The Problem with Gohan

[ABED]

There might be more in the anime, but it's fundamentally the same story. Gohan isn't active in the Cell arc from beginning to end.

I'll stay away from commenting on the differences between the Namek arc and the Cell arc. Comparing the two, and Gohan's role within, are kinda pointless because they are completely different scenarios. The Namek arc simply afforded Gohan the situation to display a more assertive personalty throughout that story. It was more personal for him.

That doesn't mean you can't compare. The scenarios are different, but you can compare and contrast anything. Gohan becomes a fundamentally different character in the Cell arc. He lacks agency. Nothing is his idea and it's unclear what exactly motivates Gohan. What does he want? And what steps does he take to achieve the goal?

[Super_Divine_Genki]

The problem with Gohan's inactive role in the Cell arc is that there wasn't a B-plot really to involve him in. You had: Stop the cyborgs, and stop Cell -- both of which gave other characters something to do. Gohan's primary role in this arc was to stay near his out-of-action dad, and then train under him in preparation for the bigger threat, which kept him off of the field. As it was written, there wasn't a place anywhere for Gohan to be actively involved until after everyone else had their go at the cyborgs/Cell. The race for the DB's section that had previously kept him active wasn't an option here.

I still don't see Gohan as being written as a different character. Other characters and happenings were in-play and more focused on throughout the arc, therefore it's only natural that he would not have opportunity to display more familiar character traits.

[Michsi]

In addition to what people have already said about Gohan being somewhat relatable - another reason he is likeable for a lot of people is precisely because of his polite, sweet and demure nature. Generally I find character like this painfully boring, but Dragon Ball is filled to the brim with brash, eccentric, loud, self-centered characters that it's him that stands out with those unobtrusive attributes.

The question isn't whether he's likable. I like that he's different, but in one story arc, the arc where he's supposed to become the main character, ironically, he's the least active he ever was.

Which we discussed already, and then the discussion steered towards "what's so great about a passive lead." Again, him being the main character, even during his fight with Cell is debatable. He is the final key player of the arc, but MC? I wouldn't say that. However Gohan getting the spotlight in the first place relied on him being likeable enough for people to accept this switch from Goku, and that he was.

But let's look at it in another way. We have established that Gohan was an active player in the previous arcs and that he is oddly sidelined in this one. But maybe that was the point? You are used to him being in the center of action, yet here he is always at the periphery of it. You keep thinking 'When is he going to do something?' , 'When does he get his turn?'. It builds anticipation and suspension.
But lets remember that there are hints here and there that Gohan is stronger as soon as he and his father leave the ROSAT. It's still late in the game, but it's not like Toriyama didn't leave any hints whatsoever that foreshadowed his power.

[ABED]

Your last post feels more like trying fit a square peg in a round hole. If putting him in the periphery is Toriyama's way of building suspense, it's not done well. And all of this talk about Gohan's power being foreshadowed, that ship sailed a long time ago. We saw it drawn out several times prior. At this point, it's no longer about a character realizing their potential, it's a plot device.

I still don't see Gohan as being written as a different character. Other characters and happenings were in-play and more focused on throughout the arc, therefore it's only natural that he would not have opportunity to display more familiar character traits.

Even assuming this is all true, the second he IS thrust in the spotlight, nothing is his idea. Goku tells him what to do and when, including to not give up. It wasn't a mere pep talk. He is given plenty of moments to display those character traits.

He does nothing in this arc that is his idea. He has no goals of his own, and what goals he does have, he doesn't choose the means of achieving them. He is constantly being spoon-fed what to do. And none of this reads like it's intentional to show something about Gohan. It's a bad attempt at misdirects and suspense.

[Michsi]

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.

[ABED]

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.

I completely disagree. Toriyama does often write that way - Tenshinhan, Vegeta, Piccolo, Gohan.

This thread is about a specific aspect of the Cell arc - Gohan. There's no positive way to spin it. Feel free to enjoy it, but Gohan's overall passivity is not a positive.

[Michsi]

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.

