What's your guys' opinion on Mabel's selfishness?
#1
Here's a curious question: What do you guys think of Mabel's selfishness throughout the whole series of the show? Was it good, bad, meh, or in-between? And why do you select that opinion?
Your Math is no match for my gun, you Idiot!
[Image: 320?cb=20150805041959]
Reply
#2
wouldn't this be a better question for the Mabel thread?
I'm about as edgy as a ball of raw cookie dough 
[Image: chocolate_by_cuppycakekitty-d9lkljt.png][Image: cat_puns_by_cuppycakekitty-d9kuqy6.png]
Reply
#3
Discussion in the Mabel thread has kind of fizzled but if anybody would like to resume the conversation then count me in.

To summarize my opinion on this:
Mabel and Dipper both do selfish things throughout the series. Humans are naturally selfish and these two are no exception. However, one is not more selfish than the other. For every selfish thing Mabel does, there's a selfish thing Dipper does, and vice-versa. It's only when you apply a double standard does it seem otherwise.
Reply
#4
More or less what Reptile said. I think Mabel's selfish acts have become blown out of proportion. I think there are factors such as peoples wants and expectations not being met with Mabel and I'd go a step further and say I think we've grown used to perfect, cookie cutter heroes who perform acts of extreme selflessness whereas GF does not pander to us in that way. The issue that is frustrating for people is that Mabel usually pushes Alex's agenda and views and in the story is almost always right, not facing much in terms of consequences or criticism and that I think is where a lot of people have a problem.
[Image: 101860422_stidenterprise3.gif][Image: tumblr_nkgc1yQOXU1sccu9co1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_nkgc1yQOXU1sccu9co5_400.gif]
Reply
#5
I don't have a problem with Mabel being selfish, per se. It's a flaw she has, and flawed characters are good characters. But as Baron said, my issue lies with the fact we never really see any consequences or criticism for her actions. We're meant to accept it as 'right', because it often plays on our emotions (ie. the rift) but it's selfishness and there's no consequences. The closest we've come to Mabel getting called out on her selfishness was in Sock Opera (and it was important for her character development.) One of the biggest, most glaring examples is the whole incident with the rift, the apprenticeship and Weirdmageddon (esp. Part 2). It's hard to deny that Mabel is being blatantly selfish in her bubble, as she is when arguing over the apprenticeship and giving the rift to Billendin. That's fine and well - like I just said, flaws make a character interesting. However, it's not fine and well when there are no consequences for them. Notice how nobody brings up the rift, for example, not long after Weirdmageddon is started.
A smaller, but no less important example is Time Traveller's Pig. Mabel was incredibly selfish in this one, it's blatantly obvious, and yet, there are no consequences for her actions until Sock Opera. Some may argue that Dipper sacrifing his chance with Wendy was far less important than Waddles, but I tend to disagree (in part.) You've got to put this in Dipper's perspective - at this time in the series, his crush on Wendy is in full swing. In the mind of a twelve year old boy, he would have seen it as an amazing chance. Now, I'm not saying that it was equal to winning a pig, but it would have been important to Dipper at the time. I'm not sure if that makes sense but oh well.

I agree with ReptilePatrol here: both Dipper and Mabel do selfish things through the series. They're both equally selfish. But the main difference I notice is that Dipper more actively faces consequences and criticism for his selfishness, whereas Mabel is often let off the hook. Maybe it has to do with Mabel (and Stan, for that matter) acting as the "heart" of the show, and Dipper (and Ford) as the "head", especially in a show where heart and family are preached to be the most important.

Mind you, it is blown out of proportion, but it's there.
[Image: tumblr_msneb3uvKx1qe8ujwo8_500.gif]
Reply
#6
I have a WIP post for the Mabel thread but I'm just incredibly lazy and unmotivated to finish. so sorry, i swear i'll do it eventually

I think Baron said it well.

It is definitely blown out of proportion, I can agree there. As much as I dislike Mabel in certain episodes, she is an important piece of the show and fulfills her role well most of the time. I do think she is more selfish than Dipper and I don't think we got as much out of her as she had potential. Part of her perceived selfishness is because we see Dipper self-doubting very frequently, and can sympathize more readily with that, whereas Mabel is typically confident in her selfish decisions.

