fannish5: Name five qualities you always find attractive in fictional characters.

[selenak]

Emphasis on fictional. Some of the qualities would drive me mad if I met these people in real life.

1) Ability to manipulate people. I love manipulators. Male, female, doesn't matter. I also take them in both the bad and the good guy variety. (Good guy manipulators are more rare, but they do exist - Charles Xavier, Blake or Laura Roslin come to mind.)

2) Intelligence. Addendum: intelligence coming across in a believable way. One of the reasons why I love Martha on Dr. Who is that they go the show, not tell route there with her smarts and medical skills, and I adore that. Otoh, one of the reasons why poor Fred over at AtS was so unevenly written, imo, was that she was supposed to be a scientific genius but only now and then did the writers have an idea of how to make that work for the character. Magic Bullet in s4 was an episode where it really did, and that was brilliant; otoh, Harm's Way in season 5 where Fred, who studied physics, suddenly is performing an autopsy (because she's, like, a scientist, you know), illustrates how it didn't.

3) A good voice. I'm not immune to the pretty, but a lot of the characters I'm in love with - Londo, G'Kar or Arvin Sloane come to mind - are middle aged and anything but cover boys. So, looks aren't that important... but voices are. If I don't like a character's voice, I'm a lot harder to sell on the character. Otoh, cast Patrick Stewart, and your character already has a big advantage for me...

4) A messed up emotional life. This can express itself in various ways; sometimes in repression and stoicism, but not always; I list a couple of temper tantrum prone folk among my favourites as well. However, people who don't have any hang-ups about any of the people in their past or present and are always fair and nice in dealing with them are great to know in real life for me. Not in fiction.

5) A sense of humor. Note: humor of the verbal, not slapstick/prankster kind preferred. Which is to say: I'm not a fan of the Weasley twins. On the other hand, there is practically no Joss Whedon written character who doesn't display verbal wit of some kind, which is probably one big reason why I like nearly all of them, in varying degrees.

Comments

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Ability to manipulate people

Heh. Hence the Kai Winn icon...

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Absolutely.

*bows to Her Eminence*

[ex_mrs260625]

I read through each of these going, "Me too!"

I like your criteria. They're very Garaky.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

He certainly scores on all five points.*g*

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Oh, I do miss Garak!

[Chiefly an excuse to add my icon to the thread]

But I'm with you on your five points, anyway, especially No. 3. "I thank you for your voices: thank you: Your most sweet voices."

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

These certainly would be among my favourite character traits, too. (Although, admittedly, I do like the Weasley twins for their anarchy.)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Their anarchy works for me when they're pitched against Umbridge, but I think with Percy they come across as bullies (against authorial intention), and Hermione is absolutely right, those stunts they pulled with fifth graders aren't funny, they're callously dangerous.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

but I think with Percy they come across as bullies (against authorial intention), and Hermione is absolutely right, those stunts they pulled with fifth graders aren't funny, they're callously dangerous.

Definitely agree on the latter point, and the former is a problem that does come up in the HP books a lot, namely that it seems okay if bad things are done to people that are somehow marked as "negative." Which Percy undoubtedly is, given that we are supposed to like the Weasleys for their warmth, and instead of drawing his behaviour as that of someone who tries to find his own way despite his family - albeit reaching for an alternative that is less than positive - it is presented as a character flaw, whereas when Sirius Black does the same thing, it is sensible and to be welcomed, because his family is positioned as evil and debased. So, behaviour is definitely judged differently by "character alignment" on a structural level, while the same is criticised in the story itself.

(Love your Rita icon, btw.)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

namely that it seems okay if bad things are done to people that are somehow marked as "negative."

Though not always. We're clearly not meant to approve of young James and Sirius bullying young Snape, and Harry, much as he doesn't want to, is able to draw the parallel to himself and Dudley in pre-Hogwarts days. Hermione and Dumbledore both point out that Sirius' behaviour towards Kreacher is party responsible for Kreacher's later betrayal; the fact that Kreacher is crazy and "bad" does not justify it. The Riddles are characterised negatively in the opening chapter of GoF by nice Frank who thinks of them as cold snobs; that doesn't mean young Tom killing them is justified.

But it's definitely true for Percy Weasley versus Sirius Black. And for all things Weasley, alas.

kathyh made the icon for me, but I requested the picture and the text.*g*

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Hm. The examples make sense. Maybe it is just the Weasleys, although I was sure there were other examples... well. I'll probably have to re-read the books to find out. :)

[mymatedave.livejournal.com]

*love* the icon

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

It was made by police_penguin. (I honestly have no idea who that is, but there you go)

Yours is not too bad, either, I always expect it to get closer to the window. :)

[resolute.livejournal.com]

Oh god, I have to do this one. :)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Onwards!

[callmesandy.livejournal.com]

there is practically no Joss Whedon written character who doesn't display verbal wit of some kind, which is probably one big reason why I like nearly all of them, in varying degrees.

Except for poor Connor who gets off three jokes before the mindwipe and afterwards, actually, does have a sense of humor. Maybe it's a sign of healthy mind? Heh.

