![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakDon't you just love it if you make time during your vacation for a professional appointment, and the guy in question doesn't show up? But in enough about RL woes. On to fan life delights.
Having had unexpected time online at my hands, I discovered that life for the X-Men fan in me is good.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
c_elisa wrote a fascinating Five Things… for the time during which Xavier and Magneto were building Cerebro; penknife wrote a heartbreaking post-X2-vignette for poor Charles; and artaxastra wrote a breathtaking story about… how to sum this up? Well, movieverse fans like myself, who know little or next to nothing about comics canon (though inspired by andrastewhite, I got better and aquired at least God loves, Man kills) only found out white comments from other fans that in the comics, Mystique is Nightcrawler's mother. Which adds a fascinating layer to their scene in X2 which is great anyway (you know, the one where she replies to his question why she doesn't stay in disguise all the time - "because we shouldn't have to"). artaxastra in her story provides an explanation on how movieverse Mystique came to be movieverse Nightcrawler's mother, and moves effortlessly between times - Kurt and Charles post-X2, Kurt's childhood memories, Mystique who isn't yet Mystique and Erik shortly after they met, and each character is so vividly drawn that you kneel in virtual adoration here. You know, each time I think I'm in danger of coming close to OTP territory with Xavier and Magneto, something like this happens to remind me that I adore Mystique and her relationship with Magneto as well. I'm so glad of her increased role in X2, and the fanfic this resulted in.
Apparently some people over at Kansas doubted the suitability of darkfic for Farscape. Colour me stunned. Butsearose, astrogirl2 and andrastewhite said it all in their respective ljs, and so I shan't. andrastewhite's post, however, reminded me of something else I've been pondering for a while. There are ensemble shows which nonetheless have a definite pov character - in the case of Farscape, it's John Crichton, and when we get an episode like Incubator, which takes us into Scorpius' pov, or The Choice, which is mostly Aeryn's pov, with Crais, Stark and Rygel as the chorus to her Greek tragedy, it's a noticable break with the usual narrative. Similarily, Buffy and Angel are ensemble shows but there is no question around which characters they are centered. Yes, of course there are more than enough fans who watch primarily for Wesley/Spike/Xander/Giles/Whomever, but that doesn't change the way the main narrative is written.
On the other hand, you have ensemble shows without such a distinct central and/or pov character. For some reason, the two examples which come immediately to mind for me are both shows with space stations, not space ships as their prime location. (Though one could argue Firefly is/was a show without a central pov, but then we never got an entire season, and Mal might have become as dominant as Buffy, Angel, John Crichton, Picard etc.) Benjamin Sisko is the commander - later the captain - of Deep Space Nine, but by no means did he have a central position in the narrative comparable to Crichton/Kirk/Picard/Janeway. At most you could say that the show starts with a Federation pov, but even this is quickly dissolved as we get episodes and storylines from Bajoran/Ferengi/Cardassian/Trill/Odo (can't write "Founders" here)'s pov. Sisko is important, but he's not our window into the world presented. Arguably O'Brien, carrying on and enlarging his "Everyman" role from TNG, and Bashir (as the greenhorn and later as the voice of humanism in an increasingly brutal environment) are more likely to be pov characters for the viewers, but then again you have the Ferengi, who might not look human but are used by the writers to represent quite a lot of 20th-century human traits, and to comment on the Federation. Then there's Odo, carrying on the "outsider-as-audience-favourite" tradition in Trek otherwise represented by Spock, Data, and the Holodoc.
