Links and a review

[selenak]

The rest of you might already have seen them, but in case you, like me, haven't: there are two shiny new promos for season two of The Sarah Connor Chronicles out there:
here and here. I'm so looking forward to it, and pleased that the promo puts such a strong focus on the female character (I liked Derek Reese as much as the next fangirl, but I would NOT want the show to become The Derek Woobie Chronicles); seems we'll get a new one as an antagonist, and there will also be more development and pay off for the high school girl of mystery.

Found more or less accidentally: Gene Hunt is not okay, a good post about media reactions to Gene and the difference to fannish reactions, as in, the fans seem to get that loving Gene Hunt as a character does not mean approval for his methods, while the media is more or less "ah, would that we had such policemen today!" I'm not really in either Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes fandom, just skimming on the edges, so I wouldn't know whether the assessment of the fans getting it is true or not, but the media sure doesn't. Mind you, in other fandoms the difference between character love and complete approval of said character's goals and methods often is blurred as well, and "I love X, so of course X is right in any given situation!" is quite dominant. It used to drive me crazy in Highlander fandom (the phenomenon probably could be summed up with "fluffy horseman Methos", tm honorh, I believe), it made me, after valiantly trying to stay out of the Spike Wars, at last made my point in fanfic back in in BTVS fandom, and while I mostly watched Harry Potter fandom from the outside (i.e. I enjoyed the books and the occasional fanfic and meta, but no more), the contortions people went through to deny that Severus Snape, while a fascinating character, really had a lot of negative traits one couldn't explain away by either blaming the Marauders or Dumbledore or both were amazing. Take the part where Snape really is a lousy teacher. I don't mean to Harry; you can always explain Harry away due to very special circumstances if you absolutely want to. But Neville gets the humiliation and sarcasm treatment, too, and by book III is so afraid of Snape that Snape is his worst fear (this in a boy whose parents were tortured into insanity). And of course, as a result there were theories and fanfics where Snape didn't really mean it and actually was fond of Neville and just wanted to toughen him up for the upcoming battle and what not, and any bullying was because Snape himself was bullied at school anyway, never mind that in no way was this Neville's (or any other current student's, including Harry) fault. I never got that. In every novel, I was looking forward to scenes Snape appeared in; he probably still is the character most interesting to me. But I never ever would wish him as a teacher on anyone. (And yes, I think it says something about Dumbledore that he kept Snape in that position, too, but that's another matter.) Gene Hunt? Highly entertaining character in both shows. Wonderfully played, for the most part well written. I would not want him policing my town, as the poster says.

Not completely unrelated: another acquisition of my recent trip to England was the miniseries Masada, hailing from 1981 and starring Peter O'Toole and Peter Strauss. As with Shogun, we non-Americans got a truncated version as a movie but got the full series as well some time later, and I remember liking it, so I bought the DVDs, which sadly come without any extras. It still was worth it. Masada is based on a novel called The Antagonists which I have read, and imo, this is one of the few times where the filmed version is ever so much better than the source material. Both deal with the siege and fall of Masada (obviously) in the first Jewish-Roman war, but the tv version does a better job of keeping the Romans ambiguous instead of making them the all-out villains, though the rightness of the Jewish cause is presented as a given.



There is also the treatment of the female characters; I like the solution found for Sheba in the tv version much better. Sheba's storyline - she's a pragmatic survivor who got out of being raped by five Roman soldiers by spotting their superior officer and offering herself to him instead, then after his death ends up in the possession of Flavius Silva, the commander and governor general, who starts to develop genuine emotions for her, while Sheba tries to keep it as a protection arrangement, not least because pragmatic as she may be, she identifies with her fellow Jews - is something very tricky to pull off without getting into sexist clichés, especially in a historical narrative that has to take the mentality of the time into account. In the novel, the author has Sheba committing suicide; in the tv version, when given the choice by Silva (who counts on her choosing him because she does have feelings for him), Sheba chooses to leave because said feelings don't change what she told him earlier about being owned and about owners wanting that last thing, love and approval for what they do as well. (It also makes Sheba the only Jewish character who doesn't kill herself or subjugates herself completely, but chooses a third way, and again, I really appreciated that.)

But the best thing about Masada, no question about it, are the stellar performances by the two leads. Peter Strauss makes what could be a dull role (heroic resistance fighter) very human and charismatic, and Peter O'Toole is more than fantastic as Flavius Silva, with all the weariness, wit, flaws and virtues that make Silva into an incredibly compelling character. The series, which was shot on location, gets some nifty historical details right (no stirrups for Romans when they ride) and others wrong, but tries to include some cultural background (the Essenes and the religous conflict with the Zealots on the Jewish side, the Flavians only just in power and by no means yet regarded as an established dynasty with the Romans), and makes what should be a dull story - months of a siege, followed by not a battle but the Romans finding a lot of dead bodies - fascinating, whether it's by psychological warfare or drawing you into Roman engineering. (Not kidding. This is the only tv show that made the construction of machines fascinating to me, and the battle engineer who comes up with the ramp and the ram, Rubrius Gallus, played by Anthony Quayle, is one of my favourite characters.)

