gnine | SGA: An Essay on Keller

Entry tags:

SGA: An Essay on Keller

This wasn't meant to be quite so long, it kinda got away from me.

xparrot and I have been spending ~~a lot of~~ far too much time discussing one of our growing frustrations with SGA: the character of Keller. Finally, enough was enough, and I realized I just had to get it all down on paper, to get it out of my system, if nothing else. And thus, this monstrosity was born:

A Question of Motivation

First off, I want to be clear: this isn't meant as character bashing. It's a question, a fundamental issue with the character that's been bothering me more and more.

Also important to establish right off the bat: I was never a particularly big Carson fan. I didn't dislike him, but he was in no way my favorite. I say this to make it clear that while yes, I was sorry to see him go, I wasn't heartbroken, and his loss didn't bias me against Keller. Just the reverse: when I first heard that Jewel Staite would be replacing him, I was ecstatic. I loved her in Firefly, enjoyed her portrayal of Kaylee-Wraith in "Instinct," and was enthusiastic to see what she would add to the Atlantis assemble. Sadly, while I continue to love the actress, I don't think the writers have delivered in terms of character.

That said, on to the question: What is Keller doing on Atlantis?

This is really a two-fold inquiry: Why did Atlantis/SGC/IOA bring her on board? and What was Keller's own motivation for going there? For all the other major (and many of the minor) characters, we can easily answer at least one of those two questions, and in many cases, both. But Keller?

I've seen several people cite her ordinariness and her lack of confidence as pluses. Something "normal", "believable" amidst a cast of "superheroes." In other shows, I might agree. But what place does "normal" have on Atlantis? As your Head of Medicine? At that young an age? In that prestigious, not to mention dangerous, a place? She better be damn special, better outshine them all. Because that's how you get and retain a position such as that. Atlantis is not a mundane place and neither are the people on it. Is Keller?

People argue that Keller is no worse off-world/in battle/outside of her standard duties, etc. than Carson or early Rodney. And I agree. She's no worse, but she's no better, either. And she *should* be. Why? No double standard, just a fundamental difference: Carson and Rodney both were on Atlantis from the beginning. That first year was different. They didn't even know if there would be other gates in Pegasus, or if they'd ever need to go off-world. Additionally, they were both *vital* to the mission. No one (except perhaps Carter, who couldn't be spared at the time) knew more about Ancient tech than Rodney, and Carson had the gene, the second strongest manifestation of it after John. Plus there was his research on the gene therapy. Weighed against these skills, their lack of experience in the field was moot.

Keller, on the other hand, joined the project late in the game. By the time she came, everyone knew what they were getting into. Medical personnel had been sent off-world multiple times, not to mention there were all the dangers on Atlantis itself. Back in "Intruder", when Carson is picking new staff, he's bemoaning the fact that all these people are more qualified than him, especially noting their physical prowess: "hobbies include judo, horseback riding and base-jumping". Totally reasonable. The SGC is looking to recruit civilians with varied skill sets, beyond their chosen field. People who will do well in *any* situation Pegasus can possibly throw at them. And Pegasus certainly pitches a lot of extreme ones. What are Keller's "extra" skills?

Then there's her age. Being SG, which is notoriously bad about giving characters' ages, we can't know for sure how old she is. In at least one case (David Hewlett) we know the character is meant to be the same age as the actor. If this holds true with Keller/Jewel, that puts her somewhere around twenty-six. *Maybe* they could bump that up to thirty, but even so, that's awfully young to be the head of anything, especially the Head of Medicine at an international, highly elite facility. Keller mentions skipping grades (which one would assume would be true of virtually everyone on Atlantis) but still, head positions are usually based not just on smarts, but *experience*. 'Quarantine' suggests she got her bachelor's at seventeen. Which means she might have gotten her MD by twenty, so she has six years' experience tops, including her internship. Every other position of authority on Atlantis has been filled by people in their mid-thirties or older.

Now, they might overlook Keller's lack of field experience/physical ability, not to mention her youth, if she had something else going for her. Something beyond 'competent doctor'. But so far we have never been given an example of any special skill, nothing that makes her "vital" or "unique" to the project. Yes, she's a good doctor, I'm not denying that. But there are a LOT of good doctors out there. What separates her from the crowd? Why did the SGC single her out? And not just for any position, but a position high in the command structure, later granting her Head Medical Officer of *Atlantis*?

Moving on to the second part of the question: Keller's own motivation.

When we first meet Keller, she's *begging* Elizabeth to find her a replacement, and Elizabeth denies her request. Leaving aside the question of *why* Elizabeth has faith in her , if Keller didn't want to be in charge, didn't feel she could handle it, why did she take the position? One that placed her one step away from being in command? In a place as dangerous and unpredictable as Atlantis, the odds that you're going to have to step up and replace your boss are *high*.

Personal ambition could explain it (like with Kavanagh, who is a much greater coward, but keeps returning regardless because his ego demands it. He believes, however misguided, that he's got the chops). But Keller wants *out* of command, eager to give it away. The very opposite of ambition.

Carson, beyond the needs of his gene, comes because of his research. He states in "Hide and Seek" that the ATA gene therapy couldn't be tested back on Earth, too many regulations. He's come to Pegasus to play mad scientist. But we haven't seen Keller really engage in research, beyond what she did in "Kindred" and "The Seed", which was borne not of personal interest but a desperate need to save Carson and the Athosians, and which was entirely based on Michael's and Carson's previous research.

Doctor Porter, in "Whispers", states she's interested in adventure, exploring, meeting strange new people. Considering Keller's reactions in "Missing" and "Trio", adventure and exploration are the furthest thing from her mind.

Conversely, she's been given several reasons to stay back on earth. Besides her seeming lack of love for danger/adventure/physical exertion, all things she should have expected to face on Atlantis, she mentions her father back in "Missing". She's "all he's got left." Why take a position as far from home as you can *ever*, in any realm of the imagination, get? One in which the odds of coming back from aren't so hot. You'd need some pretty hefty motivation to overcome that. We've never gotten even a hint.

