SGA: An Essay on Keller

[gnine]

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?

Comments

[gnine.livejournal.com]

*Ack* Sorry for how long it's taken me to get back to you on this, but after all the different interesting arguments for and against arising over the last few days, your question was the final piece falling into place on a theory I'd been forming. So I started writing it up, and as it began to transform into another long essay all on it's own (the main point of which I'll touch on briefly, further down), xparrot pointed out that I still wasn't fully answering the real question and that lead to another sort of realization, more about fanning in general, that now I want to do a full paper on or something and man do I miss university and um...oh look, random tangent. Sorry. ^_- Anyway, I'm gonna try to quickly sum up and if it doesn't make sense, or you'd be curious to hear it more in full, I'll be happy to go on (probably at too great a length ^_-). Err, anyways:

So, the question is - why are we willing to love John and Rodney despite the flaws, but not Keller?


The true, candid answer: because we don't like her. So many of us question her flaws, seek them out, balk at brushing them over, because we want to justify our dislike. But then we've got to ask, is it really these flaws that made us dislike her in the first place or something else?

xparrot asked this, and it made me start to think. What was it about her, at the heart of her character, that caused that true dislike. Before the logic kicked in, the evidence from the show, the long, prolix essays got written, what started that emotional response?

And I think (maybe) I've put my finger on it. Whether we like a character or not is 100% bias to our own personal tastes, different for every person. But I do think there are trends that the majority tends to follow.

Picture a giant scale, with all the positives of a character on one side, and the negatives on another. Exactly balanced, and we're ambivalent about the character, take 'em or leave 'em. Add a negative or positive, remove one, and the scales tip up and down accordingly, until a point, when the scales get too overbalanced, and you fall completely into character love or hate. At that point, the weighing stops, and really, no matter what happens (apart from a total character retooling) your opinion's not gonna change.

In the case of Keller, I see it as a combination of lacking positives and building negatives that has weighed her down into dislike for a lot, and outright toppled the scale for many others. The question isn't whether she has these flaws. They all do, as you pointed out. It's does she have enough lovable traits to outweigh them.

Two of the strongest, heaviest positives that seem to be fairly universal across the board are humor and (in the case of action/sciFi) badass-ness. Rodney, John, Ronon, Teyla, even Woolsey and the most other minors all are one or the other or in most cases both. But Keller doesn't get to be either, at least not very often. Hands down the episodes/scenes I liked Keller most were "Trio" (funny) and the part near the beginning of 'Adrift' when she's on the gurney, flying through the halls working on Elizabeth, calmly shouting orders left and right (badass). But those moments are few and far between. And every time she shows just the opposite, she's unconfident or wavers, whines or puts herself down in a way not played for laughs, those negative or annoying traits negate the pluses.

The essay above, talking about her lack of motivations, the other essay I had planned, talking about the negative weight levied against late-comers (ie characters added later to the show, who have to work doubly hard to prove themselves to the already established characters and thus the viewers, and how I don't think Keller did this), the romance (I see romance as a very polarizing, incredibly weighted element in any series, and handled well boosts the positives significantly, but, done poorly, crashes down on the negative resoundingly), the Mary Sue tendencies, the possible breakage of one of the larger OTPs in all of fandom, etc. all weigh heavily against her. And, for many of us, the positives are just not strong enough to compensate for all those negatives.

new thoughts, part one

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking this over and over, and I've got three responses, which I'll number up here and then go on (and on) about afterwards :D

1) I think disliking Keller can be rationalized, but I don't think it's rational (so much as conditioned)
2) I think Keller disrupts our transference of self to John and Rodney
3) I think people see Keller as competition because of her youth and inexperience in a way they don't with Teyla and Sam. (And I'm talking here about the fandom trend toward disliking Keller, which is larger, I think, than any particular individual dislike of any character on the show; there will, of course, always be characters we each like more and less than others, but the fandom dislike of Keller is fairly all-consuming)

Point 1 comes up through talking about 2 and 3, so I hope it's clear by the end. Um. So!

When Thelma and Louise was released in the early 90s, it was enormously popular with women who, often, couldn't explain why. It's not exactly a feminist tale - sure, the rapist gets his due, but the women end up dying at the end of the film. So why did so many women feel such a sense of validation and vindication in seeing T&L? Because for the first time they were given female version of the male heroes they had *always* admired.