When you look at Babylon 5, it gets even harder to find out a pov through which the story is told. The most obvious symbol for this would be the opening narration, spoken by Londo in the pilot, Sinclair in the first season, Sheridan in the second, Ivanova in the third, every regular in the fourth, and pretty much everyone on the show in the fifth.hobsonphile a while ago wrote about the uncritical elevation of John Sheridan in The Deconstruction of Falling Stars, and she had a point, but even though Sheridan is clearly the closest thing to a conventional hero/leader the show offers (and in the first season Sinclair), we don't see the events of B5 unfold through his perspective, nor does he have the same narrative weight Kirk or Picard do. JMS once called the Londo and G'Kar arc the "heart" of the show and said that if he had to pick one character whose story B5 tells, even though it's not a one-character-kind of show, it would be Londo. And yet even Londo and G'Kar, crucial and important as they are, are not really given more screentime than, say, Garibaldi and Delenn, whose stories are equally told and developed in the space of five years.
It occurs to me that multi-character-povs, fascinating as they are, might have something to do with lesser popularity. I mean, I love DS9 best of all the Treks, and Babylon 5 remains the show I admire most in terms of writing ambition (yes, there are better-written shows, and no, it's by no means perfect, but I can't think of another show which went for a five-year-arc (or rather, several arcs) and managed to do just this, with a single writer being responsible for two seasons in their entirety, one season in its entirety save one single episode, and the majority of episodes in the first two seasons). But neither of them has ever been as popular in terms of ratings and wide audience success as shows with a clear pov character, or lacking that a clear central character. Easier on the audience?
Having had unexpected time online at my hands, I discovered that life for the X-Men fan in me is good.
c_elisa wrote a fascinating Five Things… for the time during which Xavier and Magneto were building Cerebro; penknife wrote a heartbreaking post-X2-vignette for poor Charles; and artaxastra wrote a breathtaking story about… how to sum this up? Well, movieverse fans like myself, who know little or next to nothing about comics canon (though inspired by andrastewhite, I got better and aquired at least God loves, Man kills) only found out white comments from other fans that in the comics, Mystique is Nightcrawler's mother. Which adds a fascinating layer to their scene in X2 which is great anyway (you know, the one where she replies to his question why she doesn't stay in disguise all the time - "because we shouldn't have to"). artaxastra in her story provides an explanation on how movieverse Mystique came to be movieverse Nightcrawler's mother, and moves effortlessly between times - Kurt and Charles post-X2, Kurt's childhood memories, Mystique who isn't yet Mystique and Erik shortly after they met, and each character is so vividly drawn that you kneel in virtual adoration here. You know, each time I think I'm in danger of coming close to OTP territory with Xavier and Magneto, something like this happens to remind me that I adore Mystique and her relationship with Magneto as well. I'm so glad of her increased role in X2, and the fanfic this resulted in. Apparently some people over at Kansas doubted the suitability of darkfic for Farscape. Colour me stunned. But
searose, astrogirl2 and andrastewhite said it all in their respective ljs, and so I shan't. andrastewhite's post, however, reminded me of something else I've been pondering for a while. There are ensemble shows which nonetheless have a definite pov character - in the case of Farscape, it's John Crichton, and when we get an episode like Incubator, which takes us into Scorpius' pov, or The Choice, which is mostly Aeryn's pov, with Crais, Stark and Rygel as the chorus to her Greek tragedy, it's a noticable break with the usual narrative. Similarily, Buffy and Angel are ensemble shows but there is no question around which characters they are centered. Yes, of course there are more than enough fans who watch primarily for Wesley/Spike/Xander/Giles/Whomever, but that doesn't change the way the main narrative is written. On the other hand, you have ensemble shows without such a distinct central and/or pov character. For some reason, the two examples which come immediately to mind for me are both shows with space stations, not space ships as their prime location. (Though one could argue Firefly is/was a show without a central pov, but then we never got an entire season, and Mal might have become as dominant as Buffy, Angel, John Crichton, Picard etc.) Benjamin Sisko is the commander - later the captain - of Deep Space Nine, but by no means did he have a central position in the narrative comparable to Crichton/Kirk/Picard/Janeway. At most you could say that the show starts with a Federation pov, but even this is quickly dissolved as we get episodes and storylines from Bajoran/Ferengi/Cardassian/Trill/Odo (can't write "Founders" here)'s pov. Sisko is important, but he's not our window into the world presented. Arguably O'Brien, carrying on and enlarging his "Everyman" role from TNG, and Bashir (as the greenhorn and later as the voice of humanism in an increasingly brutal environment) are more likely to be pov characters for the viewers, but then again you have the Ferengi, who might not look human but are used by the writers to represent quite a lot of 20th-century human traits, and to comment on the Federation. Then there's Odo, carrying on the "outsider-as-audience-favourite" tradition in Trek otherwise represented by Spock, Data, and the Holodoc.