I completely disagree. Toriyama does often write that way - Tenshinhan, Vegeta, Piccolo, Gohan. .

Tenshinhan- first time I've seen him used as good example for this type writing. He turns over a new leaf so abruptly that it's hard to see it as 'growth'. And to avoid another misunderstanding, I'm referring to the manga. Also, why is Gohan now a positive example.....

This thread is about a specific aspect of the Cell arc - Gohan. There's no positive way to spin it. Feel free to enjoy it, but Gohan's overall passivity is not a positive.

I disagree. His passivity and gentleness is in many ways the reason Gohan's drastic personality change as a SSJ2 was such a shocker. It added to that moment, if nothing else.

[ABED]

Tenshinhan- first time I've seen him used as good example for this type writing. He turns over a new leaf so abruptly that it's hard to see it as 'growth'. And to avoid another misunderstanding, I'm referring to the manga. Also, why is Gohan now a positive example.....

1. What do you mean by "this type of writing?"
2. If you mean character development, then DB has a number of examples of it.
3. If this is in fact the first time you've heard someone say Tenshinhan is a good example of character development in DB, you aren't looking hard enough. It's a VERY common opinion in the fandom.
4. He changes, but it is done very well in both the manga and anime.

I disagree. His passivity and gentleness is in many ways the reason Gohan's drastic personality change as a SSJ2 was such a shocker. It added to that moment, if nothing else.

His passivity detracted from that moment because he's not that character. He's regressed to give him an arc. Passivity and gentleness don't go hand in hand, either.

[Michsi]

3. If this is in fact the first time you've heard someone say Tenshinhan is a good example of character development in DB, you aren't looking hard enough. It's a VERY common opinion in the fandom.

Can't be that common if I see more of the opposite being talked about, and since I'm not looking but I come across it regardless, probably means it's a little more wide-spread that you think. Tenshinhan is a liked character, and the 22nf TB arc is also liked, but his 'redemption story' is not because there barely is any story there. The anime put way more effort in trying to make it more compelling, but the manga leaves a lot to be desired in that regard.

His passivity detracted from that moment because he's not that character. He's regressed to give him an arc. Passivity and gentleness don't go hand in hand, either

Wait, what doesn't make him that character - the passivity or the SSJ fierceness? Gohan passivity has always been there, and the fierceness and heartlessness were a well established feature of a SSJ transformation, so I don't see the detraction.

[ABED]

Where are you reading this opinion? I never see the opposite. Tenshinhan's arc is considered a high point of the series. Not to make this about Tenshinhan, but there is a story there and a good one. You have a guy who trains with the rival of Goku's master. He wants to be an assassin because his master's brother was one of his mentors, but over the course of the tournament, he discovers his heart isn't really in it, that he cares more about his honor the thrill of the fight than the kill.

The passivity, since that is the point of this thread. Gohan's passivity has NOT always been there. His arc in the Saiyan saga was finding his bravery. It was his idea to go back and help Goku. In the Namek arc, he's active from the jump. What examples can you give of his passivity?

Also, why is Gohan now a positive example.....

His growth in the Saiyan arc is a great example. Not true in the Cell arc as he doesn't grow. In fact, he regresses. I thought I covered that in this thread.

[Michsi]

Where are you reading this opinion?.

If I'm not mistaken, VegettoEX has stated this too a couple of years ago. (podcast?) Just an example from the top my head, not sure though. And in discussions about redeemed characters, Tenshinhan is usually not cited as a good example. Some are on this forum as well, but I'd have to do some serious digging.

The passivity, since that is the point of this thread. Gohan's passivity has NOT always been there. His arc in the Saiyan saga was finding his bravery. It was his idea to go back and help Goku. In the Namek arc, he's active from the jump. What examples can you give of his passivity?

His general reliance on Krillin. Again, the Namek arc was structured in such a way that forced him to be that active, and he is assertive when the situation calls for it. But in the Cell Saga he is surrounded by adults, by Piccolo and his father who had not been around for most of the Namek Saga. The moment these two arrive on the scene he listens to them, with the exception of when their life is in danger.