When women don't get the heroes they want, they make them (and there's a whole bunch of stuff in queer theory / lit about this being true for gay and lesbian men and women too, as I'm sure you know). Women grew up with the same range of role models men did, and seized on many of the same role models men did - we saw heroism and adventure and smarts in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid as much as our brothers, fathers, and boyfriends, and like them, we identified with the protagonists and invested them with our sense of self. Then comes Thelma and Louise and suddenly there are two women jumping off a cliff and fleeing to Latin America and wielding guns. The revolutionary part of that movie was not the narrative, but the simple act of having two women embody roles that had, traditionally been saved for men. Female movie goers didn't have to participate in an act of transference anymore to enact their fantasies. Not that any of them (or me! I felt this way too!) could have articulated that - words like transference don't exactly trip off the tongue or sit at the front of many people's consciousness. So you had an awful lot of interviews in the popular press where people said "I loved Thelma and Louise!" and the journalist would ask "Why?" and women would go ". . . uh . . ." :D (I simplify - but you get the point).

So. We, as a great big bunch of mostly women, have connected to SGA. It's not even necessarily about Sci Fi, because while many of us are big Sci Fi fans, it's this particular universe that attracts us. Season One - we're given a set of characters with whom to identify. If we look only to the women, we see the administrator and the leader of an entire nation of people. Few of us want to be administrators - we secretly want to be cool heroes and geniuses who explore new worlds and kick the bad guys' asses - and few of us believe we have the goods to lead an entire nation. So we give the women a pass and go . . . hey! I want to be the guy who gets to fly the cool jumpers, and the guy who gets to make the computers do crazy shit, and be on the team that goes off world . . . and we become, subconsciously, John and Rodney.

new thoughts, part two

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

Take that to fanon, and John and Rodney (especially for those of us who have them as an OTP) don't just become expressions of our intelligence, ambition, and secret (or not so secret) taste for adventure, they become our conduits for romance and friendship even where words fail, danger arises, and aliens try to bring it all to a crashing end. They reassure us that even dumbfaces who can't articulate a coherent thought about the concept of 'love' get love. They reassure us that when the chips are down, there will be someone who will refuse to let us do the dangerous thing alone. They're not dewey-eyed ducklings - they're adults who spat and fight and poke each other in the head and yet spend a bajillion hours playing video games together and communicate through a shorthand of Batman references. (Much like we do about SGA.)

So . . . we're happily transfering, subconsciously enjoying our adventures in the Pegasus Galaxy . . . and then along comes a woman who's our peer. She's not a genius particularly, and she's not a big damn hero, and she's not older than us, and she's not an administrator, and she's not the leader of a whole nation - she's a doctor. We know classmates who became doctors, and we know other women like Keller - she's the girl we went to college with and the woman we see in the parking lot, and we worked retail with her one summer, and she always liked the same guys we did, but she was hotter, so of course she got them.

So there's our double whammy. She's like us, and that fucks with our transference, because we STILL don't want to be like Keller, we want to be the big damn hero saving the galaxy and coming home to a shared bed with a dumbface just like us, so we look for reasons to reject Keller, to find her lacking, so that we can go on being the heroes and geniues we want to be. And she's like us, we know her, so we snap to that greatest gift patriarchy has given us - the ability to see competition, not alliance, in a woman who's our peer, all from about fifty paces - and we want her off our screen so that she's not taking up the time of the men who are ours, goddamit, we staked them out ages ago.

Which is how we come back to point 1). We can rationalize, but none of our reactions to the show are all that rational. They're conditioned by cultures and societies that fail to give us the fictional women we really want, the women who are our best selves, the women who are John and Rodney in bras and the underwear of our choice. And when we get a woman who arguably *is* that woman - who's smart, capable, shows a learning curve, a commitment to her profession and the principles of self defense, who could be Rodney at 25, or John - we see her beauty and her youth as a detriment, an obstacle to her really being our ally, to her being an expression of us, and we reject her before she can engineer the rejection of us or steal the attention of the guys we adore for more reasons than we consciously know.

To be clear - I'm not suggesting folks only have the capacity to be irrational in this place / this way. I hate Carson. My hatred is not rational, although I can rationalize it - and it's not really about Carson, it's about me.

So . . . I guess that's where I'm at. Where my thinky thoughts took me today while I was driving home. Feel free to run a tank through any and all holes in my argument - I'm interested in what you think.

Re: new thoughts, part two

[brasslizard.livejournal.com]

Hunh. I've never really thought about how much transference plays a part in how much I like a character, male or female. So. I created an extensive (although certainly not complete) list of female characters in science fiction television and then categorized them by how much I love, like, am ambivalent towards, or dislike the character.

