Frozen
After thoroughly examining Anna's writing for over a decade, I found out why she is so negatively scrutinized by viewers.
Her character just doesn't make any sense compared to Elsa.
I've seen character criticisms from people revolving around what they were told versus what they were shown.
I think that's the same case with Anna's character, her actions don't match the intentions of the writers.
Anna being "adorkable" makes sense when you take into account that she was accidentally blasted in the head with ice in midair. It must have did permanent damage to her brain that not even Grand Pabbie's magic could fix. The problem is that the story does not use this as the actual justification for Anna's "adorkability." It would make much more sense for her to act this way despite being raised inside a castle where she is expected to behave like a proper royal 24/7.
If Elsa's mental illness can be justified by psychological trauma, why can't Anna's "adorkability" be classified as a mental illness caused by physical trauma?
Anna also doesn't properly develop as a character unlike Elsa. The narrative keeps blaming the other characters for her predicament. I think the reason for that is because she's supposed to be the main heroine and Hans and Elsa are supposed to be the villain and antagonist. But still, not admitting that even the hero has faults is also bad writing.
Sure, Anna doesn't jump into marrying Kristoff like she did Hans, but she doesn't learn to take a step back from jumping into another romantic relationship after Hans nearly killed her and her sister. She also doesn't try to understand her sister, she just assumes whatever and invades her space. The narrative doesn't call her out for it, instead blaming Elsa for not letting Anna help her. Anna doesn't respect people's boundaries and assume she knows what's best for them despite the fact she doesn't know much about them at all.
Her character just doesn't make any sense compared to Elsa.
I've seen character criticisms from people revolving around what they were told versus what they were shown.
I think that's the same case with Anna's character, her actions don't match the intentions of the writers.
Anna being "adorkable" makes sense when you take into account that she was accidentally blasted in the head with ice in midair. It must have did permanent damage to her brain that not even Grand Pabbie's magic could fix. The problem is that the story does not use this as the actual justification for Anna's "adorkability." It would make much more sense for her to act this way despite being raised inside a castle where she is expected to behave like a proper royal 24/7.
If Elsa's mental illness can be justified by psychological trauma, why can't Anna's "adorkability" be classified as a mental illness caused by physical trauma?
Anna also doesn't properly develop as a character unlike Elsa. The narrative keeps blaming the other characters for her predicament. I think the reason for that is because she's supposed to be the main heroine and Hans and Elsa are supposed to be the villain and antagonist. But still, not admitting that even the hero has faults is also bad writing.
Sure, Anna doesn't jump into marrying Kristoff like she did Hans, but she doesn't learn to take a step back from jumping into another romantic relationship after Hans nearly killed her and her sister. She also doesn't try to understand her sister, she just assumes whatever and invades her space. The narrative doesn't call her out for it, instead blaming Elsa for not letting Anna help her. Anna doesn't respect people's boundaries and assume she knows what's best for them despite the fact she doesn't know much about them at all.