblings as sharing the same view in so many instances, and acting alike despite that not always making sense? I think it we all ought to be careful when using this term in future discussions, as it may be that we’re not using the term in the correct manner, and it’s not actually related to our criticisms regarding the recurring identical behavioural patterns within the sibling group at all. Because be honest, how many of you reading this have used the term mob mentality to refer to instances of the siblings acting the same before? And based on the actual definition of the term, how many of you have probably used this term incorrectly when providing criticism against this recurrence?



Character Criticism Clarification

On a subsidiary note, another criticism against my previous submission regarding narrative conflict and mob mentality was how my arguments against the siblings acting the same in so many stories, despite that not fitting in with what has been established with their characters, is not really valid as it disregards the fact that sometimes, characters will act in a way that is unexpected, based on the notion that we don’t always know the characters as well as we think they do, and also that they are not one-dimensional, and are bound to have minor inconsistencies in their characters.

Now, I can understand why my previous points concerning my opposition of the siblings acting in a similar manner could be perceived this way, especially considering the examples I used to illustrate my perspective. In my previous discussion post, I used the following examples to criticise when it came to instances of identical behavioural patterns in the show…

-          Leni acting mean in Brawl in the Family (which I criticised because it made Leni appear to be far too mean-spirited and aggressive compared to usual portrayals of her character throughout the series)

-          Lisa abandoning her loyalty to science in giving into the superstitious suspicions of her sisters in No Such Luck (which seemed inconsistent with how resilient she was towards Lucy’s superstitious claims and predictions in Raw Deal)

-          Lana and Lynn partaking in Lucy’s makeover in Back in Black (despite evidence from previous stories contradicting the idea that they would enthusiastically join in)

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">With Lisa’s example, it’s plain and simple. She has been shown to be far more loyal and grounded in her scientific beliefs in previous episodes, and a previous story directly proves this. Yet, the one time we could have actually benefitted from Lisa being a pompous know-it-all in relation to her scientific shtick(because often, Lisa’s character is actually criticised for being too grounded into science, making her seem uncaring of her family and a condescending smart-aleck, but of course, when we could actually benefit from her cold and calculated mind for once, we don’t…), is the one time she is so quick to break away from it. Why? Because the writers wanted to tell a non-sensical, poorly constructed narrative. That’s why. Hence the reasoning behind my criticism.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">Now, in the case of Leni’s example, there could be a strong counterargument launched against my own. While Leni is certainly the nicest, most generous, most caring and nurturing, and sweetest of the siblings, she is not angelic by any means. If I argue against the mere idea that Leni could ever act in an aggressive manner, regardless of circumstance or eventfulness, that would be a counterproductive claim to state. It would essentially be me promoting the stance of Leni being presented in a solely kind and passive way, which would contribute towards rendering a character one-dimensional, which is not what I am asking for. While certainly a very kind and caring soul overall, as evidenced by strong stories such as One Flu Over the Loud House, there have been small instances of Leni acting in an aggressive fashion, dating back to The Sweet Spot, one of the very earliest episodes. Here, she also showed an antagonistic and violent behaviour, so I cannot truthfully state that her actions in Brawl are completely out of character. Emphasis on the word completely, however, as while I can accept the idea that Leni might have some capacity for violent attitude, there is a difference between diverting from an established character type slightly in a way that is plausible and expected, and acting so out of character to such a degree without any rhyme or reason that degradation becomes apparent. In TSS, Leni acts in a manner slightly inconstant with her usual personality, but not to an extent where this behaviour is utterly implausible (which is probably why others and I have never criticised TSS for portraying Leni the way it did). The violence and meanness wasn’t taken too far, so it wasn’t as significant a problem in that story. In Brawl, however, Leni joins Lori and all the others in being so angry, jealous, easily irritated and enraged, vicious and mean in a manner that is so far removed from what has been established of the character and so outrageously inconsistent with what has been established with her character, that I cannot simply accept this as Leni being given extra layers of depth and development and being rescued from being made too one-dimensional. There is a difference between providing a character with minor inconsistencies, and just turning a character into something completely different without any narratively driven justification, just for the sake of a senseless plot.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">The Lynn and Lana example from Back In Black is another example which highlights this distinction. Back in Heavy Meddle, one of the earliest examples in the series, all 10 sisters shared a collective squee and hug when it became apparent Lincoln’s bully was victimising him out of romantic feelings. This may seem out of character for some of the siblings (as Lisa pointed out in the scene itself), such as the stoic Lisa and Lucy or the masculine Lana and Lynn, but it’s ultimately just a minor squee. In other words, it doesn’t divert any of these sisters from their established characterisation to an infeasible or nonsensical extent. They were just showing mutual appreciation, pride and excitement for their brother, who from their perspective, had a potential crush on his hands. Plus, there was no evidence prior to this that suggested any of the sisters would react differently.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">However, in BIB, not only are the actions of Lana and Lynn taken out of character to way too far an extent, but they blatantly contradict events in previous episodes which have established something about their characters which are not consistent with what they do here. I mentioned in my previous submission that Lana didn’t even know what a dress was until Toads and Tiaras, and Lynn had been shown to detest makeovers and similar activities in season one episodes. But here, they both own make-up kits and are as excited to partake in Lucy’s makeovers as the other sisters. I find it hard to believe these two, based on everything we have seen from them in previous stories, and everything that has been confirmed about their personalities throughout the eventfulness of all the narratives so far, would do what they did here. While the example in Heavy Meddle is just an example of giving a character a minor inconsistency, which is often an efficient way of adding layers of depth and well-roundedness to a character (e.g. Lynn is often criticised as mean, harsh, victimising and bullying towards Lincoln, but the scene in HM does show she cares about him as she is excited for him possibly having a love interest, without blatantly going transforming her character in a nonsensical fashion too much to do so), in BIB Lana and Lynn are just clearly taken out of character to fit in with the intentions of the (nonsensical) plot. While I can accept a squee, I just cannot accept the idea that these two would have the exact same enthusiasm, as well as fashion sense, as Lori, Leni and Lola when it comes to giving Lucy a makeover. And that’s another thing; if they were going to have all 10 sisters be involved in the makeover process, then it may have at least been a little more plausible had each sibling given Lucy an individual makeover, rather than all be portrayed as having the exact same idea for how Lucy should look (seriously, how does it make sense for these 10 individual characters, all with vastly contrasting attires, personality types and by extension, senses of fashion, to all doll Lucy up in the exact same way?). Maybe make Lola, Lana, Luna, Lisa and so on each give Lucy an individual makeover which is more fitting with their own personality and wardrobe, rather than all resort to getting out makeup kits (which it doesn’t even make sense for some of them to have, I might add).

