User blog:Justsomeordinarydude/Narrative Conflict, Mob Mentality and the Importance of Writing.

'''Loud House Topic: Narrative Conflict, Mob Mentality, and the Importance of Writing. '''

This is the 1st time in a while I have written a topic discussion on The Loud House, but considering the arguments posed by many members of the fanbase over the past year or so, I figured this subject matter is more relevant for discussion than ever. Essentially, what I want to discuss is how narrative conflict is presented in the show and how it could be executed in a more efficient manner. A number of issues will be addressed here, including the use of conflictual stories in the show, the use of mob mentality, character growth and development, and the importance of how a story is written versus its centralised concept. Let’s plough on…



The Presence and Importance of Narrative Conflict

The Loud House, as most of you reading this should know by now, is a series which primarily focuses on the Loud family, consisting of Lincoln, your typical everyman protagonist, his 10 sisters, 2 parental figures and a bunch of pets. The bulk of stories this show distributes consist of plots where there is an internal conflict between the sibling group. More often than not, it is Lincoln versus the other 10 sisters (many episodes come to mind but No Such Luck is probably the episode most would view as the quintessential example), though sometimes this norm can be subverted as sometimes another sibling can act as the outcast against the other 10 (Lucy as the protagonist against the other siblings as antagonists in Spell it Out, for example, or Lynn as an antagonist against the others in Lynner Takes All, as well). Also, sometimes the conflicts are between 2 different groups of sisters (The Tents Debate), or even every sibling for themselves (The Sweet Spot). Either way, it’s safe to say that the majority of episodes this show has produced have revolved around struggles and situations concerning the main sibling group.

This is natural, of course, as this is what the show focuses on; the lives of the Louds and the dynamic they share while all living together under one roof. All 11 personalities, within clashing and contrasting interests and behavioural traits, are bound to engage in forms of conflict from time to time (quite frequently, actually, but then again, that’s sibling relationships for you). Yet, this doesn’t stop certain fans from bashing the show for the inclusion of narrative conflicts. So often, some people will complain about how mean the sisters can act, particularly towards the likes of Lincoln, and will often make contextually outrageous statements such as having them act pleasant and completely anodyne to him 100% of the time, and never display any acts of opposing or antagonistic behaviour, regardless of the circumstances, previous happenings or justifications contained within the eventfulness of an episode’s plot. I can only assume this is because of episodes like Brawl in the Family, No Such Luck, and maybe a few other certain stories, to a lesser extent, that caused this mentality amongst such a significant portion of the fandom to emerge. Every time a poorly executed plot, which represents the sibling bond between our main characters in a distasteful and revolting manner, the argument that the sisters should not only be nicer to our main protagonist, but also never antagonistic again, re-emerges.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll reinstate my point now. The very notion that the sisters should always be kind-hearted and salubrious, with a complete absence of conflictual behaviour, is absurd. Given this show is about the relationship between Lincoln and the sisters, and the sibling bond they all share, it is inevitable that some stories will revolve around conflicts and quarrels between them. Without that element in the show, The Loud House as a series simply cannot function. There would be very little material for the writers to work with otherwise. That being said, there are efficient and deficient methods of presenting narrative conflict between characters, which strongly contrast each other, and the quality of a show heavily depends on which category most stories fall into.

Not the Idea but the Execution

Here’s the thing, I understand where that view comes from. With stories like NSL, the conflict is portrayed poorly, as it butchers the representation of the characters in order to make progress with a plot which is founded upon not only nonsensical, but also distasteful grounds. Instances like this emit the impression that any form of struggle between the main characters is toxic to the quality of the show; that any violence, interrogation, forceful attitude, difference of interests, contrasting goals or differing views are a cancerous element for the series and should be completely disregarded or dejected entirely. Despite the fact that this is not possible if the show is to continue producing storylines of interest. The fans obviously have a high level of concern for the characters. After all, they are at the heart of the show and a primary reason for why the show has the wide appeal it does. A crucial aspect of the show’s marketing, after all, is how it contains a sizeable cast of different female (and one male) sibling, all with differing personalities, interests, appearances, virtues and vices. So, when a poorly constructed episode comes along and, for the sake of its own ill-conceived direction, mishandles the representation of these rich and lovable entities, the outrage is portentous.

