Fictional character letter meme
The rules are thus, and please join in if you wish.
1. COMMENT WITH A MYSTERIOUS COMMENT OF YOUR CHOICE (well, it doesn't have to be mysterious. You can just say, "gimme a goddamn letter" or similar.)
2. I will give you a letter.
3. Post the names of five fictional characters and your thoughts on each.
penwiper26 gave me H, which turned out to be particularly difficult. There were a few obvious characters I decided I didn't want to write about, and then I blanked, but eventually came up with five - though I have to say my usual fandoms are severely lacking in H, even after I decided the rules allow for first, last or only names.
And in the end I maybe have a little bit of a theme going.
Horatio. (Just last weekend got to watch my younger son play Hamlet, so the play is fresh in my mind. Let me tell you, you have not seen Hamlet until you have seen it performed on a tiny stage in Barnes and Noble's kids department with a backdrop of the Hundred Acre Wood, mentally recasting (Hamlet = Piglet? Owl = Polonius? Eeyore = Ophelia, because of the river?). Anyway...) Shakespeare's sidekick characters are worth a study on their own, because they so often propel the main characters into action that either ends tragically or, in comedies, averts disaster by the skin of its teeth. In this case (and in others) I think you could call the sidekick an enabler. You could, if you really wanted to, play Horatio as an Iago with an agenda of chaos, but it works better to give him idealistic motives and a much-belated realization that he might have been able to stop Hamlet from creating that closing-scene slaughterhouse. Or romantic motives - I don't mean that he's in love with Hamlet, though he probably is, but that he might be in love with the notion of vengeful ghosts and tragic ends (who doesn't want to say "And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest"?). Where exactly the ghost resides in the spectrum of reality is a decision each director has to make, but it is important that Horatio alerts Hamlet to its presence. And that Horatio should know Hamlet well enough by then to realize he isn't going to react to its challenge with a swift, politically clever, and bloodless undermining of Claudius. Or maybe Horatio doesn't know Hamlet that well, and maybe that's Horatio's tragedy. What makes the play great is that the interpretations are endless. But I do like Horatio as an actor rather than a reactor.
Gregory House. The original concept of Dr. House owed a lot to Sherlock Holmes, which made Wilson into Watson. That was only valid as long as House lived by his intellect alone - you can see Holmes as a feeling human being if you want, and I think it's better if you do, but he is successful at suppressing those feelings and bending his will to solving problems through observation, and that's never been House's modus operandi. I don't think he could be a brilliant diagnostician for long on his own, and he needs his team not just to bounce ideas off of but to belittle and anger. And when you've got through the third or fourth iteration of "oops, wrong diagnosis" and House finally has the stroke of genius that solves the case, it very often occurs in the middle of a discussion about his (or someone else's) personal life. The emotions spur the brain activity; I can only imagine them distracting from Holmes's. Holmes doesn't think much of Watson's deductive abilities, but he genuinely likes him and doesn't mind expressing that. If House genuinely likes Wilson, he clouds that liking with... well, an agenda of chaos. And, in recent seasons, Wilson has been returning the favor with a vengeance. Not so much Watson/Holmes anymore as, perhaps, Horatio/Hamlet, but decidedly a Horatio who's fully aware of Hamlet's faults and is tweaking them for effect. House is a shipwreck of a person who doesn't care how many Rosencrantzes and Guildensterns he leaves dead along the way, and Wilson's not much better, and I'm finding it increasingly difficult to watch them, but somehow I can't look away.
Hermione Granger. Oh good, what a relief. A sidekick who actually enables the hero's better characteristics and is generally upfront about her agenda. Hermione, like Holmes and House (and, for all we know, Horatio, though I see him more as a party guy), is grounded in the intellectual realm, but although she starts out by nagging Harry and Ron about their homework, she grows into a person who can inspire others to realize that Knowledge Is Good And In Fact Saves Your Butt At Times. Gee, there was a reason we learned that in class, who knew? And, in fact, Hermione has to learn this too - the problem with knowledge for knowledge's sake is that practical applications become irrelevant. However, this is a limitation hard to maintain when you're being chased by everyone from booger-ridden trolls up through He Who Must Not Be Named. Hermione makes mistakes; she steers Harry the wrong way quite often; but she usually learns from her experiences, and she isn't afraid of trying again. She lets her feelings take precedence sometimes too, and she is totally a girl with no excuses. Hermione rocks.
