{ as is }

[delga]

I have no discipline. I'm just going to write this damn thing.

So, a couple of weeks a go, a lot of you lovely people out there answered a few questions for me and confirmed what I knew all along: I'm a somewhat bizarre fangirl who doesn't love her characters all that much.

Well, that's a lie. I do love characterisation. It's just... I watch procedural dramas! It's not supposed to be about the characters! And even when it is, why do the character interactions have to play out like poor soaps? Because they do; they really, really do.

I guess my point of fact is CSI and when I was originally thinking of writing about characters, the only one I was really thinking about was Sara Sidle. More to the point, I was thinking about how in S1, Sara was the Geek that didn't care she was a Geek with something of a boss complex. Hit S4 and she's an alcoholic. The hell? No, seriously, THE HELL? In what world were the writers living that they could match that up to the character's specs? In what world are Sara fans living that this is an acceptable evolution? Sara, the perfectionist succumbs to the bottle. You know what, if she'd had a food disorder or a compulsive disorder, I would have understood. If she'd had a mental breakdown, that would have made so much more sense. But for her to turn to the bottle is unprecedented, especially given the character's history. I miss S1 Sara desperately.

By the sound of things, most people saw the Spike evolution to be a good one. I didn't think it much of an evolution, to be honest. His character was a constant, through and through. I had no issues with him. Even when he was teh Big Bad, he was still a muppet. "Ooh, it's a big rock. I can't wait to show all my friends. I'll bet they don't have a rock this big(!)" There was a change in ethos, I suppose, but it was very natural, as far as I'm concerned. it made sense in the run of the show, however much I detested his very final scene in BtVS. Also in that fandom, as noorie pointed out, is Wesley. Dude, Wesley's evolution as a character was the best thing I've ever seen. No, seriously. I used to hate the character but the way he changed was superb. And kudos to Joss Whedon for having the guts to do that, more than once, in fact. Look at Willow, look how she changed over the course of the series. That was characterisation at its best.

I know that characters have to change with the circumstance. I know that, I accept that, I demand it, even. But I still expect them to stay true to their fundaments and Sara's development negates that on teh basic principle that I don't believe that a person with her disposition would turn to alcoholism. My main contention with shows like CSI and WaT (oh, I haven't even started on that one) is that they focus too much on the characters in the team and not enough on the facts, the tighter details. Does anyone remember when CSI's TMI cam wasn't just following a bullet through it's trajectory? Do you remember when the Doc would explain the difference between Type A and Type B diabetes? And what ketamines had to do with that? Anyone? Let's look at one of the spin-offs. Not Miami because that's a train wreck of a different kind. OK, let's look at New York. Now, NY is supposed to be character oriented so I can pass the science by a little because we're supposed to. But we're still so early in the episode run that even the writers don't know what their characters are supposed to be doing. I guess I'm more annoyed with CSI writers because they plan their characters before the show even begins to air. Have you seen how detailed the character plans are on the CBS website? And why don't writers build up on characterisation episode after episode? At around 118-121, whoever was writing teh scripts for NY was blatantly disregarding the preset foundations of the protagonists' voices. Stella was coming out with dialogue that the first half of the season had blatantly shown she would never ever say. This frustrates me endlessly when I'm watching.

I'm not going to talk about Without a Trace. I give up on it, I really do. It doesn't help that I didn't see it from day one; I don't care enough about the characters. Well, that's a lie. I care about the two characters who barely get any attention. Im glad that people do like it and that it's doing well. I've nothing against people who don't watch it; hell, I'm still watching CSI and a load of people hat ethat these days. I've just moved on.

At the end of the day, I'm basing all my opinions on L&O which has always been fantastic, I think, at combining procedure with characterisation. It's so subtle and it dosn't stray at all from the genre. Characters certainly aren't static in any sense of the phrase; they're 3D and they're consistent. Details are fed to you so slowly. It's a fandom dream, I think, because of that. There's always more you want to know. And these characters are real. It's as though they're real people, with real-people problems. And as someone who tunes in for the complexity of the cases, the characters shouldn't impede on that.

That being said, if I fall for a character, damn do I fall hard.

OK. More on another day. I'm out of steam now.

Edit: I was so going to watch L&O tonight but it's not on, bloody hell. *sulks* Guess I'll just have to go and read more Sense and Sensibility. Oh dear. (Austen is about the only thing on my readling list that I can't stomach. Out of 17 books, that's pretty good going, though).

Comments

[tigertrapped.livejournal.com]

You don't like Austen! You don't like Austen! You don't like Austen and you hate Harry Potter. I LOVE you! Now make it a hat trick and tell me you think Lord of the Rings is twaddle. Go on, you know you want to. And anyone who says it's deeply meaningful and replete with religious imagery is Tolkien bollocks. (I decided against English at University because Austen was on every prospectus. That's why I did History of Ideas. Even then, they mentioned the bloody woman).

[delgaserasca.livejournal.com]

I haven't read Lord of the Rings although I did read The Hobbit. Frankly, I couldn't care eitehr way. But I hate Austen.

[hestia8.livejournal.com]

We did one module on History of Ideas on my course and I was the only person who didn’t hate it *snerk*. I can’t stand Austen, but may go and sit through P&P because, well, Matthew (and Keira, but I’m trying to fight that). Tolkien I have to be in really the exact mood to read. Which I haven’t been for about 3 years. Oh well.

[delgaserasca.livejournal.com]

crouchingmajor was an extra in P&P, btw. Just saying :)

I don't know if I'll make an effort to go and see it; my friends are seeing it right now, actually, but I couldn't go. It looks like a good adaptation. OMG *fangirls* did you see Keeley and Matthew at the premiere? *swoons* They're a delightfully beautiful couple.

[hestia8.livejournal.com]

Well, that's a lie. I do love characterisation. It's just... I watch procedural dramas! It's not supposed to be about the characters! And even when it is, why do the character interactions have to play out like poor soaps? Because they do; they really, really do.

>>> I blame The Bill. It never used to be like this. (ok, I have a UK fandom bias). But partly I think because it’s lazy, because it’s a way of getting drama quickly. Oh no! My long lost child who has never been mentioned before has turned up! Oh no! I must angst about something that happened years ago! Oh no! Han can’t think of any sodding examples! *facepalm* Actually, y’know what, just watch an episode of The Bill (especially the one tonight, it’s going to be live, yay!) and you’ll see what I mean. A notable UK exception to this is WTD, which focuses on the plot to such an extent that I know barely anything about the characters except than their names (oh, and Boyd is VERY VERY SHOUTY!!!). Compare with Spooks (which I think manages to give you info without detracting too much from the story), where we now know what Ruth’s *cat* is called (ok, it took them 3 series to tell us).

But for her to turn to the bottle is unprecedented, especially given the character's history. I miss S1 Sara desperately.

>>> I wonder sometimes what these script editor people do. I can’t remember now any really Ooc bits in S3 spooks, but I’m sure at the time there was discussion as to how the hell x, y or z got through. And if oyu don’t care enough to be consistent etc, why are you bothering?

At around 118-121, whoever was writing teh scripts for NY was blatantly disregarding the preset foundations of the protagonists' voices. Stella was coming out with dialogue that the first half of the season had blatantly shown she would never ever say. This frustrates me endlessly when I'm watching.

>>> See above about the script editing :)

At the end of the day, I'm basing all my opinions on L&O which has always been fantastic, I think, at combining procedure with characterisation. It's so subtle and it dosn't stray at all from the genre. Characters certainly aren't static in any sense of the phrase; they're 3D and they're consistent. Details are fed to you so slowly. It's a fandom dream, I think, because of that. There's always more you want to know. And these characters are real. It's as though they're real people, with real-people problems. And as someone who tunes in for the complexity of the cases, the characters shouldn't impede on that.

>>> You’d probably like The Wire. It could be seen as slow because it’s so detailed, but you have the pov of the police trying to get a drugs conviction, and the drug dealers on the street, and I’m two episodes in and I’m just so *involved* already :)

That being said, if I fall for a character, damn do I fall hard.

>>> *whistles innocently and doesn’t mention Ruth*

[delgaserasca.livejournal.com]

You know, I barely watch British tv anymore. And it's not because it's bad but it's because I have no interest in it. If you ignore BBC drama (which is good; it's engaging and clever, more so than US drama most of the time), there is practically nothing on British TV that I want to watch. At all. I just... I get bored. I don't care about the characters, I get frustrated by the way the damn screenplay is written and the series, frankly, are too short.

A notable UK exception to this is WTD, which focuses on the plot to such an extent that I know barely anything about the characters except than their names
Heh. I would watch WTD if it wasn't for the fact that it's stretched out across two nights. Because I caught one episode last season and I liked it a lot. But I'm too lazy, which I guess is my own fault, heh. You know which show actually handles both characterisation and plot very well even though this year it completely changed format? Murphy's Law. It was a gutsy move but I think it lost the show a ton of fans. That being said, I still watched it every week.

where we now know what Ruth’s *cat* is called (ok, it took them 3 series to tell us)
LOL! Yeh but, I can deal with that. I can even stomach knowing about Tom and Elliebitch, Zoe and whatever-the-hell-his-name-was because that was introduced into the format of the show from teh very beginning. MI-5, not 9 to 5 - the immediate parallels between their jobs and 'normal' people, the way you can't have a 'normal' life. I think that's played out really well, even with Adam and Fee. So, yeh, kudos to Spooks (eee, 2 episodes tonight!)

