(Untitled)

[travels_in_time]

[Tags reflect things in the comments as well as the post itself]

Things I want to write about for Friday Spam:

--Betrayal and the chain of command in Life on Mars
--Stories--seeing our life in them, interpreting our life by them. Sparked off by phoenix64--"Character-bashing" is not the same as "Honest character discussion", and why can't I say that I don

Comments

[pinkpolarity]

--"Character-bashing" is not the same as "Honest character discussion", and why can't I say that I don't like X without getting booed off as a basher?

Because some characters are Fandom Darlings, and heaven help you if you don't like them! I'm now fascinated by Dr. Who, but I'm afraid to go near the fandom because I know all about the Rose Wars thanks to F_W.

The thing is, at least from my POV, a complaint about a character is really a complaint about the *writers*. I might like Rose if the writers were a bit less heavy-handed with their telling-instead-of-showing, and didn't tell me how special and how "the best" she was in nearly every scene, and if they drew out her relationship with the Doctor a bit more. I don't like having characters/contestants shoved at me by the writers/editors, and I almost always rebel against it by disliking the character/contestant. (I noticed that all of the posters at TWOP who dislike Rose said exactly the same thing-- it was the feeling that we *had* to like her that was the objection more than the character herself or the actress.)

[travels_in_time]

There are some sane people in Doctor Who fandom. I think they're all on my flist. :) I had to stop watching the big comm, though, because it stays crazy.

I can see where sometimes a complaint about the character is really a complaint about the writers. Well, I guess it always is, really, but there's two ways it can go. Either they've failed to create the character that they think they've created (like Gwen on Torchwood, and to a lesser extent, at least IMO, Rose on DW), or they deliberately create a character who has character traits that make you dislike her.

In the second case, you can still say it's the writers' "fault", but they've succeeded in what they meant to do. It's the first case that drives me crazy--when clearly you're supposed to think, "Oh, what a wonderful person!" when you're really yelling at the screen, "NO, WHAT YOU JUST DID IS NOT OKAY, YOU WITCH!"

And the Rose Wars? Have NOTHING on the Ray Wars in Due South fandom. *shudders*

[pinkpolarity]

I think the Ray Wars might be as bad as the Danny wars in Stargate SG-1, but that's about the only comparison I can make. Not in that fandom, never been in that fandom, never even *seen* the latter Ray, but even I know about the Ray Wars. *shudder*

Either they've failed to create the character that they think they've created

Yes, this exactly, this is exactly what I meant. It's often but not always a "too much telling" thing. Do you watch NCIS? Because Ziva was that way in the beginning. I think the writers were so busy trying to make viewers accept the person who took a beloved dead character's space that they went completely overboard. Every episode that season was about how wonderful she was, how much she could do, how she had every Action Girl skill and then some, and how she wisecracked with one of the male leads in *exactly the same way* as the dead character. I thought she was a dreadful Sue then, I like her a lot now (better, even, than Kate)-- because the writers wisely backed the hell off at one point and started writing her like a regular character instead of flinging her at us. It's not really the character's fault at all, it's Desperate Writer Syndrome. Show us why she's likeable, don't tell us we have to like her. Nothing they did with Rose IMO was unsalvageable, it was just way too much too fast.

It's the first case that drives me crazy--when clearly you're supposed to think, "Oh, what a wonderful person!" when you're really yelling at the screen, "NO, WHAT YOU JUST DID IS NOT OKAY, YOU WITCH!"

Me too. I also hate when the writer is so clearly wrapped up in the character and you're sitting there failing your Roll to Maintain Suspension of Disbelief. I *want* to go along with you, writer, I really do!

[travels_in_time]

I don't watch NCIS, but I did hear similar complaints from my flist.

It'll be interesting to see what you make of Donna (fourth season Companion on Doctor Who--she also was in the second Christmas movie, a full season before she showed up as Companion.)

(NOTE: I tried to avoid spoilers in this comment, but I talk about a lot of generalities. If you're worried about your opinions being influenced, might want to skip over the rest of this. I don't really know your level of spoiler-phobia. Also about people trying to make you love characters, because I love Donna. *g*)

Lots of people hated Donna in the Christmas movie. Of course this was right after Rose left the series, so anybody was going to get hated at that point, but her character was...well, very different from Rose, and by then I wanted different, I wanted to see someone who completely failed to be impressed by the Doctor. And Donna did. And I loved her for it.

And then, when she came back as Companion, the writers made her into pretty much exactly what the Doctor needed, and a good chunk of the fandom fell in love with her and were all "But she's changed so much!" While I was sitting over there waving my tiny flag of "She was always awesome!"

The problem was, while you could see that Donna was awesome, had always had the potential of being awesome, and traveling with the Doctor had just brought that out in her...the writers went all out with it, to the point where I started worrying early on that we were being set up. She wasn't too perfect, because she still had annoying flaws, but the Doctor-Donna relationship was exactly, exactly what I wanted to see on-screen.

So I'm not sure where that falls in the scope of "writers getting in the characters' way". When you can see you're being manipulated, but you don't care because it is totally working for you...is that a bad thing, or not?

Nothing they did with Rose IMO was unsalvageable, it was just way too much too fast.