However, while it is justifiable to simply want the best in relation to the portrayal of your favourite characters, the fact remains that crying out for the show to remove conflict more or less completely is not only absurd but counterproductive. If the series were to obey the instructions of people who are demanding a cease of the sisters even acting in an antagonistic manner towards Lincoln or each other, and an absence of conflictual presence between the main cast, there would be so little material to work with. While the sceptical opinion of conflict in the show is understandable given Brawl, NSL and other atrocities, it is also heavily skewed, biased (naturally, as everyone has major biases in their perceptions, after all), and unreliable. Let’s look at the flip side of the quality spectrum. Consider some of the best and most beloved episodes of this series. One way or another, the plots of those stories involved a struggle between some of the characters, including sometimes between the siblings. In 11 Louds a Leapin, the main plot focused on a conflict between Lincoln and Mr Grouse, who confiscated Lincoln’s item on the justification of “my yard, my property”, and Lincoln then resorted to breaking into his house to take it back (so much for the ‘Saint Lincoln’ perception). In A Tattler’s Tale, the main struggle is between Lola (who essentially receives the 10 vs 1 Lincoln treatment here, though it is mainly her own fault due to her collection of vices) and the other siblings, who cannot stand her tattling and exclude her from their confession sessions, only for her to retaliate. Undie Pressure is another example, and a quintessential one since this is a story focusing on the oh-so-dreaded 10 vs 1 against Lincoln stories which everybody hates and wants to be rid of. Despite that being the direction of the episode, it was still a funny and entertaining piece of television which ended on a happy note and shows us that despite the sisters and Lincoln sometimes coming into conflict, they still have an overall solid relationship and they legitimately care for and look out for one another.

What examples like this reflect on is how in actuality, the presence of narrative conflict is not the central problem (in fact, it is a paramount ingredient of the show’s formula). Instead, it is how a given conflict is executed that is important. Those examples I just presented were legitimately great episodes, which handled the conflicts well, presented the characters in a positive and admirable light, and didn’t portray any character relationships in a poor manner just to further a nonsensical plot element. The examples many fans tend to dwell on the most are the worst ones; the ill-executed narratives which failed to maintain efficient character representation, sensible plot directions and solid humour which benefits (rather than hinders) the other aspects of the story. If a story has to butcher its characters in order to function, then it is a bad story, with very bad writing put into it. That is the cause for instances of poor characterisation or unnecessary, distasteful moments of harshness or unpleasant occurrences; not the very existence of character struggle itself.

So, what we can begin to understand here is that it is not the idea of narrative conflict that is the determinant of qualitative output in the show, but the execution of that conflict and how it handles storytelling elements and characterisation. Most importantly, it’s when the characters aren’t portrayed properly that a story starts to fall apart, given the show’s heavy emphasis and appeal towards encompassing a range of rich and enjoyable characters. With that in mind, let’s move on to a related, subsidiary topic which may be the primary reason for why some examples of narrative conflict in this show fall flat…

Mob Mentality

Mob mentality is a frequent outcome of times when the writers decide to artificially construct a 10 vs 1 style plot. In these cases, where it is 10 siblings against 1 protagonist, it is often resultant that the 10 siblings will be rendered identical in order to serve a purpose as acting in a collectively antagonistic way. When doing this, everything so commendable about the show, about its possession of a variety of richly defined, efficiently developed, unique and interesting individual characters, each with so many lovable quirks, distinctions and niches, is thrown out the window. It seems as if sometimes the writers will view the very premise of the show and its selection of characters as an obstacle for the story they wish to write, as so often they will undermine their own show’s greatest strength in order to tell a story which is either poorly written or only functions ideally without the presence of the entire sibling group. Yet because of the sheer size of the main cast, the writers probably feel obligated to attempt to fit as many characters into as many episodes as possible, regardless of whether or not such an attempt actually benefits either the storytelling or characterisation. As such, so many times will a bunch of characters have their uniqueness (and by extension, sometimes their likability as well) stripped away from them as they are altered in personality in order to fit in with a particular form of (badly executed) narrative conflict.