Now, Masada inevitably ends with mass suicide. I strongly suspect that the opening and the ending of the series, showing the Israeli recruits being sworn in at the fortress of Masada today, is there because the producers didn't want to end on the harrowing note of the dead bodies and Silva's last words over the dead Eleazar, which among other things include "you lied to them" (his equally dead wife and son), that this should never have happened, and "we could have created something rational, something good, but you'll go on killing each other on this earth"). I don't think it's possible to feel other than ambiguous about the mass suicide at the end, though, present day Israeli recruits not withstanding. Yes, it takes away the Roman victory (and given that the Romans saw suicide as a very honorable way to die, was seen as heroic back then), but at which price? I also feel the narrative cheating a bit by ignoring that according to Josephus, there were two women and five children who hid from the others because they didn't want to die - and who were the witnesses reciting Eleazar's speeches etc. -, and presenting everyone stunned but quietly agreeing with Eleazar's reasoning that death by each other was better than either slavery or death by the Romans, ready to kill not just themselves but their wives and children as well. I'm not sure this ambiguity is intended by the narrative (it definitely wasn't by the novel, which got republished with the subtitle "a triumph of the human spirit"), but this is how it comes acrosss to this watcher.

Something else: definitely not intended in 1981, but a quick check at Amazon's shows that some of the new audience sees this story of a military superpower who can't understand why the local population, strengthened by religious fanatics, keeps on fighting and would rather kill not just them but each other than being governed For Their Own Good, this story where victory was declared a biiiiiit prematurely causing all sorts of embarassments for the ruler back home, and where brutal abuse of the natives is blamed on a "few rotten apples" but shown to be also the result of the basic occupation scenario to begin with, as having certain parallels. A lot.

Comments

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

I remember an article in The Age (Melbourne newspaper) when American Beauty came out, whining about how Lester was a terrible person and there shouldn't be a movie about him. The film pretty clearly made it clear that there were major problems with his behaviour - particularly in making a young girl his fantasy object - but no, he's the hero, therefore the movie must be condoning his actions. It was a very...simplistic point of view. Life on Mars certainly looks at both sides of Gene's actions, including his racism, sexism, violence and most particularly his enjoyment of bullying. I was really pleased and surprised by how carefully the show walked the line between worship and criticism. If nothing else, it made Gene a much deeper character.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

The film pretty clearly made it clear that there were major problems with his behaviour - particularly in making a young girl his fantasy object - but no, he's the hero, therefore the movie must be condoning his actions.

Good lord. To name but many, the scene where Lester has his first actual conversation with the object of his fantasies and she clearly is an adolescent mess who needs if anything a father, not a lover, would be an example of the film making a difference between wanting the audience to find Lester sympathetic and the audience thinking Lester is right about everything.

I was really pleased and surprised by how carefully the show walked the line between worship and criticism. If nothing else, it made Gene a much deeper character.

Agreed. It's clear that we'er meant to like him, and that the writers love him, but they keep pointing out the cost of his behaviour, both on others and himself.

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

Re fandom and Gene: there was a massive row a few months back over use of racist language in a Gene PoV Life On Mars fic. Which, OK, you can justify as in character, but it came out that the OP really had no idea what she was doing and was actually quite racist herself.

There was a bit of a dispute among the non-racist fans between some people who thought it was in character and justified and others who thought that the racist insults in question were so vile that they should not ever be written except in a story whose primary purpose was to confront racism, but the main argument revealed that yes, there are some people in LoM fandom who sympathise with Gene for all the wrong reasons.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Which, OK, you can justify as in character, but it came out that the OP really had no idea what she was doing and was actually quite racist herself.

*cringes* Ouch. Of course, this makes me ponder whether I've read fanfic - not pro fic, fanfic - where the pov character used racist language but it was clear that the story itself did not support it. Can you think of an example?

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I gave up on the row round about when it had broken fifty comments, but I hadn't seen evidence that the writer was racist at that time.

I felt very sorry for both her and the original complainant. For the writer, because the internet came crashing down on her head after she had Gene use the same word - "Paki" - that he used canonically in 2.6, and which anyone who lived through 1973 would know is exactly the word Gene and his like would have used, however nasty we find it now (and indeed did then).

And for the complainant, because she had convinced herself that Gene did not speak the word in canon - she said something like "I was so relieved that Gene didn't use it when Ray did, because he could not have been a hero if he did" - so, when it was pointed out that Gene said it twice to Ray's once, her illusions about her hero were presumably shattered.

