![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakYou know, it occured to me that within the last decade or so, I mostly fell for shows (and books, and movies) where the main characters were just as interesting and complex as the sidekicks and/or villains. Not exclusively; for example, I had a brief fling with Earth: Final Conflict where neither Boone nor Liam did anything for me but Sandoval, Da'an, Zo'or and Lily always did. (Then the writing went to hell for every character, but that's another tale of woe.) But mostly. Which means I developed a certain allergy to a phenomenon quite common in a lot of fandoms, called hero-bashing.
Here are the basics: if the hero (male or female) does anything right, it's taken for granted and evidence he/she is a bland character; if he/she does anything wrong, it's not because of flaws that make him/her a three-dimensional character, no, it's an unforgivable act. If a sidekick complains, it's adorable; if a hero(ine) does it, it's whining. If a hero(ine) has communication problems and closes herself/himself off, it's cold/bitchy/heartless/any of the above; if a second lead/sidekick/whoever-but-not-the-title-character does it, it speaks of depth and only adds to the allure of the character. (If you're thinking of, say, Buffy Summers and Wesley Wyndham-Pryce respectively here, you're not wrong.) Let a hero behave jealously, and the ranting about his/her self-centredness goes on for eons; let a sidekick do the same, and it's just a phase or cute or three-dimensional. (Witness the different reaction in Potterdom to Ron being jealous of Harry in GoF, and Harry being jealous of Ron in OotP.) And so on, and so forth.
Which is why I'm pretty quick to jump to the defense of quite a lot of those folks in the central positions. Not in every case, though. And there is a difference between criticism and bashing. Which leads me to Babylon 5, a rather unusual case in that it's so much of an ensemble show you can't really asign a single hero/central character/lead position. For example, JMS, B5's creator, has been known to say that the heart of the show is the Londo-and-G'kar storyarc, and if Babylon 5 were the story of any of the invidiual characters, which it's not, it would be Londo's. And Londo is decidedly not the hero of the show. The closest you get to hero in the traditional Trek-influenced sense of Captain/Commander/Leader of the Good Fight position is first Jeffrey Sinclair and then John Sheridan. The later, imo, has a well-thought out personal arc and character development for two seasons (2 and 3) which then ends. His subsequent status within the narrative has its highly problematical aspects, which are explained very well by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hobsonphile here.
(She also includes some highly entertaining speculations on Londo/G'kar. Don't look at me like that. JMS did it, too.)
(And yes, I had fun with the conclusion of a certain story of mine.)
But enough of John Sheridan. On to a John I did fall for, John Crichton of Farscape.searose positions that after season 4, John/Aeryn makes less sense than John/Scorpius (in a platonic sense, btw), and explains why here.
And just to finish the recommendation of challenging posts:acadine questions the rationale of slash being more "free" of gender stereotypes than het and argues for equality quite forcefully here. Choice quote:
If you are relying on the default in any of your writing, and that includes fanon, the pat 2D characterization stereotypes that pervade (slash) fandom, and the deeper slash archetypes, of which rivalslash is but one, you are a shitty writer. Period. End of story. This is as true for het as it is for slash, and I honestly don't think that anyone who blames this sort of stereotypical characterization on "societal gender roles" can be a good writer. There's no honesty in that, no truth - Ivy's take on het, and the fandom's take on het - is basically an excuse.
And what I think about good writing, any writing worth doing, is this: it needs no excuses.
Here are the basics: if the hero (male or female) does anything right, it's taken for granted and evidence he/she is a bland character; if he/she does anything wrong, it's not because of flaws that make him/her a three-dimensional character, no, it's an unforgivable act. If a sidekick complains, it's adorable; if a hero(ine) does it, it's whining. If a hero(ine) has communication problems and closes herself/himself off, it's cold/bitchy/heartless/any of the above; if a second lead/sidekick/whoever-but-not-the-title-character does it, it speaks of depth and only adds to the allure of the character. (If you're thinking of, say, Buffy Summers and Wesley Wyndham-Pryce respectively here, you're not wrong.) Let a hero behave jealously, and the ranting about his/her self-centredness goes on for eons; let a sidekick do the same, and it's just a phase or cute or three-dimensional. (Witness the different reaction in Potterdom to Ron being jealous of Harry in GoF, and Harry being jealous of Ron in OotP.) And so on, and so forth.
Which is why I'm pretty quick to jump to the defense of quite a lot of those folks in the central positions. Not in every case, though. And there is a difference between criticism and bashing. Which leads me to Babylon 5, a rather unusual case in that it's so much of an ensemble show you can't really asign a single hero/central character/lead position. For example, JMS, B5's creator, has been known to say that the heart of the show is the Londo-and-G'kar storyarc, and if Babylon 5 were the story of any of the invidiual characters, which it's not, it would be Londo's. And Londo is decidedly not the hero of the show. The closest you get to hero in the traditional Trek-influenced sense of Captain/Commander/Leader of the Good Fight position is first Jeffrey Sinclair and then John Sheridan. The later, imo, has a well-thought out personal arc and character development for two seasons (2 and 3) which then ends. His subsequent status within the narrative has its highly problematical aspects, which are explained very well by
hobsonphile here.(She also includes some highly entertaining speculations on Londo/G'kar. Don't look at me like that. JMS did it, too.)
(And yes, I had fun with the conclusion of a certain story of mine.)
But enough of John Sheridan. On to a John I did fall for, John Crichton of Farscape.
searose positions that after season 4, John/Aeryn makes less sense than John/Scorpius (in a platonic sense, btw), and explains why here.And just to finish the recommendation of challenging posts:
acadine questions the rationale of slash being more "free" of gender stereotypes than het and argues for equality quite forcefully here. Choice quote: If you are relying on the default in any of your writing, and that includes fanon, the pat 2D characterization stereotypes that pervade (slash) fandom, and the deeper slash archetypes, of which rivalslash is but one, you are a shitty writer. Period. End of story. This is as true for het as it is for slash, and I honestly don't think that anyone who blames this sort of stereotypical characterization on "societal gender roles" can be a good writer. There's no honesty in that, no truth - Ivy's take on het, and the fandom's take on het - is basically an excuse.
And what I think about good writing, any writing worth doing, is this: it needs no excuses.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-19 10:14 am (UTC)Let me apologize for totally going off the subject of your entry, but I woke up this morning with this question.
Am I alone in thinking that Spike, at the end of S6 BTVS, was actually heading off to restore his evil vampire self? My impression was that he was disgusted with himself, not only for his actions, but for the emotions that were overwhelming him.
He's a hundred year old vampire, reduced to a lovesick rapist of a girl who wants none of him. I thought he was going to try to go back to what he was before. When he reached the end of the 'trial' and had his soul restored, I found that a total shock, as I'd been expecting an Angelus-like reversion to the Spike of old, who would have liked nothing better than to kill Buffy.
Now, to your current entry. Um, ditto? Sheridan reached his zenith when he threw himself into the abyss at Za'ha'dum, and nothing subsequent matched that grand gesture, which still takes my breath away.
One of the speeches made in B5 that remains with me today is Jeffrey Sinclair's, early on in S1, when he talks about Marilyn Monroe, etc. Who will remember us?
G'Kar and Londo were the most moving characters in the series. While Sheridan and Delenn were clearly destined for a glorious future, G'Kar and Londo forged their futures with blood and war and wisdom and enlightenment and sacrifice.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-19 10:51 am (UTC)2) Exactly. Londo and G'kar were completely unpredictable as far as narrative rules were concerned whereas you knew how Sheridan and Delenn would end up. And yes, they were so immensly moving.