I think this was probably a Real Life issue. They knew Christopher Eccleston was only doing one season, and the problem was, how to keep new viewers hooked when the main character was going to be gone after 13 episodes? (Old viewers, of course, are used to it.) Unless the viewers got really attached to the Companion, who would do a season with the new Doctor to get everybody used to him, it wasn't going to happen. And the obvious way to get the viewers attached to Rose was to get the Doctor attached! And obviously a 900-year-old Time Lord isn't going to get attached to a 19-year-old Earth girl unless she is Very Very Special. You get the idea.

(scarlettgirl has a wonderful M*A*S*H-related theory that "Rose is the chicken". I'll see if I can track down a link sometime. The whole Rose-thing might make more sense to you if you look at it from that perspective.)

[rustydog]

Oh crap. I'm watching NCIS Season 1 right now and I had really started to like Kate. Can you tell me how long I have with her before I have to start dreading the inevitable?

[rustydog]

clearly you're supposed to think, "Oh, what a wonderful person!"

Ack, I'm risking making this about the actual thing rather than an example, but it wasn't clear to me that we were *supposed* to think that, which may be another thing that partially explains why I didn't find it annoying. I can understand that if you feel the writers are trying to manipulate you, that could make you rebel. (But there was also the fact that I didn't know other fans' reactions, so I didn't know if anybody else was reacting that way - and I do think viewing in a vacuum, rather than with an awareness of the fandom, can make a difference.)

ETA I'll admit my insecurity here - since I have frequently had the experience of liking characters some of my friends hated, for reasons they were able to clearly articulate in reasoned discussion, my fear has always been that they will think I'm stupid and gullible for continuing to like the character, even though I have been shown those reasons exist. It's not that I can't admit a character's faults, in fact I will seize on them, but a lot of time the fact that they have the faults is part of why I think they're a good character. (Not a good person, a good character.) But anyway, I think that's why for the most part I tend to avoid the discussions - because deep down I'm afraid I am woobie idiot. ::facepalm::

Sorry for all the editing.

[travels_in_time]

Re your ETA: I can't speak for fandom at large, but you know that I personally wouldn't care. I like to talk; I like to be able to give my opinions in excruciating detail; I like to know that people read them and will talk back. What they actually say when they talk back isn't so important. (Well, as long as they're not saying, "OMG, you're so stupid for having that opinion!") Whether they agree with me or not, we're discussing and getting new insight. So it wouldn't bother me at all that you liked a character I didn't like--in fact I'd want to hear your reasons, and the rebuttals to what I'd said, and how you made it all make sense in your own head.

I might be a tad disappointed if you absolutely hate Gene, for example, because that means less squee that we can share, but I'd want to know details about why and when and what, and it certainly wouldn't put me off him. :D

Re the Gwen-Jack example: what made me think we were being manipulated was that what the writers were telling us was not AT ALL the same thing that they were showing us. Jack was all gaga over Gwen's humanity and sensitivity and I don't even know what, and he clearly thought that having her around was going to save the team from going over the edge. And he appeared to never change this opinion of her. When what we actually saw onscreen was that Gwen went over the edge quicker than anyone else and did some really stupid things (although she was not alone in this, oh, no).

If Jack had treated Gwen like anyone else, I don't think I'd have had such a big problem with her. But since he thought she was wonderful and perfect, and it was so clear that she wasn't, it made it seem like the writers were telling us what to think.

You could say that the writers were making more of a point about Jack's character than Gwen's--that he's not such a good judge of character as he thinks he is, that he's willfully blind to people's faults, that he stinks as a leader. And they did make these points in other places throughout S1. But that's such a huge disconnect from Jack's character in DW, where he originated, that it's more logical to see it as a writing failure than as a character flaw. (Or else I just love Jack irrationally and don't want to think that he's that blind. I'm willing to admit that I could be biased. :D)

[rustydog]

I'm wondering if my brain tries to explain things within the context of the fictional world before it goes outside that world to the meta reasons. I pretty quickly saw Torchwood Jack as being fairly different from Doctor Who Jack, and that makes sense to me because of the responsibility factor - when he's with the Doctor he is free from a lot of that responsibility to just focus on the Doctor, etc, I know we've talked about that before. So I didn't feel as much like there was a disconnect. And I did get frustrated with him for his failings as a leader (as I got frustrated with all of them for having their heads stuck up their own *ahem* too often, while at the same time I felt compassion for all of them because they were suffering indiviually)... getting off track, sorry. But yeah, I feel like Jack's blindness where Gwen is concerned is an actual thing about him that is important both to the narrative and to understanding more about him, as a character. (I don't necessarily see it as a fault - I think it's interesting though.)

So I guess that's how my brain worked it out so as not to feel manipulated by outside forces. :)

[travels_in_time]

Well, I usually try to do the fictional explanation first, but you know that when it comes to Jack I get all irrational. *g* It's a big blind spot on my part.

[love_jackianto]

'Well, I guess it always is, really, but there's two ways it can go. Either they've failed to create the character that they think they've created (like Gwen on Torchwood, and to a lesser extent, at least IMO, Rose on DW), or they deliberately create a character who has character traits that make you dislike her.'
Oh nicely put. I'll have to remember that the next time I have a discussion with my friends about certain characters I don't like. I love character discussions.