So it seemed to me that she'd fallen into the opposite error from the media pundits you mention who think Life on Mars is about "wasn't it great back then before political correctness"; that of assuming that Gene is a straightforward Good Guy with a few little foibles which can be explained away, rather than a fascinating mess of good and bad. (Even in that episode, Gene knows the term is offensive, because he uses the exaggeratedly polite phrase "our Pakistani brethren" when talking to Sam, clearly to wind him up by reminding him of what he'd usually say.)

And this is why I was angry when Morgan said "the tumour [ie Gene] was benign", and by the scene in the last episode of Ashes to Ashes which had Alex joining the applause for Gene's diatribe against Scarman. Those were the only times I felt the writers of the show had fallen into the trap of endorsing Gene wholesale, though I understand you feel they did it more often.

[liviapenn.livejournal.com]

Maybe in some sort of period AU? But I think most people usually avoid that.

Really, I think the tendency in fanfic is often to go in the other direction and not include racially offensive verbiage in dialogue even if it's canonical-- even when it's a persistent, recurring aspect of the way the character speaks, as opposed to Gene's one-time, meant to be extra shocking because it *wasn't* something he usually said, use of "Paki."

Unsurprisingly, people still write stories about characters who *use* racist language-- they just avoid including the characters who are the *target* of it. This is why I think there's so little written for otherwise classic antagonist-slash pairings like House/Foreman or Logan Echolls/Weevil Navarro. If you have Logan and Weevil in the same room for more than five minutes, Logan is going to say racist things. It would be OOC for him NOT to say racist things. But I think people get really, really nervous about writing those sorts of things, even if they're putting them in the mouths of a fictional character.

Like if you're writing House. What if you go TOO FAR instead of writing him saying something just sort of "un-PC" which Foreman rolls his eyes at, you write him saying something horribly, horribly racist and then people comment being like "OMG, why would House ever SAY that? That's horrible!!" Etc. I think it's a fear related thing, as most of this usually boils down to be.

[elisi]

Lots of chewy thoughts - esp like what you said about Snape, since he was always one of my favourites too, for the same reasons you mention. Loved the revelations of the last book.

Just skimmed over your Spike fic and remember reading it before - I'm thinking you might like my Spike/Dawn fic actually (unless the pairing squicks you, which of course it *should*), which is my only foray into writing unsouled Spike. [It's set in an AU where Buffy doesn't come back post-S5, and Dawn becomes Spike's moral compass. Or maybe he becomes hers - it's all very murky and disturbing.]

Anyway, I shall wander off now and be useful. Bother RL.

[artaxastra.livejournal.com]

I have lots and lots to say about Masada! I saw the miniseries when it first aired, and then again a year later when it was rerun, and I fell absolutely, positively in love. Peter O'Toole and Anthony Quayle rock completely. Watching it with my father, it was clear to us that the Jews were The Good Guys(tm) but I found myself at 13 rooting for Silva all the way. The "we could have created something rational, something good, but you'd rather kill each other" speech really resonated with me. Silva struck me as a rational and reasonable person, and I could not see why it would be preferable to die than to deal with him. I remember thinking at the time that he was not a mad Julio-Claudian, and that this was the reign of Vespasian. Surely something reasonable could be worked out.

Which is interesting, considering that I see all the reasons for suicide for Charmian, but regarded it as an unnecessary tragedy in Masada.

Peter O'Toole is marvelous, of course. And it did get me fascinated with Roman seige engineering. In fact I think I started lobbying to take Latin the next year as a result. (In my school, you were only supposed to take one foreign language until Junior year, and I was already in the French program. So I had to cut the required study period to take Latin. I was not disappointed. We started on day one with Caesar.)

Incidently, the sequel Ernest K. Gann wrote, The Triumph, is an absolute example of authors at the beck and call of their characters. In which it seems that Silva has gone on strike, and Gann must write a book in which he is happy or he'll never write anything else again. OMG it's terrible. I generally like Gann's books, and I love The Antagonists (but not as much as the movie) but OMG The Triumph is the worst book about Rome ever, for all that it's meticulously historical. Just no. Also way over the top Domitian.

Have you read Gann's The Aviator? Also made into a movie with Chris Reeve, but the movie is nowhere as good as the book. It's about a mail plane crashing in the Rockies in the late 1920s, with no survivors but the pilot, a scarred WWI vet who has withdrawn from the world, and a twelve year old girl who breaks her leg in the crash. It's a struggle for survival, and also a love story, though nothing physical happens. At the end he has returned to life, saved by her as much as she is by him, and it's clear he will wait for her. In the movie they made her 20, which was no doubt designed to minimize squick, but took the edge off entirely.