When you look at Babylon 5, it gets even harder to find out a pov through which the story is told. The most obvious symbol for this would be the opening narration, spoken by Londo in the pilot, Sinclair in the first season, Sheridan in the second, Ivanova in the third, every regular in the fourth, and pretty much everyone on the show in the fifth.
hobsonphile a while ago wrote about the uncritical elevation of John Sheridan in The Deconstruction of Falling Stars, and she had a point, but even though Sheridan is clearly the closest thing to a conventional hero/leader the show offers (and in the first season Sinclair), we don't see the events of B5 unfold through his perspective, nor does he have the same narrative weight Kirk or Picard do. JMS once called the Londo and G'Kar arc the "heart" of the show and said that if he had to pick one character whose story B5 tells, even though it's not a one-character-kind of show, it would be Londo. And yet even Londo and G'Kar, crucial and important as they are, are not really given more screentime than, say, Garibaldi and Delenn, whose stories are equally told and developed in the space of five years. It occurs to me that multi-character-povs, fascinating as they are, might have something to do with lesser popularity. I mean, I love DS9 best of all the Treks, and Babylon 5 remains the show I admire most in terms of writing ambition (yes, there are better-written shows, and no, it's by no means perfect, but I can't think of another show which went for a five-year-arc (or rather, several arcs) and managed to do just this, with a single writer being responsible for two seasons in their entirety, one season in its entirety save one single episode, and the majority of episodes in the first two seasons). But neither of them has ever been as popular in terms of ratings and wide audience success as shows with a clear pov character, or lacking that a clear central character. Easier on the audience?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-09-24 04:25 am (UTC)Also, if you tune into a show with one main protagonist, you know who they are, and you remember them; you can learn other people in terms of their links to the main person. In a show like B5, though, you have to remember who all the people are and their relationships to one another before you can understand the events you are watching.
I'm not sure how much of all this is due to multi-character writing and how much is the result of the arc-heavy storylines. Are there any examples of shows using multiple-character-povs *without* arc writing? Or vice versa?
And, if you watch Enterprise, would you say that was focussed on one person? If so, who? I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Alas I don't...
Date: 2003-09-24 09:23 am (UTC)Enterprise: I've seen the first three episodes, but that's it, so I can't really say.
Re: Alas I don't...
Date: 2003-09-24 02:52 pm (UTC)Plenty at the moment outside the SF genre
Date: 2003-09-24 03:47 pm (UTC)Re: Plenty at the moment outside the SF genre
Date: 2003-09-24 04:02 pm (UTC)I agree that a lot of this probably comes from Bochco -- and not just in cop shows; West Wing seems heavily influenced by Hill Street Blues -- although Bochco himself moved more toward having a single POV character with NYPD Blue.
Success also based on lead characters' attractiveness ?
Date: 2003-09-24 10:54 am (UTC)Londo, G'Kar, Sheridan, Garibaldi, Sisko, Bashir, Garak? - Wonderful characters and, from a narrative perspective, absolutely fascinating and great to watch. But nevertheless they are hardly the material that romantic dreams and posterboys are made of. That means, of course, at least not for the majority of viewers *g*
no subject
Date: 2003-09-24 01:08 pm (UTC)but...Jean-Luc Picard?