I wonder sometimes what these script editor people do. I can’t remember now any really Ooc bits in S3 spooks, but I’m sure at the time there was discussion as to how the hell x, y or z got through. And if oyu don’t care enough to be consistent etc, why are you bothering?
Adam and Fiona Carter. I feel a bit for the writers because they had to bring these new characters in as the pivotal cast took an exit but that being said, both were introduced in one mode and then proceeded towards the pathé end of the scale. You're right though; what do script editors do?! Heh. I know sometimes continuity can be a bitch and too late to catch but consistent storytelling is sort of vital, isn't it?

Actually, Tom's a character who undergoes an amazing transformation between S1 and the beginning of S3 and it was so well handled. You could see him losing faith in the system all the way through S2. That was skilfully handled, well written and really well executed.

*whistles innocently and doesn’t mention Ruth*
LOL. ITA.

[hestia8.livejournal.com]

You know, I barely watch British tv anymore. And it's not because it's bad but it's because I have no interest in it. If you ignore BBC drama (which is good; it's engaging and clever, more so than US drama most of the time), there is practically nothing on British TV that I want to watch. At all. I just... I get bored. I don't care about the characters, I get frustrated by the way the damn screenplay is written and the series, frankly, are too short.

>>> OH GOD YES far too short. WTD is SIX EPISODES over THREE WEEKS. Bastards.

A notable UK exception to this is WTD, which focuses on the plot to such an extent that I know barely anything about the characters except than their names
Heh. I would watch WTD if it wasn't for the fact that it's stretched out across two nights. Because I caught one episode last season and I liked it a lot. But I'm too lazy, which I guess is my own fault, heh. You know which show actually handles both characterisation and plot very well even though this year it completely changed format? Murphy's Law. It was a gutsy move but I think it lost the show a ton of fans. That being said, I still watched it every week.

>>> Yeah, and yet the change in format for Murphy’s law actually made me able to bear it!

where we now know what Ruth’s *cat* is called (ok, it took them 3 series to tell us)
LOL! Yeh but, I can deal with that. I can even stomach knowing about Tom and Elliebitch, Zoe and whatever-the-hell-his-name-was because that was introduced into the format of the show from teh very beginning. MI-5, not 9 to 5 - the immediate parallels between their jobs and 'normal' people, the way you can't have a 'normal' life. I think that's played out really well, even with Adam and Fee. So, yeh, kudos to Spooks (eee, 2 episodes tonight!)

>>> yes, that was my point, but with more detail  Thanks. My brain was not working today

I wonder sometimes what these script editor people do. I can’t remember now any really Ooc bits in S3 spooks, but I’m sure at the time there was discussion as to how the hell x, y or z got through. And if oyu don’t care enough to be consistent etc, why are you bothering?
Adam and Fiona Carter. I feel a bit for the writers because they had to bring these new characters in as the pivotal cast took an exit but that being said, both were introduced in one mode and then proceeded towards the pathé end of the scale. You're right though; what do script editors do?! Heh. I know sometimes continuity can be a bitch and too late to catch but consistent storytelling is sort of vital, isn't it?

>>> oh God of course, how could I forget Adam and his impostor who was in the show for the middle of S3? *hangs head in shame*. My brain really is jelly today. I always feel the urge to shout at the script editor lady when she appears on the spooks DVDs *evil chuckle*

Actually, Tom's a character who undergoes an amazing transformation between S1 and the beginning of S3 and it was so well handled. You could see him losing faith in the system all the way through S2. That was skilfully handled, well written and really well executed.

>>> Yes, again, something I should have thought of. Tom’s transformation was so utterly believable, and so well handled, which is why I don’t ever want to see him in Spooks again. Let him move to the country and get a dog (er, I have thought about this. A lot. There is a fic which I will probably never finish, but yes).

*whistles innocently and doesn’t mention Ruth*
LOL. ITA.

ITA?

[delgaserasca.livejournal.com]

Heh, sorry. ITA = I totally agree.

And no, no more Tom, please. That's done with and was handled gracefully, I think. (With a dog? I'd read it if you wrote it, you know that).

[hestia8.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it was going to be short and then it just kept growing, and I think I've started over about three times. If it ever gets to a near completion stage, I'll send it to you :)

And now I've just thought of this, I may not be able to resist the temptation to call it 'One Man And His Dog'. *mean snigger*