Other Gann worth reading -- Gentlemen of Adventure, about knights of the air. I've read six or seven of his others, which are always good solid reads. The Magistrate is a Cold War thriller, with a main character who really is Silva in a suit!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Which is interesting, considering that I see all the reasons for suicide for Charmian, but regarded it as an unnecessary tragedy in Masada.

I thought about this as well when rewatching. I think the difference is in scale and individuality. Charmian, Iras and Cleopatra choose suicide for themselves, but no one else. They most certainly do not choose it for their children. Would you see Cleopatra in the same way if she had poisoned Caesarion, the twins and her youngest son (and maybe Antyllus as well) before killing herself? (Especially give that in such a scenario you would have no way of knowing what Octavian would have done with them.) And if she had insisted everyone in the palace kill themselves well? I think not.

No, I haven't read anything else by Gann yet. And I'll keep away from The Triumph!

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. An individual's suicide through personal choice is completely different from mass suicide through, at best, peer pressure, at worst force.

[artaxastra.livejournal.com]

I think it is the individual choice too. If Cleopatra had poisoned Selene, Helios and Philadelphos, no, I would not at all feel the same way. Not at all. It's one thing to choose your own time and manner of death, particularly in the face of torment, but another to take innocents with you. If Eleazar had only chosen it for himself, I would think well of it. But the kids? No.

The Triumph is almost funny it's so bad in places. I had no idea one could make such a muddle while being so well researched and generally up to his usual standard. It's the characters. And the ranting and raving Domitian is just.... Made me run for a good bodice ripping romance about Titus and Berenice, it did!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Not a bodice ripping romance though Titus and Berenice play an important part: try Josephus (http://www.amazon.com/Josephus-T25-Lion-Feuchtwanger/dp/0689703457/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218683995&sr=8-4) by Lion Feuchtwanger, which is the first part of the Josephus trilogy (but can be read as a standalone) and is one of my favourite historical novels.

Feuchtwanger's trilogy, which consists of "Der jüdische Krieg" (in English: Josephus, "Die Söhne" (The Jew of Rome), and "Der Tag wird kommen" (Josephus and the Emperor - ah,English titles, you are so inventive), has at its central character Joseph ben Matthias, aka Flavius Josephus, and Feuchtwanger excels at shades of grey. As a Jewish writer himself, the question of assimilation, cosmopolitism versus nationalism was something that occupied him all his life, and he wrote this trilogy during last year of the Weimar Republic and his first decade in exile during the Third Reich, which you can see reflected in his changing attitude towards the question as to whether or not there is a need for a Jewish state), but nonetheless never goes simplistic. For example, the Romans are never stand-ins for the Nazis. The first novel covers the prelude to the first Roman-Jewish war and the war itself (which is the German title), during which Josephus famously switched sides to survive, and how he deals with this; the second book covers the reign of Titus;and the third book Domitian.
Now Feuchtwanger attempted a Hitler portrait twice, once in "Erfolg" ("Success" - first novel ever to deal with the Nazis, got published in 1930, three years BEFORE they came to power) where it's a brilliant satire, and once in "Der falsche Nero" written in 1935, where it's a less successful satire. By contrast, his version of Domitian is not an attempt at a Hitler portrait, or for that matter a satire, with the result that it's a truly chilling portrait of a dictator and far more efficient because you can believe this to be Domitian, not a Hitler allegory.

[artaxastra.livejournal.com]

Alas, I just tried to Amazon it, and they did not have it in translation -- I must keep looking. Though they did have a book by a certain familiar name.... *g*

It really sounds fascinating. I first read Josephus soon after I saw Masada -- went and checked it out of the library on the theory that I should go get the original source, and I wondered what he had thought and how he had felt about it. I will indeed have to keep looking.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

SCC: I was far less concerned about it becoming the Derek Chronicles, mostly because he really doesn't register as a character with me at all, but rather that they would put more emphasis on John which is something at least the promo picture (http://www.terminatorchronicles.com/sarah-connor-chronicles-season-2-cast-promo/) seems to suggest. Definitely thumbs up for Shirley Manson as the new villain, though.

Media reactions: haven't kept an eye on LoM specifically, but I have been keeping up with Mad Men articles, and they definitely emphasis the period look and nostalgia aspects, which is honestly disturbing me a little. I mean, yes, maybe the authors are all in their sixties, but I find it bizarre that they don't acknowledge that the show itself is a lot more critical. On the other hand, it might be the same kind of journalism that still calls Number Six a "sexy robot" after four seasons and a TV movie. I'm glad that fandom reaction on all of these seems to be at least a bit more diverse.

(Also, re: Snape: I actually know a bunch of people who like him precisely because he is a cruel teacher. You may guess their profession. And yes, I do believe there is something wrong both with German career advisers and the teacher Referendariat in certain states.)

