The Problem with Gohan

[Whatever]

Gohan being passive in this arc problem comes from Toriyama making Gohan a background/non factor character for the majority of the Cell arc and then when it come to him to use Gohan,he had to use Goku to drag him to the plot which he had no connection to.
That what happens when you have a character that is not related to the plot and the creator wants to make him important,he becomes involved by other circumstances(other characters usually since its the easiest way)instead of his own violation.
Of course thats a bad thing and considering Gohan would be used to kill a main villain and in a series like db nonetheless it makes it even worse.

I'm not trying to fit anything anywhere, I'm just trying to look at it in a way that might help lift some of the bad rep this arc has gotten. Nobody is denying it could have been done better, but it is what is, so why not try to put a positive spin on things?
Also, I'm not following the 'plot device' argument. There was no great completion of Gohan character growth because Toriyama doesn't write that way, every character serves as a plot device in that regard.

Whatever its good or bad it was done this way,there is no point in sugarcoating it if it was a bad decision.
Trying to twist things to make things look better than it was which you seem to be doing,its better being honest.

[Michsi]

Whatever its good or bad it was done this way,there is no point in sugarcoating it if it was a bad decision.
Trying to twist things to make things look better than it was which you seem to be doing,its better being honest.

It worked for me. Once you look at something differently, or from a different angle, you can change your opinion of it. I don't see how this is 'twisting' anything. I fully acknowledge the fact that it could've been done better, but I also say it's not as bad as some make it out to be.

[ulisa]

It worked for me. Once you look at something differently, or from a different angle, you can change your opinion of it. I don't see how this is 'twisting' anything. I fully acknowledge the fact that it could've been done better, but I also say it's not as bad as some make it out to be.

I tend to agree with this. A lot of my “in universe” explanations for characters actions/motivations, I fully realize were likely not what Toriyama had in mind and likely never really crossed his mind. However, if it fits and can make sense of something that otherwise appears to be “off” then that’s fine by me. Most of fiction is interpretation anyway. The writer can certainly have a very clear vision but that doesn’t always mean the fans share that vision or see it in the same angle. That’s what makes it interesting!

[ABED]

But you aren't looking at it from a different angle, intended or otherwise. You are putting a square peg in a round hole. Like it all you want, no one's stopping you, but Gohan is in objectively passive the whole arc.

That’s what makes it interesting!

What makes it interesting if the work itself is interesting.

[ulisa]

Except I’m not arguing that he’s not passive, Far from it. Except for a few points and his time in the Time Chamber, he is passive. What I’m saying though is that there are potential reasons why he is passive that the narrative doesn’t delve into but are still potential and rational reasons for it that fit the story. Would it be better written if these were addressed? Absolutely but that doesn’t take away from the fact that there are reasons we can interpret his behavior being like it is. It will vary from person to person but people have been interpreting symbols, characterization and plot reasoning since literature first began. You can read the exact same story to fifty different people and not everyone is going to see it playing out the same way because of individual differences, personality, past experiences, culture etc. Even simple children’s stories, told across different cultures will get completely different reactions. That’s all I’m saying here: the narrative does write Gohan, for the most part, as passive during the Cell Arc But people can see rationalization for it that isn’t spelled out in the text.

Likewise, yes, a story and characters being good are what make it interesting but for some people, myself included, playing around with different what-ifs or different interpretations (I.e. What if the villain is really the good guy?) can make it more entertaining. Case in point, someone decided to take the Wicked Witch from Wizard of Oz and look at the story from her POV. We got Wicked from that. Now, some people love it, some people hate it but it still stemmed from a different angle and those are intriguing to me.

[Michsi]

But you aren't looking at it from a different angle, intended or otherwise. You are putting a square peg in a round hole.

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Taking a different perspective on a piece of fiction is completely acceptable. It's not like I'm imposing it on anyone. It's my take on the issue.

Like it all you want, no one's stopping you, but Gohan is in objectively passive the whole arc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we never debated that, only the passiveness being a fundamental problem.

