HIGHLA-L Digest - 16 Aug 2004 to 17 Aug 2004 - Special issue (#2004-151)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:34:39 -0400
There are 13 messages totalling 925 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Season Four dvd commentary: Double Jeopardy
2. Time and again... (3)
3. Time and again... Oh, hell, mostly Atlantis with a bit of HL thrown in for
flavor (2)
4. Double Jeopardy and Mary Sue (6)
5. Sins Of The Father question
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:08:23 -0400
From: kageorge <kageorge@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Season Four dvd commentary: Double Jeopardy
Wendy Tillis wrote:
>MacGeorge says:
>
>
>
>>MY COMMENTS: This was a strange little episode that had a villain who
>>was hardly worthy of the effort, and the most singularly Mary Sue-ish
>>character in the whole series. Renee is beautiful, brave, funny and
>>smart, but unlike the more aggressive kick-ass female characters that
>>have become more prevalent today, she is quite overawed by the hero.
>>
>>
>
>Clue me in..how is Renee the most singularly Mary Sue-ish character in the whole series? Is it because she is beautiful, brave, funny and smart? Does that make Methos a Mary Sue too? He is certainly beautiful, funny, smart and even brave (occasionally).
>
>
I see the classic Mary Sue as a temporary character who is female,
perky, great hair, beautiful figure, smart, brave, funny (blah, blah,
blah), and who sees The Hero through very lust-colored glasses.
MacG
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:02:19 -0400
From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Time and again...
I bitched:
>>Too many episodes that focus on one character - two Teal'c-centric
>episodes in a row?
Marina said:
>I don't mind that IF they use the other characters well in an episode.
>I have still to see either Teal'c episode, though, so I don't know whether
>those did or not.
OK, I admit that I find the Teal'c character as boring as they come. I never re-watch the episodes that center on him. So, having 2 in a row that deal with him is two too many for me.
Me:
>>Zero use of Daniel's specialized skills any more- everyone they meet now
>>speaks English, has a culture that needs no explanation and has
>technology on-par with Earth.
Marina:
>Yeah, that's annoying but as long as I get to see Daniel I don't care
>what he's doing. Sad, I know. A lot of people hated Season Sux because
>of the severe lack of Daniel, but I quite liked it. They had some good
>stuff there with Jonas and Teal'c that they couldn't have done otherwise.
I like to see Daniel but I'm not such a complete fan-girl that I don't care what the plot is <eg>. I generally applaud TPTB's early decision to have a universe without the usual "aliens" - no people with strange eye ridges or extra nostrils or tentacles. Everyone (almost) is a human...which would be OK if the writers mixed it up a bit more. *If* all the humans came from Earth originally and were then seeded around the galaxy, their civilizations would have varied according to where they were taken from, when they were taken, what happened to them after they left, what environment they lived in, etc. The earlier seasons did a lot more with this idea. Later seasons got too caught up with fighting the "Goa'uld of the week" and with the replicators (a Borg clone if ever there was one)
>>I don't care about Teal'c getting an apartment <g> .
>Well, I do. :) It's more of a fan thing, I think. I'm sure the idea has
>been done in fanfic. (No, I'm really not trying to poke Nina.) It's
>quite fun when a show does something that the fans thought of months or
>years before.
Don't you know that anything a fan thinks of has already been thought of by the writers at least 6 months earlier? (Isn't that what Donna used to say?) I agree that the "Teal'c gets an apartment" idea sounds like fanfic. ..which is why it sounds like a bad idea <eg> I can see it now.."What if Teal'c got an apartment and what if he had to deal with phone repair men and buying groceries and what if he has noisy neighbors and what if there was a woman in distress and Teal's tries to rescue her and he gets into trouble and SG1 has to rescue *him* without telling anyone what he is?"
>The thing is, a show has to live or die by the characters. And you need
>character-centric episodes. The concept is key, but you need characters
>that work within it. As HL: The Raven and various Trek spinoffs have
>shown, you cannot just plug random people into a concept and expect it
>to work. The audience has to care about those particular characters. If
>they don't, the show won't work.
Character-centric episodes per se are fine in moderation. I prefer Stargate episodes to revolve (so to speak) around the Stargate. So...the episodes where one of the team goes off world and has to deal with the situation alone can be very good (if they don't overdo the "Sam/Jack/Daniel is lost/hurt and needs saving" plot) I guess I just find the Earth-bound episodes a lot less compelling *especially* when they are character-centric.
>>I assume he still has a great X-shaped pouch in his stomach even if the
>>infant Goa'uld is gone? Explain that when he inevitably gets hit by a car
>>and taken to the ER or thrown in jail and body-searched.
>Point. (I miss Junior.) But I don't think they can force him to remain
>on the base 24/7 either. And it costs too much to keep turning the Gate
>on, so he couldn't go to another planet at night...
I miss Junior too- mostly because it gave Teal'c some reason to be there <g>. He was stronger than the others, he recovered faster, he could do things they couldn't. Without Junior, he is just another human and a lot less compelling. As for staying on base or not, yes, they could keep him there (he is an alien after all) and even if he wants to live off-base, they wouldn't just stick him in an apartment in town with civilians. They would find him an apartment on the military base which sits on top of Cheyenne Mountain.
>>Next we'll have to watch episodes with Sam and her current boyfriend <gag
>me>
>That would suit me fine. I love all the DeLuise brothers.
I just don't care about Sam's love life. Last season was filled with Sam episodes - mostly revolving around her unresolved feelings for Jack. I so don't care. I don't care about Teal'c's love life either. Or Daniel's (who doesn't seem to have one)(Isn't he done mourning Sharr'e yet?) I don't even care all that much about Jack's love life. I don't watch Stargate to see who is boinking whom.
