I has a question.....
Feb. 20th, 2008 12:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
weaselettBeen considering a few things that I've read/seen discussed a few times in fandom in general, especially in regard to SG-1.
A lot of characters are seen as being 'too perfect' or 'unrealistic' due to things they know/are capable of etc - Sam Carter and Daniel Jackson being the main two that come up.
I understand this to an extent - it's true that characters like Sam and Daniel have overly exaggerated skill sets, have too few flaws etc - but at the same time some people also seem to miss the flaws or the possibility that it's not so outlandish because they see a certain character as a Mary Sue or deliberately modeled to be 'brilliant'
I say this because while I lack a lot of knowledge of Sam's type of work, I know of at least one person who could be considered comparably 'brilliant' to Daniel (though he's attractive - but then he's not on TV) - he was one of my lecturers and he knows an insane amount of stuff, but no one sees him as being 'unrealistic' but then he's real and more tangible.
My point - and question to you all is - is this perception of characters in this way because fictional TV characters, or because we often find it hard to believe that people like that exist?
Is the perception of a lack of flaws because of how we ourselves as viewers see the character - or is it because of our hate/dislike of the character?
To further the point - why is it that some characters who actually have a much more unrealistic level of 'brilliance' are often slated as being comparable against the above as being 'believable'?
To use another example from Gateverse - Rodney Mckay - who's flaws, as obvious as they are seem to make his brilliance more acceptable. Early on I did agree that Rodney wasn't too brilliant and I would put him as more realistic than Sam - but more recently I've begun to find it harder to support that opinion.
The reason? The fact that Rodney can read (not just recognise a few words here and there) both Ancient and Wraith.
I can buy almost everything else - but this is what has taken Rodney well beyond believable for me. Mainly because of how much difficulty Elizabeth, someone who knew five languages when we first met her anyway, had understanding Wraith and then learning it.
Are there any characters, in any fandom that any of you have found that fit this?
If so - why and are there, like in the Gateverse, other characters who always seem to be considered too perfect etc, but are actually just less visibly flawed and therefore pushed more to the forefront because of this?
Then - we have the characters who really are too perfect - but we don't care because they work and it's an 'important' part of who they are.
Okay - so I admit it - it's hard for me to find ANY, at least not off the top of my head - though if anyone can supply - please do.
The first character to come to mind for me at least - is wesley crusher of ST-TNG fame - though I hate to say it - he got on my nerves SO MUCH. He was a marty-stu and it hurt so much sometimes. But still, there are a lot of people that had no problem with him.
Wesley was brilliant and that's how it was, everyone accepted it - didn't question the fact that he could think of things that DATA couldn't. Yeah - for some people wesley is the perfect example of this type of character - for me *waves hand*
Finally for a little extra perspective - on my point of view I guess - two characters who define other sections of this type of argument.
Reg Barclay - of trek (Voyager and TNG - to my memory) - the man who was brilliant - but that’s not what he was there for - reg was all about the sum of his flaws, his purpose was to be comic relief - no one cared that he was unrealistic or too brilliant - his flaws made it so that it wasn't taken seriously as much as it is in other cases.
Personally - I didn't hate him, but I didn't love him. He did have his moments though (normally before the comic relief moments came along - I loved the friendship he had with data)
There are other characters like Reg (a certain Jay felger...to name but one other)- I'm sure you can name them!
Benton Fraser - he was too perfect in some ways - BUT he did have flaws - the first two seasons especially showed that despite his 'perfection' he was flawed and complicated and everything that makes people okay with 'perfect' characters. He may have been unrealistic - but it was purposeful - a pull for the character - something that defined him to everyone around him.
Yes - I do love Benny - so I may be a little biased. *g*
Again - name any similar you can think of.
Finally - I invite you all to pimp (I'm really interested to see what other people think about this) and to question/correct/provide me with arguments and similar characters that you know of. Any points will be interesting to 'hear'. :)
--
A lot of characters are seen as being 'too perfect' or 'unrealistic' due to things they know/are capable of etc - Sam Carter and Daniel Jackson being the main two that come up.
I understand this to an extent - it's true that characters like Sam and Daniel have overly exaggerated skill sets, have too few flaws etc - but at the same time some people also seem to miss the flaws or the possibility that it's not so outlandish because they see a certain character as a Mary Sue or deliberately modeled to be 'brilliant'
I say this because while I lack a lot of knowledge of Sam's type of work, I know of at least one person who could be considered comparably 'brilliant' to Daniel (though he's attractive - but then he's not on TV) - he was one of my lecturers and he knows an insane amount of stuff, but no one sees him as being 'unrealistic' but then he's real and more tangible.
My point - and question to you all is - is this perception of characters in this way because fictional TV characters, or because we often find it hard to believe that people like that exist?
Is the perception of a lack of flaws because of how we ourselves as viewers see the character - or is it because of our hate/dislike of the character?
To further the point - why is it that some characters who actually have a much more unrealistic level of 'brilliance' are often slated as being comparable against the above as being 'believable'?
To use another example from Gateverse - Rodney Mckay - who's flaws, as obvious as they are seem to make his brilliance more acceptable. Early on I did agree that Rodney wasn't too brilliant and I would put him as more realistic than Sam - but more recently I've begun to find it harder to support that opinion.
The reason? The fact that Rodney can read (not just recognise a few words here and there) both Ancient and Wraith.
I can buy almost everything else - but this is what has taken Rodney well beyond believable for me. Mainly because of how much difficulty Elizabeth, someone who knew five languages when we first met her anyway, had understanding Wraith and then learning it.
Are there any characters, in any fandom that any of you have found that fit this?
If so - why and are there, like in the Gateverse, other characters who always seem to be considered too perfect etc, but are actually just less visibly flawed and therefore pushed more to the forefront because of this?
Then - we have the characters who really are too perfect - but we don't care because they work and it's an 'important' part of who they are.
Okay - so I admit it - it's hard for me to find ANY, at least not off the top of my head - though if anyone can supply - please do.
The first character to come to mind for me at least - is wesley crusher of ST-TNG fame - though I hate to say it - he got on my nerves SO MUCH. He was a marty-stu and it hurt so much sometimes. But still, there are a lot of people that had no problem with him.
Wesley was brilliant and that's how it was, everyone accepted it - didn't question the fact that he could think of things that DATA couldn't. Yeah - for some people wesley is the perfect example of this type of character - for me *waves hand*
Finally for a little extra perspective - on my point of view I guess - two characters who define other sections of this type of argument.
Reg Barclay - of trek (Voyager and TNG - to my memory) - the man who was brilliant - but that’s not what he was there for - reg was all about the sum of his flaws, his purpose was to be comic relief - no one cared that he was unrealistic or too brilliant - his flaws made it so that it wasn't taken seriously as much as it is in other cases.
Personally - I didn't hate him, but I didn't love him. He did have his moments though (normally before the comic relief moments came along - I loved the friendship he had with data)
There are other characters like Reg (a certain Jay felger...to name but one other)- I'm sure you can name them!
Benton Fraser - he was too perfect in some ways - BUT he did have flaws - the first two seasons especially showed that despite his 'perfection' he was flawed and complicated and everything that makes people okay with 'perfect' characters. He may have been unrealistic - but it was purposeful - a pull for the character - something that defined him to everyone around him.
Yes - I do love Benny - so I may be a little biased. *g*
Again - name any similar you can think of.
Finally - I invite you all to pimp (I'm really interested to see what other people think about this) and to question/correct/provide me with arguments and similar characters that you know of. Any points will be interesting to 'hear'. :)
--