[ABED]

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Taking a different perspective on a piece of fiction is completely acceptable. It's not like I'm imposing it on anyone. It's my take on the issue.

You aren't taking a different perspective. You can like it, that's all well and good, but you aren't giving a different perspective. You're coming up with rationales for why Gohan's characterization isn't off from what came before. You want it to fit. Gohan remaining in the background of the story because he's not strong enough to help isn't necessarily passive.

Ulisa, I have no idea what you are getting at. What does interpretation have to do with whether Gohan's passivity is problematic?

can see rationalization for it that isn’t spelled out in the text.

People see all sorts of things, including what they want to see. That doesn't make them all correct. Sometimes it's neither in the text nor subtext.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we never debated that, only the passiveness being a fundamental problem.

Why isn't him being passive a problem?

[Michsi]

You aren't taking a different perspective.

Because you say so? I don't think this is something you can claim for me. The way you try to rationalize your counter-statement and invalidate mine makes no sense to me.

People see all sorts of things, including what they want to see. That doesn't make them all correct. Sometimes it's neither in the text nor subtext.

You do realize that the same goes for you too, right?

Why isn't him being passive a problem?

We did this already. Because passiveness isn't an inherently negative trait. And no, Gohan wasn't supposed to be the lead.
I'd suggest not going over points we've already discussed.

[ABED]

It is inherently negative in the main character if all they do is get pushed along in the story and don't act of their own volition, has no goal, or doesn't take active steps in achieving that goal or having things always handed to them. It's boring and why would you put that sort of character in the driver seat?

I don't think this is something you can claim for me. The way you try to rationalize your counter-statement and invalidate mine makes no sense to me.

When your arguments hold little truth to them and you give poor examples like "he does Kuririn tells him", I can. That wasn't even an example. It's more of a general assertion. Gohan doesn't just listen to Kuririn. He has agency in that story arc.

I'd suggest not going over points we've already discussed.

It's the core of this thread.

[Michsi]

It is inherently negative in the main character if all they do is get pushed along in the story and don't act of their own volition, has no goal, or doesn't take active steps in achieving that goal or having things always handed to them. It's boring and why would you put that sort of character in the driver seat?

Again, he is not main character. Goku is. In the Cell arc, Goku still very much maintains his role as main character. Gohan just becomes someone important later on. The story doesn't need him until he steps in the ring.

When your arguments hold little truth to them and you give poor examples like "he does Kuririn tells him", I can.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that, and I can't see how anyone can claim to be any sort of authority over something like someone else's interpretation. And somehow I get the feeling you are aware of that, but still try to look for a way to discredit my take for the sake of the argument. I did way more than just use that Krillin example, but since all of it is wrong apparently, I'll just leave it at that. Others have already brought better arguments as it is, so it's just it's just come to reiterating the same ideas at this point.

It's the core of this thread.

Which doesn't mean we should backpedal to something we've moved on from.

Not gonna argue in circles, not like we're getting anywhere anyway.

[ABED]

Again, he is not main character.

How is this 'again'? I don't recall you making this point. And it's moot since Toriyama explicitly stated that he intended to put Gohan into the lead role. Even if I agreed, he's A main character and plays a vital role in the climax of the arc. He should have agency, instead he's doing as he is told.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that, and I can't see how anyone can claim to be any sort of authority over something like someone else's interpretation.

If your interpretation is built on a false assumption, then yes, someone can call you out on it. You didn't even use an example, you just asserted that Gohan did what Kuririn told him to do.

but still try to look for a way to discredit my take for the sake of the argument.

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of debate. I believe your arguments are built on faulty logic. I get that Gohan was in the periphery for most of the arc and couldn't do much to help due to the disparity, but if his goal is to help then an active character would find ways to help. His role on Namek weren't determined by circumstances, and we've seen him stick up to authoritarian figures before, so there's no logical basis for Gohan to just do as he's told unless he actually agrees with what he's being told. Your argument doesn't hold water because we have evidence to the contrary.

Which doesn't mean we should backpedal to something we've moved on from.