Edit: hey MM618, would you mind updating the thread title to something more specific and descriptive? "Curious Question" could mean anything.
[Image: Eg3lWTv.png][Image: tumblr_mcy2clswjj1qesb9j_by_homestuck__f...699rlh.png]
not a ship
Reply
#7
(12-20-2016, 02:55 PM)Magpie Wrote: A smaller, but no less important example is Time Traveller's Pig. Mabel was incredibly selfish in this one, it's blatantly obvious, and yet, there are no consequences for her actions until Sock Opera. Some may argue that Dipper sacrifing his chance with Wendy was far less important than Waddles, but I tend to disagree (in part.) You've got to put this in Dipper's perspective - at this time in the series, his crush on Wendy is in full swing. In the mind of a twelve year old boy, he would have seen it as an amazing chance. Now, I'm not saying that it was equal to winning a pig, but it would have been important to Dipper at the time. I'm not sure if that makes sense but oh well.

I gotta say I'm so tired of this example. We've already been over this, how is it fair that Mabel is called out on this when you can't even put one thing over the other (arguably)? So Mabel is selfish because she got what she wanted and not Dipper? So, it would have been better if none of them did? You're right, it doesn't make sense.

Also on the topic of Sock Opera: WRONG??

(12-20-2016, 02:55 PM)Magpie Wrote: I agree with ReptilePatrol here: both Dipper and Mabel do selfish things through the series. They're both equally selfish. But the main difference I notice is that Dipper more actively faces consequences and criticism for his selfishness, whereas Mabel is often let off the hook. Maybe it has to do with Mabel (and Stan, for that matter) acting as the "heart" of the show, and Dipper (and Ford) as the "head", especially in a show where heart and family are preached to be the most important.

Mind you, it is blown out of proportion, but it's there.

But at least my point got across. That's the issue and problem. Yes it's there and so is Dippers but it's never talked about. Nefa makes a great point as to the possibility of why that is. I don't think that makes her a bad character or 'person' though, it's just what makes her different and more interesting.

The fact she is always right and doesn't have to actively fight for and defend her agenda and views, that's the problem and why people dislike her.
[Image: 101860422_stidenterprise3.gif][Image: tumblr_nkgc1yQOXU1sccu9co1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_nkgc1yQOXU1sccu9co5_400.gif]
Reply
#8
I don't like that Mabel, after accepting the fact that she had to grow up eventually, was still able to take Waddles home with her at the end. I feel like it would've been better if she let go of Waddles, kind of giving off the hint that Waddles represents Mabel's "childhood" or what have ye. It could've been great symbolism, like she gives up Waddles like she gives up her childhood.

But nope, didn't happen. Dipper says no to the apprenticeship and Waddles is allowed on the bus. Mabel gets what she wanted, in the end.
Made by FunnyFany
[Image: latest?cb=20150502165211]
[Image: donkey_kong_fan_button__updated__by_requ...5h4w0c.png]
DK is coming to steal your bananas. And kick some ass. And steal more bananas.
Reply
#9
(12-20-2016, 05:28 PM)Dr. Quackpot Wrote: I don't like that Mabel, after accepting the fact that she had to grow up eventually, was still able to take Waddles home with her at the end. I feel like it would've been better if she let go of Waddles, kind of giving off the hint that Waddles represents Mabel's "childhood" or what have ye. It could've been great symbolism, like she gives up Waddles like she gives up her childhood.

But nope, didn't happen. Dipper says no to the apprenticeship and Waddles is allowed on the bus. Mabel gets what she wanted, in the end.

That's very true to be honest, but it looks like Mabel isn't letting go her "childhood," It looks like she wants to keep her "childhood" a little longer. I also wonder, what are their parents going to say about Waddles?
Your Math is no match for my gun, you Idiot!
[Image: 320?cb=20150805041959]
Reply
#10
(12-20-2016, 11:51 AM)Baron Claus Wrote: More or less what Reptile said. I think Mabel's selfish acts have become blown out of proportion. I think there are factors such as peoples wants and expectations not being met with Mabel and I'd go a step further and say I think we've grown used to perfect, cookie cutter heroes who perform acts of extreme selflessness whereas GF does not pander to us in that way. The issue that is frustrating for people is that Mabel usually pushes Alex's agenda and views and in the story is almost always right, not facing much in terms of consequences or criticism and that I think is where a lot of people have a problem.

This.

I don't hate Mabel. I love Mabel, but like Hana stated above, that one aspect kinda rubs me the wrong way about her character.
“Ends are not bad things, they just mean that something else is about to begin. And there are many things that don't really end, anyway, they just begin again in a new way. Ends are not bad and many ends aren't really an ending; some things are never-ending.” ― C. JoyBell C.
[Image: Sig.gif]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)