Date: 2003-09-24 01:30 pm (UTC)In retrospect, I'm still amazed and grateful they went for a middle-aged unknown British stage actor as their lead, but I suppose Roddenberry wanted Picard as different from Kirk as possible, which included not having the equivalent of a young William Shatner, who in his time certainly qualified for conventional prettiness. I know, originally Riker was supposed to be the Kirk equivalent, and got the girl of the week episodes, but that changed as the show went on. And in any case he neither was the lead, nor the fan favourite.
Re: Success also based on lead characters' attractiveness ?
Date: 2003-09-24 01:57 pm (UTC)Sisko, Bashir and Garak -- what? you don't find them all gorgeous? And Odo, too. Shapeshifters are the material that romantic dreams are made of.
Did you maybe mean O'Brien?
Date: 2003-09-24 06:34 pm (UTC)Sheridan is also leading man material-- maybe not to the extent of Shatner in his pretty days, but I consider Bruce Boxleitner fully the equal of Ben Browder in the looks department. Neither of them are exactly a member of N'Sync, but lots of women apparently believe they are quite hot.
Meanwhile, as I think gets pointed out in a later comment, Patrick Stewart is a completely unlikely sex icon and was actually ignored as such until about the third season when he demanded some action and smooching for Picard, after which he took Riker's place as The Hot Guy on TNG despite his age.
Don't worry. I love them, too :-)
Date: 2003-09-25 12:57 am (UTC)However, I feel that there probably are two different kinds of attractiveness, one based on charisma, wit, intelligence and personal charme, and the other to a large degree on youthful looks and appearance. And while I am personally firmly settled in the charisma camp, my inner pessimist tells me that it might be the second kind of attractiveness that gets networks their ratings.
Interesting ...
Date: 2003-09-24 10:46 pm (UTC)I actually came across something JMS said about that between the screening of the Pilot and the start of the rest of the series the other day. At that early stage, he was thinking about moving the monologue around from week to week, but eventually decided to go with Sinclair for the first season. Interesting that he later changed his mind ...
One of the things that interests me most about B5 is the difference in its approach to an ensemble cast - there's a huge grey area between regular and recurring characters. Sinclair, Ivanova and Garabaldi are the only three people who show up in every Season One episode - the other main characters only show up when they have something significant to do.
I think it may actually be the combination of arc-driven storytelling and multiple POVs that some viewers find confusing. If the story is primarily following a single protagonist, their narrative can guide the viewer through the arc. If there's an entirely separate story every week then it can't be disorrienting to have the POV move around a lot.
Although I love the effect myself, I can see how it could create divided loyalties and make the story that much harder to follow for a casual viewer.
Re: Interesting ...
Date: 2003-09-25 08:06 pm (UTC)Yes, it's true, we mostly have no "token" appearances by regulars if they aren't useful to the story. I remember how upset people were when Xander wasn't in Conversations with the Dead this season. That - i.e. the non-appearance of a regular in an episode - happens often on B5.
The theory that it's the combination of arc heaviness and multiple pov's which makes hard on the casual viewer seems the most plausible one for me.
Re: Interesting ...
Date: 2003-09-26 05:07 am (UTC)Yes. Aeryn persuaded John and Bialar that they should put aside their differences and go to bed together. And no, nobody was mind-clensed at the time *g*.
I swear, my love for Bialar Crais has lead me to read more bad fanfiction than my love for any other character. (Except maybe Charles.)
Crais was also the victim of the Worst Mary Sue Ever (or at least the worst I've ever read). And a whole bunch of less awful ones.
I did mention the Avon-lives-happily-ever-after-with-Vila-and-Kerril-abomination, didn't I?
I'm not sure - maybe I've blocked the memory out. Ick. I mean, it's by no means certain Vila could have lived happily ever after with Kerril - that's why he didn't go with her, after all. But Avon?
Please rant about the horrible marriage of bad romantic fic and bad darkfic as long as you like. It's one of my pet peeves.
Hopefully I'll maintain the rage and get to it after this weekend - I'm staying with friends tomorrow night, so I probably won't have time before then ...