>>I like the Scottish doctor the best and he doesn't get to do much.
>
>Oh, isn't he great? Maybe we all just have a *thing* for the Scots. :)
Well, I wouldn't say I have a "thing" for him <g> Just that he's an appealing character. But the accent is nice :-)
>>(And -shouldn't cultures in this new galaxy be more "different" from
>>Earth than we've seen?)
>Especially since the humans in this galaxy aren't technically humans,
>right? They're descendants of the Ancients. The Ancients evolved, left,
>some returned, they lived and died, some figured out how to ascend,
>others died of the plague sweeping across the galaxy. Humans came a
>couple million years later. The Ancients driven out by the Wraith came
>back sometime in our human history but they haven't said whether or
>not the two lots of "human forms" can even interbreed. What? I think
>about these things!
Oh, I'm sure the two types can interbreed. Or at least have sex <eg>. Captain Kirk proved that humans can have sex with anything on two legs regardless of species.
>>(I know, I know..bitch, bitch , bitch. <eg>)
>
>As people have pointed out before on this list, we as fans can think up
>criticisms faster than the writers can write! But a new show (even an
>old one, what am I saying) needs to take risks. This is why Star Trek
>Voyager and Enterprise are so darn boring. Because they're going where
>all the other shows have gone before. Do something new, for crying out
>loud!
Atlantis really needs to show us something different...or it's just a Stargate clone and who needs that? I want to see different planets with different situations. I want more real peril and less happy endings. These people are a galaxy away from home with just the clothes on their backs and they should discover that they don't always have what they need and they can't always conveniently dial a planet that has it. Where is their food coming from? Do they have medicine for all occasions? What if someone goes crazy from the stress- really really crazy? Some people should die. Their blundering about without a clue should cause more problems. They settled into the city far too easily...and not everything should be settled in the last 2 minutes (raise the deflector shield)(re-modulate the warp engine)(bah humbug)
Wendy("Avatar" was on TV today)(::shudder:::::)( I turned it off and backed slowly away from the TV)(There was no "good" there.)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:25:49 -0500
From: Ginny <RED57@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Time and again... Oh, hell, mostly Atlantis with a bit of HL thrown in for flavor
Wendy Tillis wrote on 8/16/2004, 9:02 PM:
> Atlantis really needs to show us something different...or it's just a
> Stargate clone and who needs that? I want to see different planets
> with different situations. I want more real peril and less happy
> endings. These people are a galaxy away from home with just the
> clothes on their backs and they should discover that they don't always
> have what they need and they can't always conveniently dial a planet
> that has it. Where is their food coming from? Do they have medicine
> for all occasions? What if someone goes crazy from the stress- really
> really crazy? Some people should die. Their blundering about without a
> clue should cause more problems. They settled into the city far too
> easily...and not everything should be settled in the last 2 minutes
> (raise the deflector shield)(re-modulate the warp engine)(bah humbug)
Just on the trivial side, I want to know things like: did they bring
hairdressers? Because people are going to need haircuts - especially
Shepard, who must work hard to maintain that boyishly punky,
non-military style. My nickname for him is currently "Cowlick Boy,"
because I wonder if they cast him specifically to up the cowlick factor
alone. As you've all probably noticed long ago, Jack O'Neill always has
a highly amusing and insubordinate cowlick. I suspect it's totally
character-driven, much like the fake scar in his eyebrow.
Also: if they keep handing out chocolate to pacify the local children,
they're gonna run out, and that's almost as disastrous as running out of
ammo. Speaking of which: when they're hosing the rounds killing off the
"hard-to-kill" Wraith, are they counting bullets? They should be.
I too was disappointed that Weir got re-cast. I liked Jessica Steen very
much and was sorry that she wasn't part of the Atlantis crew. What
happened? I've liked her female characters ever since Earth2, which also
starred Clancy Brown, so nyah nyah, there's your OBHL.
Speaking of whom, the one male leader of the local humans kind of
resembled CB, and I liked his character, so I hope they don't completely
forget about the colonists on the continent (I bet they don't).
Torri Higginson, on the other hand, doesn't do anything for me. Not very
interesting character, don't really care about her, she seems to
function as the Strict Mom - "Now boys, you be back by dark and don't
leave your Stargate-capable Radio Flyer out in the driveway. And here's
some turkey sandwiches and chocolate in pouches that you can give away
at will to all and sundry."
I *also* want more peril and more ambiguity in their dealings with the
various local cultures - more complexity, less cut-and-dried Social
Anthropology 101. However, I've been happy with the way they've explored
various of their new options, such as spaceborne Stargates and the
puddle jumpers. I got a kick out of "38 Minutes," which played on the
wormhole timelimit plot point in an enjoyably different way. They even
figured out that all the air would get sucked out of the gap in the
doors when the wormhole collapsed. Yep, it sure would, and I'd never
thought of it that way, since we'd never had a Gate in hard vacuum
before (that I recall).
And then there's stress. People signed on for a one-way ride - even so,
I'd expect people to be depressed or freaking out in various ways.
Including inappropriate hookups - they're all healthy, attractive
people, or they wouldn't have been cast ^H^H^H^H cleared for the
mission. So where are all the sneaky hookups? And then the most recent
episode got me wondering - did they bring protection and precautions
along with a bunch of I keep wondering how long people will
realistically put up with McKay being rude and abrupt, but then I
remember that it's only television, where characters aren't written to
nurse grudges or change their minds about someone unless it's
telegraphed in letters 10 feet high. On the other hand, McKay's funny
when he's all wound up, though it irritates me that of course he never
can figure it out until the timer on the drop dead clock gets to 0:02. Grr.
Teyla I like, but Zoe (Firefly) would totally kick her ass in a fair
fight. Interesting fact about the actress that plays her: she appeared
in an episode of Forever Knight. So that's another kinda-sorta OBHL, the
back way.
One final thing - every now and then, someone new shows up on the
Atlantis team whose character does something critical for that one
episode and then they disappear until their character is needed again.
That kind of bugs me, but then, maybe they're all really in touch with
their inner Siler.
--
Ginny
RED57@aol.com
Fresh out of .sig lines
http://www.blogula-rasa.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:50:43 -0700
From: Jen <data@cyberg8t.com>
Subject: Re: Time and again...
I hadn't been paying attention to this thread at all, but then I saw your
response, Marina. *glees* I've become such a fangirl for Stargate because
all of a sudden I realized that it is a pretty well written show, with
likeable characters and good acting. It's Sci-Fi's Last, best hope for good
Scifi, and a lingering program from the 1990s. *sighs*
I wouldn't call any of the episodes boring, either. Some of them have less
action than others, but that's perfectly fine. There's still the great
characters and the humor. I -looove- the humor. I love how the characters
have real personalities. :-D
Season Sux? *giggles* It's the missing Daniel factor. Hehe. It's rather
funny, actually. I mean, most shows, after a member of the principal cast
leaves, the writers will act as if the character never existed, and will
hardly mention the char. And when there is one of those "clip episodes"
that cast member who left will not have any clips shown. And yet, this was
the opposite for Stargate. I sat down to watch what I thought to be a Sixth
season ep with Corin Nemic, but yet, he never appeared once in the ep. It
was a clip show, and all the new footage was with Don S. Davis and a group
of diplomats; Hammond was coming clean about the Stargate. Daniel was
brought up within the first ten minutes of the ep and a picture of him with
his file was on a screen behind Major Davis for like, five minutes. *L* But
it didn't stop there. Many of the clips shown had Michael Shanks in them,
and in one or two, he actually spoke! And then Thor appeared and had a
really long speach!
Besides being all around cool with characters and writing, I love Stargate
because they're fan friendly. Fans have made a difference when it has come
to Stargate. This really impresses me. :-D
I really like Atlantis and I am liking Torri Higginson all right. I like
her more now than compared to before. I really hated her on Raven. Sure,
she was in only one ep, but I so hated her: she was such a nag. *L*
The actors who play McKay and Sheppard have that special chemistry that is
between Michael Shanks and RDA, I think. It looks like it can go that way,
at least. And I'm glad that the writing for Atlantis is also good and
funny. There have been some great little scenes and zingers on that show
already. :-D
> - Marina. (Who made her Grade 6 kids watch Stargate, write it as a
> story for English, then act it out.) (All the kids fought over who
> got to be Teal'c!)
Wow, Marina. That's awesome. What kind of stories did they write?
Jen
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:05:57 -0400
From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Double Jeopardy and Mary Sue
Me:
>>Clue me in..how is Renee the most singularly Mary Sue-ish character in
>the whole series? Is it because she is beautiful, brave, funny and smart?
>Does that make Methos a Mary Sue too? He is certainly beautiful, funny,
>smart and even brave (occasionally).
MacG:
>I see the classic Mary Sue as a temporary character who is female,
>perky, great hair, beautiful figure, smart, brave, funny (blah, blah,
>blah), and who sees The Hero through very lust-colored glasses.
Wow.
This is a pet peeve of mine and he hasn't been out of his cage for a while so you'll just have to bear with me.
Let's examine Renee as a Mary Sue. What are her "crimes"?
Female - well, yes. Guilty as charged.
Perky - Renee never struck me as "perky" - except when she was playing the part of the "helpless" woman who needed Duncan's help with her car. She wasn't relentlessly cheerful ... she wasn't always "on her game". I can't buy "perky"
Great hair - really? You think Renee has great hair? I was going to say that her hair was not that great. Hmm....Ok..let's say she does. The most practical answer is that she is an actress and TV shows don't hire unattractive people for the most part. Even for roles that are said to be "plain" (like Alexa) the woman hired is almost always 300% better looking than the average woman you see on the street.
Beautiful figure - OK....again. Let's be practical. Was HL:TS going to hire a 235 pound 5' 2' woman with blotchy skin, bad teeth, and a bad hair cut to play the part? When they cast the part of Queen Anne in ...."Reluctant Heros"?.....they picked a woman who was somewhat heavy set but nowhere near as fat and unattractive as the Queen actually was. Renee has a nice figure - she wasn't a bombshell but she looked good. How many unattractive women did HL hire in 6 years? Not a whole hell of a lot. (My God, they had women like Peta Wilson doing bit parts!) And, Renee doesn't wear clothes that make a big deal out of her figure. She wore suits, slacks and sweaters, etc-- she was a lot more appropriately dressed, given her age and profession, than Dr. Anne ever was.
Smart- now, I would suggest that Renee isn't all that smart. OK, she's a CID/FBI agent so the character isn't supposed to be stupid but she isn't shown to be particularly brainy either. She misses clues that Duncan doesn't. She doesn't ask any of the questions that a "smarter" person might when confronted by some of Duncan's actions. She *doesn't* solve the crimes. She doesn't make any great leaps in logic that advance the story. How is she "smart" (or do you just mean she isn't dumb?)("Dumb" like real women are suppose to be?)
Brave - well, the character is a CID/FBI agent and they tend to be reasonably "brave" (or at least well armed). I'm trying to think of any instance where she does anything particularly brave..she usually has a gun and/or back-up with her so I don't see bravery beyond, perhaps, her career choice..
Funny - I just don't see it. Renee is never shown as being witty. She often says the wrong thing or trips over her feet. She usually seems self-conscious and ill-at-ease in anything other than professional settings.
"Sees the Hero through very lust-colored glasses" - here I have to strongly disagree. I think Renee finds Duncan "interesting" First, obviously, he's gorgeous. Few heterosexual women alive would find themselves in the same room with Duncan and not be a bit lustful. And he *is* a fascinating person - mysterious, worldly, charming, with that current of potential violence just beneath the surface. Again, how many of us could spend days working beside Duncan and *not* feel a twinge of lust? He's also very nice to her - helping her with her cases, making her dinner, protecting her from flying bullets and poisoned wine glasses.They have "bonding" experiences- waiting at the hospital chapel for Charlie to recover or not, hunting down clues, getting shot at together. They have other things in common- the "military" background, the lost lovers, a sense of right and wrong. But she hardly spends the whole episode (or the previous ones) throwing herself at him. She eventually makes!
a very awkward attempt at seduction (which he totally misses) and it's clear that she feels pretty silly the whole time she is doing it.
In truth, I always thought that Renee demonstrated one of the most realistic responses of a "normal" women to being around Duncan. She got flustered. She was fascinated. She was susceptible to his charms (and he clearly sets out to charm her in the first episodes). She gets irritated at his unwillingness to offer information. She gets irritated at herself for being attracted to him. She wants to be sophisticated and seduce him- she is embarrassed by her own efforts to do so. She finally just throws herself at him and they end up in the river. She knows it isn't going anywhere and that she wouldn't be too happy if it did- she just wants have a moment to remember.
So much for the specific case of Renee....what about the general? Why is it that even on-screen every new women who shows up is a called Mary Sue? Why are beautiful, intelligent, brave females Mary Sues and handsome, intelligent, brave males are just what...to be expected? Because ..you know....most mean *are* handsome and intelligent and brave and so representing one in fiction is just telling the truth....whereas women are, by and large, ugly, stupid and timid and so any portrayal of one who isn't is a blatant wish-fulfillment by some lonely (ugly, stupid, timid) writer. Are those who cry "Mary Sue" really saying that no women could possibly be as pretty, as smart, as brave as a man? Are they saying that the (male) Hero must at all times be the only sexy, gorgeous, smart, brave character on the scene....unless of course his handsome, brave, sexy, intelligent best *male* friend shows up? Methos is older, smarter, as handsome, as charming, as sexy as Duncan - one could even!
say he loves Duncan ( platonically or erotically). Duncan clearly finds Methos attractive, fun to be around, a source of advice and comfort...does that make Methos a Mary Sue? I'd say that if you were looking for a character in HL:TS that was the writers' outlet for their collective wish fulfillment, it was Methos. *Methos* is the character that shows up and is beautiful and smart and charming and whom all the other characters want to be with. But..hey..he's a guy so that's OK.
I just don't get it. Never have ..probably never will. Write a strong male character... fine. Write a strong female character....get ridiculed. We've come a long way, baby..NOT.
Wendy(I'm sure Mary Sue and Slash are part of the same syndrome.)(Better any other male, no matter how unlikely, boffs the Hero than any female get close to him.)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:20:58 -0400
From: Heidi <heidi@bronze.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Sins Of The Father question
`Sins Of The Father' was on tv today and I watched it for the first
time in ages. I had forgotten just how bad the actress was who
played Alex Raven. (it also sounded like most of her dialog was
rerecorded after filming.) Does anyone know if there was some
problem casting that episode and she was maybe a last minute
replacement, or did they really want her? It just seems hard to
picture them picking her especially if the episode was one of
the spinoff tryouts. Unless it was a case where she was good in
an audition but it didn't hold up for the actual episode filming.
=}{=
(heidi@bronze.lcs.mit.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:49:18 -0400
From: kageorge <kageorge@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Double Jeopardy and Mary Sue
Wendy Tillis wrote:
>Me:
>
>
>>>Clue me in..how is Renee the most singularly Mary Sue-ish character in
>>>
>>>
>>the whole series? Is it because she is beautiful, brave, funny and smart?
>>Does that make Methos a Mary Sue too? He is certainly beautiful, funny,
>>smart and even brave (occasionally).
>>
>>
>
>MacG:
>
>
>>I see the classic Mary Sue as a temporary character who is female,
>>perky, great hair, beautiful figure, smart, brave, funny (blah, blah,
>>blah), and who sees The Hero through very lust-colored glasses.
>>
>>
>
>Wow.
>
>This is a pet peeve of mine and he hasn't been out of his cage for a while so you'll just have to bear with me.
>
>Let's examine Renee as a Mary Sue. What are her "crimes"?
>
>
(snipping some excellent commentary for the sake of brevity and band width)
>
>I just don't get it. Never have ..probably never will. Write a strong male character... fine. Write a strong female character....get ridiculed. We've come a long way, baby..NOT.
>
>
But I didn't see Renee as a strong female character. Whether or not you
agree that she had all of the specifics of the usual Mary Sue
descriptors, she had the exterior trappings of a strong female
character, but none of the interior fortitude. Methos stays essentially
himself (whoever that is at the moment <g>). He can be around Duncan
without acting like he's an object of worship. Amanda can act like
Duncan is an object of worship, but it is usually for her own ends and
she can cheerfully treat him like shit when she feels like it. Tessa
managed to adore Duncan without letting him walk all over her.
Cassandra, for all her faults, obviously saw Duncan as an object of lust
(who wouldn't?), without becoming a brainless nitwit. Anne, for all her
faults (and being badly written was the primary one), was still a strong
character, always questioning Duncan, never losing her sense of self.
Renee, on the other hand, made it clear that she would do whatever it
took, including be unfaithful to her fiance, just to get into his pants.
I'm not even sure I would say that she's a particularly successful Mary
Sue, since Duncan doesn't fall madly in love with her, eschew his
identity and abandon the Game so he can spend full time adoring her, but
my point is that I think she was consciously written as though from the
point of view of the "average" female viewer *as the writers believe
that viewer sees herself*. That construct is false, of course. There
is no "average" female viewer, and I shudder to think that anyone would
perceive themselves in such a way, but, in my opinion, that's where I
think the genesis of Renee's character lies. Whether you call that a
Mary Sue, or just an HL writer's rather discomforting fantasy, I didn't
much care for it.
MacGeorge
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:47:42 -0700
From: Janice Cox <jlc_fresno@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Double Jeopardy and Mary Sue
That was my though exactly. I *hated* the character,
and practically cringed every time she came on screen.
To me she seemed like the worst kind of female fan who
was pretending to be an FBI agent in order to get
close to Duncan. I got no sense that she was actually
competent, much less hyper-competent, which is usually
the hallmark of a Mary Sue.
Maybe that's the confusion. She's certainly fan-like
(IMHO), and gets close to Duncan in a way we'd
probably envy. In that sense she could be a fanfic
writer's avatar, but not a Mary Sue in the way we
usually mean the term.
No offense intended if others liked the character.
Your opinion may vary, as they say. :-)
Janice
--- kageorge <kageorge@erols.com> wrote:
<major snippage>
my point is that I think she was consciously written
as though from the point of view of the "average"
female viewer *as the writers believe that viewer sees
herself*.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:15:03 -0400
From: Wendy Tillis <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Double Jeopardy and Mary Sue
I exclaimed:
>>This is a pet peeve of mine and he hasn't been out of his cage for a
>while so you'll just have to bear with me.
>>
>>Let's examine Renee as a Mary Sue. What are her "crimes"?
>>
>>I just don't get it. Never have ..probably never will. Write a strong
>male character... fine. Write a strong female character....get ridiculed.
>We've come a long way, baby..NOT.
MacG:
>But I didn't see Renee as a strong female character.
So..she is, to quote you, "the most singularly Mary Sue-ish character in the whole series" except that she isn't a strong female character? So ... pretty much she's damned if she is and damned if she isn't? I'm fine with you not liking Renee - everyone likes different characters- but it would be be nice if you picked a reason and stuck to it <G>
> Whether or not you
>agree that she had all of the specifics of the usual Mary Sue
>descriptors, she had the exterior trappings of a strong female
>character, but none of the interior fortitude.
Which makes her *not* a Mary Sue..your original complaint.
>Renee, on the other hand, made it clear that she would do whatever it
>took, including be unfaithful to her fiance, just to get into his pants.
I think this is a grossly unfair reading of the episode as a whole and ignores the prior history the two have. She had been attracted to him the first time they met - and Duncan had signaled that he found her attractive but circumstances kept anything from happening. So..she went on with her life. Meeting him again, she was still attracted and he seemed interested until he heard she was engaged at which point he looked sorta nonplused. After spending more time with him (and some life-threatening moments ) and having him follow her to her room (she doesn't know he is protecting her from Morgan) she decides to sleep with him. Yes, she has a fiance and yes, being unfaithful is wrong but succumbing to a prior attraction *before* the wedding is hardly being willing to "do whatever it took...just to get into his pants". Remember..she said they shouldn't see each other any more..*he* insisted on going to her room..I think she had reason to think he was interested in her too.
>I'm not even sure I would say that she's a particularly successful Mary
>Sue, since Duncan doesn't fall madly in love with her, eschew his
>identity and abandon the Game so he can spend full time adoring her,
Ok...now you say she *isn't* a Mary Sue?
>but
>my point is that I think she was consciously written as though from the
>point of view of the "average" female viewer *as the writers believe
>that viewer sees herself*. That construct is false, of course. There
>is no "average" female viewer, and I shudder to think that anyone would
>perceive themselves in such a way, but, in my opinion, that's where I
>think the genesis of Renee's character lies. Whether you call that a
>Mary Sue, or just an HL writer's rather discomforting fantasy, I didn't
>much care for it.
So..if she is strong and decisive and smart and Duncan falls for her...she is a Mary Sue (the wish fulfillment of frustrated authors) and if she is outwardly strong but melts under the heat of Duncan's presence, she is a representation of the average female viewer as perceived by the deluded writers? She couldn't just be a character? Do all characters have to be..larger than life..or unrealistic ..or superior to real life? Renee *is* more like a "real" person than many TV characters. She isn't terribly strong, she doesn't make all the right choices, she does melt when confronted by a ravishingly handsome man, she does, or tries to do, stupid things (Do we need to take a poll of who here hasn't contemplated sleeping with someone they shouldn't?)( A poll of who *has* slept with someone they shouldn't?)
It seems as if you've constructed a scenario whereby no "new" woman could ever escape being either a Mary Sue or the writer's perception of what a female is <HUH?> I suppose if the woman was ugly and stupid, she would pass muster so long as she doesn't put the moves on Duncan. Or..I guess she could be strong and beautiful so long as she doesn't like Duncan and Duncan doesn't like her. If she appears to be Duncan's equal ..she is obviously a Mary Sue. If Duncan falls for her - no matter what her qualities- she is the writer's fantasy. If she is less than perfect, she is too real, which makes her a stand-in for the audience which makes her unacceptable. I thought the thing that made a Mary Sue a Mary Sue was her perfection...but apparently a character with flaws is bad too.
I'm not trying to make you like Renee. I wasn't all that enamored of her and I certainly didn't see her as a woman that Duncan would spend his life with. But, for me, that doesn't translate into a belief that writer's creation of the character is terminally flawed. I think the writers captured the essence of a certain type of "real" woman ...one with education, and an important job, and competence in some areas of her life that doesn't necessarily carry over to all areas of her life. Confronted with a man like Duncan, she still does her job, but she *is* attracted and that leads her to make unintended double-entendres and even stages a silly seduction. And then she shapes up and goes back to her job and boyfriend and her life. She is, really, another Dr. Anne except that the timing was off and they didn't have the affair that might-have-been.
>From what you've written, I can't imagine what kind of female character could ever pass muster.
Wendy(Duncan, being the handsome, intelligent, suave, caring, adorable man that he is will, inevitably, attract beautiful, smart, strong, sexy women who want, at the very least, to bed him.)( He'll also attract duller, less sexy women who are equally attracted to handsome sexy men)(But they seldom score <g>)(I'd find a strong sexy beautiful intelligent woman who *didn't* want to get into Duncan's pants to be a lot more unbelievable)(Unless she was Canadian)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:26:02 -0500
From: Kamil <kamilaa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Double Jeopardy and Mary Sue
<MacG>
<snip>
my point is that I think she was consciously written as though from
the point of view of the "average" female viewer *as the writers
believe that viewer sees herself*.
<Janice>
<snip>
In that sense she could be a fanfic writer's avatar, but not a Mary
Sue in the way we
usually mean the term.
<me>
Yeah, exactly. She really comes off the way an avatar/self-insertion
character does, even though she lacks all the usual 'ph34r my l33t
skillz' character traits. <g>
--
Kamil
" Okay, then. Well, it's nice to know that once you think there's no
way people could be bigger nutjobs, you can always be proved wrong
(another of the many lessons brought to you by the Internet. The
Internet: serving up crazy in all shapes and sizes for your viewing
pleasure)."
ahiru
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:25:01 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Time and again...
Sandy wrote:
>I'm with you Marina. I'm still a big SG1 fan. And Atlantis isn't nearly
>as bad as I thought it might be. I enjoy my two hours of Stargate every
>Friday. :-)
Who wouldn't? :)
>(can't get used to Teal'c with hair though)
It took me about two minutes. :) He looks *much* younger with hair.
*Rowr* He can stay at my place anytime.
>*If* all the humans came from Earth originally and were then seeded around
>the galaxy, their civilizations would have varied according to where they
>were taken from, when they were taken, what happened to them after they
>left, what environment they lived in, etc. The earlier seasons did a lot
>more with this idea.
Yes; you're right. But I'm not sure that always doing that is a good
thing either: shows that get too formulaic eventually get boring too.
I like to have a mix: some character stuff, some story stuff, etc.
>Later seasons got too caught up with fighting the "Goa'uld of the week"
>and with the replicators (a Borg clone if ever there was one)
When they encountered the Replicators in the first episode of season 8
I wanted to scream. I'm heartily sick of them.
>Don't you know that anything a fan thinks of has already been thought of
>by the writers at least 6 months earlier? (Isn't that what Donna used to
say?)
Hah. I think the writers just say that because they don't want to seem
like they didn't notice obvious plot ideas. Plus, the writers might well
have thought of it six months before... I mean, how long does it take
from story treatment to script to filming to airing?
>I agree that the "Teal'c gets an apartment" idea sounds like fanfic. ..
>which is why it sounds like a bad idea <eg>
Here's what I've noticed (and I have been in eight different fandoms over
the course of 24 years): shows that deal with things that fans might
wonder about have much *less* fanfic than shows that only deal with the
obvious. A show that bothers to flesh out the characters, show them at
home (and they don't necessarily have to devote an entire episode
to these things), show us their motivations and so on, doesn't *need*
fanfic to flesh it out: it's there on the screen. But make the audience
wonder about stuff and you will have fanfic. Fanfic fills a void, like
it or not. And slagging it off because you don't approve doesn't change
that.
>I can see it now.."What if Teal'c got an apartment and what if he had to
>deal with phone repair men and buying groceries and what if he has noisy
>neighbors and what if there was a woman in distress and Teal's tries to
>rescue her and he gets into trouble and SG1 has to rescue *him* without
>telling anyone what he is?"
Hey, I'd watch it! Even better: what if Teal'c has a neighbour who acts
so weird that Teal'c thinks he or she is a Goa'uld hiding out on Earth?
And how nobody believes him? Wait - didn't Buffy have an episode like
that? ("My roommate is a demon!" "No, she's not!" Yes, she was.)
>Character-centric episodes per se are fine in moderation. I prefer
>Stargate episodes to revolve (so to speak) around the Stargate. So...
>the episodes where one of the team goes off world and has to deal with
>the situation alone can be very good (if they don't overdo the
>"Sam/Jack/Daniel is lost/hurt and needs saving" plot) I guess I just
>find the Earth-bound episodes a lot less compelling *especially* when
>they are character-centric.
I completely agree. Moderation in everything.
>I miss Junior too- mostly because it gave Teal'c some reason to be there <g>.
>He was stronger than the others, he recovered faster, he could do things
>they couldn't. Without Junior, he is just another human and a lot less
>compelling.
I wonder what their motivation was for killing poor Junior off? Maybe they
just felt that it would be hard for Teal'c to return to Chulak and find
another baby Goa'uld when Junior matured? And they couldn't let him (Junior)
get a host, so what would they do? Stick him in a fish tank with a sunken
ship??
>As for staying on base or not, yes, they could keep him there (he is an
>alien after all) and even if he wants to live off-base, they wouldn't
>just stick him in an apartment in town with civilians. They would find
>him an apartment on the military base which sits on top of Cheyenne Mountain.
But then there'd be no drama or story! Where's the fun in that?!
>I just don't care about Sam's love life. Last season was filled with Sam
>episodes - mostly revolving around her unresolved feelings for Jack. I so
>don't care.
Me neither. Moderation, as you say. I got cheesed off by the fact that
every male, alien or not, seemed to fall in love with her. Please! (Now,
I can understand every female falling for Daniel...)
>I don't care about Teal'c's love life either. Or Daniel's (who doesn't
>seem to have one)(Isn't he done mourning Sharr'e yet?) I don't even care
>all that much about Jack's love life. I don't watch Stargate to see who
>is boinking whom.
Not in isolation, no. But as it affects their work, yes.
>Well, I wouldn't say I have a "thing" for him <g> Just that he's an
>appealing character. But the accent is nice :-)
He really is. Lovely accent. :)
>Oh, I'm sure the two types can interbreed. Or at least have sex <eg>.
>Captain Kirk proved that humans can have sex with anything on two legs
>regardless of species.
But this isn't Star Trek. Halleluyah. :)
>Atlantis really needs to show us something different...or it's just a
>Stargate clone and who needs that? I want to see different planets
>with different situations. I want more real peril and less happy endings.
>These people are a galaxy away from home with just the clothes on their
backs
>and they should discover that they don't always have what they need and they
>can't always conveniently dial a planet that has it.
Oh, yes. Like in the episode where they had a guy in a hospital bed. WHAT?
Did you see them cart any hospital beds through the Gate in the first
episode? Sheesh.
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//==============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za============|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"Why does everybody have to be an elf in fanfic, anyway? Like these
people don't have enough problems." - McSwain (The Fanfic Symposium)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:25:04 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Time and again... Oh, hell, mostly Atlantis with a bit of HL thrown in for flavor
Ginny wrote:
>Just on the trivial side, I want to know things like: did they bring
>hairdressers?
Heh. These are the things fans think about, and that we complain about
when they aren't mentioned... because even seemingly trivial details
can make a show much more realistic.
>I too was disappointed that Weir got re-cast. I liked Jessica Steen very
>much and was sorry that she wasn't part of the Atlantis crew. What
>happened? I've liked her female characters ever since Earth2, which also
>starred Clancy Brown, so nyah nyah, there's your OBHL.
I also liked her. Wonder why she wasn't cast. Yes, she was wonderful in
Earth 2. Did a great job in that episode of Due South she was in, too.
She's been in lots of good stuff. Very versatile.
>I got a kick out of "38 Minutes," which played on the
>wormhole timelimit plot point in an enjoyably different way. They even
>figured out that all the air would get sucked out of the gap in the
>doors when the wormhole collapsed. Yep, it sure would, and I'd never
>thought of it that way, since we'd never had a Gate in hard vacuum
>before (that I recall).
It was a good idea, but didn't you think it went on a bit long? That
kind of episode tends to get boring really quickly.
>Teyla I like, but Zoe (Firefly) would totally kick her ass in a fair
>fight. Interesting fact about the actress that plays her: she appeared
>in an episode of Forever Knight. So that's another kinda-sorta OBHL, the
>back way.
Which FK ep was she in? She's very exotic looking - was she a vampire?
I'm not sure I like her. She annoys me in some indefinable way. Imagine -
I like McKay and dislike the strong female lead. Then again, I never like
the characters everyone else does.
I did like how McKay kept calling that power thing a "Zed Pea Em" like
the British, Canadians, Australians and South Africans do. And then
Daniel had to explain to Jack that he meant a "ZEE Pea Em - he's
Canadian." "I'm sorry." Heh. Hey, I mentioned Canadians. Maybe that's
got it on-topic for HL. Not that I think McKay is, you know, *Canadian*.
He had a crush on Sam. Maybe she drives men to become *Canadian.*
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//==============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za============|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"Why does everybody have to be an elf in fanfic, anyway? Like these
people don't have enough problems." - McSwain (The Fanfic Symposium)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:34:20 -0400
From: kageorge <kageorge@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Double Jeopardy and Mary Sue
Wendy Tillis wrote:
>So..she is, to quote you, "the most singularly Mary Sue-ish character in the whole series" except that she isn't a strong female character? So ... pretty much she's damned if she is and damned if she isn't? I'm fine with you not liking Renee - everyone likes different characters- but it would be be nice if you picked a reason and stuck to it <G>
>
>
I perceive a Mary Sue character as (generically speaking) a fan
inserting his/herself into the story. That can appear in many guises,
but as others have stated, Renee came across as a fan, not a "real"
character. She had too many glaring inconsistencies and flaws to be
believable as an investigator of any skill or experience at all, and her
primary reason for being present in the story was to go weak in the
knees everytime she saw Duncan, and as a convenient mechanism to advance
the plot. *That* seems to be to be characteristic of Mary Sue-ishness,
as well.
>
>
>>Whether or not you
>>agree that she had all of the specifics of the usual Mary Sue
>>descriptors, she had the exterior trappings of a strong female
>>character, but none of the interior fortitude.
>>
>>
>
>Which makes her *not* a Mary Sue..your original complaint.
>
>
I guess we're defining Mary Sue in different ways, as others have
noted. Yes, there are classic fanfic Mary Sue attributes, and I
undoubtedly got the conversation off on a muddled track by trying to
make Renee fit into the classic fanfic Mary Sue box. Mea culpa.
>
>
>>Renee, on the other hand, made it clear that she would do whatever it
>>took, including be unfaithful to her fiance, just to get into his pants.
>>
>>
>
>I think this is a grossly unfair reading of the episode as a whole and ignores the prior history the two have. She had been attracted to him the first time they met - and Duncan had signaled that he found her attractive but circumstances kept anything from happening. So..she went on with her life. Meeting him again, she was still attracted and he seemed interested until he heard she was engaged at which point he looked sorta nonplused. After spending more time with him (and some life-threatening moments ) and having him follow her to her room (she doesn't know he is protecting her from Morgan) she decides to sleep with him. Yes, she has a fiance and yes, being unfaithful is wrong but succumbing to a prior attraction *before* the wedding is hardly being willing to "do whatever it took...just to get into his pants". Remember..she said they shouldn't see each other any more..*he* insisted on going to her room..I think she had reason to think he was interested in her too.
>
>
As far as I could tell (the plot was so muddled as to be difficult to be
sure), but as I read it, it was a clear case of "methinks thou does
protest too much" with all the "we must be professional" blather on
Renee's part, and Duncan stuck around solely because he wanted to get
rid of Morgan d'Estang. They had mutual goals in that respect, but
other than walking Renee to her apartment (insisting vehemently all
along that it was "just to talk") Duncan's actions did not appear to me
to be much of a come-on. Theretofore, he had been mildly amused at her
obvious discomfort, but had not encouraged it. His walking her to her
apartrment certainly did not seem to me to be a sufficient signal to
merit suddenly appearing in the living room in a sexy nightgown, ready
to rumble.
>>my point is that I think she was consciously written as though from the
>>point of view of the "average" female viewer *as the writers believe
>>that viewer sees herself*. That construct is false, of course. There
>>is no "average" female viewer, and I shudder to think that anyone would
>>perceive themselves in such a way, but, in my opinion, that's where I
>>think the genesis of Renee's character lies. Whether you call that a
>>Mary Sue, or just an HL writer's rather discomforting fantasy, I didn't
>>much care for it.
>>
>>
> but
>
>
>So..if she is strong and decisive and smart and Duncan falls for her...she is a Mary Sue (the wish fulfillment of frustrated authors) and if she is outwardly strong but melts under the heat of Duncan's presence, she is a representation of the average female viewer as perceived by the deluded writers? She couldn't just be a character?
>
But she wasn't a character. She was a caracature. She was incompetent,
easily flustered and rattled, indecisive and had poor impulse control.
This, in a criminal investigator?
>Do all characters have to be..larger than life..or unrealistic ..or superior to real life? Renee *is* more like a "real" person than many TV characters.
>
See above.
>She isn't terribly strong, she doesn't make all the right choices, she does melt when confronted by a ravishingly handsome man, she does, or tries to do, stupid things (Do we need to take a poll of who here hasn't contemplated sleeping with someone they shouldn't?)( A poll of who *has* slept with someone they shouldn't?)
>
>It seems as if you've constructed a scenario whereby no "new" woman could ever escape being either a Mary Sue or the writer's perception of what a female is <HUH?> I suppose if the woman was ugly and stupid, she would pass muster so long as she doesn't put the moves on Duncan. Or..I guess she could be strong and beautiful so long as she doesn't like Duncan and Duncan doesn't like her. If she appears to be Duncan's equal ..she is obviously a Mary Sue. If Duncan falls for her - no matter what her qualities- she is the writer's fantasy. If she is less than perfect, she is too real, which makes her a stand-in for the audience which makes her unacceptable. I thought the thing that made a Mary Sue a Mary Sue was her perfection...but apparently a character with flaws is bad too.
>
>
Well, hyperbole is a useful deflection tool, but it rarely captures the
nuances of good discourse. Of course, it is possible for a "new" woman
not to be a Mary Sue. Anne wasn't. She was flawed and quite annoying
at times, but I never thought of her as a Mary Sue. My problem with
Renee is that she was blatantly and obviously *not* a real person. No
real person would be *that* inept and still be considered so good at her
job as to be sent to Paris to head an international investigation. If
she were as much of a nitwit as she appears, she would never have gotten
the job and Duncan would have been rolling his eyes and doing a quick
exit stage left. All the writers have to do for any character is to is
make them believable. As written, Renee was patently not believable.
>I'm not trying to make you like Renee. I wasn't all that enamored of her and I certainly didn't see her as a woman that Duncan would spend his life with. But, for me, that doesn't translate into a belief that writer's creation of the character is terminally flawed. I think the writers captured the essence of a certain type of "real" woman ...one with education, and an important job, and competence in some areas of her life that doesn't necessarily carry over to all areas of her life.
>
Except I saw no competence... at anything.
>Confronted with a man like Duncan, she still does her job,
>
But she doesn't. Can you imagine any investigator *not* hauling
Duncan's butt to jail for intensive interrogation when they knew he was
aware that a prime murder suspect was in the same room and kept it a
secret, especially when that murder suspect turns around and kills a
fellow policeman? Showing Duncan d'Estang's files? And her flying off
the handle because d'Estang throws a few insults at her? I realize
there is a *lot* of suspension of disbelief required in all of HL plots,
but this one snapped my suspenders very early on with regard to Renee's
competence as a policewoman.
>but she *is* attracted and that leads her to make unintended double-entendres and even stages a silly seduction. And then she shapes up and goes back to her job and boyfriend and her life. She is, really, another Dr. Anne except that the timing was off and they didn't have the affair that might-have-been.
>
>
Actually the unintended double-entendres were kind of fun, but it was
all that fluttery adoration, combined with being incompetent at her job
that had me considering her as nothing but a fannish construct. Because
of that I wouldn't put her in the same league as Dr. Anne, who
functioned well as a physician, and didn't drop her stethoscope
everytime Duncan came within 10 yards (and I'm no fan of Dr. Anne).
MacG
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 16 Aug 2004 to 17 Aug 2004 - Special issue (#2004-151)
*******************************************************************************