It was tactful of Neil not to mention: (n) Fan has crush, perhaps slightly embarrassing crush for being on the "wrong" person--i.e., second leads seem to have more fen than leads, even though you're "supposed" to root for the lead.
-(Y)
Interesting you should mention that. Is it common among fandom to prefer the supporting cast? I know I prefer Giles and Xander to Angel or Riley; Willow to Buffy. Blake's 7 did the unprecendented thing of removing Blake-- would Avon be nearly as popular in fandom if he'd led from the beginning? I doubt it. Is it because we, being imaginative, individualists, didn't 'fit in' when we were young and like characters who seem a little awkward sometimes? Or is it that writers inadvertantly make main characters too self-centered?
Dana, Helen:
second leads seem to have more fen than leads, even though you're "supposed" to root for the lead.
Is it because we, being imaginative, individualists, didn't 'fit in' when we were young and like characters who seem a little awkward sometimes?
That would be my guess. We might wish we were heroes, but we know we're really sidekick material (which is okay by me. Willow is more interesting than Buffy any day. Of course Wills has her own sidekick now; does that make Tara Vila?)
Mistral
----- Original Message ----- From: Helen Krummenacker avona@jps.net
Interesting you should mention that. Is it common among fandom to prefer the supporting cast? I know I prefer Giles and Xander to Angel or Riley; Willow to Buffy. Blake's 7 did the unprecendented thing of removing Blake-- would Avon be nearly as popular in fandom if he'd led from the beginning? I doubt it.
Another note on these lines: secondary characters have more license to include "dark" and ambiguous traits than primary ones, making them more real and also someone whom normal human beings can at least recognise, if not identify with. I seem to recall Paul Darrow going on record saying that Avon was more interesting than Blake because Blake would never hit a woman, cheat, or do anything else that was overtly reprehensible, and that when he became leader in Series 3, the scriptwriters had an irritating tendency to try and make him more heroic.
Or, on a less moraly dubious note-- Willow, on Buffy, is allowed more in the way of moments of self-doubt, human failing etc. than Buffy is. Which allows the writers to use the character in very interesting ways-- if Buffy had developed a close same-sex relationship, for instance, the networks would have started pegging it as a "gay show," whereas Willow's relationship with Tara goes pretty much unchallenged.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Helen said:
Interesting you should mention that. Is it common among fandom to prefer the supporting cast? I know I prefer Giles and Xander to Angel or Riley;
For one thing, they're played by much better actors
Is it because we, being imaginative, individualists, didn't 'fit in' when we were young and like characters who seem a little awkward sometimes? Or is it that writers inadvertantly make main characters too self-centered?
The "hero" is often hampered precisely by the burden of being heroic all the time and white-bread handsome when quirks and self-doubt are often more interesting to the fen.
-(Y)
-
Dana Shilling -
Fiona Moore -
Helen Krummenacker -
Mistral