Alex Hunter. White Collar doesn't have that many recurring characters, which may mean they each have to play multiple roles. Neal, at the center, is getting pulled in many directions, and while he has some pretty consistent forces of stability (Peter and Elizabeth) and some forces of chaos (Kate, IMO), he has a bunch of people in his life who represent both: Mozzie, arguably Adler, possibly June, and definitely Alex Hunter. Alex is not his sidekick in the way Mozzie is (though Mozzie would bridle at such a description), but she is an important presence in his life. She means several things to him: they were briefly lovers, they were partners in crime, and they have agendas that overlap (to avoid spoilers). She's a foil to him, and in some ways an opposite, not just in valuing different criminal skills. He's embraced the world of law and order, if only by insinuating his arm over its shoulder and fondling its breast, and she is keeping her distance. She is by nature as well as by name a Hunter, actively pursuing a particular acquisitive goal over many years, as if following a questing beast; Neal is more the "look, a squirrel!" type when it comes to booty (in the piratical sense, I mean, though arguably in the sexual too if not in the emotional) - okay, he joys in working out elaborate traps for the squirrels, but his fixations on them are not long-term. Neal only gets emotionally involved with what he can't quite define, and he loves processes more than end results. I think Alex thinks she is his opposite there as well, but actually she hasn't yet figured out whether the end outweighs the means (even when it outweighs it by several tons of gold).
Karl "Helo" Agathon. All right, it's his callsign rather than his actual name, but like I said, sincere lack of H characters, and Battlestar Galactica is no exception. Helo was apparently supposed to be a redshirt, discarded after being left on Caprica in the pilot episode, but interest from the fans brought him back, and he turned out to be one of the central moral forces in the series, consistently choosing what turned out to be the right action, though often manipulated into it, apparently floundering or foolish or stubborn (that petulantly set jaw), or just blown around by the chaotic wind. And he's essential to the post-series destiny of humankind (ridiculous as it may be). He's one of those secondary characters who sneaks up on you and sticks like glue. I like him.
And there you are!
1. COMMENT WITH A MYSTERIOUS COMMENT OF YOUR CHOICE (well, it doesn't have to be mysterious. You can just say, "gimme a goddamn letter" or similar.)
2. I will give you a letter.
3. Post the names of five fictional characters and your thoughts on each.
penwiper26 gave me H, which turned out to be particularly difficult. There were a few obvious characters I decided I didn't want to write about, and then I blanked, but eventually came up with five - though I have to say my usual fandoms are severely lacking in H, even after I decided the rules allow for first, last or only names.
And in the end I maybe have a little bit of a theme going.
Horatio. (Just last weekend got to watch my younger son play Hamlet, so the play is fresh in my mind. Let me tell you, you have not seen Hamlet until you have seen it performed on a tiny stage in Barnes and Noble's kids department with a backdrop of the Hundred Acre Wood, mentally recasting (Hamlet = Piglet? Owl = Polonius? Eeyore = Ophelia, because of the river?). Anyway...) Shakespeare's sidekick characters are worth a study on their own, because they so often propel the main characters into action that either ends tragically or, in comedies, averts disaster by the skin of its teeth. In this case (and in others) I think you could call the sidekick an enabler. You could, if you really wanted to, play Horatio as an Iago with an agenda of chaos, but it works better to give him idealistic motives and a much-belated realization that he might have been able to stop Hamlet from creating that closing-scene slaughterhouse. Or romantic motives - I don't mean that he's in love with Hamlet, though he probably is, but that he might be in love with the notion of vengeful ghosts and tragic ends (who doesn't want to say "And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest"?). Where exactly the ghost resides in the spectrum of reality is a decision each director has to make, but it is important that Horatio alerts Hamlet to its presence. And that Horatio should know Hamlet well enough by then to realize he isn't going to react to its challenge with a swift, politically clever, and bloodless undermining of Claudius. Or maybe Horatio doesn't know Hamlet that well, and maybe that's Horatio's tragedy. What makes the play great is that the interpretations are endless. But I do like Horatio as an actor rather than a reactor.