She first tells Elizabeth she hopes the IOA will make a quick decision, she'd like to go back to being "a regular doctor." You can *never* be a regular doctor as the head of medicine on Atlantis. Circumstances won't allow it. What made her want to stay after the grand FUBAR that was "Adrift"/"Lifeline"? What made her want to go in the first place? She's certainly not military, she wasn't assigned there. Atlantis, canonically, has a very rigorous application process. Why struggle through it when you can be a regular doctor in the comfort and safety of your own galaxy?

The reason these questions matter so much to me, besides the obvious fan-urge of "I need to know," is that a character's goals, their motivations and passions, are how I form emotional attachments to them and thus to the show.

Teyla leaves her people for her people. She feels Atlantis is her people's best hope of salvation. She will do *anything* for them, and when she loses them? You can empathize, fully support her drive to find them, cheer when she's reunited, because they are her passion, her focus.

Ronon will keep fighting until "every Wraith in the galaxy is dead". When he's forced to work with them, when they get the better of him, you wince for him, you understand his anger and frustration, and you cheer when he turns the situation back around, kicks some Wraith ass, because you *know* how damn satisfied it's making him.

Rodney's passion, his life, his reason d'etre, is his science, his intelligence, his hope of a Nobel. Every brilliant break-through, every discovery, you know he's a bit closer to that goal. And when it fails him, when his smarts betray him (Trinity), it *hurts*, and the audience sighs/whimpers/writes copious amounts of tag fic.

John never really wanted to come to Atlantis in the first place, had to be talked into it, in face of resentment from his CEO. But he overcame that, made a home there, a family, people he will do *anything* for. His team, his 'family' is John's motivation. And every time he goes batshit crazy determined to help/save them, we cheer (or squee) over his loyalty, his dedication, his ability to protect what he loves.

Their traits, their passions and goals are defined and focused. A clear path for the characters to walk on, for the writers to build upon, for the fans to latch onto. What is Keller's drive, what is her character's destination? What are her obstacles and pitfalls along the way?

Her ambitions are murky and her flaws? Superfluous. Her lack of confidence, which comes and goes, could make for a character arc, except she never has to overcome it.

Professionally, she's told over and over she's doing a great job and never once has she had to face consequences for her fuck-ups. Using the nanites on Elizabeth was originally her idea, but Rodney takes all the heat for it. It's ironic that the decision Elizabeth so loathed started with the person she had such faith in, an irony that's never once touched upon. In "The Shrine", *Keller* blames herself for missing what happened to Rodney, and as his doctor, she's right. It's her fault she didn't diagnose it sooner. But no one else accuses her. On the contrary, they reassure her. Every other character on the show has had their actions questioned, doubted. Argued against. Forced to prove they're correct, or give in in the face of irrefutable fact. Most of them have had their jobs directly on the line, the IOA demanding justification.

In "The Shrine", there's disagreement, but they never outright state they think Keller's wrong, that she won't cure him. They imply it, considering their one want is the chance to say goodbye, meaning they've given up on her finding a cure, but they don't accuse her directly. When tensions run high, the characters often turn the professional personal. "Hot Zone" (John and Elizabeth), "Trinity" (John and Rodney, Teyla and Ronon), "Adrift" (John and Rodney). They get angry with each other. But in "The Shrine", no one gets angry at Keller for refusing them, just frustrated at the situation. Jeannie is the only one who can resist the Keller-love enough to directly point out her failing, that she's no closer to a solution.

Which brings us to her social "flaws". She tells Ronon it's "the story of my life", never fitting in. But she's been accepted into the inner circle of Atlantis faster and closer than any other character except Jeannie (and she's Rodney's family.) By "Doppelganger", only her third ep, Keller's already eating lunch all chummily with the team, in a way that we never saw even Carson or Elizabeth doing, let alone Zelenka, Lorne, Heightmeyer, etc. Ronon, who hasn't felt ready to be with anyone in nine years, starts expressing interest. Teyla's ready to open up to her about her personal life. Keller's feeling comfortable enough to tease Rodney about his hypochondria by "Tabula Rasa". Her interaction with Carson in "Kindred II" suggests a fairly close relationship with him before he died. She doesn't have to struggle with being accepted; they all love her and welcome her into the group immediately.

Comparatively, Sam, who already had personal connections with Rodney, never gets that close. It takes until "Kindred" for her to feel comfortable enough to invite Teyla to address her by her first name.

So much of Keller, her strengths and her weaknesses, her confidence and her competence, her social awkwardness and familiarity with the main cast, vary wildly from episode to episode. I believe most of this stems from the lack of direction. She has no clear problem to overcome, no obvious goal to strive for, no dream to fulfill, no passion to indulge in. Every writer, in every individual script, has to answer that question anew, instead of having it clearly before them. Here her purpose is as love interest, there it’s being a doctor. Here it suits the plot for her to be meek, there flirtatious is the key. It makes for screenwriter schizophrenia to the extreme, the cure for which, at least in part, would have been to answer, at the character's conception: What is she *doing* here, and why does she stay?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

And then there's John. John's original reason for being on the expedition was his ATA gene -- which was totally invalided by the second episode, now that half the expedition has it! So, he's still in charge because ... why? John no only doesn't demonstrate good leadership skills, but he repeatedly shows that he's not very good at it -- e.g. going off and leaving the scientists in "Defiant One", risking a whole shipful of people to save one man in "Sateda"; repeatedly disobeying orders and acting in ways that jeopardize the safety of the people under his command, not to mention his own (e.g. "Search & Rescue"). According to "Intruder", he's still there because Elizabeth pulled strings and got him a permanent assignment -- so, basically, he's an unqualified commander who holds his position because of nepotism. His own team doesn't even obey him.

But, again, we give him a pass because we like him, and accept as canonical the leadership skills that he supposedly has, despite the general lack of canon evidence to support them.