Interesting points on Masada, I don't think I have heard of the mini series before.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

The promo picture would suggest that, but the promos themselves would not, so I hope they keep him at the level he was in s1; important, absolutely, but not central the way Sarah is, and without reduced screen time for Cameron. (Not that I seriously worry on that front; it's pretty clear they know what they have with Summer Glau.)

I have been keeping up with Mad Men articles, and they definitely emphasis the period look and nostalgia aspects, which is honestly disturbing me a little.

I know what you mean. I'll probably watch the second season at some point, but not now, and the media presentation compared with the reviews I see in lj is really bizarre. You'd think they're talking about a sexier Forrest Gump.

On the other hand, it might be the same kind of journalism that still calls Number Six a "sexy robot" after four seasons and a TV movie.

*headdesk*

Check out Masada, I think you'd like it. I originally saw it on Vox as I recall.

[shelled-avenger.livejournal.com]

But Neville gets the humiliation and sarcasm treatment, too, and by book III is so afraid of Snape that Snape is his worst fear

I've wondered about that too--I've always found Snape an interesting character, but this behavior just makes me go "Oh, brave man, you can publicly humiliate an 11-year old child!" (while completely ignoring the incompetance and general asshatery of students from his own house). So while I don't hold with Saint Snape or Evil Snape, I think we do have evidence that he was often a rather mundane jerk. Of course, I do have a theory that some of his behavior was part of the image he was trying to portray to Hogwarts and the Death Eaters who still questioned his loyalty, but it does make me roll my eyes when people argue that Snape has always been unfairly judged.

[aycheb.livejournal.com]

Loved the SCC promos - I'd been watching the movie trailers and getting paranoid that the series was also going to be all about John becoming a man but these are much more hopeful.

Re the woobification of Gene Hunt and Severus Snape, those two are linked in another way for me. I like Gene as a character but find him rather scary to watch because he's reminds me of a particularly thuggish Geography teacher. I've never met a policeman like Snape, he was more like our Head of French.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Since they killed Sarah off in the movies, they have little choice but to go with John in the lead, but thankfully the series made the movies AU from the beginning by letting them jump into the future and thereby avoiding Sarah's death.

We've head a Latin teacher like Snape. Can't say I've had a Gene in my life, though.

[neutralalienist.livejournal.com]

It boggles my mind that some people would want policemen like Gene. Because violence and bigotry are definitely what we want in our enforcers.

There are certainly ways in which Gene is a good cop - he does care about his city, he'll easily risk his life, et cetera - and he becomes better as time goes on. But really?

I expect some whitewashing from fandom - as you say, it's incredibly common - but the media worries me. ...Well, it always does, but more than... Well.

(And Snape, good lord. The man is a mean person on the side of good, that is the point. Which was why I never bought the betrayal, but anyway. A crappy childhood does not excuse what he does to other people.

I love the claims that James is a far more horrible person. Because being a jerk in school is so much worse than killing people.)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I expect some whitewashing from fandom - as you say, it's incredibly common - but the media worries me. ...Well, it always does, but more than... Well.

Fannish opinion is fannish opinion, i.e. limited to a group of people, but the media is presumed to reflect opinions of the voting populace at large, and definitely influences same. So yes, more worrying.

The man is a mean person on the side of good, that is the point.

Yes. That was so unusual and original about him. He wasn't a rough diamond a la Han Solo who'd be sure to straighten out and be loved by all our heroes once the life saving happened, he was. In many ways heroic, but in just as many ways a jerk, and one with a high body count in his past.

I love the claims that James is a far more horrible person. Because being a jerk in school is so much worse than killing people.

And don't forget Lily is a far more horrible person and not deserving of Snape's love because she married James. Totally ignoring that their fallout wasn't about James whom she at that point still disliked but about his hanging out with a bunch of racists who didn't consider her, her family and the general population worth living. You could tell that the moment where Severus completely blew it was when he said that he didn't think of her that way. It was the equivalent of telling a black girl "well, I'd never call you 'nigger', but you have to admit that all the other blacks totally deserve it".

[neutralalienist.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. He's a brave, intelligent man, but he's also a nasty bully who can't let anything go. (Like Sirius is a brave, intelligent man, but also a reckless idiot who...can't let anything go.)

Oh, I have seen so many claims that Lily should have given him another chance despite his bigotry, helped him through it, as if it was her obligation. As if it's her fault that he fell into a bad crowd, her fault he got worse, her fault he made the choices he did.

Yeah, no.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Snape and Sirius: so deserve each other. (Not in the pairing sense, mind you. I never could see the hate sex. Sometimes dislike really is dislike and doesn't equal sexual tension.)