There are countless examples of this happening within the show, but I’ll list some of the more notably negative ones. In Brawl in the Family, Leni, often regarded as the nicest sibling, became just as violent, selfish and vicious as the other siblings in order to fulfil her role as one of the ten antagonistic sisters in that story. While I’m not overly fond of the whole ‘Nice Sister Vs Mean Sister’ distinction many fans like to draw attention to, I will admit seeing Leni act as mean and aggressive as she did here was rather off-putting in how inconsistent it was with her usual kind and compassionate personality (true, there were already shades of this in The Sweet Spot, but this episode was the one that really went too far with taking Leni blatantly out of character for the sake of a nonsensical narrative conflict). Another example would be Lisa in No Such Luck. Previously, In Raw Deal, it took an entire episode for Lisa to give into Lucy’s superstitious beliefs. Here, just one minor incident and she abandons her loyalty to science and logic. While Lisa is often criticised for her somewhat detached, unconcerned and creepy personality traits, it’s just our luck (no pun intended) that the one time would could have done with her sticking to her core scientific traits, is the one time she is so quick to disregard them. Of course, that’s just another example of a character being altered without any rhyme or reason… just to fit in with a poorly executed story with a particularly bad example of a character struggle. Notice a pattern here? It’s when there are faults with the execution of a conflict between characters within a plot (and not necessarily the mere presence of these conflicts in concept alone) that mob mentality is most likely to occur. One of the Boys is arguably the quintessential example of this. In that story, not only were the sisters subjected to this but so were the hypothetical brothers of Lincoln’s mentality. In this case, it was in relation to gender stereotypes. In the setup to that rather preposterous tale, Lincoln shares flashbacks on the disadvantages of living with sisters. One notable misconception is when all the sisters voted against Lincoln’s suggestion to go to Dairyland, even when in The Tents Debate, 5 of them were the ones convincing him to go (but nope, here they would all rather go to the mall, just because they’re girls). But not only were the sisters (minus Lynn, somewhat) given a sudden and unexplained girlishness upgrade for the sake of telling a senseless story, but the brothers were turned into complete jerks and unlikable Lynn clones for the same ends. While we could have had a story properly exploring the interesting factors regarding Lincoln’s life in a parallel universe, with a group of brothers whom, much like their female counterparts, range in personality and interests, what we instead got was a rushed, forced and ultimately flawed plot in which Lincoln is stuck with 10 bullying buffoons, all practically the same in terms of behaviour, just to serve the purpose of having Lincoln reject them and return to the status quo within an 11 minute timeframe (this is a story that could have honestly benefitted from a 22 minute running time and a somewhat alternate method of tackling the subject matter). Again, the ideas of the episode were pure gold, but the execution of the plot, and how poorly it handled the representation of its characters, both female and male, was what ruined the episode, and the perception of the brothers, and even started the degradation of Lynn’s popularity (this would be finalised by NSL a few months later…) given how it was pointed out how the brothers were essentially a bunch of Lynn Jr clones but arguably even more brutal and harsh with their treatment of Lincoln.