The rationale seems to be "Giles as Ripper is sexy, so why not write Ripper all the time, and mix him up with Ethan's sense of morals (or lack of same) for good measure".
People seem far too keen to believe what Ethan said about Giles in Halloween - that the whole tweedy Watcher routine is a big act. And there is an element of truth in it. Ripper is part of who Rupert Giles is. But, and here's the important point, only a part. An aspect of his personality he keeps on a very short leash. I love Ethan, but I know better than to take anything he says without a truckload of salt *g*.
If Giles was going to go back to being evil tomorrow, he'd never have broken up with Ethan in the first place. Which is precisely why Ethan's so keen to insist that they have more in common than they actually do.
The speakers of the opening narration aren't the only ones who change with each season. So does the text itself, and the music - Christoph Franke wrote a different theme for each season.
That's a good approach to take. I don't think Farscape changed its narration nearly often enough. I pity the poor viewer who tuned in during Season Two assuming that Scorpius had to be the 'insane military commander' and got terribly confused *g*.
I remember how upset people were when Xander wasn't in Conversations with the Dead this season.
Huh. I actually hadn't thought about that. But there really wasn't room for him, and he wouldn't have added anything. Not that many vitally important dead people in Xander's background, apart from all his unfortunate classmates.
The theory that it's the combination of arc heaviness and multiple pov's which makes hard on the casual viewer seems the most plausible one for me.
If you're willing to embrace it, of course, it's got great possibilities. I love the way, say, Born to the Purple and By Any Means Necessary can be seen as flipsides of the same coin. Londo and G'Kar are both the heroes of their own narratives, after all, and we get to see them that way.
Re: Interesting ...
Date: 2003-09-28 01:46 am (UTC)but Avon: Avon in this story is not exactly Kerr Avon As We Know Him. Instead, he's Weepy!Repentant!NervousWreck! Avon. Not, alas, a stranger in any fic pairing him with Vila. (Whereas B/A-PGPs tend to have Blake be the weepy repentant one, but I already ranted about that one.)
Xander: could have met Jesse from the pilot, I suppose, but that's it. However, I wouldn't have wanted to sacrifice any of the actual storylines to give him the chance.
Switching povs in B5: precisely. Incidentally, you might have noticed that Chrysalis both gives an "inside" pov for Londo and G'Kar (and Sinclair, and Garibaldi, and Delenn). This is also what B5 manages to accomplish. But I remember how one of my cousins, a casual viewer, watched this and figured that Londo was the "traitor" of the show, who'd surely end up dying a cowardly death before the real villain was finished off in a grand duel. I predicted otherwise and felt incredibly smug ca. one and a half year later, when he had to concede that this looked increasingly unlikely. Felt even more smug as the show went on...
Re: Interesting ...
Date: 2003-09-29 05:01 am (UTC)Which is an odd enough concept to me in the first place (unless both of them are very bored indeed) and not improved by Weepy!Avon at all.
Whereas B/A-PGPs tend to have Blake be the weepy repentant one, but I already ranted about that one.
Because Blake so often apologises to people who shoot at him ... fandom is a strange and not entirely wonderful place.
Could have met Jesse from the pilot, I suppose.
That might have been interesting, since we never heard a thing about Jesse after he was gone - but then, it would have been strange to suddenly bring him back in an important moment when he'd been soundly ignored from the moment of his death on. (Which was weird, but forgivable in a first episode.)
Incidentally, you might have noticed that Chrysalis both gives an "inside" pov for Londo and G'Kar.
Indeed, and the effect works very nicely. All these people with all their various secrets and plots, and we're privy to them all ... well, OK, not Morden, but other than that *g*.
Felt even more smug as the show went on...
Heh. Having seen Season One, I can't believe people were silly enough to dismiss Londo as comic relief, or as the 'cowardly traitor' either. Obviously forewarned is forearmed, and I know more than people watching on a first run did ... but still. His complexity is so obvious from the early episodes.