*All* of what we, as fans, are doing is reading between the lines, taking the things we like at face value while filling in our own details for the things we don't. And that's totally what I'm seeing in the Keller debate -- it's sort of a non-debate, because you could make just as convincing an argument against any of the other characters. Every fan is totally entitled to their opinion, of course, and I won't argue that in some ways, Keller hasn't been offered much to work with (e.g. she needs more quirkiness and fun, more evidence of a personal life to be a fully rounded character). She could definitely be better written. But so could the boys. And the same argument that's been constructed against her could just as easily be constructed against any of the other characters.

And that explains why so many of these arguments against Jennifer as a good character echo arguments I've read (or heard) against Rodney as a good character. :D (Up to, and including, the writers all having man-crushes on Hewlett. *g*)

According to "Intruder", he's still there because Elizabeth pulled strings and got him a permanent assignment -- so, basically, he's an unqualified commander who holds his position because of nepotism. His own team doesn't even obey him.

But at least there's an explanation given. It doesn't make John a great hero, but there's a reason he's there, a reason which is revisited in "Intruder". There's good reasons why Sheppard is not the ideal choice for being mission commander - but there's other reasons for why he gets the job anyway.

Ditto with Rodney - his poor personal skills are a good reason for him not to have the job, but his particular expertise with Ancient tech and ZPMs (along with a long history with the SGC) got him his position, and means he gets to keep it even after Doranda.

Ditto with all the chars - they're all flawed, there are reasons why any of them are not the best person for their job. But there are also reasons why they have their position, beyond that they have the basic minimal skill set. Because they have connections, because they have particular skills, because they have experience, whatever.

Except for Keller. There are two good reasons why she shouldn't be head of medicine - she is far too inexperienced for the position, and she didn't want it. But there's never been a counter reason given, an explanation for why she got the position despite these issues. She can do the job, she's got the innate skills, but so do lots of other doctors. She's a good surgeon - but there are a lot of other good surgeons in the world. (As opposed to, say, Rodney, who is a good "astrophysicist" - but there are not a lot of good astrophysicists in the world!) Even a character like Heightmeyer, we have no idea why she was selected as base psychologist, but we never saw any particular reason why she shouldn't have the position.

I've realized that the problem I have with Keller (with the writing of Keller) is that she's a medical doctor - unlike all the blueshirts, who have weird esoteric specialties that don't have much basis in reality, she's a "regular doctor", which is an incredibly, incredibly competitive field in reality. Except on Atlantis, where people who don't want the job are promoted to the head of medicine.

Except for Keller. There are two good reasons why she shouldn't be head of medicine - she is far too inexperienced for the position, and she didn't want it.

You're placing a lot of weight on that ONE conversation between Jennifer and Elizabeth in "First Strike", where Jennifer expresses self-doubt. But Elizabeth and Carson had a very similar conversation in "Intruder", where he also expressed doubt about his ability to do his job. You seem to be taking Jennifer's self-assessment at face value: that if she says she doesn't feel fully qualified, then she must not be, despite Elizabeth's statement of confidence in her (and Elizabeth, we are repeatedly told, is a good judge of character -- even if I'm not absolutely convinced that all of Elizabeth's decisions bear this out, this is definitely supposed to be part of her character in the show).

Do you also take Carson's statement at face value -- that because he feels some of the people working under him are more qualified to run the department, then he's right, he shouldn't be in charge? I don't; we know that Carson doubts himself a lot (as does Keller). With Carson, most people seemed to find it endearing and assumed that he was selling himself short. With Keller, most people seem to find it irritating and assume that her self-assessment of her abilities is 100% accurate.

I don't find this fair. If you want to ding both Carson and Keller for doing the same thing, then fine. But don't ding Keller for it and give Carson a pass.

But there's never been a counter reason given, an explanation for why she got the position despite these issues.

Yes there is -- the EXACT same reason why John and Carson both kept their jobs in "Intruder". Because Elizabeth had faith in them and thought they could do the job. I don't remember a single other reason being EXPLICITLY given in the text of the show for either of those cases. We can infer a bunch of reasons, and the reasons that we come up with often depend on highly subjective factors, but that's what the SHOW GAVE US. Beyond that, it's all inference.

Even a character like Heightmeyer, we have no idea why she was selected as base psychologist, but we never saw any particular reason why she shouldn't have the position.

But I don't believe that we've been SHOWN any reason why Keller shouldn't have the job, either. It is true that her youth hasn't been raised as an issue, and perhaps it should have been. But the fact that it hasn't come up as an issue implies that no one has a problem with it. Rodney was a child genius, John's about the last person to raise doubts about another's qualifications, Elizabeth clearly had faith in Keller from the beginning, Teyla and Ronon don't infere with the inner workings of the Atlantis hierarchy as a general rule -- so among the main characters, there's really no one who would logically raise an objection, and we haven't seen the office politics of the medical division even when Carson was in charge. (It might make an interesting fic, though!)

The thing is -- this kind of gap exists in ALL of the characters' lives. This is what fanfic is for. We never saw anyone reacting to Carson's death beyond a few scenes at the end of Sunday, but I don't think it's logical to infer from that omission that the characters are sociopaths. We never saw whether the civilians in Atlantis had trouble accepting their new military overlords (Sheppard, then Carter) at the start of season four, but I don't think we can infer anything from this about military-civilian relations on Atlantis except that the writers just didn't SHOW us their reactions. You're taking those same omissions in Keller's life that ALL the characters suffer from, and using them to build a case against her.

She's not my favorite character on the show -- I like her, but I like the team more. But I keep wanting to defend her because I really feel like she's being done wrong! *g*

You're placing a lot of weight on that ONE conversation between Jennifer and Elizabeth in "First Strike", where Jennifer expresses self-doubt. But Elizabeth and Carson had a very similar conversation in "Intruder", where he also expressed doubt about his ability to do his job.

Carson jokes the candidates are all more qualified than he is, and complaining about choosing between them. He doesn't suggest that any of them actually take over from him - presumably, if he'd wanted to leave, he would have. Elizabeth isn't forcing him to stay. While as Keller actually is asking Elizabeth to find someone to replace her, and Elizabeth brushes her off.