Of course, even in relatively better stories, examples of mob mentality are present (even the better stories of the show can have significant flaws in regards to how certain characters are written and presented). In Heavy Meddle and Back in Black (and some other episodes), the sisters are shown to become crazily obsessed and involved with one in the sibling group having a crush or potential romantic interest. In the former episode, this is treated as a minor gag and isn’t taken too far in a way that it seems too implausible for the characters to act this way. They merely shared a collective squee, hugged Lincoln and ‘encouraged’ him to ask his loving bully out. In Back in Black, however, this reaction is taken too far to the point where it is inconsistent (in the worst way, but I’ll elaborate more on that distinction later) and doesn’t fit in with what is established of some of the sisters. While I can accept/tolerate the notion of the near stoic Lucy and Lisa or tomboyish Lana and Lynn reacting the way they did in HM, the reaction of 3 of the 4 of the sisters in BIB is absurd. The entire sibling group, regardless of whether it befits their character or not, partakes in giving Lucy a makeover following her reveal of the crush she has on Rocky. Lana didn’t even know what a dress was before Toads and Tiaras, but now we’re supposed to believe she had tons of makeup and makeover tools which she can use to make Lucy appear cute and prissy. Also, Lynn was shown to detest giving her sisters makeovers or even doing anything remotely similar in previous episodes. In Driving Miss Hazy and A Tattler’s Tale, she demonstrated disgust and annoyance with sanding Lori’s calluses and polishing Lola’s nails, respectively. Now I’m supposed to believe she owns an entire makeup box and wants to give Lucy a makeover? I call bull on that. The problem is mob mentality, when used in this show, often renders the characters inconsistent. While there are good examples of inconsistency (characters having minor inconsistencies can be beneficial as they can shoe they aren’t so one-dimensional and are instead well-rounded), there is a significant difference between giving a character plausible minor inconsistencies and flat-out taking them out of character without rhyme or reason. Many instances of mob mentality, from the behaviour of the brothers in One of the Boys, to the sisters all acting like violent chaos bringers in Brawl, are not only distasteful in how it affects the representation of our beloved characters, but it also makes no sense in terms of establishing these characters and working with them as they are. Again, character development and hidden depths (I.e. Lucy revealing she likes Princess Pony) is not interchangeable nor equivalent to butchering characters by making them drastically different without any cause or justification for doing so. Here’s the thing… how are we supposed to like, appreciate, understand, identify with or relate to a character that is so inconsistent to the extent that they’re not even remotely identifiable as a person anymore? Sometimes, it can get to the point that we as an audience do not understand who these characters are supposed to be at their core, and when it gets to that point, something is seriously wrong.