It's not backpedaling. It's what this thread is about. We never moved on from it.

[Michsi]

Again, he is not main character.

How is this 'again'? I don't recall you making this point

As early as my second post

In order for that moment when Goku calls him down to fight to be as shocking as it was intended to be, you needed to believe that Goku was the lead and the key player of the arc. Goku is pretty much the red herring of this arc in that regard. Technically, Gohan is only the lead in what counts as the Saiyaman arc and beginning of the Buu arc, and he is plenty assertive there.

Another example

He is the final key player of the arc, but MC? I wouldn't say that

This proves that you're not even bothering to fully read what I write and only care to look for those few words you can find a rebuttal for. Calling me out when you're not even paying attention to what I answer you. I stated that I don't pick apart every scene and look at his portrayal as a whole.

But If you find that Chichi scene to be such a meaningful example, then:

He opposes Chichi in the Cell Saga, just like he did before the Namek arc. " Chichi: Where do you think you're going. And your homework? Gohan: I'll do them later." Or later, when he is determined to accompany Trunks to where those disappearances are being reported: Chichi yells no. but it's Trunks that tells him to stay behind to protect Goku. Heck, he tells Bulma that the reason they are all at Muten Rohsi's is because they're hiding him from the androids. His period of in-activeness basically coincides with Goku's, since he stayed mostly there to protect him. Is that un-passive enough?

Also-
I don't remember Toriyama stating he was making Gohan the MC in the Cell arc, only that he tried to do that and failed and that fits with what happened with him in the Buu arc.

His role on Namek weren't determined by circumstances,

And I say it was. We're pretty much at a standstill.
That's what it comes down to now, and no amount of you claiming my argument doesn't hold water will change that.

[ABED]

Okay, I do remember that now. Whether Gohan is the lead in the Cell arc or not, he's still vital as he's the one that defeats Cell. He plays an important role and he's the second lead. It's necessary for him to not be passive. Saying he's not technically the lead is splitting hairs. He's a vital part of the story and how the main conflict is resolved.

This proves that you're not even bothering to fully read what I write

No, what it proves is that maybe my memory is poor or I just don't care to remember everything everyone writes several days or pages prior. I do pay attention in the moment, so sorry if I don't recall what was written several days prior.

Is that un-passive enough?

I do remember that point, and it's certainly active. I wish we got more of Gohan going against others' wishes to help his friends or just being the one whose ideas were important in helping. Instead, the rest of the arc, he's overwhelmingly passive. Do you have any other examples besides one minor point that doesn't amount to much? Gohan and Trunks help uncover the mystery, but their part don't lead to much.

His period of in-activeness basically coincides with Goku's

Huh? Are you saying that Gohan protecting Goku is him not being active? If so, then that's a misunderstanding of what it means for a character to be active.

I don't believe you understand what active characterization is if you believe it has to do with circumstances. The point of active characterization is that those kinds of characters aren't at the whim of others or circumstances. Active characters are active precisely because they influence their circumstances to achieve their goals.

[Michsi]

I think it's just common courtesy to pay attention or at least go back to what has been written when you're not sure, especially when you start claiming their argument doesn't hold water or they have an erroneous interpretations or whatever.

And now he is the second lead? Why not then go and say he is the third lead, since it actually was Vegeta that dealt the decisive blow to Cell and he had been plenty active before.

o you have any other examples besides one minor point that doesn't amount to much?

I gave you two. The one in which he tells Chichi he'll do his homework later, and the one in which he wants to accompany Trunks to find out who has been eating people are two separate occasions. And then there's the very reasonable explanation of him staying put so as to protect his father in case the androids showed up. He wasn't told to go sit in a corner until someone needed him. He exhibits the same eagerness and determination to act and help as in the Namek arc, he just doesn't get a chance to do anything until later.
In the anime, when Gohan thinks Cell killed Piccolo, Goku needs to use force to keep him there. I think they just improved on something the manga couldn't waste panels on, so here is another example

And by inactivness in that context I meant the technical term, as in sidelined, away from the spotlight, not focused on.