ETA: I also have to point out that the Jennifer-Elizabeth conversation in "First Strike" is Keller's very first scene, her establishing moment as a character; I don't think it's amiss to put a fair bit of weight on it. The first thing we hear about her is that she doesn't think she's qualified for her job - and Elizabeth disagrees, but doesn't offer proof.

Do you also take Carson's statement at face value -- that because he feels some of the people working under him are more qualified to run the department, then he's right, he shouldn't be in charge?

Actually, yeah, I could totally believe some people under him could do as well or better. But Carson doesn't promote any of them - he whines about their qualifications, but if he wanted to step down, he could. He doesn't.

What confuses me about Keller is that it's presented like she doesn't have the option to step down. That no one else wants the position, that no one else can do the job but her. There really aren't any better-qualified doctors on Atlantis? Really?

Yes there is -- the EXACT same reason why John and Carson both kept their jobs in "Intruder". Because Elizabeth had faith in them and thought they could do the job.

Okay, point! Am I allowed to wish that Elizabeth's belief in Keller was based on more than blind faith? At least with Carson and John, she had both worked with them for a year and had seen them do their jobs and presumably been impressed with their performance (possibly questionably, but whatever.) Keller had done nothing to earn Elizabeth's trust (at least not anything that we're told about). I guess you can blame this on Elizabeth being an idiot - that's okay, I'll accept that, there's a lot of supporting evidence that Elizabeth is an idiot. It's still bad writing, damn it!

You're taking those same omissions in Keller's life that ALL the characters suffer from, and using them to build a case against her.

I do think that Keller has more omissions than most of the other characters - but I might be biased.

Gnine has a theory about this - it might be in her comments somewhere, I'm not sure what she's posted where - what it basically comes down to is that a character introduced later into a series has more of a burden of proof than a character introduced from the start. Because we the audience bond differently with characters we know from the beginning, versus ones introduced into an already developed dynamic; we're more inclined to be hostile. So Keller is being subjected to a double standard, but it's not because she's a female character, or a doctor, but because she's a newcomer. The reason so many of us here are anti-Keller is that the writers are not handling her properly for a new character. And I don't feel like defending their mistakes!

Edited 2008-09-25 20:11 (UTC)

what it basically comes down to is that a character introduced later into a series has more of a burden of proof than a character introduced from the start. Because we the audience bond differently with characters we know from the beginning, versus ones introduced into an already developed dynamic; we're more inclined to be hostile. So Keller is being subjected to a double standard, but it's not because she's a female character, or a doctor, but because she's a newcomer.

Oh, absolutely! Actually, I think that's the best point anyone has made so far. Fans ABSOLUTELY do this. It's a huge part of why I didn't like Jonas in SG1, or Alex in Invisible Man. It's irrational and unfair and totally, totally a part of fanning. The new character feels like an interloper and they're resented for taking screen time away from established characters. It has nothing to do with the character's personal qualities and everything to do with the fact that they're not established and they feel out of place in the established cast.

And I honestly think I'd feel better about this whole debate if people would just admit that this is a big factor in what's going on here, rather than trying to rationally prove that the character is poorly written, poorly acted, poorly conceived, etc. This makes those of us who have warmed up to her feel as if we are being criticized, because if this character is objectively bad, and we still like her, what does that imply about us?

The only place where I'm going to disagree is that I really do think it comes down more to fan reaction than to the writing for the character. Granted, mistakes were made (to use politics-speak), but I'm really not sure if there was any way they could have written Keller that would have won over the fanbase with the character as conceived. Maybe the problem is that the character concept is flawed, but when I look back on, say, Jonas, I'm not sure what they could have done with that character to make the fans like him.

It's irrational and unfair and totally, totally a part of fanning. The new character feels like an interloper and they're resented for taking screen time away from established characters. It has nothing to do with the character's personal qualities and everything to do with the fact that they're not established and they feel out of place in the established cast.

But...it's not that irrational. It's part of being human; we have trouble adjusting to new things replacing what we were used to. And part of writing a TV show well is writing to this, is making sure you account for this. Making sure you craft a new character that the fans can accept, putting extra work into their development.

There are always going to be some fans who will never accept a new char - but no char is beloved by all fans. The writers have been able to manage substitutions before - Ronon's a replacement char and most of us have embraced him. And the total retooling of SG-1 in s9-10 did win a lot of fans over.

This makes those of us who have warmed up to her feel as if we are being criticized, because if this character is objectively bad, and we still like her, what does that imply about us?

Yeah, that's always the trouble with these debates - because it always feels so personal, like you're being judged for your tastes. I don't think the Keller char is exactly objectively bad - just, um, not very good. And those of you defending her here, I think are seeing the positive parts of the character, while having a higher tolerance than most for ignoring/explaining the not-good parts. (The thing is, the character Keller that you seem to see, does seem to be a decent character. It's just not the character I'm seeing when I watch the show!)

The only place where I'm going to disagree is that I really do think it comes down more to fan reaction than to the writing for the character. Granted, mistakes were made (to use politics-speak), but I'm really not sure if there was any way they could have written Keller that would have won over the fanbase with the character as conceived.

But I think the character concept is, in a large part, what the writing is. Putting aside that I actually liked Jonas (not as much as Daniel but I thought he was sweet) - I was primed to like Keller from the beginning. I wasn't that attached to Carson, I was looking forward to seeing Jewel Staite in the show. I actually enjoyed her well enough in her first few episodes (even though I was baffled from the very beginning by what she was doing there - I kept expecting explanation, for some special skill to be revealed, and got increasingly frustrated as nothing came up) but the more I saw of her, the more bored with her I became; and the more screen-time she got, the more I began to resent her for being there instead of my team. I didn't so resent Carter, and I don't so resent Woolsey (on the contrary, I want to see more of Woolsey, maybe even at the expense of team scenes!)

A lot of the people who commented on this post say the same - that they didn't mind her at first, but have come to dislike her - or even that they still like her, but have problems with her, and this post explained them. So I can't help but think that there are genuine problems in the writing of her, or in her basic concept, beyond a stubborn and unaccepting fanbase.

