“What? Like, a disabled protagonist? How would that even work? How could someone with a disability be the hero in an action show?” local anime trash boy wonders while sitting next to his box sets of Full Metal Alchemist, showing no hint of irony or self awareness.
but is Ed really disabled? sure I get he lost his arm and leg
but he’s still able to move and do things perfectly
He has prosthetics. Having prosthetic limbs (that more than once break amd need repair) doesnt make him not disabled
It should also be noted that Ed:
-had to undergo very painful surgery to get automail
-had to relearn how to write because of his prosthesis (there’s a post going around showing he had to switch hands etc) and his handwriting is likely a lot worse due to that. This means automail isn’t super good for delicate work, unsurprising, considering what it’s made of.
-experiences phantom limb pain and therefore other associated stuff (this was only really shown in the manga)
-cannot go anywhere too cold without changing his automail or he’ll get really bad frost bite and it will stop working
-cannot go anywhere too hot, period, because the metal attached and under his skin will overheat and he will be badly burned
-Reattachment is painful, but needs to be done frequently if he breaks or outgrows his automail
– it’s HEAVY so much so that the strain has the potential to cause stress on his body, enough that it’s even theorized as possibly stunting his growth.
-it requires regular maintenance or it will break down, as shown when he forgets to do that and it…breaks down
-when it does need to be repaired, it takes time to do that, during which Ed uses regular prosthetics (that usually don’t quite fit him).
-costs a lot of money (not a problem for Ed due to high state alchemist salary/having mechanics as surrogate family, but explicitly noted to being the reason why most people in the fmaverse stick to regular prosthetics along with the painful surgery)
So Ed can’t actually do everything perfectly and experiences a lot of extra hassle, problems and pain people without automail don’t have to deal with! And any advantages he does have are more suited to fighting than day to day life (being able to incorporate weapons/fake out people who want to blow up his arm).
Arakawa did her research and thought it through. Automail is by no means a magic cure that solves all problems associated with losing a limb.
This is barely an addition, but I’m pretty sure it was proven that it stunted his growth. It was mentioned in Dublith, and then Winry made him lighter automail in Briggs. Now, after a couple of days of being together, the two of them don’t meet up again for months.
When they finally meet up again:
You could argue something about angles here, but at the end of the series?
In conclusion, the original automail did stunt his growth.
As a writer, creating a disabled character can often be difficult. Ed only worked because the world he was created in has very advanced prosthetics which (despite some draw backs) move and acts exactly like real limbs. It’s a very particular case and required some additional write-arounds to make work. And plus the disability factored into the story which is good.
In many scenarios a disabled character simply wouldn’t work. And a writer isn’t obligated to make their character disabled.
Give an example of a story in which none of the characters truly and honestly could not be disabled in some form or fashion. Explain how it “simply wouldnt work.”
Because Im a writer, and that sounds like unimaginative laziness.
You shouldn’t shove disabled characters into a story for no reason. Why is there a disabled person there? Does their disability serve the story? Plot? Characterization? Did you make this character disabled just for a heck of it?
A soldier can’t be a soldier without both his arms. FMA fixes this with auto mail. Okay but what if the world you have created doesn’t have such advanced tech to give the soldier arms? Well he can’t be a soldier anymore. Sure you could probably spend a couple hours figuring this out, and if you want to more power to you, but why? Edwards disability served the story, if something doesn’t serve your story, world, plot, or characterization then it shouldn’t be in your writing.
I’m all for disabled characters, they’re as interesting as any other. But you people are acting like you need an excusenot to write a disabled character. I’ve written disabled characters, but not every story needs one and I don’t need a reason why.
The idea that including minority characters, even when they are explicitly needed, is “bad writing” is asinine, for the record. Minority characters are allowed to exist because the author wants them to.