[ABED]

I still believe your fundamental argument doesn't work. An active character is active precisely because they aren't at the whim of outside factors. There are things that are out of control, but regardless of those, they will take steps in order to achieve their goals. Gohan yelling back at his mom and disobeying her was a watershed moment for his character and is indicative of him during that entire arc. He does what he believes is right because he has a goal and takes steps to achieve it. That's noticeably absent in the Cell arc. I get that he doesn't stand a chance against the cyborgs, but he doesn't have any real goals or intentionally take steps to achieve them. The examples you gave are the same incident. Gohan tells his mom he's going to help Trunks. They find the shell and then continue from there. That's one, but if you consider that two, alright.

Vegeta didn't deal the final blow to Cell. He was little more than a distraction which Gohan (after Goku told him to do so) used to his advantage to defeat Cell. Vegeta's an important character and way more active than Gohan.

He wasn't told to go sit in a corner until someone needed him.

He kinda was. He was told to take Bulma, baby Trunks, and Yajirobe away. It could've been nice to see him make that decision on his own. It's small but enough of those would've added up to a lot.

And by inactivness in that context I meant the technical term, as in sidelined, away from the spotlight, not focused on.

That's part of it, but that's not the core of what active vs. passive characterization is. When Gohan is given the focus, he's no longer active. He's at the whim of other characters.

[Michsi]

I still believe your fundamental argument doesn't work. An active character is active ....

I get the feeling you forgot what my stance was. I said Gohan is basically the same in both arcs, it's the narrative that doesn't provide him with opportunities to exhibit those qualities the same way Namek arc does, which incidentally -

He does what he believes is right because he has a goal and takes steps to achieve it. That's noticeably absent in the Cell arc. I get that he doesn't stand a chance against the cyborgs, but he doesn't have any real goals or intentionally take steps to achieve them.

- you kinda just admitted.

That's one, but if you consider that two, alright.

It is two. One was when before they go look at the strange time machine, the other is when they see the news about a city being attacked by what they assumed was the thing that crawled out the shell - what makes him stay behind the second time was Trunks arguing that they need to stay an protect Goku, which was a reasonable and important request.

Toriyama just didn't have anything relevant for him to do because he had so many other characters to focus on beforehand.

Vegeta didn't deal the final blow to Cell. He was little more than a distraction which Gohan (after Goku told him to do so) used to his advantage to defeat Cell. Vegeta's an important character and way more active than Gohan.

My point here was to show that the whole second lead thing is silly.

He wasn't told to go sit in a corner until someone needed him.

He kinda was. He was told to take Bulma, baby Trunks, and Yajirobe away. It could've been nice to see him make that decision on his own. It's small but enough of those would've added up to a lot.

It's because he didn't make that decision to leave the battle on his own that this point should count in his favor.

When Gohan is given the focus, he's no longer active. He's at the whim of other characters.

If you're talking about his fight with Cell, that was another issue entirely.

[ABED]

How in the world can you actually say the narrative doesn't give him opportunities to exhibit it? He's the character who takes down Cell, for crying out loud. It is Toriyama's fault that Gohan didn't exhibit them.

One was when before they go look at the strange time machine

How is that two. I know the incidents you speak of, but I'm only seeing one where he's actually active and in the second one, just having it be his idea to stay back and protect his father would've been better for Gohan's characterization.

My point here was to show that the whole second lead thing is silly.

Because stories can't have two leads?

If you're talking about his fight with Cell, that was another issue entirely.

See, now I think you are reading anything I've written. This is the crux of the matter. Gohan lacking agency and being a passive character at a point when the story needs him to be active is the point of this thread.

[Michsi]

How in the world can you actually say the narrative doesn't give him opportunities to exhibit it? He's the character who takes down Cell, for crying out loud. It is Toriyama's fault that Gohan didn't exhibit them.

The Cell arc isn't just his fight with Cell. Your initial post also points how he is in the periphery for most of it, and that is what I was referring to. My response to that was, and has always been, that he takes a back seat because other character are the focus.