Re: people blaming Lily, aside from the whole "character x responsible fore character y's choices through his life" illogic what baffles me is that the whole premise of their accusations - that Snape would never have become a Death Eater if Lily had remained his friend - overlooks that Lily and Severus did remain friends through FIVE HOGWARTS YEARS. And he still simultanously hung out with the future Death Eater brigade, fanboy'd Voldemort and started to spout racist nonsense. Which leads me rather to believe that if Lily hadn't broken up with him, he'd have continued to believe it's perfectly fine to become a Death Eater and look, his favourite person in the world is okay with this, too, since she doesn't say anything.

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

Masada and the Holocaust miniseries aired in the same decade here, I think? When I was too young to be allowed to watch either one. So for years they were confused in my mind as the same thing, until I realized I was confusing them and looked up Masada and realized it did not, in fact, take place in the 20th Century. Ah, media. I really should rent that one and watch it, it sounds fabulous, and I've always liked Peter O'Toole.

On the one hand, I get the Fluffy Horseman Death Syndrome, although I never engaged in that version myself; people hate admitting they don't just like, but are attracted to, people of less than sterling character. If they can admit it, they have to rehabilitate them either in the future (in fanfic) or through their past (postulating all sorts of extenuating abuse or circumstances) in order to keep liking them, sometimes. But yes, I think just going into denial about the bad parts of the character in the present (as presented!) is an extreme and stupid form of this coping.

Snape gets this treatment the worst of many characters in recent books and movies-- being played by Alan Rickman probably didn't help either, since he's fascinating in anything he does. But I admire the heck out of JK Rowling for not bunny-ifying him. He's brave to be undercover, smart to pull it off, possibly very very sorry on some level for crap he did in the past, in a way admirable for living that life, and he does ultimately sacrifice himself for the side of good and sanity... but he is an appalling teacher, a person with no real friends (mostly through choice, as far as I can work out), someone who lets his own past bad experiences form his entire relationship with a kid whom he is supposed to teach, and totally lacking in sympathy for anyone who shows weakness. He's an introvert, an elitist, a very smart man who doesn't like other people much. You can maybe identify with Snape when you're in a bad mood, but it doesn't make him heroic.

I get the same itchy sense with Mad Men that you're describing with Gene Hunt (haven't seen it). I like the show, and I get that they're mocking and celebrating the customs of a defunct universe; from the clothes that are so much more trouble, to the manners, to the attitudes, that place and time is gone. But. It's all the little things that the characters aren't going to be called to accountability for, that bug me, not the big ones. Don Draper will probably die of lung cancer, and Vincent Kartheiser's character will never be happy (people like that never are, in 1963 or 2008). But all the tiny slights and insults and sexism and racism and classism that I have to watch and endure and can't call anyone on, and just have to accept that another 20 years will make that behavior less acceptable, and another 25 after that will make it unacceptable... but it's hard, hard to watch it and not call *someone* on the carpet for it. Audience as accomplice?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Masada and the Holocaust miniseries aired in the same decade here, I think?

Yes!

I really should rent that one and watch it, it sounds fabulous, and I've always liked Peter O'Toole.

He's brilliant in it and got nominated for an Emmy, though he didn't win. (What is it about Peter O'Toole and not winning awards? See also: Oscars, from Lawrence to Venus. Yes, I know he got the honorary one, but that's not the same thing.)

If they can admit it, they have to rehabilitate them either in the future (in fanfic) or through their past (postulating all sorts of extenuating abuse or circumstances) in order to keep liking them, sometimes.

One of the most extreme versions I encountered was a fanzine that got recommended to me as a "great Methos hurt/comfort story". In which, as it turns out, we find out that shortly after the Cassandra incident, he got raped and tortured by Caspian (out of jealousy because Kronos liked Methos better) for two years or so in a secret cave while ol' Kronos had no idea this was going on, and then slowly recovered at the ends of a lovable Egyptian doctor, after which Kronos learned manners as well and wooed him peacably. The most offensive part was the present day framing narration in which we also learn that Methos wrote to the Egyptian doctor to make sure he picked Cassandra up in the desert after her flight, and of course was only nice to her during the time she was his slave, and Joe triumphantly thinks that shame upon hearing this is what MacLeod deserves for "listening to his hormones and listening to the bitch". I was ever so sorry I paid for this.

Snape: yes, exactly, and it so baffles me that this complexity is reduced in favour of Misunderstood!Snape the Woobie.

But all the tiny slights and insults and sexism and racism and classism that I have to watch and endure and can't call anyone on, and just have to accept that another 20 years will make that behavior less acceptable, and another 25 after that will make it unacceptable... but it's hard, hard to watch it and not call *someone* on the carpet for it. Audience as accomplice?