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">But that’s the point I’m trying to convey. Minor inconsistencies are not a bad thing, as they can often serve to provide characters with hidden depths and well-rounded development. Do you think I’m automatically opposed to the idea of Lisa diverging from her cold, stoic, scientifically grounded nature at least a little bit every once in a while? No. In fact, Friend or Faux was about Lisa learning to be a caring and open-hearted friend for Darcy, and not always just being so absorbed in her scientific interests and pursuits that she’s a one-dimensional, unlikable jerk. Do you think I’m against the idea of taking Lynn’s character and giving her some new layers of depth which are detached from her usual competitive, butch sports archetype? Heck no. Provided it’s done in a sensible and competent way, giving Lynn traits of affection, compassion or femininity would be welcome, as these developments would rescue the character from critiques of being static, one-dimensional, too mean or even just plain detestable. Giving her more layers of development, and perhaps even some qualities which show there is more to her than just being a rough, over-competitive jock, would be a highly effective way of moving the character away from being this. Characters like Lola, Lori and Ronnie Anne have all benefitted from this, as they have all been given softer, caring sides which help balance them out and come across as redeemable and even likable despite their overall somewhat mean and antagonistic personalities. Having Lynn Squee along with the others in HM was an example of this, as it indicates she has a caring, soft side and slight girly streak which demonstrates she is not just a rough thug. Minor inconsistencies are fine (and sometimes even advantageous) as long as there isn’t evidence within the established continuity which directly contradicts its plausibility. Major transformations to a character’s behaviour, like in NSL or BIB, for example, are more problematic, however, especially when it’s just for the sake of the intentions of that given plot. Unless there is a narrative development specifically focusing on a major change in one’s character, just suddenly having them act completely different, in a way that clearly opposes what has been established about their character beforehand, without any explanation whatsoever, is an indicator that there is a major problem at hand concerning how the characters are being handled via the writing.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">So, in short, there is a distinction between establishing and using minor inconsistencies for your characters, and just making them act completely different to an extreme degree in a completely unjustified way just for the sake of a plot which doesn’t make any sense without butchering said characters.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">Also, when establishing a new trait for a character which doesn’t necessarily fit their archetype, make sure it doesn’t blatantly go against what has been clearly set in their characterisation (again, Lisa is clearly less likely to be suckered in by superstitious claims than she was in NSL, as Raw Deal confirmed). Plus, if a major change or addition to one’s character which breaks away from is going to be added, it needs to be implemented into the narrative so that this transformation of sorts is given justification via the storytelling process (so, in other words, utilise the technique of character development when telling a story rather than just suddenly have a character act differently without any logical reason or explanation for doing so, which should be an obvious rule).