How is that two. I know the incidents you speak of, but I'm only seeing one where he's actually active and in the second one, just having it be his idea to stay back and protect his father would've been better for Gohan's characterization.

They are separate cases of him showing initiative. His first instinct is to go where the action is. You give examples of him disobeying Chichi as a sign of how he can assertive, I showed Cell arc examples where he basically does the same. In the second example he doesn't stay because someone ordered him to stay put, he is being reasoned with and keeping Goku safe is a damn good reason.

Because stories can't have two leads?

They can, but this isn't the case. Getting the final fight/decisive hit does not make one the lead. I have a good example from another franchise, but it's also so goddam spoilery that I feel reluctant to post it.

See, now I think you are reading anything I've written. This is the crux of the matter. Gohan lacking agency and being a passive character at a point when the story needs him to be active is the point of this thread.

Yeah, don't try this.

You specifically wrote 'entire arc/bulk of the arc'. The opening post makes it clear you are referring to the arc as a whole not just that one moment. His behavior during his fight with Cell has been a point of the debate in the fandom for ages, but you revelation was about his role during the entire arc.

His reluctance in the Cell games was another issue, one that has nothing to do with him being passive, but about the fundamental difference between him and his father.

[ABED]

I said he's in the periphery for most of the arc and when he is given the spotlight, he needs his hand held. Those two things combined make for an inactive and uninteresting character, neither of which Gohan was up to this arc. Gohan doesn't even have to be the focus for him to be active. He simply needs a goal that he himself choose and take steps to achieve those goals.

You've shown one good example where he's active, but it doesn't add up to much. His role in finding the time machine isn't integral.

They can, but this isn't the case. Getting the final fight/decisive hit does not make one the lead.

He plays an integral role in the climax. This is absolutely him being the second lead. It's not like he just delivers the final blow. He fights Cell in the climactic battle. How does this not make him the second lead?

His reluctance in the Cell games was another issue, one that has nothing to do with him being passive, but about the fundamental difference between him and his father.

I know. I brought it up in the first post.

[Michsi]

I said he's in the periphery for most of the arc and when he is given the spotlight, he needs his hand held. Those two things combined make for an inactive and uninteresting character, neither of which Gohan was up to this arc. Gohan doesn't even have to be the focus for him to be active. He simply needs a goal that he himself choose and take steps to achieve those goals.

His reluctance to fight and the reason he can't get angry is one of the most interesting moments for me. I honestly never cared that he hadn't yet done something in the Cell arc, once Goku sends him down to fight, his mild-mannered temper and the emotional turmoil Goku caused him are a point of tension DB has never had before.
As for uninteresting- that is your perception. He was incredibly popular in that arc.

You've shown one good example where he's active, but it doesn't add up to much. His role in finding the time machine isn't integral.

Two. It doesn't matter that it doesn't amount to much, it's there. The character is still the same, he is not a doormat that lost his guts and ardor. He has always generally shows deference to his elders, and only asserts himself in cases in which he absolutely has to. The fact that he doesn't go out of his way to look for action or fight related goals fits perfectly with his character and ties in with what he story will shows us later: he doesn't like fighting As long as others are around to take charge he doesn't feel the urgency to step in. There's no deep-seated guilt to propel him to act like in the Namek arc, there's no immediate danger to make him turn back like in the Saiyan arc.
I've said this already, the Cell arc could've foreshadowed his importance better, but that's an issue I have with the storytelling , not the character.

He plays an integral role in the climax.

So does Vegeta. No one is denying his relevance, but ten chapters of being the center of action and then dealing the final blow does not make you the lead. Being the hero/saviour and being the lead are not synonymous.

His reluctance in the Cell games was another issue, one that has nothing to do with him being passive, but about the fundamental difference between him and his father.

I know. I brought it up in the first post.[/quote]
About how Goku loves fighting and Gohan doesn't? Because that's what I meant here. His behavior in the Cell fight is congruent with what we have known about his character until now, that he only fights because he has to, out of a sense of responsibility and desire to help others. What you find frustrating , others found intriguing.