So, just a quick response more (oh bed...someday...really)...and wow, looking at the beginning of this sentence...oh dear...watch the grammar slip away.

Anyway, the essay she's referring to...which of course I haven't yet posted, is something I'm thinking of tweaking slightly and actually posting on Fanthropology. Not in terms of SGA, but in fandom in general.

Cause I think, in part, it is a duty the writers must over come. As neechan says, it IS human nature, to compare, to question, to have a knee-jerk reaction to change. But, and this is somewhat where my previous essay comes in, I think what's important to do is have the character who's coming in have two clear things established: why the show needs them and why the other characters need/accept them. Does it always work, do they always succeed. Debatable. Take Alex, for example. We were not particularly fond of her, especially on first watching. Second rewatching, a few years later, we found her actually amusing/tolerable at times. For a simple reason. Do they really give her a good reason to be joining the show. Meeeeh. It's kinda flimsy, and kinda random and you're like, baby? Okaaaay? But in terms of the other characters (and this is where we started liking her more the second time around). The other characters...like a lot of the audience, they don't really like her either. And they speculate why's she there. Their own group kinda closes in, never fully reaches out to her...at times, when she has the better equipment, etc, doing the Mary Sue thing, all kick ass...they kinda mock it. The characters we know from the beginning, the ones we *do* like, are voicing our doubts, are questioning her place, and having to struggle with excepting her, just like the fans. Did it work, as I said, debatable. But on rewatching, seeing that arc play out, she was more tolerable. New characters are usually questioned, doubted by the already established ones. They have to prove themselves to the present cast. And as (hopefully, if the writing is handled well) the cast we're used to, our proxies, learn to accept, so, too, the fans.

Err...I really actually have no idea if a word of that made sense. Sleeeep. Yes, sleep now. Um...*hangs head* I suck so SO much ^_- Oh GOD, this is why I need to go back to school oh so BAD! I miss seminars and discussions so badly it HURTS! ^_-

Regarding Alex, though -- remember how we reacted *at the time*? I didn't know you personally then, but I remember my reaction being pretty much in tune with the rest of the fandom. We hated her. We thought she was too perfect, she had no reason for being there, and that the main characters became BFFs with her way, way too quickly. I'm not parroting your arguments against Keller; these are arguments that I remember myself and other fans making against Alex at the time! Also, I couldn't stand her eyebrows for some reason. ^^;; But I remember in particular one scene at the end of maybe her 2nd or 3rd episode where she walks off arm-in-arm with the boys and that just made me livid at the time; I felt like TPTB were trying to force Alex down our throats and making the boys like her for no reason.

Looking back on it NOW, after six(?) years, I really can't remember why I disliked her so much. I strongly suspect that if I watched the show now, I wouldn't dislike her at all. But I remember how I felt about her then, and I'm seeing a lot of the same arguments in people's reactions to Keller. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, 10 years from now, none of us can figure out why anyone used to hate her. What you said about the characters questioning/mocking Alex -- I specifically remember NOT getting that from the show at the time; I felt like everyone on the show loved her and she could do no wrong.

Which is not to say that I think you're wrong or being overly emotional/irrational about Keller. I just think we might all be too close to the show right now, with emotions running too high over the cancellation, for this kind of commentary to avoid becoming a partisan battleground. I honestly don't think you're *wrong* to have posted it (and I'm sorry for getting so argumentative in your post) but I do think that the whole situation on the show might look a little more positive if we all stepped back a bit and took a deep breath ...

I do think that the whole situation on the show might look a little more positive if we all stepped back a bit and took a deep breath ...

(er, yes, I'm jumping in all over the place - Gnine's off at work so won't be able to respond for a while) - I think a lot of it depends on how the show ends. One of the reasons we don't hate Alex in retrospect (because I do remember the hatred, though I don't think we were quite as involved in the show ourselves...there was that mermaid chick first season, though, and whoa the vitriol she inspired!) - anyway, one reason we didn't mind Alex, rewatching the show, is because we knew she left before it was over; she was booted from the cast and in the end she's a nonentity, easily ignored. (And I think I sympathize with characters better, knowing their fates? I swear I like Elizabeth more now than when she was ever on the show, and I actually even enjoy her more when rewatching episodes than I used to. I'm not sure what's going on there, actually...!)

Our future feelings on Keller depend entirely on how the show's end shakes out...because I'll admit, if the final scene of the finale is Rodney & Keller out on a balcony while John & Teyla & Ronon are laughing with each other in another room - I'll never, ever forgive the writers or the char. I'm stubborn that way XP I don't think that's how it's going to go (and I don't have spoilers) but I can't help but worry (mostly because "The Shrine" would be my favorite episode ever, if it had a team tag instead of what we got...there's so much gorgeous team stuff in the ep, but no resolution to any of it, and it makes the end as frustrating as most 2nd season eps were. And Keller's the scapegoat there, it's really the writer's fault, but...she's a convenient scapegoat!)

(and yeah, Gnine does read spoilers, and operates from that prescient perspective, and I yell at her about this all the time...!)

because I'll admit, if the final scene of the finale is Rodney & Keller out on a balcony while John & Teyla & Ronon are laughing with each other in another room - I'll never, ever forgive the writers or the char. I'm stubborn that way XP

*laughs* And, see, that honestly wouldn't bother me -- we *know* the characters are friends, so we don't have to see it all the time, and I don't think that would bother me any more than John spending his day off in "Sunday" with Teyla and Ronon rather than Rodney. I've enjoyed the team-bonding scenes we've gotten, but I also enjoy seeing the characters have lives outside the team (e.g. Rodney eating lunch alone or with Elizabeth in "Tao"). In all honestly, I actually prefer when they aren't joined at the hip all the time, and when we see them do things without the whole team being involved. I used to groove more on the team scenes in the early seasons, when we didn't get so many of them and the friendship was more implied than stated, but since both the team friendship and the John/Rodney friendship have been amply canonical over the last couple of seasons, I've actually been preferring seeing the team divided up in various ways (e.g. Ronon and John in Outcast, or Rodney and the girls in Trio). Not that I don't still enjoy the solid team eps, of course, but for me "Shrine" delivered that in spades, and I didn't feel the need to have more than we did.

