You could ask this question about Star Trek: TOS and TNG characters, as Roddenberry's Utopian ideals didn't allow in-fighting amongst the crew. (I'd elaborate more, but I'm heading to bed.)
I haven't seen much TOS, and TNG was such a long time ago, that I can't say to what extent I'd call the characters good and in that case, to what extent I'd call them interesting.
But not fighting among the crew isn't in itself the same as being good, nor is internal fights the same as not being good. Going from ST to SW I dare say there were more internal quibbles among the rebels than among the Stormtroopers. :-)
I think calling them 'interesting' is particular the problem with the first two Treks. I think essentially most of them are 'good' but except when I was younger, I've never had the 'omg, I must write them.'
I'm not technically either, I've just seen the movies... never mind.
I think my point was (if I had one) that arguments are part of a healthy working environment and that perpetual consensus may be a sign of dictatorship.
Or in other words, Gene Roddenberry's Utopia does not much appeal to me. :-)
Hm. I´m not quite sure I fully grasped your point here, but, I don´t have any problems with Good characters as such (I mean, I tend to find the bad guys more interesting. on tv. not in real life), I mean. I would consider Hurley a Good character, and he´s fine. Jack´s also a Good character (sort of), and he´s... deathly dull. And annoying. Which is why I don´t like him.
Boy scout can do no wrong + dull = uninteresting.
*ponders*
Actually, you know what? I prefer my characters in shades of grey, is what I do.
Like movie Magneto - up to when he decided that genocide was the way to go. From my point of view, that was a wildly insane decision, so that moved him from Grey on my list to Lunatic.
(unless the character is Sloane from Alias, in which case I wish him to be as much of an evil, manipulative bastard as he can manage.)
I would consider Hurley a Good character, and he´s fine. Jack´s also a Good character (sort of), and he´s... deathly dull. And annoying. Which is why I don´t like him.
Yeah. I think the difference there is that Hurley's nice and ordinary, while Jack is nice and So Special that people just naturally gravitate towards him as their leader.
Or to put it another way: we're constantly reminded that we should like Jack. Which would make anyone want to be contrary.
Actually, you know what? I prefer my characters in shades of grey, is what I do.
Yeah. I think it's universally acknowledged that shades of grey = good.
Like movie Magneto - up to when he decided that genocide was the way to go. From my point of view, that was a wildly insane decision, so that moved him from Grey on my list to Lunatic.
I think it was over the top, but yet less over the top than it could have been, because we got to see why he would make such a decision. He never saw himself as evil, just someone who did what had to be done. So lunatic, but still kind of
( ... )
I think good is harder to write well than evil is. The problem, I think is that writers often make the lazy equation "hero of story" = "good," without stopping to consider what exactly make a person good. From there, actions (like killing people) can be classified as "good" when the hero does them and "bad" when the antagonist does them, with no sense of moral struggle. (Exhibit A is, I think, Sydney Bristow. But I'm a marginally bitter Alias fan.) And without the moral struggle, they lose what is (in my opinion) the interesting thing about goodness. It doesn't come easily--even characters who are fundamentally good have to work at it. Bartlet, in my view, is interesting because he's trying to be good, and he's in a position where he doesn't always know what the "good" thing is, or whether he can afford to do it
( ... )
The problem, I think is that writers often make the lazy equation "hero of story" = "good," without stopping to consider what exactly make a person good.
Yes. This is quite often a problem. I know I've had the same feeling with the Buffy and Angel universes - the right to be a "hero" seems to be innate rather than linked to actually doing the right thing. Which means the difference between hero and villain becomes a matter of agreement rather than actuality - rather like how the boy the girl chooses in a romantic comedy is the first lover no matter how much the rest of us wish she'd choose someone else.
I'm not saying anything other than, "good is hard." Certainly, harder than evil, which is why characters who are trying to be good are often more interesting than characters who are trying to be evil.As I said in my post, I think characters who are trying to be evil are a bit unbelievable, unless it's an act of desperation a'la Faith
( ... )
Comments 11
Reply
But not fighting among the crew isn't in itself the same as being good, nor is internal fights the same as not being good. Going from ST to SW I dare say there were more internal quibbles among the rebels than among the Stormtroopers. :-)
Reply
I'm not in the Star Wars fandom.
Reply
I'm not technically either, I've just seen the movies... never mind.
I think my point was (if I had one) that arguments are part of a healthy working environment and that perpetual consensus may be a sign of dictatorship.
Or in other words, Gene Roddenberry's Utopia does not much appeal to me. :-)
Reply
Boy scout can do no wrong + dull = uninteresting.
*ponders*
Actually, you know what? I prefer my characters in shades of grey, is what I do.
Like movie Magneto - up to when he decided that genocide was the way to go. From my point of view, that was a wildly insane decision, so that moved him from Grey on my list to Lunatic.
(unless the character is Sloane from Alias, in which case I wish him to be as much of an evil, manipulative bastard as he can manage.)
..This didn´t make much sense, did it? *wry*
Reply
Yeah. I think the difference there is that Hurley's nice and ordinary, while Jack is nice and So Special that people just naturally gravitate towards him as their leader.
Or to put it another way: we're constantly reminded that we should like Jack. Which would make anyone want to be contrary.
Actually, you know what? I prefer my characters in shades of grey, is what I do.
Yeah. I think it's universally acknowledged that shades of grey = good.
Like movie Magneto - up to when he decided that genocide was the way to go. From my point of view, that was a wildly insane decision, so that moved him from Grey on my list to Lunatic.
I think it was over the top, but yet less over the top than it could have been, because we got to see why he would make such a decision. He never saw himself as evil, just someone who did what had to be done. So lunatic, but still kind of ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Yes. This is quite often a problem. I know I've had the same feeling with the Buffy and Angel universes - the right to be a "hero" seems to be innate rather than linked to actually doing the right thing. Which means the difference between hero and villain becomes a matter of agreement rather than actuality - rather like how the boy the girl chooses in a romantic comedy is the first lover no matter how much the rest of us wish she'd choose someone else.
I'm not saying anything other than, "good is hard." Certainly, harder than evil, which is why characters who are trying to be good are often more interesting than characters who are trying to be evil.As I said in my post, I think characters who are trying to be evil are a bit unbelievable, unless it's an act of desperation a'la Faith ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment