![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
character revelation
Last night Sharon and I were skimming through the episode descriptions in the listings for upcoming TV programs, and we noticed that House was “a Cuddy episode”. Sharon said “Oh joy” with a detectable amount of sarcasm.
I said to her, “You don't like Cuddy?”
To which she replied, “I don't actually like any character on that show.”
And in that instant it struck me like a thunderclap as I consciously realized for the first time: neither do I.
Astonishing to think that I've been watching House for years and never noticed that aspect of it until now.
I said to her, “You don't like Cuddy?”
To which she replied, “I don't actually like any character on that show.”
And in that instant it struck me like a thunderclap as I consciously realized for the first time: neither do I.
Astonishing to think that I've been watching House for years and never noticed that aspect of it until now.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Sorry. Ummm... hard to explain with clarity. None of them grab me as being appealing. When I think of any of them, I find myself picturing someone generally moody and neurotic and miserable and unkind and petty and game-playing and hard. (I can get enough of all that out of my mirror.)
And I'll grant that you can likely point out specific instances in rebuttal, when so-and-so did such... I'm talking more the overall impression/feeling I get from them, even in the face of points of exception.
no subject
no subject
I'm not saying I especially want to have a coffee with him. Not sure I really see the comparison, though. Unless your point is simply “Any show can have someone unsavory in it&rdquo:?
no subject
It seems that it's formed as a fuzzy sum of their behavior, attitude, etc., and once that has been established as positive, a character can actually commit murder and help a serial killer and you will find a way to excuse it, however implausible the explanation (he was fighting secret societies!) may be. The important thing is the emotional momentum. By that point, Zack had spent three years being adorable, socially confused, and smart, which made him sympathetic. He did not begin as a murderer and serial-killer-assistant.
But if a character such as Cameron or Cuddy from House (who consistently displays empathy, kindness, etc., and needless to say, never murders anyone) is on a show with other characters who from the start seem sardonic and cynical, your tendency will be to lump her in with the others. So again it's about emotional momentum in a holistic sense.
no subject
Point of clarification: “my” excuse for Zack is in fact the rationale as given by the show itself. That was not one of my favourite twists in the series, and there are a number of other ongoing storylines in it that, given my druthers, I'd prefer they hadn't done. I will admit that Bones is fun and not deep: it requires you to be forgiving, cut slack, and not take some things too seriously -- to roll with implausibility. One's willingness to do these things depends, I suspect, on whether you like the characters enough?
Another point: when you mention Cuddy being empathetic and kind, nothing springs to my mind to back you up. Every recollection I have of her is officious and short-tempered and sometimes conniving. Not saying you're wrong, just that she hasn't built up such a temperamental profile in my memory. Hmmm... holistic and fuzzy?
no subject
That's true; what I mean is that you are willing to accept it, because you already like him, and you want to think well of him if you can.
I didn't accept it. I was sitting there thinking "Zack is incredibly good at finding logical inconsistencies in ideas. So he would instantly have shot a thousand holes in any rhetoric Gormogon could possibly have used to introduce or justify his freakish ideas and behavior. No amount of rambling about secret societies (even by Hodgins) could possibly have swayed him, no matter how 'weak' Zack's personality is supposed to be."
when you mention Cuddy being empathetic and kind, nothing springs to my mind to back you up
Well, on last night's episode alone there were several examples.
For instance, she waged a successful war against a price-abusive insurance company at enormous risk to her own career. This was done to continue to provide best-in-class service to patients without raising prices, instead of knuckle under to the insurer and simply charge patients more to make up the difference (which is what some hospitals do).
She also tore up a check from a carpenter who owed the hospital money. He obviously couldn't afford it, and she had just won the larger battle against the insurance company, and that was good enough for her. She did this despite the fact that he had originally tried to sue the hospital.
I have trouble thinking of any time she's been conniving, exactly, except in dealing with House, who arguably deserved it for being such a gadfly to her.
As for Cameron, she might as well be Brennan... except not quite so much an over-the-top, round-eared Vulcan ("I do not comprehend your illogical pop cultural references"). Smart, kind, insightful, knowledgeable, and atheistic.
Actually, if anything, she seems much more tolerant of the religious beliefs of others than Brennan, who routinely and condescendingly mocks "sky fairies" in front of even those such as Booth, or Catholic priests, who are bound to dislike it.
no subject
Woops. As it turned out, I ended up not seeing that episode at all -- sidelined by errands, etc. instead! If I had tuned in then, maybe I would've had your examples closer to hand and fresh in my mind? At the moment I'm still running on stale discoloured memories and vague overgeneralized impressions...
no subject
I am just interested in how you evaluate characters in a general sense, partly because you're a creative developer yourself. (When writers like Ann Rice complain about an audience's Amazon.com reviews of a story, and say things like "you're interrogating my characters from the wrong perspective," I think they are wrong.)
The general principle -- if you want the audience to like your characters, you better start them off on the right foot from day one, and you better know what that foot consists of -- is extremely useful.
no subject
True. Grudgingly and with reservations in my left brain, but in the end willing. An example of the slack-cutting I mentioned before.
no subject
But yeah, I said it was like the opposite of Bones (where I like everyone). Mummy said "anti-Bones". Apparently she wants that to be made clear.
no subject
no subject
Ditto.
just for the record