He shows the same type of eagerness in the Cell Saga. He wants to be part of the action, he just never really gets a chance to since stronger fighters are present and in charge.

[ABED]

I'm not taking your word on this because I don't see it, nor do I agree. His change is well done. Even in the manga, it's a tad quicker, but the pieces are in place for the emotion to land. What about his arc doesn't work? Why don't you buy that he goes from wanting to be an assassin to caring about his honor and the thrill of the fight?

Again, the Namek arc was structured in such a way that forced him to be that active

You can't force someone to be active. No one forced him to stand up to his mother and go. No one forced him to save Dende. No one forced him to get Vegeta's DB, and no one forced him to stand up to Reacoom. The situation against Cell called for him to stand up to be assertive and yet, he's anything but. Gohan is Kuririn's teammate and friend, he's not reliant on him anymore than Kuririn is reliant on Gohan.

He shows the same type of eagerness in the Cell Saga. He wants to be part of the action, he just never really gets a chance to since stronger fighters are present and in charge.

I understand that, but when he is in a position to do something, he gets cold feet, and he has to be told what to do.

I have to ask, what do you take to mean passive and assertive characters?

[ekrolo2]

Oh I don't disagree that Shinji and Gohan aren't really comparable here, especially when it comes to the presentation of their stories. I was just arguing for the potential appeal of passive MCs in general and why Evangelion gets away with it. The interesting thing about Gohan's passivity to me is how it contrasts with everyone else in the arc. Perfect Cell is basically a giant culmination of a bunch of battle-hungry meatheads and the mistakes that they made in their attempts to stop him, so I think it's interesting that the most "docile" cast member was the one tasked with beating him and putting those mistakes to bed. I do agree that the presentation of that idea and Gohan's role could have been fleshed out a better, though.

That's a good idea in concept but in execution it doesn't work. Gohan in the Saiyan arc grows as a character and the Namek arc keeps him as someone who can and will jump into the fray when he needs to, he's not fearful of it anymore even if the odds are stacked against him.

In the Cell arc, Gohan is supposed to be a voice of reason amongst a lot of meat heads and where the fuck is this coming from? Why isn't he trying to talk everyone else out of letting Gero just happen and advocating for his preemptive removal or incarceration? Where does Gohan go from a super young meat-head into a guy who's too old for this shit at the ripe old age of nine? Is it seeing his dad get beaten down and almost die? Well, he already saw that happen with Vegeta and Freeza and he outright saw basically everyone but Trunks die. Is it something he starts to ponder on during the three year time skip? Is it something he realizes during the ROSAT? It can be any one of these or none of them and it's impossible to say because Toriyama just treats Gohan like a mouth piece for a message after he's little more then background decoration for the vast majority of the arc.

Some might say that Toriyama treating him as that much of a doormat is precisely what makes it work when he flips out, but Gohan's got an entire new world view that is nnneeeevvvvveeeerrrr implied to be a thing for him anywhere and the proceeding work just acts like this is what Gohan was always about when the Saiyan and Namek arcs pretty much show us that no, it's not.

It's like how the Revenge of the Sith movie has Obi-Wan vs Grievous as the pay off for some big rivalry the two have had for a while, a rivalry that doesn't happen on screen and you can only see it in TCW or the Legends continuity. Except in this instance, we don't even have that.

[Michsi]

I'm not taking your word on this because I don't see it, nor do I agree. His change is well done. Even in the manga, it's a tad quicker, but the pieces are in place for the emotion to land. What about his arc doesn't work? Why don't you buy that he goes from wanting to be an assassin to caring about his honor and the thrill of the fight?

Because it happens at the drop of a hat, as opposed to Piccolo and Vegeta that needed an adjustment period. For example.

Oh yes you very much can.

Both in writing and real life. I write,and I often times do just that- put characters in situation where they're forced to adapt. You can create the circumstance first and have the characters navigate that. Character dynamic is very much influenced by outside factors.

I understand that, but when he is in a position to do something, he gets cold feet, and he has to be told what to do.