This definitely doesn't mean that I'd rather see romance than friendship, of course (I am still ME, after all!), but scenes with other characters don't take away from the team friendship for me. On the contrary, like I've talked about in the past, I don't like the "soulmates because we have no one else" trope; I find it claustrophobic and scary, and I'd rather see the team choose to hang out together some of the time than watch them spending all their time together because they don't have any other friends! *g*

But of course that's just me.

Re: second part

xparrot.livejournal.com - 2008-09-26 16:32 (UTC) - Expand

Re: second part

sholio - 2008-09-26 16:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: second part

xparrot.livejournal.com - 2008-09-26 16:44 (UTC) - Expand

Umm, also, it's 6:20 AM here, so if either me or Gnine have come across too strong - we're really, really sorry, and are going to bed now and might be nicer in the morning. Or at least coherent. Good grief.

Sorry for fucking with your love of the show, in all its silly badly written dorktastic glory. I hope it's not permanent...

Sorry for fucking with your love of the show, in all its silly badly written dorktastic glory. I hope it's not permanent...

Oh, god, no, and I sound like a bit of a whiny brat in that last comment, don't I? ^^;; I'll be fine (though I do apparently need a break from the John/Rodney, it seems). And, really, I *do* think you guys are entitled to your opinions, honest I do. I think my least favorite thing about this kind of fan-partisan bickering is how it forces people to take sides and makes us all settle into more hard-line positions than we might otherwise have taken.

No, not whiny! just fatigued with the whole thing, same as us...and that you mentioned feeling polarized against Rodney made such sense to me, and made me feel incredibly guilty for not standing down (not to mention pissed at myself, if we lose you as a Rodney-fan over this I will kick myself to Pegasus and back!) I wish our ("our" because Gnine was posting the majority the comments, but she was discussing most of them out with me, though those last lists were rather overboard ^^;) arguments had been slanted more toward 'problematic writing' than 'bad character' (they kinda are in our heads, but less so here) because we ended up pitting character against character - which meant that for you to defend Keller, you had to argue against Rodney and Carson and the rest of the cast, and that's not a fun place to be And none of us are all that good at backing down ^^;

(Gnine also regrets these arguments happened on lj instead of in person - she's a very passionate person and a great debater, but she's the opposite of me; she's more comfortable talking out her ideas than writing them down, and I think some of the frustration in her posts stems from the impediment to self-expression more than any aspect of the argument.)

Um. Yes. Truce? *group hug!* And we can all make fun of Carson together, at least. Carson, you ass! Stop pretending to be Rodney's best friend and just piss off to China! XP

Fatigued, yeah ... and I totally understand getting carried away with debating until you lose all sight of sense or reason. ^^;; Not that I think either one of you had really gotten to that point -- but I do think that, for me at least, this is a good time to stop!

I really do enjoy debating for the most part (as you've no doubt noticed...) but it's also good to be able to disengage before it starts to affect my enjoyment for the subject under debate ... and before I start committing myself to stupidly reducto-ad-absurdem versions of my own argument! So, yeah. Truce. :)

Also, if you didn't see this on my lj, someone admires our mutual debating skills! ^_^

Re: PS

sholio - 2008-09-26 17:35 (UTC) - Expand

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- there's one thing I think folks are forgetting here. The reason people are promoted to positions of leadership aren't because they're the smartest or the cleverest, but because they are *really good leaders*. The one thing that Keller has been absolutely consistent on is her leadership. The people in that infirmary follow her orders instantly and clearly respect her. THAT'S why Elizabeth put her in that role. When she's there, she commands all of the people around her, and I've never seen her uncertain in that role. Being a good leader is a huge part of being the head of a department. So, yes, there are lots of great surgeons, there are lots of bad surgeons, but being the head of a department is about you're ability to command your peers, and she has never shown any issues in that regard (except for that private moment of self-doubt with Elizabeth).

Also, huge load of assumptions about whether she is experienced or not. You're basing that purely on her *age*, whereas, based on her skill set (namely, being capable of performing brain surgery), she's more than experienced. You don't graduate from medical school and suddenly becoming a qualified neurosurgeon. My brother is one, and it took him close to 15 years to get to the point where he could perform that sort of surgery on his own. She is the head surgeon, as clearly demonstrated by the first episode. You just cannot assume, based on her appearance, that she's not experienced enough when her skill set clearly demonstrates that she is. That's a discriminatory attitude.

Also, huge load of assumptions about whether she is experienced or not. You're basing that purely on her *age*, whereas, based on her skill set (namely, being capable of performing brain surgery), she's more than experienced.

I'm basing it on her age, and that she's never once mentioned working at any other hospital or facility, much less in the senior position. And yes, in this case, I'm applying a double standard to her vs Carson - because Jewel Staite is over ten years younger than Paul McGillion.

I try to explain myself here, but I'm not sure I'm managing it clearly...it's in my head but I'm having trouble wording it.

You don't graduate from medical school and suddenly becoming a qualified neurosurgeon. My brother is one, and it took him close to 15 years to get to the point where he could perform that sort of surgery on his own.

This is exactly my point. From Keller's apparent age and from the medical experience Keller has mentioned (none) - Keller has gotten as good as she has purely by natural surgical talent - and they let her head up Atlantis medicine based entirely on belief in that talent, not that she'd proved herself in another setting. The problem I have with "Adrift" is that, based on what she had said to Elizabeth and how Elizabeth responds, I had the impression it was the first time Keller had ever managed such a triage situation.

Keller performed admirably in "Adrift", I'm not denying that. But why would an untested doctor be put in the position that she had to manage triage for the first time, without supervision, on Atlantis? Why are there no more experienced doctors around?

You mentioned your brother - how long was it before he was allowed into a position of authority? Even if he had the ability, didn't he have to prove himself, working under other senior doctors?