And you didn’t answer my question. People in the military lose limbs all the time. Have you seen Forest Gump? And there’s more than one kind of disability. Soldiers can have PTSD, can have ADD, can be disabled in plenty of ways. Hell, in a MODERN military setting, you don’t need both arms to pilot a drone.
My point is that this argument that some stories just CANT have disabled characters is flawed. You havent disproved that.
For someone whom claims to know about writing. You sure can’t read.
I never said including minority characters is bad writing; you did, don’t ever fucking put words in my mouth. What I said is that the disability needs to serve the story like every other aspect of writing does.
Also yes, minority characters are allowed to exist just because the author wants them. But minority characters are also allow not to exist just because the author want that.
My example stands as it is. I specially said the setting didn’t allow for advanced prosthetics. And Lt Dan wasn’t a soldier after his disability now was he? As for the drone this yeah that could work but what if it’s a more mediaeval setting? My point is there will be times where a disabled character doesn’t always work 100% of the time. That’s okay. And hey, the opposite is true too. Sometimes a character might be better if they were disabled.
I have made my point you’re just stubborn and not listening.
Correction: You’ve made your point, and it’s moronic to anyone who has any knowledge of media analysis, and you’re obviously unequipped to understand why.
Nice ad hominem, it almost makes up for your lack of an argument.
“For someone who claims to know about writing, you sure can’t read.”
The difference is I actually had an argument and was pointing out that the other person didn’t read my reply properly.
You simply insulted me.
No, I insulted your point, which is not only riddled with factual inaccuracies that have been pointed out already, but also doesn’t hold up to the slightest philosophical inspection, which has also been demonstrated.
I then ALSO insulted your lack of reading comprehension, which you’re displaying again here.
An opinion can’t have factual inaccuracies when it’s on a subjective topic.
You didn’t address a single one of my points.
There you go again. Insulting me for no reason.
You want to actually get back to the discussion at hand? How about why I as a writer must write disabled characters in every story I have? Because my entire point is that not every story needs disabled people.
“Your point has factual inaccuracies.”
“AN OPINION CAN’T HAVE FACTUAL INACCURACIES!1!”
…you’re correct. That’s why I didn’t say your opinion had factual inaccuracies.
Honestly my dude, you need to come to the table with at least the most basic attempt at understanding if you want to be taken seriously in an argument. Otherwise you just can’t get mad when you aren’t taken seriously.
You…. quoted yourself saying that my point (see: opinion) has factual inaccuracies?
Do you see the issue with picking apart semantics rather than addressing the argument? Do you think you’re going to convince me?
Oh I have absolutely NO illusions that I’m going to convince you when you don’t understand even the most basic parts (i.e. the vocabulary) of the arguments that are presented to you.
You mean non-argument.
Because you’ve presented none.
Please tell me why ever character needs and should be disabled? Because if you don’t think that then you don’t disagree with me.
I am not at all surprised that you can look at this thread and not see any arguments presented.
Or that you think I disagree with you only if I subscribe to your obvious strawman.
I asked you a direct question regarding the argument and you didn’t answer it. You can’t argue and you just handed me the win. Thanks, that was easy, you’re dismissed.
You literally did not ask a direct question about the argument, and to all appearances it looks likes that’s because you have no idea what the argument is.
You certainly asked a question! It just wasn’t direct and didn’t have anything to do with the discussion.
Reading. It’s a good thing.
I feel like this would be a good moment to link the professional editor, @thebibliosphere and her post about disabilities and lazy writing to this dude because not everything in a story has to serve the plot. That’s unimaginative and boring. Seriously. Good ol’ worldbuilding for the sake of worldbuilding is amazing. People that think everything that happens is crucial to the plot are… boring. That over analysis of meta and other garbage is what makes literature classes especially boring.
Books are entertainment! Entertain me!
(also, while Toph’s blindness had some plot markers, it didn’t serve the overall plot in atla, so was her blindness then useless to this “writer” adrunkensailor? Probably)
thisacelovesheadcanons 