Gregory House. The original concept of Dr. House owed a lot to Sherlock Holmes, which made Wilson into Watson. That was only valid as long as House lived by his intellect alone - you can see Holmes as a feeling human being if you want, and I think it's better if you do, but he is successful at suppressing those feelings and bending his will to solving problems through observation, and that's never been House's modus operandi. I don't think he could be a brilliant diagnostician for long on his own, and he needs his team not just to bounce ideas off of but to belittle and anger. And when you've got through the third or fourth iteration of "oops, wrong diagnosis" and House finally has the stroke of genius that solves the case, it very often occurs in the middle of a discussion about his (or someone else's) personal life. The emotions spur the brain activity; I can only imagine them distracting from Holmes's. Holmes doesn't think much of Watson's deductive abilities, but he genuinely likes him and doesn't mind expressing that. If House genuinely likes Wilson, he clouds that liking with... well, an agenda of chaos. And, in recent seasons, Wilson has been returning the favor with a vengeance. Not so much Watson/Holmes anymore as, perhaps, Horatio/Hamlet, but decidedly a Horatio who's fully aware of Hamlet's faults and is tweaking them for effect. House is a shipwreck of a person who doesn't care how many Rosencrantzes and Guildensterns he leaves dead along the way, and Wilson's not much better, and I'm finding it increasingly difficult to watch them, but somehow I can't look away.
Hermione Granger. Oh good, what a relief. A sidekick who actually enables the hero's better characteristics and is generally upfront about her agenda. Hermione, like Holmes and House (and, for all we know, Horatio, though I see him more as a party guy), is grounded in the intellectual realm, but although she starts out by nagging Harry and Ron about their homework, she grows into a person who can inspire others to realize that Knowledge Is Good And In Fact Saves Your Butt At Times. Gee, there was a reason we learned that in class, who knew? And, in fact, Hermione has to learn this too - the problem with knowledge for knowledge's sake is that practical applications become irrelevant. However, this is a limitation hard to maintain when you're being chased by everyone from booger-ridden trolls up through He Who Must Not Be Named. Hermione makes mistakes; she steers Harry the wrong way quite often; but she usually learns from her experiences, and she isn't afraid of trying again. She lets her feelings take precedence sometimes too, and she is totally a girl with no excuses. Hermione rocks.
Alex Hunter. White Collar doesn't have that many recurring characters, which may mean they each have to play multiple roles. Neal, at the center, is getting pulled in many directions, and while he has some pretty consistent forces of stability (Peter and Elizabeth) and some forces of chaos (Kate, IMO), he has a bunch of people in his life who represent both: Mozzie, arguably Adler, possibly June, and definitely Alex Hunter. Alex is not his sidekick in the way Mozzie is (though Mozzie would bridle at such a description), but she is an important presence in his life. She means several things to him: they were briefly lovers, they were partners in crime, and they have agendas that overlap (to avoid spoilers). She's a foil to him, and in some ways an opposite, not just in valuing different criminal skills. He's embraced the world of law and order, if only by insinuating his arm over its shoulder and fondling its breast, and she is keeping her distance. She is by nature as well as by name a Hunter, actively pursuing a particular acquisitive goal over many years, as if following a questing beast; Neal is more the "look, a squirrel!" type when it comes to booty (in the piratical sense, I mean, though arguably in the sexual too if not in the emotional) - okay, he joys in working out elaborate traps for the squirrels, but his fixations on them are not long-term. Neal only gets emotionally involved with what he can't quite define, and he loves processes more than end results. I think Alex thinks she is his opposite there as well, but actually she hasn't yet figured out whether the end outweighs the means (even when it outweighs it by several tons of gold).
Karl "Helo" Agathon. All right, it's his callsign rather than his actual name, but like I said, sincere lack of H characters, and Battlestar Galactica is no exception. Helo was apparently supposed to be a redshirt, discarded after being left on Caprica in the pilot episode, but interest from the fans brought him back, and he turned out to be one of the central moral forces in the series, consistently choosing what turned out to be the right action, though often manipulated into it, apparently floundering or foolish or stubborn (that petulantly set jaw), or just blown around by the chaotic wind. And he's essential to the post-series destiny of humankind (ridiculous as it may be). He's one of those secondary characters who sneaks up on you and sticks like glue. I like him.
And there you are!