a pilgrim, an explorer, a man with a destiny...

[pocky_slash]

I'm writing a paper on a story by John Cheever called "The Swimmer" and there's something about the main character that really, strongly reminds me of Sam Seaborn. I wish the paper topic was more open, because I really think I could structure an entire essay around the fact that Neddy Merrill and Sam Seaborn have a lot in common, and Neddy's

Comments

[stillabet]

Yes, yes, yes. I think this is why I didn't post anything after last week's West Wing episode. I was so excited for the return of Sam, and so let down by it. I loved Sam for his idealism, and to see him back where he begun just depressed me :( And the idea of him being deputy CoS doesn't sit right with me either. Sigh.

[pocky_slash]

At first I was very much defending Sam. I spent a lot of time commenting onother people's journals saying things like, "Well, it makes sense, sort of..." but now that I've thought about it a lot and reminded myself of Sam at his best, I can't believe what we're being forced to accept. Sam as Deputy CoS doesn't make any sense! Sam as Communications Director, I would buy. Sam as a candidate I'd buy ten times more. Sam playing Josh? The first four seasons make it very clear that Sam is different than Josh. Josh is the type of person who thrills being in the background, getting things done for people, kicking ass and taking names so that someone else doesn't have to. Sam is... so very not like that. Sam is idealistic. Sam is imagry and spokesmanship and creating a strong policy in the interest of great oratory. Sam wants to be the person actually trying to change the world, not the person who keeps that guy's ducks in a row

[scrollgirl]

Okay, you've just seriously depressed me. In large part because I agree with you 100% percent. Y'know, I was just thinking about series finales, and how they can get things so very wrong (or wrong for me, which is the important thing!) and how I sometimes would prefer the writers leave it all up to our imaginations instead.

I was talking about Dawson's Creek, not a show I ever watched, and I had a paragraph about Buffy that I cut from my post. In the pursuit of resolving story-lines for the most important characters, secondary characters are often neglected or killed off or, worse, twisted beyond recognition to serve the main stories. Or in the case of Dawson's Creek, it's not even that the characters had to do any of the things they did, but the writers wanted DRAMA!11 and so didn't care about the minor characters trampled over along the way.

Sometimes the drama is worth all the character manipulation. Most times, not so much.

In the case of TWW, John Spencer died and so certain things have to happen. But Sam -- Sam did not have

[pocky_slash]

If it makes you feel any better, I depressed myself, too, although I blame that largely on submerging myself in a story about a man who's obsession with reaching his goal leaves him completely alone. Or something. I'm writing a paper on this story and I still don't completely understand it...

The West Wing, in the Sorkin years, was always good to minor characters. I like to think so, at least. Even when major characters were perhaps being underused, Ed and Larry always got a few good lines in, and Margaret never had an out of character moment. But Aaron Sorkin, as much as I love the man, left some pretty big holes in his wake when he had to deal with getting rid of characters, and I guess I really thought that the new guys in charge would see this as an opportunity to correct those mistakes. I should have known better after sitting through two years of "new and improved super douchebag Will Bailey!" and the unnecessary crumbling of Jed and Leo's friendship