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">A key example which I think illustrates and clarifies my argument regarding minor inconsistencies (which help to develop and flesh out character) vs. taking someone out of character absurdly is the character of Lucy. Notably, I recently compiled a ranked list of best to worst Loud siblings. I listed Lucy among the top half of that list, and one of the strengths I pointed out regarding her character was how she had hidden depths. Recalling the early season one episode Sleuth or Consequences, a major plot point/twist of that story was that Lucy was the one who clogged the toilet, when attempting to hide evidence of her being a fan of Princess Pony. Obviously, a franchise like Princess Pony is associated with light-hearted, sickeningly cute, childish, bright coloured, happy, cheerful, feminine and optimistic connotations. These are, clearly, not traits typically associated with Lucy’s character archetype. However, this can be considered more of a hidden depth and a plausible minor character inconsistency which actually manages to make Lucy seem more fleshed out and less one-dimensional and solely routed to her doom and gloom personality. Nothing in a previous story serves as evidence that she isn’t or cannot be a fan of Princess Pony, nor is her merely liking it too far astray from her overall characterisation. All it does is add to her character and show that there is more to her than her gothic persona, but it doesn’t completely change the character without justification, sense or proper handling of development. Now compare that to a hypothetical case I’m going to construct for the purpose of my clarification. Imagine if an episode just randomly used Lucy in a completely ludicrous way. Imagine if Lucy was used in an episode as one of the side characters, and just for the sake of the story, she was made to act cheerful, excitable, energetic, highly effeminate, and constantly smile throughout the entirety of the episode, without any explanation or reason for her to act so differently to usual. Would that make any sense at all? Or would that just be yet another example of the writers taking the lazy option and transforming (and practically butchering) an established and developed character, without any reason, or any proper process of character development showing and justifying the change, just for the sake of telling a story (which is clearly highly flawed if it needs to resort to doing such a thing in order to work)?

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">Conclusion

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">When I criticise cases of identical behaviour demonstrated amongst the sibling group, it’s because these instances are often forced and they change the behaviour and personality of these established characters in a way that is nonsensical and unjustified. These scenarios are often examples of poorly handled characterisation. While I’m not against giving characters hidden depths, or allowing them to break away from their central character traits at times (depending on the execution), just drastically altering a character’s personality suddenly, without any reason, is just not acceptable when it comes to the standard which should be held regarding how well these great, lovable characters are actually written and portrayed. I’m certainly not against characters being given more dimensions to their overall personalities and being made more well-rounded, provided it is handled in an efficient manner, but there is a significant difference between doing that and just changing a character to meet lazy ends. If significant changes to a character are going to be made, make them the focus of a narrative and let us actually witness the character development which sparks said changes. Plus, if new hidden depths are going to suddenly be revealed (like Lucy’s enjoyment of PP), make sure there is nothing already confirmed about their character which contradicts this. While characters like Lynn (who I will write another discussion post on again next/this year, depending on what time this thing gets uploaded) could certainly benefit from some development, as well as character traits which show there are more sides to her than just being a rough jock (any characteristics which show affection, love, care, sensitivity, regret, or so on would be highly beneficial for her at this point, in theory), there are good ways of adding to or altering a character, and there are bad ways of doing this. Essentially, that is what I’ve been saying all along. My main problem with the siblings behaving identically in the show is these occurrences tend to be instances in which some of the siblings are altered senselessly and lazily, in an effort to make a flawed plot function. In other words, the bad way of adding to/changing characters. So, for future reference, when I state criticisms relating to identical behaviour amongst the siblings (which I have admittedly mislabelled mob mentality in the past, which we have covered), it’s because these instances usually encompass the poor, inefficient way of changing a character. As opposed to the good way in which changes and additions can help to enhance rather than hinder characterisation, that of which I am certainly not rejective of.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">Happy New Year!

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">One final note (it is literally 5 minutes before the start of 2018 as I am writing this paragraph), Happy New Year everyone! Let’s welcome 2018 and see what the year brings us. I have enjoyed doing this throughout the entirety of 2017 and for all the fans and followers I have made, I thank you all for taking an interest in my work. Let’s hope 2018 is a great year, and that it brings the best out of The Loud House (so far…) and also brings the online community some great and treasurable experiences. I aim to continue making reactions, reviews, discussions and more throughout 2018 and hopefully continue to influence the fandom in a positive way. Anyway, see you in 2018…