Quote Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
You are confusing "a" and "the" here. Miko had several purposes in the text, one of which was to be a love interest for Roy. And that she was to a very limited extent. She would have been more of one, but our writer found he was failing at that and so cut it short.
...
The essential point seems to be that she is not [sufficiently] a sympathetic character and she is intended to.
YOU think she HAD to have been more of a love interest. YOU think she wasn't sufficiently sympathetic a character. YOU think that her reason for existing was to be Roy's girl.

The AUTHOR says her reason for existing is to go ape and kill Shojo. The AUTHOR says that the only romance that was intended was for Roy to show his myscogynistic side and fail to bump uglies with Miko. The AUTHOR says that she was the epitome of a BADLY PLAYED PALADIN.

Since it is the AUTHOR who creates the intent of a character, and your newly nailed down definition of a failed character is one that doesn't fulfill the reqirements intended for the character, such requirements are defined BY that author, NOT by a single member of his audience. And on that basis of intent, and with your definition of "failed" Miko did not fail. She succeeded:

1) Butt of Roy's bd attempt to pull her
2) Rebuffed Roy's clumsy and inproper advances
3) Goes and kills Shojo
4) Gets to killing Shojo in a manner that progresses naturally from the character

Succeeded on 1, 2, 3 and 4.

YOU think it was

1) Be Roy's Girlfriend

You know what? You aren't the author.

If you think that is what should have happened, write your own story. But you'd better not change your mind about where you're goingpart way through, or you've failed