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

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">Well… I guess you could argue that was an exaggeration there. In spite of vast quantities of examples of herd mentality used within the writing of the show, the characters are still identifiable and distinguishable, for the most part. I just wish the writers would cease transforming characters into completely different entities for the sake of telling a story which clearly doesn’t fit their involvement very well. In Back in Black, it would have made more sense if only Lori, Lola and Leni did the makeover, for example (or at least, have the sisters give her individual makeovers. After all, they all vary strongly in appearance, so the very notion that they all had the same idea of fashion for Lucy was ludicrous). But either way, even in good stories, herd mentality can be a damaging and degrading property. But it is one of the most major consequences of when a struggle between characters in a plot is handled with notably poor execution. It’s certainly an occurrence which ought to be disposed of in future seasons. Characterisation is a crucial element when it comes to determining quality and success for the show. The Loud House is very much a series which strongly forms its appeal on its inclusion of great, likable personalities. Without such a range of intriguingly unique and eccentric sibling characters, the show likely would not have met the success it did. As such, it would be rational to maintain this strength and not undermine it by constantly using the mob mentality tactic as a means of lazily telling a fundamentally flawed type of conflict within a story which lacks sense or proper direction.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">The whole presence of narrative conflict and uses of herd mentality also generate another bunch of issues. For example, a lack of character growth. While the writers sometimes produce great televised tales which enhance the likability and appeal of a character (characters like Lola, Lana and Ronnie Anne, for example, have become far more beloved than they were originally, thanks to copious amounts of development, a supply of redeemable traits and moments, and newly discovered depths which revealed not only hidden aspects to their personalities but also more well-roundedness), it can sometimes be that stories, with poorly constructed structures and misguided directions, often hinder the potential for the growth and improvement of a flawed character. For example, in Change of Heart, Clyde learns nothing from the experience and the episode is ultimately regarded as a missed opportunity to help him grow as a person and overcome his recurring vice of obsessing over Lori. Nope, instead they decided to prolong the Clyde/Lori struggle for the sake of squeezing more humour out of the concept.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">Also, in No Such Luck and Brawl, none of the family learns anything for their unrighteous actions in those episodes, and this is yet another criticism often aimed at those especially weak episodes. They could have learned their lessons, yet the refusal of the writers to have them see the error of their uniformly destructive, aggressive and rejecting ways in those narratives prevented this from happening, and instead of managing to represent said characters in a positive light, these stories significantly damaging their popularity and their characterisation in general (NSL in particular really managed to hinder the popularity of Lynn and the parents). Referring back to Clyde, while Change of Heart didn’t really handle the Clyde/Lori struggle very well, Snow Way Down dealt with the conflict between Clyde and his parents far more efficiently. Here, both Clyde and his parents were able to overcome faults they displayed come the climatic sequence. Clyde learned to be more brave, independent and responsible, while Howard and Harold learned to be protective only to a reasonable extent, and not be too overbearing towards their son. This was great character growth for all 3 of them and that is a direct result of great writing.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">So, when a story is written well, the characters are represented qualitatively and are provided with growth and amelioration. So, this is another issue which is only truly problematic when a story, and its featured clash, are not handled expeditiously. Again, this relates back to my argument concerning the importance of how a conflict between characters and a dilemma it creates between them is executed, and how that is the deciding factor in whether or not the art of storytelling or the act of managing character development is successfully performed. Not purely the presence of conflict itself. This is the point of note: All the major problems of this show are, in some way or another, interconnected with the performance of the writing, storyboarding, voice acting, animating and co-operating; all of which serve the purpose of determining the outcome of the process of creating a story. But this is naturally the case. Really, this should be common knowledge to everyone. How well an episode is written, acted and artistically contributed towards is a far more paramount ingredient to the recipe of quality than whether or not the episode features a clash between certain characters. It’s worth adopting a more rational and collected outlook over the situation. Upon analysis and evaluation, the very existence of episodes in which the sisters hassle or antagonise Lincoln, or each other, or a conflict between siblings is apparent, is not the primary source of the show’s major recurring faults. Instead, the source of any complaints can be traced back to the execution of the writing procedure.

