Gene vs. Sam, and the ending of LOM
I'm not posting this anywhere within the fandom - TRA or lifein1973 or even the dissident haven of jumping_off - because I feel I've made myself unpopular enough. I mean, I'm cool with not being universally liked, but I'd like to avoid being universally hated. *g*
But, I have to ask/wonder...
I just noticed that Gene has now overtaken Sam by quite a margin in the 'favourite character' poll at TRA. I also read several threads there by Gene fans, one in which people expressed surprise at themselves liking him so much, and one in which people expressed confusion over why liking him so much would be considered strange. (And I could swear that I read a statement in one of those threads to the effect of 'wouldn't it be great if we could all go back to those times and have men take care of us so we wouldn't have to do anything difficult ourselves anymore?', although it seems to be gone now.) I also remember the completely irrational panic, a few weeks before the ending, about "OMG, what if Gene dies?!?!!?!" - information, already available then, about Gene reappearing in Ashes To Ashes notwithstanding. (Incidentally, there never was a "OMG, what if Sam dies??!!?!?" panic, although logic would indicate that Sam would be a more likely candidate to die, given the entire setup of the show. To be honest, I think that even then, people didn't care about him as much as they did about Gene.) I've also noticed that the public reaction to Gene in the British press has been overwhelmingly positive - there's hardly a review of LOM that does not emphasise that he is the real draw of the show.
And, you know, I like Gene, too. He's *fun*. He even sneaked into one of my fics, although I didn't plan on having him in there and I certainly don't know how to write him. I don't get the sexual attraction, but then, that's always a very personal thing. So, yeah, Gene's important; Gene makes LOM fun.
However... I always thought the *real* focus and point of the show was Sam's 'journey', and that certainly was always *my* focus when watching it. And John Simm is an absolutely astounding actor who made me believe in, and empathise with Sam every second of that journey (except for the ending, but that wasn't his fault), so I sometimes get a bit miffed that people just seem to take him for granted yet praise Philip Glenister and Gene to high heaven. But, okay. The more flamboyant characters often get more attention, that's just how it is.
And this is not really what I meant to post about; forgive the somewhat disorganised nature of this post, I'm in a bit of a hurry and thus don't have the time to organise my thoughts as well as I usually would.
What I really meant to post about is this: I think that the overwhelming popularity of Gene goes some way to explain why so many people are so happy about the way LOM ended. Because with that ending, Sam gets to 'live' in a world that has Gene in it, and Gene is the most important thing about LOM, right? How could an ending without Gene be a happy one? The ending is in fact 'happy' on two counts: 1.) it has Gene in it, and 2.) it has Sam making a radical choice pro Gene and contra 2006 - a choice for the *only* thing that really matters, right? Isn't that the *best* imaginable outcome of the situation? ;-)
I think the writers themselves fell into that trap, too. This is why Sam returning to 2006 seemed so unbearably 'cold' to them that they couldn't bring themselves to keep him there.
But, I have to ask/wonder...
I just noticed that Gene has now overtaken Sam by quite a margin in the 'favourite character' poll at TRA. I also read several threads there by Gene fans, one in which people expressed surprise at themselves liking him so much, and one in which people expressed confusion over why liking him so much would be considered strange. (And I could swear that I read a statement in one of those threads to the effect of 'wouldn't it be great if we could all go back to those times and have men take care of us so we wouldn't have to do anything difficult ourselves anymore?', although it seems to be gone now.) I also remember the completely irrational panic, a few weeks before the ending, about "OMG, what if Gene dies?!?!!?!" - information, already available then, about Gene reappearing in Ashes To Ashes notwithstanding. (Incidentally, there never was a "OMG, what if Sam dies??!!?!?" panic, although logic would indicate that Sam would be a more likely candidate to die, given the entire setup of the show. To be honest, I think that even then, people didn't care about him as much as they did about Gene.) I've also noticed that the public reaction to Gene in the British press has been overwhelmingly positive - there's hardly a review of LOM that does not emphasise that he is the real draw of the show.
And, you know, I like Gene, too. He's *fun*. He even sneaked into one of my fics, although I didn't plan on having him in there and I certainly don't know how to write him. I don't get the sexual attraction, but then, that's always a very personal thing. So, yeah, Gene's important; Gene makes LOM fun.
However... I always thought the *real* focus and point of the show was Sam's 'journey', and that certainly was always *my* focus when watching it. And John Simm is an absolutely astounding actor who made me believe in, and empathise with Sam every second of that journey (except for the ending, but that wasn't his fault), so I sometimes get a bit miffed that people just seem to take him for granted yet praise Philip Glenister and Gene to high heaven. But, okay. The more flamboyant characters often get more attention, that's just how it is.
And this is not really what I meant to post about; forgive the somewhat disorganised nature of this post, I'm in a bit of a hurry and thus don't have the time to organise my thoughts as well as I usually would.
What I really meant to post about is this: I think that the overwhelming popularity of Gene goes some way to explain why so many people are so happy about the way LOM ended. Because with that ending, Sam gets to 'live' in a world that has Gene in it, and Gene is the most important thing about LOM, right? How could an ending without Gene be a happy one? The ending is in fact 'happy' on two counts: 1.) it has Gene in it, and 2.) it has Sam making a radical choice pro Gene and contra 2006 - a choice for the *only* thing that really matters, right? Isn't that the *best* imaginable outcome of the situation? ;-)
I think the writers themselves fell into that trap, too. This is why Sam returning to 2006 seemed so unbearably 'cold' to them that they couldn't bring themselves to keep him there.