![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I has a question.....
Feb. 20th, 2008 12:23 amBeen 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?
( more questions and further meta, on characters that aren't actively seen as 'too brilliant' and those that are but we like to ignore.... )
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?
( more questions and further meta, on characters that aren't actively seen as 'too brilliant' and those that are but we like to ignore.... )
