Character meme
1. Leave a comment to this post - specifically saying that you would like a letter.
2. I will give you a letter. (If you don't want a letter but feel like commenting anyway, feel free.)
3. Post the names of five fictional characters whose names begin with that letter, and your thoughts on each. The characters can be from books, movies, or TV shows.
So Beer Good gave me S.
S is for Spike (obvs), Sam Winchester (also obvs), Sam Vimes (or Susan Sto Helit, so ack, but you don't need me to tell you she's awesome), for Sarah Lund, and for Sherlock (but which?). Or Matt Santos or Sam Seaborn, or Susan Lewis or Saffron, or Spock, or Six, or...
But not those last ones. Probably good for them, I'm all analytical and grumpy here.
Spike is… my way in to the Buffyverse. I'm an s5-6 girl, in terms of when I started watching. So that's my baseline. I started off being mostly interested in Spike, and Spike-fic, while the rest of the cast infiltrated my consciousness pretty slowly. I think he's fascinating, fulfilling, eminently followable. I also think we - and the writers - let him off way too easily. He's a multi-multi-multi-murderer, but by the middle of s4 you could be forgiven for forgetting that (and indeed, in Who Are You, the Scoobies do just that). Now that I've spent a good solid decade thinking about Spike, I'm less and less convinced by the shift in tone of s4. It's clawed back in s5, because we do see Spike fixating on Buffy, connecting with Dawn and Joyce etc and that explains his development thereafter much more securely (though still, thousands of dead people get a little skipped over by all concerned - and we somehow see Robin as wrong to think Spike should be dead). But Pangs, both the seeking-help-from-the-Slayer and the not-staking I find textually inexplicable. None of which is to say that he isn't still my favourite character, and the one I'm most interested in reading. Consistency isn't demanded of fandom, is it? (*worried look*)
Sam Vimes is… the greatest representative of grumpy decent humanity I've ever read. I think. One of them, definitely. A man who knows just how shitty the world is, and keeps on trying anyway. But also a man who knows just how much most people don't make it shitty, and who has a lot of time for real humans. He's one of a terribly, terribly small number of characters in modern literature (outside of misery memoirs) that seriously talks and thinks about poverty as something that happens to real people, people like him. Also, he's a giant of an economist: Vimes's Boots is a theory that works.
Sarah Lund is… my current TV enjoyment, given the sudden advent of Isn't Danish TV fabulous theme nights on BBC4. (She's the woman in the icon, btw, if you don't know The Killing; the jumper is famous because she barely changed it during the first season, set over 20 consecutive days. Looking down, I find I am typing this wearing a chunky Scandi knit, though I blame my Swedish ancestors and the ten degree temperature drop since yesterday). She is, of course, the classic maverick cop, with the crap personal life, the poor people skills, the relentless dedication, the great insight (and also the multiple extremely wrong insights which precede it and everyone seems to forget about at the end of the plot). But she feels real. She has a mother as well as a child (and, temporarily a partner), and an ex-husband. Her crappy job-obsessed life has consequences for them. She's attractive (because that's the TV law), but she doesn't act like a beautiful woman; the jumper-and-jeans outfit doesn't change, because it works. I enjoy her, clichés notwithstanding, at least partly because it's still novel to see a woman playing this type of role, and because she inhabits it so naturally and well.
Sherlock Holmes… pisses me off. In all his guises. Smug show-offy git. However, the fascination of him is pretty much undeniable, and I've followed him in a lot of versions. I find him most tolerable in Laurie R King's Mary Russell series, where he acquires a believable female partner who lets us into his brain a little more. BBC's Sherlock is magnificent in giving us a proper idea of how awkward that genius is, for himself as much as for others to cope with. Doyle's Sherlock is amazing, though, isn't he? How many other late-Victorian potboiler fictional characters can you even name? Let alone have them be so alive and present in your consciousness? So recognisable no matter who is remaking them? When someone remakes Sherlock Holmes, it's always about the character. The period detail is incidental - which, of course, is why the modern Sherlock works.
Sam Winchester is… (look away Snick)… not my favourite person. Like, I don't, still, really care what happens to him. A couple of obvious reasons for this: firstly, as many of you will know, I spent my first SPN view-though [AND I STILL HAVEN'T FINISHED SEASON SIX LET ALONE SEASON SEVEN SO IF YOU SPOIL ME THERE WILL BE BLOOD FOR BREAKFAST] in a total haze of shallow yet heartfelt Dean-girl drooling. (I still rewatch some episodes like new, having realised I stopped noticing the plot in the first minute or so.) So, there's that. Dean's brand of angst-porn is catnip to me, and The Pretty does not hurt. But there's also the fact that Sam lost my sympathy early on.
So: you are part of a tiny, secret elite of traumatised people who know about a massive threat to humanity and are saving lives by the thousand. And you say, "Um. Hunting is no fun. Law school pls?" And then you don't do anything to help. Sure, your father's a complete dick (no, really), and sure, hunting isn't a terribly effective way of keeping all of humanity safe, but you have apparently rejected the Helping People idea, and not taken up - say - the Telling People They Could Die From Demons option instead. (Unless there was some big plan to become a lawyer and sue the demons?) Until a demon hurts you, and then it matters. Sorry. Snarky. I sympathise. It's not fair Sam gets to know all about demons and dangers before he's 18. It shouldn't be him that gets stuck helping. It isn't easy to tackle. I would, in his position, definitely be thinking Stanford and not corpse-disposal. But I compare him with, say, Willow or Xander - who are after all my baseline for random-humans-who-know-the-big-demon-secret - and I'm not that impressed.
I've read some great meta on Sam. I'm delighted other people enjoy him and find him so interesting. I just... don't. And I think this is why, from the outset.