I won’t go into who ended up on what list (unless you really want to know) but there were some interesting trends that formed when I looked at it from a perspective of transference. My two cents for what it’s worth.

Love – every last one of these could easily be classified under your “big damn hero” heading. I can easily point to discreet events that made me fall in love with them. And you’re also right about transference; they’re everything I wish I could be. Heck, half the time I don’t just want to be LIKE them, I want to BE them. As a side note, this category was woefully small. I wonder how a similar list of male characters would compare in size?

Like – I admire who these women are and what they stand for but they've never had that moment that made me sit up and REALLY take notice. These are the ones that I can see the better parts of myself in. I see them and think, “yeah, I could do that, be that – I’m kind of like them in my better moments.”

Ambivalent – I tend to spend more time confused or annoyed at these women. After reading through your post, I realized that I don't see any of these characters on their own terms but instead see them by how they interact with the characters that I DO like. Phrases like "I don't get why she did/didn't do X with/too this other (beloved) character" tend to make up my impressions of them. So why don’t I like them? Taken by themselves they tend to have pretty decent qualities, be pretty decent people but I certainly have NO desire to be like them. I can’t decide if you’re right here and I’m seeing them under some kind of flag of competition but the fact that I can only see them in terms of other characters and not on their own, does seem to suggest it.

Disliked – this one actually ended up really surprising me; almost without exception these tended to be of the "look, we have strong women in important positions on our show, aren't we progressive?" variety. Apparently I’ve got real issues with characters whose primary purpose is to be Female and In Charge.

Re: new thoughts, part two

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

This is so interesting! I should really make such a list for myself and see how the theory holds up!

Re: new thoughts, part two

[gnine.livejournal.com]

Hee, this is so fun to see because this is where a lot of the theories I've been mentioning have come from. I started listing female characters I loved, liked, etc, in the same way, and a lot of patterns emerged, similar in ways to yours.

For me, every last female character that I loved was both really funny and badass, which usually played into them being the Big Damn Hero. (Actually, this is a trend that carries over to all my favorite male characters as well). Unfortunately, that's a pretty short list, just as you said.

Like -- Pretty much word for word what you said.

Ambivalent/dislike for me is pretty much what you said to the former, the change from ambivalent to dislike usually only happening when a character I'm feeling ambivalent towards starts getting too much screen time/too much interaction with the other characters.

Re: new thoughts, part two

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

(I have some weird thinky thoughts here, and a lot of them I suspect brush on major feminist and sexism theory, which I have almost no education in, either formal or amateur. Which means I always feel inadequate talking about them, because I am not versed in the vocabulary or the studies. Also, I might be overreacting, reading too much into fictional trends. That being said...)

(--Also, Gnine & I were discussing all of this face-to-face, so her response & mine are liable to overlap; sorry to inundate you!)

I think disliking Keller can be rationalized, but I don't think it's rational (so much as conditioned)

This I think is absolutely true, and why we've mostly dropped out of the debates below, because rationalizing emotion is pointless. You can't logically argue someone into like or dislike. All our debates with Keller-fans managed to do was polarize us more - made us seek out more reasons to dislike her, made them seek out more reasons to like her (and dislike the rest of the cast.) It's not productive fanning (at least not how we fan) and I think Gnine & I were mistaken to bring this up at all (or at least word it as a character criticism, rather than strictly a writer criticism.)

That being said, I do think there are some critical problems with Keller's character, and I cannot help but think that there's some serious, if unconscious, sexism - not on we-the-fans' parts, but in the writing of her:

So . . . we're happily transfering, subconsciously enjoying our adventures in the Pegasus Galaxy . . . and then along comes a woman who's our peer. She's not a genius particularly, and she's not a big damn hero, and she's not older than us, and she's not an administrator, and she's not the leader of a whole nation - she's a doctor.

This is the problem, and it's what I see over and again - I just saw Iron Man (loved it) and I had the same problem with the Pepper Potts character that I had with Keller - that she's an ordinary woman, that she could have been me.

And the problem I have with this is that here's a woman in this incredibly significant position - Tony Stark's personal aide, head of medicine on Atlantis - and she's not special. The men in similar positions are gifted - brilliant, strong, brave, *ambitious* (many male characters get where they are by sheer determination - be it noble willpower, or amoral willingness to crush anyone under their wheels.) They usually are massively flawed, too, but they have big damn abilities - and those abilities are spotlit, emphasized, aggrandized.