It is tricky. But going back to Highlander, it always bugged me a bit that Duncan nearly every time managed to be on the "right", progressive side of history, and the same with other sympathetic characters. So when exceptions happened, like in Raven when we found out Amanda's friend Liam the priest and Amanda herself had been with the English, not the American troups during the war of independence, I found that very refreshing, and though it made a considerable part of fans dislike John Smith and Joan Redfern in DW's Human Nature, I thought it was a brave and more honest choice to NOT make them into great progressives who didn't display the prejudices of the day, the classism and racism. However, those are all individual episodes, and Mad Men is an entire show, moreover one that unlike Life on Mars - which has Sam Tyler, not Gene Hunt, at the viewpoint character (Gene is more popular, but he's not the narrator, as it were) - there is no contemporary character to react to the past prejudices.

What made me uneasy when watching the first season of Mad Men was that I never was entirely sure about how much the show's writers wanted to show Don specifically as flawed. With everything else, from Roger to Pete, from Betty's psychiatrist to Joan's attitude towards Peggy and vice versa, I felt secure because while it was hard to watch at times, it was definitely not glorified or excused. But with Don I just didn't know and suspected the writers were a bit too much in love with him, and definitely wanted the audience to be in love with him, until the last but one episode when Rachel calls him on his crap and refuses to run away with him. Haven't seen the second season episodes yet, so I have no idea how I'd feel towards them.

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

I don't know what it is about Peter O'Toole and those damn awards. I rooted for him so hard when I was 12 for My Favorite Year, and he hasn't won one before or since. Argh.

RE: Abuse-fic as redemption... Dude. I hate that trend. I've seen it in soap operas for decades, and I loathe it when it's exploited in fanfic. Feeling sorry for the character does not make them sorry, necessarily. Victimizing them is not atonement for past sins. Why do people insist on confusing these two things? Why do they think this kind of extreme punishment is the only way to make people sorry for doing wrong? Why can't anyone be a little more creative, a little more insightful in rehabilitating a character, if rehabilitate they must? Oy. There is something wrong with our upbringing, I'm telling you.

That always bugged me about Duncan too, that blatant cheating, with only one or two exceptions. I was *glad* they had him going a little nuts after Culloden, resulting in him murdering a British officer who was actually humane and just, then having to reap the consequences of that centuries later. Because most of the time, he just fell on the 'right' side by the power of Sheer Heroism. Gah. And yes, I dislike John Smith and Joan Redfern in DW, but not to the point where I want them changed-- they're products of their time, after all. They can't be forced to all be heroes.

I think you're right, *that* is what bugs me about Mad Men more than anything else-- I have no viewpoint character there. No one who I can like *all* the time, even if their life sucks, or they mess up. Peggy is supposed to be, I guess, except she's so young, has such bad taste in men, and has to be so polite and careful in order to survive at the ad office, that it's difficult to watch her a lot of the time. Midge was having an affair with married Don, Rachel was having an emotional affair with married Don (I can't remember if they had sex or not)... Not. Admirable. Joan is fun as hell, but again, taste in men, ech, and the way she objectifies herself, even if it's for her own gain, is very off-putting. I know this show is not about the admirable people who made the world better, and maybe it's successful because of that; we've all seen those miniseries, we've seen those movies, read those books. They show how a world ended and changed, and then they're *over*. Mad Men is meant to be an ongoing series, so it has to be both more low-key and realistic. But I don't root for anyone. Or like anyone.

Don ... yeah, I was *very* glad when Rachel told him off, when he nearly chickened out and fled his life at the end of S1. How the heck can I root for someone who only did the right thing because he was backed into it, without any options? The desertion wasn't admirable, but it was understandable, but his constant fleeing of the consequences makes it difficult for me to believe he'll change in S2. Somebody in New York had to be a good likable person! They just weren't in advertising, I guess. Or married to them. Or dating them.

[rusty_halo.livejournal.com]

I thought LoM was very appropriately critical of Gene to begin with, but they did seem to buy into the hype a bit too much as the series continued. Yes, he's a wonderfully compelling character, but he's so wrong about so many things. (I have to admit I was really shocked to come online and see the media praise of him, because it was so obvious to me that he was a deeply ambiguous character. But I suppose I was watching him through the filter of my own very liberal views.)

And, yeah, I'm sure it would be GREAT to have all cops act just like him--as long as you're white, male, able-bodied, straight, not an immigrant, and so on. Any variation and you're probably going to be ignored/discriminated against/beaten up/imprisoned unfairly. But hey! Gene's a cowboy so it's all okay! *rolls eyes*

Gene is far more palatable because the text is critical of him (he often causes problems by being wrong due to his sexism/racism/etc) and because Sam is there to counter his bigotry. And it doesn't change that he has many wonderfully heroic qualities and that he truly cares about his city and is doing what he thinks is best for it. That makes him interesting, not perfect.

I love Snape, Sirius, Spike, Methos... but their flaws are what make them fascinating characters. Whitewash those and what's the point?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Whitewash those and what's the point?