2. I will give you a letter. (If you don't want a letter but feel like commenting anyway, feel free.)
3. Post the names of five fictional characters whose names begin with that letter, and your thoughts on each. The characters can be from books, movies, or TV shows.
So Beer Good gave me S.
S is for Spike (obvs), Sam Winchester (also obvs), Sam Vimes (or Susan Sto Helit, so ack, but you don't need me to tell you she's awesome), for Sarah Lund, and for Sherlock (but which?). Or Matt Santos or Sam Seaborn, or Susan Lewis or Saffron, or Spock, or Six, or...
But not those last ones. Probably good for them, I'm all analytical and grumpy here.
Spike is… my way in to the Buffyverse. I'm an s5-6 girl, in terms of when I started watching. So that's my baseline. I started off being mostly interested in Spike, and Spike-fic, while the rest of the cast infiltrated my consciousness pretty slowly. I think he's fascinating, fulfilling, eminently followable. I also think we - and the writers - let him off way too easily. He's a multi-multi-multi-murderer, but by the middle of s4 you could be forgiven for forgetting that (and indeed, in Who Are You, the Scoobies do just that). Now that I've spent a good solid decade thinking about Spike, I'm less and less convinced by the shift in tone of s4. It's clawed back in s5, because we do see Spike fixating on Buffy, connecting with Dawn and Joyce etc and that explains his development thereafter much more securely (though still, thousands of dead people get a little skipped over by all concerned - and we somehow see Robin as wrong to think Spike should be dead). But Pangs, both the seeking-help-from-the-Slayer and the not-staking I find textually inexplicable. None of which is to say that he isn't still my favourite character, and the one I'm most interested in reading. Consistency isn't demanded of fandom, is it? (*worried look*)
Sam Vimes is… the greatest representative of grumpy decent humanity I've ever read. I think. One of them, definitely. A man who knows just how shitty the world is, and keeps on trying anyway. But also a man who knows just how much most people don't make it shitty, and who has a lot of time for real humans. He's one of a terribly, terribly small number of characters in modern literature (outside of misery memoirs) that seriously talks and thinks about poverty as something that happens to real people, people like him. Also, he's a giant of an economist: Vimes's Boots is a theory that works.
Sarah Lund is… my current TV enjoyment, given the sudden advent of Isn't Danish TV fabulous theme nights on BBC4. (She's the woman in the icon, btw, if you don't know The Killing; the jumper is famous because she barely changed it during the first season, set over 20 consecutive days. Looking down, I find I am typing this wearing a chunky Scandi knit, though I blame my Swedish ancestors and the ten degree temperature drop since yesterday). She is, of course, the classic maverick cop, with the crap personal life, the poor people skills, the relentless dedication, the great insight (and also the multiple extremely wrong insights which precede it and everyone seems to forget about at the end of the plot). But she feels real. She has a mother as well as a child (and, temporarily a partner), and an ex-husband. Her crappy job-obsessed life has consequences for them. She's attractive (because that's the TV law), but she doesn't act like a beautiful woman; the jumper-and-jeans outfit doesn't change, because it works. I enjoy her, clichés notwithstanding, at least partly because it's still novel to see a woman playing this type of role, and because she inhabits it so naturally and well.
Sherlock Holmes… pisses me off. In all his guises. Smug show-offy git. However, the fascination of him is pretty much undeniable, and I've followed him in a lot of versions. I find him most tolerable in Laurie R King's Mary Russell series, where he acquires a believable female partner who lets us into his brain a little more. BBC's Sherlock is magnificent in giving us a proper idea of how awkward that genius is, for himself as much as for others to cope with. Doyle's Sherlock is amazing, though, isn't he? How many other late-Victorian potboiler fictional characters can you even name? Let alone have them be so alive and present in your consciousness? So recognisable no matter who is remaking them? When someone remakes Sherlock Holmes, it's always about the character. The period detail is incidental - which, of course, is why the modern Sherlock works.
Sam Winchester is… (look away Snick)… not my favourite person. Like, I don't, still, really care what happens to him. A couple of obvious reasons for this: firstly, as many of you will know, I spent my first SPN view-though [AND I STILL HAVEN'T FINISHED SEASON SIX LET ALONE SEASON SEVEN SO IF YOU SPOIL ME THERE WILL BE BLOOD FOR BREAKFAST] in a total haze of shallow yet heartfelt Dean-girl drooling. (I still rewatch some episodes like new, having realised I stopped noticing the plot in the first minute or so.) So, there's that. Dean's brand of angst-porn is catnip to me, and The Pretty does not hurt. But there's also the fact that Sam lost my sympathy early on.
So: you are part of a tiny, secret elite of traumatised people who know about a massive threat to humanity and are saving lives by the thousand. And you say, "Um. Hunting is no fun. Law school pls?" And then you don't do anything to help. Sure, your father's a complete dick (no, really), and sure, hunting isn't a terribly effective way of keeping all of humanity safe, but you have apparently rejected the Helping People idea, and not taken up - say - the Telling People They Could Die From Demons option instead. (Unless there was some big plan to become a lawyer and sue the demons?) Until a demon hurts you, and then it matters. Sorry. Snarky. I sympathise. It's not fair Sam gets to know all about demons and dangers before he's 18. It shouldn't be him that gets stuck helping. It isn't easy to tackle. I would, in his position, definitely be thinking Stanford and not corpse-disposal. But I compare him with, say, Willow or Xander - who are after all my baseline for random-humans-who-know-the-big-demon-secret - and I'm not that impressed.
I've read some great meta on Sam. I'm delighted other people enjoy him and find him so interesting. I just... don't. And I think this is why, from the outset.