I love intelligence, but I think I like competence even more in my fictional characters. Well, sort of. Something they're particularly good at. Aaron Sorkin said once that if you show a character being good at their job, after that you can do anything. Which I don't completely agree with, but it apparently works with me. A kind of intelligence?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Competence is very attractive, but then again, as Cordy says, the AtS gang sometimes sucks at being detectives, and I love them anyway.*g* So, intelligence.

Granted, Connor isn't given many jokes before the mindwipe, but hey, he got raised by Daniel Holtz. And those he does make are endearing, like the one about Angel and the zombies.*g*

[callmesandy.livejournal.com]

I kinda like competence in one thing, not so much in others. Seeking balance is a fun thing to watch, fictionally.

Poor Connor, he really just has no idea about jokes and humor. Granted, his three jokes are that much more funny for it, and notably all to Angel or Cordelia which is telling, but. It always makes writing him pre-mindwipe difficult for me because I'm all, okay, no laughter in the face of death! If only Holtz had passed on his dry sarcasm.

[nolivingman.livejournal.com]

I am so with you on the voices. G'Kar in particular - every time he spoke my heart melted. Sigh.

Poor Fred. She gets so much abuse because the Whedon writers think science is science and nobody cares about that kind of detail. In her defense, a lot of the Buffy/Angel characters get that sort of super-powering of their skills as well (my favorite was Xander suddenly becoming the suit-wearing contractor for the new high school), but it seems like she bears the brunt of criticism for it.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

True about Xander, and you know, I actually like Fred, and as I said, her actions in Magic Bullet are an example of how to write her as very intelligent and thinking outside her personal box - the way she figures out both that it's Jasmine's blood that makes the difference and how to "cure" Angel. A newer example of a tv scientist is, well, written not so credibly would be Mohinder on Heroes, but that's another chapter.

[sionnain.livejournal.com]

I see why we get along! We like the same kind of things in characters!!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

We so do!

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

Otoh, one of the reasons why poor Fred over at AtS was so unevenly written, imo, was that she was supposed to be a scientific genius but only now and then did the writers have an idea of how to make that work for the character.

I think part of the problem here is that, to put it bluntly, TV writers are rarely (if ever) scientific geniuses, even though *cough* sometimes they want to be *cough*. So what you get is wish fulfilment via Mary-Sue/Gary-Stu characters who are supposed to be world-class mathematicians/physicists/molecular biologists spouting dialogue written by people who failed 8th grade physics. *sigh* Can you tell this is a pet peeve of mine?

OTOH, I love characters like Mr. Bennet, who display a different kind of intelligence that *is* often within the reach of many scriptwriters, and is delightful to see on-screen.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

characters who are supposed to be world-class mathematicians/physicists/molecular biologists spouting dialogue written by people who failed 8th grade physics

*cough* Mohinder comes to mind. *cough*

But yes, Bennet is a great example of a character who is both supposed to be smart and actually acts that way.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

Hee hee. Actually, I mind Mohinder's scientific slip-ups less, because Heroes-science if SO wacky that I can think of it as science in some alterna-verse and not worry about it. Plus, I don't think we're supposed to think of Mohinder as a scientific genius, like Fred or the guys on Numb3rs or Temperance Brennan on "Bones."

Even though I love characters like Mr. Bennet, I actually don't mind stupidity and/or incompetence in small doses, because if I were in a crisis situation I would probably be running around like a chicken with its head cut off too, and would likely do the wrong thing. :-)

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

OTOH, I love characters like Mr. Bennet,

You know I read this a few times before I realized that it wasn't a comment about Pride & Prejudice. I'm still not caught up on Heroes so, I can't comment, but I do sigh time and again over science-Barbie Fred.

The trick with portraying a 'smart' character is giving them skills that can be believably dramatized in the particularly medium. I've had this conversation a lot re: Cyclops in Xmen, who is canonically a 'tactical genius' -- but most comics plots are so sloppy that he doesn't get a chance to show this off. Characters who are good at planning/problem solving tend to come off much better in TV series, whether they are one-offs -- a character like Buffy or John Sheridan, improvisational geniuses who can think fast and save the day (but might get outsmarted in the long run) -- or long arcs -- a character like Sloane or Holtz who can plot and not show all his cards until the big reveal. Obviously, the first set tend to be coded as good guys, and the second as bad guys.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

*cracks up at Jane Austen tie-in*

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Hey, you're me!

Oh, voices. Hello two thirds of the reason I fell in love with Anakin Skywalker!

Actually, I think I'd replace #4 (weirdly for me) with "unhypocritical moral clarity" Good, bad, self-sacrificing, self-destructive, whatever. I like it when characters have a philosophy about the world and their place in it. (Which explains my prophecy kink.)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Voices: as as I saw the OT dubbed first - due to being a child in a small German town, and only the big cities show movies in the original language instead of dubbed - I didn't have the chance to hear James Earl Jones until yeeeeears later, but thought Vader was the most interesting character anyway. (They picked a pretty good and deep German voice for him, btw.) But I did see the prequels in English first, and Hayden C. sounds very agreeable to my ear.