Yes indeed. It always baffles me: fans falling in love with an ambiguous character because he (and sadly in most cases it's a he, the reaction to ambiguos women being somewhat different, and also there are less of them) is ambiguous, i.e. has some not admirable traits and does do things that are just plain wrong on occasion - and then they whitewash this character into being either always right or if he isn't then wrong just because another character did something to him, with the result that their version of the character is whiter than the whitest knight and has nothing to do with the original anymore.

Media praise of Gene for the wrong reasons: it also reminds me that on lj, most people are liberal, so you don't encounter this attitude too often, but this is not the case among the viewership at large. Makes me wonder about 24 fandom, though, because 24, as opposed to Life on Mars, doesn't have a narrative counterpoint like Sam and presents the story in such a way that Jack Bauer's methods always produce the right results. (Whereas Gene as you say is presented as being wrong as often as he's being shown to be right.) How do they react/view their main character?

[http://users.livejournal.com/shadowkittykat_/]

and... instead of in depth commentary as presented in your other commenters, I'm just going to drop by, fangirl everything you said, and reminisce about how Masada taught me the facts of life. The, er, biological ones. Good memories, there.

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

I've never been a Snape fan but I did find his backstory made him a lot more sympathetic than (I'm guessing) JKR bargained for. Like you said, it makes one look askance at Dumbledore for not only allowing the kind of teacher that Snape was, but also for allowing the kind of bullying that he in turn received from the Marauders. Young Snape certainly didn’t make the best choice by joining the Young Death Eaters club and calling his friend a Mudblood, but it’s hard to see what better choices he could have made when he was living in a society where the pureblood bullies could get away with murder (re: Remus and the Shrieking Shack) and be made Head Boy for their efforts. The older generation flashback sequences seemed to serve to make Lily and the Marauders highly unsympathetic characters.

I love the look of the SDCC Season 2. Yah for Derek Reese not becoming a major character. I have so many issues with all the Terminator sequels combined and Derek Reese was almost the deal-breaker for me with respect to the TV show. I’m happy that they’re fleshing out the high school plot. That loose string was really left dangling in the wind end of Season 1.

[wemblee.livejournal.com]

I've been wondering, for a while, about The Woobie. It seems like a lot of fans, including myself, need him, because we keep creating him over and over, and there are specific Types that get Woob-i-fied... usually either a snarky older man, or a younger, naive sidekick-type character.

I always, as a young fan as well as now, loved essays that pointed out why no, the character in question is not a woobie, but when I look back at my youthful fanfic about Snarky "Older" (as in, older than teenage!me) Dudes, I always totally woobified them, even if I didn't know it at the time.

I feel like, as annoying as The Woobie is, he must be important or at least hit a pretty primal button, because he just appears over and over and over. Which isn't to say that I'm disagreeing with you, here -- I'm not at all -- just that your post is making me think about why this particular piece of fanon reoccurs so much. (I mean, I guess it's probably just as simple as, "troubled hot dudes are cute when they cry," but it's just interesting to me that so many of us keep creating it over and over, no matter the fandom.)

[abigail-n.livejournal.com]

I read an interview with Michael C. Hall a few months ago in which the interviewer claimed that some reactions to the show lamented that there wasn't a real-world Dexter to rid us of criminals who fall through the justice system's cracks. Once you read something like that, the idea that some people might wish for a whole police force made up of Gene Hunts can't really surprise you. It does, however, cement my opinion that mainstream television writing is a joke and ought not be paid attention to.

I'm not convinced, though, that Life on Mars was as ambivalent towards Gene as I would have liked it to be. The series finale had him behaving in an appalling manner, causing the death of an informant and placing the lives of his men in danger in order to gratify his desire for thrills and high adventure, and yet the episode ended up siding with him. Ashes to Ashes seems even less willing to criticize him.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I always go to and thro on how both shows deal with Gene. Re:Ashes to Ashes, on the one hand, you have the appalling speech plus applause scene in the season finale, on the other hand, in the last but one episode, you have the even longer scene where when Shaz is knived down we get the pointed contrast between Gene, who encourages Chris to take bloody right then and there and watches for eons Chris beating the guy into a pulp before interfering, and Alex, who focuses entirely on Shaz and eventually successfully manages to revive her, after which she notices the beaten-up knife guy (who while being guilty of other things actually didn't mean to stab Shaz), has a scene with him, and I'd say the show is quite clear that both narrative and Alex are disgusted with Gene for his behaviour. But then again, finale.
With Life on Mars' first season, btw, we had a similar pattern - Gene's behaviour led to his men, who followed his lead, causing the death of someone in the last but one episode and both Sam and the narrative condemned this, but the last s1 episode placed him in unambiguously in the hero/rescuer position.

If you want to go Doylist, interviews with the three creators and headwriters reflect this a little, as they vary between Gene praise and Gene criticism. Which might explain it.