While as the women in these significant roles do not exhibit obvious superior qualities. They might have them, but we don't see them; they aren't treated as important character traits. These women usually smart - but not too brilliant - and collected - but not too cold - and not too strong or fast or ambitious. Often the only obvious unique quality they have is that they are unusually good-looking. And it's often never explained how they got their job, or why they even want it. (Male writers don't get into female characters' heads as much as a rule; the issues of motivation for many female chars is a whole other problem.) So we're left assuming that they got their job either because they're pretty, or they're lucky, or both.

We can invent other backstories for them, less sexist backstories - but we're often not given them. Not nearly as much as for male characters. So there's this unwritten assumption in many stories that a pretty woman can get pretty much any job she wants, regardless of her skills. And there's an insidious corollary, that it doesn't matter how skilled a woman is, how talented, how gifted, how ambitious - it's not going to help her become anyone special; that's just not how women get anywhere.

...Ahhh. Like I said, I might be reading far too much into this. But it really bothers me, this idea that a "regular woman" can get & hold a job that a "regular man" could not; that male writers want to write women, and it's enough for them that they're writing a pretty woman, they feel no need to include anything else special about them. "Female" is apparently an interesting enough quality all by itself; a female character doesn't need anything else to be appealing.

Re: new thoughts, part two

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

...Reading this over, I'm wondering if there's a bit of cross-purpose here; that what I look for in a show is not what everyone looks for. For me, that John & Rodney are huge dorks is an important part of why I like them, but their (perceived, implied) uniqueness is even more important. I've always liked characters who are "special" somehow, who are unique individuals. I fell in love with Rodney very early on because it was apparent he was not the norm, that for all his failings in socializing and everything else, he's also the smartest man in two galaxies. I liked John from the start, but it took me a lot longer to love him; it wasn't until he showed his darker sides, his obsessive loyalty to "leave no one behind" and how crazily far he was willing to go for that, that he became an interesting character to me.

I suspect I'm not alone in this interest, considering how many fanfics emphasize John's special ATA gene, even though it's never been really established in canon - uniqueness is a positive character trait for many fans. So that many female characters lack it, are not specifically presented as unique in any area, is detrimental to all of us who look for that trait in our favorites.

Re: new thoughts, part two

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

Oh, I definitely think that there's a lot to be said for what you're raising here. I haven't seen Iron Man, so I'll have to confine myself to SGA in responding, but I can see this, yes. And it's good to remember - Jewel is a great actress, but she's also stunning, and has a legion of fans from Firefly, which has a lot to do with why she was hired. And I imagine that when TPTB wrote their spec for the character of Keller, stunning was high up on their list. They are not, shall we say, particularly evolved, when it comes to imagining something new instead of falling back on tired and tested tropes (and perhaps that's partly a business decision, but such business decisions thrive because of societal conditioning that expects certain things of men and women and . . . swiftly, this makes us all crazy).

However - :D - I don't think that it's solely a problem with women in the way you've raised it here. Carson (oh, Carson, you lucky dog, always our fall back :D ) wasn't a genius, wasn't a hero, wasn't particularly special - except for having the gene as gnine points out in the first essay. But that's an accident of birth, not an actual quality of character or education or training or experience, and if you look at who he is / was, he's that ordinary person you describe above. How did Carson end up head of medicine? We have no back story for him that suggests he has years of applicable experience (which . . . I don't know what applicable experience would look like. ER? In that you never know what's coming through the door?) or that he'd published, researched, worked for the military for a long time, whatever it would be. He was an ordinary dude - and indeed, continued to *be* an ordinary dude, without exceptional heroism or medical breakthroughs at his hands (indeed, instead, we had medical disasters). And as gnine pointed out, in season two he said everyone he was interviewing to join his team was more qualified than him.

And then there's John, god love him. His assent to Lt. Col. is incredibly, not-readl-world fast, especially because of the black marks on his file. His exceptional-ness (. . . uh, pretty sure that's not a word :D sorry!) is largely based on his loyalty, his commitment to protecting those around him down to putting himself in danger (as he did when he went back for those guys in Afghanistan, too). The qualities of Big Damn Hero that make us love him SO hard are not qualities beloved by the military - he's actually a very ordinary guy doing an extraordinary job. (And what's more hilarious, is that he does it really badly. Pretty much every week, bless his heart, he makes a plan, and Ronon raises an eyebrow because it's a dumb plan, and something goes wrong, and then they get out of it). Now - thats' not quite your point, because you're saying that Keller has no particular spark that makes her belong, whereas John clearly has character quirks by the buttload that make him unusual (right back to Rising and his smirk and ability to talk to Teyla with respect about Ferris Wheels while Sumner glowered and was an asshole). But I raise it just the same because John is atypical, career wise, on lots of levels.

