Holy Fandom Throwback
SGA.
Joe Mallozzi.
There's been a rant-y type post at sga_noticeboard (I finally clicked on the entire flist and it showed up; it's been absolutely ages since I actually paid attention to a post there) about a quote from JM, saying, “I was inspired by my lifelong appreciation for ‘bad guys,’ and a deep-seeded disdain for heroes."
Okay, so, ignoring the awful writing (dude, seriously? Deep-seeded?), I'm...not sure I feel the same revulsion that so many people (plus the OP) seem to feel.
That said, I stopped watching SGA, am loudly not fond of the last couple seasons of SG1 and have a notorious amount of disdain for SGU, even though I've not seen much of it. I happily announce what flaws I find, what works and what doesn't, for my fandoms. Y'all know how distressed I was by the issue of SGA's women (and the last couple seasons of SG1, but that's connected).
But I don't see what's so wrong about a character such as, say, John Sheppard, not being developed into the John Wayne-type good guy everyone seems to have wanted him to be.
I like my characters to have flaws. I like heroes, but when it comes to fictional characters who represent humanity, I prefer deeply flawed characters who have to rise above their flaws, or accept them and make them work. Characters who routinely have a set pattern to the way they do things and can't seem to escape it. (It's probably why I love Rodney so much; I can't speak to the last two seasons, but he grew and changed in so many ways and yet was so very flawed, still. He was still a jackass who sometimes let his pride override the logic that says help is good, etc, even when he had a deep love and protective side for his little family.)
I have a feeling this is influenced by my recent B5 rewatch and the character of Londo. He is a tragic character, so flawed and yet so very...real. He's like one of the politicians I grew up hearing about through family work. It's...frightening, how much of the real world I see in him. And, as I've said before, I think that's the point of sci-fi. To hold a mirror up to humanity and force us to face ourselves, our real selves. Doesn't meant we can't be good people--in fact, I think that flawed characters who have good parts, who are, ultimately, good people with one big "sin," are the most interesting, most telling characters.
Tragic, flawed characters resound strongly with me. And I wonder how much of this is, like what I call my silly little Mr. Rochester obsession, stems from what I read and watched in my formative years. But that's too much psychology for a good, early-late night.
TL;DR: John Sheppard was set up as our protagonist from day one and to an extent, I think he was a hero. But flawed, tragic characters are so much more interesting. So my disdain lies solely in the phrasing of "deep-seeded." (And apparently, JM is just a huge douche, but I can't speak to that as I don't know the fandom anymore.)
Joe Mallozzi.
There's been a rant-y type post at sga_noticeboard (I finally clicked on the entire flist and it showed up; it's been absolutely ages since I actually paid attention to a post there) about a quote from JM, saying, “I was inspired by my lifelong appreciation for ‘bad guys,’ and a deep-seeded disdain for heroes."
Okay, so, ignoring the awful writing (dude, seriously? Deep-seeded?), I'm...not sure I feel the same revulsion that so many people (plus the OP) seem to feel.
That said, I stopped watching SGA, am loudly not fond of the last couple seasons of SG1 and have a notorious amount of disdain for SGU, even though I've not seen much of it. I happily announce what flaws I find, what works and what doesn't, for my fandoms. Y'all know how distressed I was by the issue of SGA's women (and the last couple seasons of SG1, but that's connected).
But I don't see what's so wrong about a character such as, say, John Sheppard, not being developed into the John Wayne-type good guy everyone seems to have wanted him to be.
I like my characters to have flaws. I like heroes, but when it comes to fictional characters who represent humanity, I prefer deeply flawed characters who have to rise above their flaws, or accept them and make them work. Characters who routinely have a set pattern to the way they do things and can't seem to escape it. (It's probably why I love Rodney so much; I can't speak to the last two seasons, but he grew and changed in so many ways and yet was so very flawed, still. He was still a jackass who sometimes let his pride override the logic that says help is good, etc, even when he had a deep love and protective side for his little family.)
I have a feeling this is influenced by my recent B5 rewatch and the character of Londo. He is a tragic character, so flawed and yet so very...real. He's like one of the politicians I grew up hearing about through family work. It's...frightening, how much of the real world I see in him. And, as I've said before, I think that's the point of sci-fi. To hold a mirror up to humanity and force us to face ourselves, our real selves. Doesn't meant we can't be good people--in fact, I think that flawed characters who have good parts, who are, ultimately, good people with one big "sin," are the most interesting, most telling characters.
Tragic, flawed characters resound strongly with me. And I wonder how much of this is, like what I call my silly little Mr. Rochester obsession, stems from what I read and watched in my formative years. But that's too much psychology for a good, early-late night.
TL;DR: John Sheppard was set up as our protagonist from day one and to an extent, I think he was a hero. But flawed, tragic characters are so much more interesting. So my disdain lies solely in the phrasing of "deep-seeded." (And apparently, JM is just a huge douche, but I can't speak to that as I don't know the fandom anymore.)