Did you just kill a man with an appetiser?

[cupiscent]

Watch three more episodes of Leverage. We are enjoying it a lot. It's still in its probationary period on a couple of points, like:

• The "jumping up and down screaming pay attention to me" Nathan/Sophie backstory. I get that it's something they really want to flag, and it can be tricky to do that sort of thing with grace, but I can't quite decide if it feels like the really bulky thing in the cente of the room that I keep stubbing my toe on, or if they're actively bludgeoning me with it. Either way: pain and annoyance.
  
• Nathan's alcoholism. I was really impressed with the subtle way this was handled in the pilot, with the instance of solo, serious drinking, the instance of waking up with bottles, and the instance of refusing a companionable beer. REALLY IMPRESSED. But I feel like they completely switched directions with it from the second ep, and now he's just cheerfully chugging left, right and centre. I miss the pilot approach. I liked the pilot approach. Sulk.
  
• Repercussions of exposure. The Male's flagged this one vehemently, but I'm a little more forgiving, raising points about America being quite large and having enough people e.g. to support a serial killer who preys on serial killers. The point is that Sophie's face gets the most exposure, but Nathan's name is getting waved around a bit too, and that this may (or perhaps should) start to curtail their movements. I will pay this point: three of the four games we've thusfar witnessed have involved Sophie "going into business" with the mark. I appreciate the scope of the pool in which they're playing, but sooner or later cautious crims are going to start getting just a little wise, right? Anyway, it's something we're curious to see if they play with.
  
• Parker. She's wildly all over the sliding scale of functional lunacy. I get that, to a certain extent, they have free rein to wildly vary her behaviour, but it irks me that they don't need to have her be unhinged if it's inconvenient. You can't just sideline a character's attributes if they're impediments, yo.

On the other hand, we approve wildly of:

• Eliot and Hardison. Individually, they are splendid (though at least once an episode I've been prompted to say to Hardison: "Will Smith called, he wants his schtick back"). Together, they are SOLID FUCKING GOLD. Just every interaction has been utter delight. I take my pantshat off to you, gentlemen.
  
• The general interaction. They all have solid characterisations that aren't two-dimensional and have anomalies, and they all bounce spikily and delightfully off each other, with great flow and rhythm. There's only been one real clunker, which was then thoroughly redeemed by being turned into a running gag. We are thoroughly impressed.
  
• Parker and her eye-rolling unpredictability. Plus the line: "I bought a plant. What does it do?" Plus I really, really, really want a Parker-vid to "Kong Foo Sing", starting with her line about having fortune cookies for breakfast. Just saying.

In other news, I swiped this from channonyarrow:The first FIVE people to comment in this post get to request a drabbleish length fic (i.e. about 100 words) of any pairing/character of their choosing from me. In return, they have to post this meme in their journal.
Please also suggest a prompt of some description, because I respond better to direction. If you're going to request something/someone I haven't even talked about before, it's probably a good idea to have a back-up, but go ahead and make your crazy suggestion first. Who knows, I might be feeling daring. *G*