Even Rodney McKay had put in years of working at the SGC before they gave him his position on Atlantis. We aren't ever given Carson's history - but he is definitely old enough to have gathered a fair bit of experience; he's not unusually young for his position. Keller is, but it's never addressed.

I can think of a few other unusually young but highly skilled doctors in scifi - Simon Tam, Julian Bashir. In both cases, a big deal was made about the fact that they were extraordinarily gifted, as well as extraordinarily ambitious. And people still questioned their ability to handle the responsibility (hey, if I was going under the knife and my doctor was 26, I'd be a bit hesitant!) Keller went to school early, and she is a good doctor (I'm not denying that) but it's never implied she's amazingly brilliant (I'm talking dozens of papers published, rock-star status) and she's not that ambitious, seeing as she didn't want the position to begin with.

And I find it insulting to real doctors, who must put in, as you say, years of experience to become as good as they are, that Keller managed to make it to head of medicine on Atlantis at her tender age, without anyone ever questioning her ability (save her herself), without having to try extra special damn hard, proving herself every step of the way.

(To clarify - I don't think it's Keller who's being insulting - it's the writing of her. The writers could have provided some reason for why Elizabeth trusted her - or else just said she was 35 and happens to look really young for her age! But they mention her inexperience and handwave over how she overcomes it, and that's what's bothering me.)

I'm basing it on her age, and that she's never once mentioned working at any other hospital or facility, much less in the senior position.

And that's exactly my point. You're assuming she doesn't have that experience based only on the fact that she looks young and she doesn't talk about where she gets her experience from. I don't mean to pick, but that's absoluately ridiculous. Of *course* she has that experience. Surgical talent isn't something you're naturally gifted at; there is *no such thing* as being naturally gifted at surgery. That's about as realistic a statement as saying you can cure someone with pixie dust. Surgery, especially neurosurgery, is something you have to be trained to do. You don't get given a saw and told, "hey, you look like you have a steady hand, go ahead and cut into that patient's brain, will you?" That argument makes absolutely no sense.

She HAS to have that experience. There's no "maybe" in that statement. She has it because she does it. Elizabeth made her chief of medicine; she didn't tell her she could now do neurosurgery. If she didn't have that experience, she wouldn't be cutting into Elizabeth's brain in that episode--she would have delegated that responsibility to someone else. You have to accept that, practically, she has all the experience to pull off that kind of surgery. If she didn't, she COULD NOT DO IT.

As for why make her chief? Because, as Elizabeth says, everyone in the infirmary looks up to her. They respect her to lead. And that is ALL YOU NEED. If her staff didn't respect her, if the nurses and doctors said she couldn't handle the position, they would have said so. Instead, Elizabeth clearly states that they think Keller is doing a great job (which directly counters you're statement that the writers didn't give us a reason why Elizabeth trusts her. THAT'S why she trusts her). The only one who isn't sure is Keller herself. You can not take Keller's own personal self-doubt expressed in a private moment with a friend and make that the end all be all of whether she can handle the position. Demonstrably, she handles the position brilliantly.

And speaking of brilliant, that's another assumption. You said the show hasn't implied that she is brilliant. First off, being on Atlantis? HUGE implication. They're not shipping mediocre people to this base. Second? RODNEY in Adrift calls her brilliant. Has he ever said that about anyone other than Carter? No. He doesn't say that lightly, and he called her brilliant. I'm not sure you can get a greater implication of her level of intelligence than that.

And it is not insulting to real doctors, any more than in any other profession, to have someone younger put in charge, ESPECIALLY, since that role requires more than just a medical or clinical background. That role requires being able to lead and administer, and most scientists (in fact, all scientists I have ever met) hate the idea. But it always goes back to the crux--the Jennifer runs that infirmary extremely well and her people respect her. That's all you need to know to determine how good a chief of medicine she is.

(By the by, I don't know why this argument is getting my blood boiling, but I hope you're having fun with it, since that's why I keep responding...I'm really getting a kick out of this, and I hope you and gnine aren't taking it personally. I sort of love arguing.)

You're assuming she doesn't have that experience based only on the fact that she looks young and she doesn't talk about where she gets her experience from. I don't mean to pick, but that's absoluately ridiculous. Of *course* she has that experience. Surgical talent isn't something you're naturally gifted at; there is *no such thing* as being naturally gifted at surgery.

This is totally true. But I think I'm justified in asking how she got that experience.

This isn't just in the show; it's a double standard that exists in real life. If I were about to get complicated brain surgery, and Dr. Carson Beckett walks in, I'd be, 'Great to meet you, nice blue eyes, oh, are you Scottish?'

If Dr. Jennifer Keller walked in - I would raise an eyebrow, and find a polite way to ask if she was really the senior doctor, and if so, was this her first surgery or what? Because 26 year old neurosurgeons are very unusual. I'd need to know why I should trust her.

I see a fundamental problem with Keller's basic character concept. She has two possible stories, and they're both flawed.

Either she's a decent doctor who got through med-school a few years early, and in her residency somehow stumbled onto Atlantis and into the position of head of medicine without any real experience, and turned out, luckily, to be amazingly good at medicine and administration.

In which case I cry bad writing, because it would be criminally irresponsible to put an untried doctor in charge of Atlantis. Yes, she's working out now. But why did she get the job to begin with? Why does the staff think she's doing a great job before they've ever been tested in a crisis? I've never worked at a hospital, but I have worked in academic environments, and when a new director comes in, people are usually suspicious, especially if that person's an unproven quantity. Did Keller buy everyone off with chocolate or what?

(Honestly, have you ever heard of a 26 year old doctor heading up a hospital, or a department? From my understanding, most 26 year olds are still in med school!)

Or, Keller has another story: that she was an incredibly gifted prodigy who aced med school, then whipped through her internship and residency and trained intensively in neurosurgery and a variety of other disciplines (pediatrics? she seems to like kids) with what had to be obsessive devotion, to accrue the experience you're saying she must have in only a few years.