Because he is the mild-mannered, obedient child that has great respect for his elders. He believes in them, that's the whole issue with why he went to fight in the first place despite not wanting to - because dad said so.

I have to ask, what do you take to mean passive and assertive characters?

Assertive - Trunks. Passive- Goten.

[ABED]

Because it happens at the drop of a hat, as opposed to Piccolo and Vegeta that needed an adjustment period. For example.

It happens quickly, but he doesn't have as far to go. He wasn't the demon king, nor was he a genocidal prince. It doesn't happen at the drop of a hat. It takes 18 episodes to accomplish it.

Character dynamic is very much influenced by outside factors.

Influenced, not determined. And putting a character in a tough situation doesn't necessarily force them to change. John McClain didn't have to stop Hans and save his wife. He could've stayed out of the way and waited for the cops to do their job. He took action, and that's what makes him active and heroic.

Assertive - Trunks. Passive- Goten.

I didn't ask for examples. I asked for definitions.

[Super_Divine_Genki]

I'm in the same boat as Michsi or anyone that would rather look at the positives in the story of the original Toriyama authored run. Anyone can nitpick specifics, but as can be seen in certain discussions --particularly relating to Gohan during this run -- it tends to go round and round depending on what is influencing one's view of the narrative. I, for one, haven't consumed a whole lot of stories throughout my life to have another fictional writing style sway my view. Toriyama plotted it out this way simply because that's just the way that he wanted to do it, and how he wanted to involve Gohan in the story that he was trying to tell.

This supposed change in Gohan didn't come out of nowhere -- for example, watch his general disposition after he emerged from the RoSaT and compare that to prior entering that room. Why do we have to be told anything, when we can see... ? I maintain that his later Cell Games behavior is a natural extension of his core personality as a result of having heightened his overall level of being and other factors that surrounded the event (no dialogue necessary!).

Even if we go back to Gohan's earlier cyborg arc portrayal, this is consistent with how he was portrayed once Piccolo and Goku entered the scene on Namek.

Character dynamic is very much influenced by outside factors.

Agreed. A character (Gohan in this case) is allowed to change their approach when in the face of conflict while still remaining in-character as a result of outside factors being in-play. And there was enough of that influencing/affecting the drive of the story and characters here.

I'm happy that the plot-point behind Gohan's hidden potential got a very satisfying conclusion. After all of these years of being acquainted with the series, I've come to love more about this section, particularly because of how down-to-Earth its message is. It was considerate of Mr. Toriyama to effectively use his most relatable character to send a positive message to the series' target audience.

[ABED]

Anyone can nitpick specifics

This is not a nitpick! Active vs. passive characterization is a HUGE issue.

Toriyama plotted it out this way simply because that's just the way that he wanted to do it, and how he wanted to involve Gohan in the story that he was trying to tell.

This quote is trying to say something important but actually says nothing. I know that sounds harsh, but I don't see what this is trying to point out that doesn't apply to every writer, good or bad.

Why do we have to be told anything, when we can see... ?

We see it, but we don't understand it. What about the experience changed him? And why did it change him for the worst? And it's not even showing, not telling. We are shown the before and after. Fine, don't give us an explanation in dialog, show the actual change.

(no dialogue necessary!).

And you think I'm asking for dialog to understand why? Given that stories are all about emotion, a big change in Gohan should be dramatized, not just 'he goes in one way, he comes out changed'.

[Super_Divine_Genki]

Anyone can nitpick specifics

This is not a nitpick! Active vs. passive characterization is a HUGE issue.

You are speaking for yourself. I don't see the problems with Gohan during the arc that you see. And Gohan's personality traits had already been established, this supposed new characterization didn't just fall out of the sky here. The change was not with the character.

Toriyama plotted it out this way simply because that's just the way that he wanted to do it, and how he wanted to involve Gohan in the story that he was trying to tell.

This quote is trying to say something important but actually says nothing.

???... I wasn't trying to say anything grand. It was just a general overview and assumption on the author's intention.

