Creating depth in bumby ground

Well, it has been several weeks. Actually, a month.

I am stuck, so I figured some blog writing might clear my head out.

One of the literature things that I know of, is stuff callled sequels and scenes. In literature context, they do not mean what you might think they mean. A scene is where conflict happens, while a sequel is where characters are characteristic. Or rather, where characters act and react. Characters act in scenes and characters react in sequels.

How does this come to my previous blog and the whole damn mess? I am not sure yet.

Right now, my problem is trying to give a real state of being to Spike.

You probably wondering from my previous, semi-coherent rambling regarding Fluttershy and Spike as to what I did:

Well, practically I just watched Fluttershy and Spike-related episodes until I had some insight.

That may sound like good research, but I think it was just forcing myself to watch MLP. That is not as good as it sounds. The thing is, while great effort goes into characterizing the ponies, they have only a so-deep personality. This is not meant as a degrading comment, the fact is, they are cartoon characters.
Plus there are factors like the fact that the ponies in the show are made by multiple people: the basis as they are depicted in the show bible (as made by Lauren Faust), then what the writing team finally figures out, then what the artists and voice actors present them. Their mannerism, their slight affections and whatnot are done by the combination of many people.

Thus when talking about "canon" personality, the problem is that there is hardly one. Certain small details change from season to season, or even from episode to episode (degrees of say, how melodramatic Rarity is, how obsessed-by-checklist Twilight is). So, how do people act in real life?

Hard to say, isn't it?

That's the good thing about fictional characters isn't it? We don't have to tolerate such things, we compress what we want from our characters: we get laughter out of a funny character, we get awe from an amazing character, etc.

Writing is a form of complex, guided manipulation to make someone have certain emotions. Horror novels unsettle the reader, romance novels inspire thoughts of love and lust, adventure give us thrills in imagination, etc.

So, we can often see Fluttershy acting and reacting. She is not necessarily just shy, but insecure about handling other ponies (look how social situations bother her in Putting Your Hoof Down). Animals are a natural course for someone who desires feedback from others but do not quite get it in the way they like from their peers.
We especially see this in Putting Your Hoof Down, where Fluttershy thinks that her problem with other ponies is that she is not assertive enough. As far as I figure, the greater "gap" with her is that she's far more sensitive (and in some sense, more femine and a tiny bit more childish) than most ponies around her. She prefers the simpler tasks of just being with animals, whom seem to like her and she seems to enjoy the company of.

Notice that in the last episode, the animals go out of their way to help her and that quickly surround her.

Oh, dear god, I am trying to psychoanalyse a cartoon character.

I need sleep.

If I cared to be more orderly, I could have my sequel/scene thing drop off by listing her reactions and actions in various episodes in the show. But frankly, I feel insane enough already.