In which case I cry bad writing, because that's an interesting story that they have never mentioned. Why was she so driven? Why does she act so nervous and diffident when she must have spent her life standing up to people older than her, convincing them that she could do it despite her age? Why, when Elizabeth was reassuring her that she could do it, did Elizabeth not say, "After all, you were the youngest doctor ever to pass the Johns Hopkins program" (or whatever)? Heck, why does Keller ever need reassurance - how could she possibly make it that far, that young, without buttloads of self-confidence? Also, I've heard Keller called "ordinary," but by this story, she is anything but - she is absolutely extraordinary. So why does she call herself a "regular doctor" and why doesn't Elizabeth refute that?

I'm holding Keller to a different standard than Carson because Carson is not that unusual a pick for a hospital director. He's on the young side, but he's not strikingly so. Keller is very, unusually young for her position, but the show's never explained why, and not a single character has ever questioned her suitability. There's no other character on the show that I can think of that, at first glance, I wonder how they possibly got their job. Except Keller. And I maintain it's bad writing that the writers have never bothered to address this question.

(Or else they could just have her mention off-hand that she's a very, very young-looking 35, though she really doesn't act it...at least it would shut my questions up!)

--Oh, and we love a good argument, as long as it stays friendly! I'm not taking it personally - actually I'm finding it convenient for clarifying my feelings; we sort of are going around in circles, but I think I'm spiraling closer to a central truth.

Though if you're feeling pressured, or if it's going to spoil your enjoyment of the show, or if I'm pissing you off - *please* say something! Friendshipper & I had to back off because it was getting to be too much for both of us.

...you're a lawyer in RL though, no? Or something of the sort? because in my experience the only one who enjoys a debate more than a lawyer is a philosopher...!

Yeah -- guilty as to being an attorney. *bg* I've actually got a bunch of lawyers working for me, a number of whom are both older and have more years of experience, so, perhaps I identify with Keller a bit, which is why it's easier for me to see her in her role at her age. Frankly, that's probably why I like her so much--because I sort of know where she's coming from.

But you could never piss me off! I'm far more worried about pissing off you and gnine, for arguing so much! I promise, this is my last post!

Okay, I'm sorry, but I just have to ask - you mentioned you have older, more experienced lawyers working for you. Did they all accept you unquestioning when you took the position? Has anyone ever questioned your qualifications or lack of experience? And do you spend a lot of time talking to them and your friends about how you don't think you can do something, and have them reassure you that you can?

I think part of the problem is that I have known some quite young people in positions of authority - but they always tend to be unusually ambitious, strong-willed, certain personalities, who never back down. ...Such as here, in which you don't seem to need any reassurances whatsoever; you are very confident arguing your case! *g* That's why I can't reconcile Keller's attitude with her position. She doesn't just express an occasional moment of doubt - she is always needing reassurances, always saying, "I can't," "I'm not good at this," "It's my fault." If she had these thoughts in her head, that would be one thing. But she is always sharing them with her colleagues (who are also her patients, if not always at the same time).

I had the impression that med school is rigorous enough that people who don't have quite a lot of confidence - or don't find some - don't make it, even if they're wicked smart. So how Keller slipped through the cracks puzzles me.

What is your take on the character? You've written her before - how did she get through med school, in your fanon? Or do you see her as very confident in medicine, and prefer to just ignore those moments of doubt? (--er, I swear I'm not being facetious here; a lot of liking a character is in ignoring what doesn't fit your mental image. I definitely drop certain things about Rodney - "my" Rodney is a bit more uniquely vital to the project than maybe he really is. I'm just wondering what "your" Keller's story is...)

Ack! Okay, shutting up now! Really! ^^;

Re: second part

tipper-green.livejournal.com - 2008-09-27 16:36 (UTC) - Expand

Re: second part

tipper-green.livejournal.com - 2008-09-27 16:37 (UTC) - Expand

Re: second part

xparrot.livejournal.com - 2008-09-27 17:49 (UTC) - Expand

Re: second part

xparrot.livejournal.com - 2008-09-27 17:34 (UTC) - Expand

--er, sorry for the triple comments, I just, I keep feeling like I'm not stating myself clearly. The problem I think (I keep changing my mind!) I'm seeing with Keller is that fundamentally, I cannot make her character concept make sense. I cannot understand how someone becomes an incredibly skilled and experienced doctor at a very young age, while being so personally unsure and always in need of reassurance.

I think it's because I'm approaching her from a fic perspective - I keep trying to get into her head, and I cannot figure her out well enough to do so. If she were more self-confident, I could understand how she made it this far so young. Or if she were older, I could believe that thanks to her ability she gradually rose through the ranks of medicine, accruing experience over time. But I cannot reconcile her youth with her experience. The reason I am so desperate for answers is that I have failed to invent any backstory for her that makes sense to me with what we've been given - so I am absolutely desperate for the writers to give us one.

...I know this isn't going to help my argument any, because obviously this backstory is evident to many of you, since you don't see any contradiction and her story seems clear to you. But I honestly can't see it!

And you know, this makes total sense to me. I think you're right: I have no issues with Keller, because, as you say, her story seems clear to me so I don't need the writers to "reconcile" it (for me, there is nothing to reconcile), but you can't see it. So...I think that's it. That's the crux of the matter.

Ultimately, I think...somewhere else in these comments...heh...it was pointed out that our perspectives color our opinions, and, thus, it causes us to all read between the lines differently regarding the characters. Sort of like me rarely ever seeing the slash moments that other folks see all the time. If someone points me to it, I can generally reconnect my brain to think that way, but most of the time I just don't see it--I don't even think it--partly because I've always perceived, say, Rodney and John's relationship as siblings (so putting them together is squicky for me, like incest). But a huge, huge part of the fandom sees slash in almost every scene they're together. So, much in the same way I can't understand why you can't see Keller as clearly as I do, I'm betting folks who write slash can't understand why I don't see slash on the screen they way they do.

I don't know if that's a good analogy, but it's the closest I can come up with.

Anyway, point is...I get your point. *bg* After all, no one watches the show the same way, right?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only