Why do we have to be told anything, when we can see... ?

We see it, but we don't understand it. What about the experience changed him? And why did it change him for the worst?

Why would you want Gohan to remain a static character? His being so would've been boring and too predictable, imo.

And you think I'm asking for dialog to understand why?

No, but it shouldn't require a full-on explanation from another party to understand why. Why couldn't the series be allowed to evolve and "grow-up" a little and give us something different rather than the usual chatter about what is going on with a particular character or scene? I'm not saying that the writing is a masterpiece, but it hit some high points, and didn't fall far off while still managing to mostly stick its landing, imo.

[Michsi]

I'm in the same boat as Michsi or anyone that would rather look at the positives in the story of the original Toriyama authored run. Anyone can nitpick specifics, but as can be seen in certain discussions --particularly relating to Gohan during this run -- it tends to go round and round depending on what is influencing one's view of the narrative. I, for one, haven't consumed a whole lot of stories throughout my life to have another fictional writing style sway my view. Toriyama plotted it out this way simply because that's just the way that he wanted to do it, and how he wanted to involve Gohan in the story that he was trying to tell.

This supposed change in Gohan didn't come out of nowhere -- for example, watch his general disposition after he emerged from the RoSaT and compare that to prior entering that room. Why do we have to be told anything, when we can see... ? I maintain that his later Cell Games behavior is a natural extension of his core personality as a result of having heightened his overall level of being and other factors that surrounded the event (no dialogue necessary!).

Even if we go back to Gohan's earlier cyborg arc portrayal, this is consistent with how he was portrayed once Piccolo and Goku entered the scene on Namek.

Character dynamic is very much influenced by outside factors.

Agreed. A character (Gohan in this case) is allowed to change their approach when in the face of conflict while still remaining in-character as a result of outside factors being in-play. And there was enough of that influencing/affecting the drive of the story and characters here.

I'm happy that the plot-point behind Gohan's hidden potential got a very satisfying conclusion. After all of these years of being acquainted with the series, I've come to love more about this section, particularly because of how down-to-Earth its message is. It was considerate of Mr. Toriyama to effectively use his most relatable character to send a positive message to the series' target audience.

I feel like you summarize better what I've been trying to say for the past few potst. The difference between Gohan in the Namek arc and the Cell arc comes from the presentation of events, not the character himself. He is still the same, it's the story that doesn't focus on him as much. See, I agree with the notion that given how important he'd be later on, the arc could've used a bit of foreshadowing here and there, but we know Toriyama rarely foreshadows anything or even plans ahead that much. These few chapters focus on Piccolo, now it's Vegeta's turn, time for Trunks, now here's Goku, aaaaand finally Gohan. I think he had a vague idea of what Gohan would end up doing, but didn't map out his role in the arc, which is why he ended up getting sidelined for so long. He didn't need him or had anything to do for him until later.

[ABED]

I wasn't trying to say anything grand. It was just a general overview and assumption on the author's intention.

That's every author's intention. They write a plot because that's how they want it to go. I don't know what it would mean to do the opposite.

I don't see the problems with Gohan during the arc that you see. And Gohan's personality traits had already been established, this supposed new characterization didn't just fall out of the sky here. The change was not with the character.

They had been established, and being passive wasn't one of them. He changed in the Saiyan arc.

Why would you want Gohan to remain a static character? His being so would've been boring and too predictable, imo.

He already did change - in the Saiyan arc. And when you do develop a character, it has to be dramatized. If we assume that he did change, it happened off screen, and he reverted back. He became passive again only to remain passive throughout the remainder of the story arc.

No, but it shouldn't require a full-on explanation from another party to understand why. Why couldn't the series be allowed to evolve and "grow-up" a little and give us something different rather than the usual chatter about what is going on with a particular character or scene? I'm not saying that the writing is a masterpiece, but it hit some high points, and didn't fall far off while still managing to mostly stick its landing, imo.

At what point did I even imply that it required a full on explanation. I wrote it requires DRAMATIZATION, which you conveniently left out in your reply.