<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;">So, it is futile (and naïve) to believe an absence and abolition of narrative conflict is the key to resolving the show’s most significant and recurring issues. Instead, it is quality of the work which goes in to the production of a given episode that determines whether or not it will enjoyable or admirable. Any major concerns people have voiced regarding the series, from herd mentality to mean-spiritedness to discontinuity and lacking character growth, can all be traced back to whether or not a story was created and nurtured with proper care and control. While this may seem like common knowledge to some people, it is worth reiterating as this seems to be overlooked by so many who believe the solution is to simply remove all instances of dispute between Lincoln and his siblings entirely, despite the impracticality and implausibility such a suggestion possesses.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">Most specifically, it is the writing process which is pivotal when it comes to settling if an episode will actually be good or not. Segments such as A Tattler’s Tale, Undie Pressure, Relative Chaos, and more prove that when solid writing goes towards it, a narrative conflict, including one of the ever so distasteful (in the eyes of many belonging to this fandom) outnumbered against one disputes, can be funny, entertaining and even beneficial for character growth and enjoyability. While it is certainly fair to argue unnecessary instances of mean-spiritedness which serve no advantageous purpose should be abolished, or at least toned down, claiming the show would be better off if the writers completely abandoned narratives involving struggle between the siblings altogether is not feasible, nor is it necessarily the solution to any of the show’s ongoing problems. For the show to improve (and it is already pretty damn good as things stand), it is the writing which needs to step up, naturally. The writing team for this show are a superbly talented group of individuals, responsible for providing us with so many wonderful pieces of animated television. Even in the wake of the Savino Situation, the writing team looks set to continue with their great work and the future of the show still looks promising. As such, I believe they have what takes to make their already great work even better than ever before. Ultimately, that is what we must be hopeful of. We shouldn’t be ranting and raving about how the sisters always unnecessarily antagonise Lincoln (or each other), but rather be thinking about what specifically made those more unlikable stories, in which that antagonism was taken to its greatest extents of displeasure, so detestable. We should be open to the presence of conflict-based stories involving the core Loud sibling group, as that is a quintessential ingredient of the show. What we should be more concerned with is how well such conflicts are executed by the writers. That is, and always will be, the factor which decides it all.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">Taking the most loathed episode, No Such Luck, let’s test the validity of this conclusion. With that story, the core of the problem was not the mere fact that the story consisted of Lincoln being blamed for bad luck, as such a concept can theoretically work, and there are a number of ways in which the episode could have ran with this type of plot and made it succeed, or a number of changes to the episode as it was which could have affected its level of quality. Again, the root of the faults lies not within the concept, but with how it was tackled in practice. The story failed because it took its antagonism too far (preventing Lincoln from attending and partaking in your activities is one thing, Louds, especially when he strategically lied in order to meet those very ends himself, but locking him out of the house is unacceptable and not justified by believing he influences negative happenings). It failed because it took some members of the cast out of character (I.e. making Lisa less loyal to science and more easily goaded in by superstitious claims and notions) in order for its nonsensical elements to work. It failed because it did not make the effort to provide a satisfying ending, in which the characters learned their lesson and ceased to give Lincoln the poor treatment. The only one who learned anything was Lincoln himself, as he realised his lying caused major consequences. It failed because it took previously beloved fan favourites (like Lynn, who I plan to talk about more in a future post) and rendered them despicable in the eyes of most. Above all else, it failed because it handled its storytelling, characterisation and comedic performance inefficiently, which resulted in a product that was not only not entertaining, but also uncomfortable for some to watch. Contrary to popular belief, No Such Luck and Brawl, while bad television, are still far from being the most abominable messes ever produced by western animation, like some would have you believe. But they do suck, and the reason isn’t merely because there was a conflict between Lincoln and/or the rest of the family. With NSL, had the story been given a more satisfying ending, or the harshness of everyone’s actions not been taken to illogical extremes, or the characters were not forced into being blind, idiotic jerks for the sake of a senseless plot, and it honestly could have worked. Any story could have. One of the Boys, had it have been better executed (I.e. making it 22 minutes, not forcing all the brothers to act like the same generic douchebag, devoting the time to properly developing each of them, making Lincoln’s motivations for wanting brothers instead of sisters more justified and make more sense, etc.), could have been saved, for example.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">But there you go. While I understand people want the characters of this show to be treated with as much care as possible, and they do not like seeing their favourite characters either be subject to butt monkey status needlessly, nor be transformed into an unlikeable prick for no good reason, the idea of having all the characters always unconditionally getting along and never having problems with each other, in every single episode, is completely infeasible. But here’s the good news. The conflict itself isn’t the problem anyway, so don’t focus your attention on discrediting it. It is pointless to deny what the show is. A show like the Loud House is bound to feature conflict-driven narratives between the siblings. Even the lyrics of the opening theme allude to this fact. Ultimately, it’s time we learn to let go of the past and stop holding a grudge against the show for stories like NSL, Brawl, One of the Boys and so on. It skews our perception of what is good and bad about the show and leads us to irrational thoughts and misguided conclusions. Look at all the greatness this show has given us. What we can do is influence the betterment of the show by focusing on what works and encouraging more of that. While it is good to learn from mistakes, it is not beneficial to dwell on them. These stories exist, and that’s that. But they don’t need to lead to the destruction of the series or its fanbase. Hating the show and denying it of its right to utilise the essential ingredients of its very formula just because of a few bad stories isn’t going to help at all.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">Anyway, I hope you all understand the perspective I have given. Maybe you agree, and maybe you have a differing opinion to offer. Let me know what you think in the comments below.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;font-weight:400;">My next post (coming tomorrow, in fact) will be about my planned Q&A to run over X Mas. Stay tuned for that.