So I both agree with you on one level - yes, it's profoundly irritating to suspect a character has been written primarily to be hot on screen - and yet thing, again, we give guys a pass when the same things happen to them. It's very, very muddy.

And I get the sense from the beginning of your comment that this all perhaps devolved into bitter mud-slinging, and taken a toll on you both. I haven't read the rest of the comments here, and I'm sorry if that occurred - it's disheartening to attempt something with the best intentions, with a clear mind and a good heart, and find it all messed up. ♥

Re: new thoughts, part two

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Actually, the best part of the debate was that it never did devolve into mudslinging, at least the parts I was involved in - I'm friends with all the people I'm debating (and still am, I hope!), and we were careful on both sides to keep it from getting personal, and to cut it short the moment it seemed possible it might. As a social exercise, it was an invigorating friendly debate - as a fan, though, it was frustrating. I came out less squeeful a fan than I was going in, and that saddened me.

Which is to say - if you feel your squee starting to slip (or if you feel it already) I ask that you not read this - all you have to do is say you've had enough, and I will drop it immediately. (I'm not feeling as squee-harshed now because I'm discussing writing trends rather than characters, which is something I very much enjoy...even if it's a bit shooting fish in a barrel to critique SGA writers, god bless 'em; I love our big dumb show so very much, but 'dumb' is the key word...!)

I'm not a big Carson fan either - liked him okay as a supporting character; was bored to tears when he got a starring role. So I'd agree that Carson wasn't the best-developed either. But Carson actually did prove himself on several occasions - "Poisoning the Well," he does science that an entire planet couldn't figure out; in "Conversion" he's seen managing a whole room of doctors, but he's the one coming up with ideas. We've never seen Keller in competition with anyone in her field - the couple times she's worked with Carson, Carson comes out looking equal to her, if not better. (Carson also did original science projects, like giving the ATA gene to new people or fixing the Wraith - Keller has done science, but it's always been based on previous research, either Carson's or Michael's; she's yet to be shown trying to accomplish something new, only recreating previous research.) I'm not saying that Keller isn't capable of such genius - only that the show has never shown her doing it. If she is specially gifted, the writers are not emphasizing it, while they did with Carson on several occasions.

John's actually a slightly different sort of character - what's special about him is less his self and more his circumstances. He's forced into the position he has (by his gene and Sumner's demise and them being stranded the first year) and has to cope. And then the extremity of what he endures after that turns him into something special. It's another classic scifi trope, the unwilling hero. I *think* this might be what Keller's character is intended to be - except that storyline doesn't make sense for her character; there is nothing forcing her into her position, that we've been told. They set up John's character from the start; they make no such effort with Keller. If this were s1, I'd have less trouble with this aspect of Keller's character, because I could believe they don't have any other choice of a doctor in Pegasus. But it makes no sense for the current seasons, not when there's a million other doctors on Earth to choose from. Perhaps that nonsensicality just bad writing...but I really wonder if they'd have written a male character similarly.

I *do* agree we often give male characters a pass that we don't give female characters - but I don't think that's only because we find male characters hotter, or because we're all prejudiced against female characters. I think a lot of female characters are written as less interesting or quirky or heroic or brilliant than their male counterparts. (...Heck, I wonder if we become more interested in female characters' backstories because we are given less to work with in the present - we knew John liked ferris wheels and speed by the pilot. Do we know a single hobby of Keller's after a year and a half? We don't even know why she wants to be on Atlantis. We want to know her past in hopes that it will give us insight into her opaque present self...) If we're prejudiced against female characters, it's because we have reason to be - and it's reasons that still exist.

Re: new thoughts, part two

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

I think we're in agreement here, so I'll make my reply short :D

I'd modify your last statement. I think there are excellent reasons - conscious, quantifiable, on screen, in-script reasons to find Keller lacking, and you and gnine have done an excellent job of feeling those out. But I do think that for many people - not all - there's also a subconscious element that springs from the social conditioning I outlined in my first 'new thinky' comment. I think we do ourselves a disservice to not also see the societal trends involved - which, to be clear, I totally think you two do see them. My frustration with the Keller conversation at large comes not from any of the stuff we've talked about here, but from a defensiveness and heels-dug-in reaction that refuses to consider the bigger issues also at play, or to acknowledge that there are emotions involved that spring from multiple sources, none of which make the argument (in many cases) a very rational one.

Anyway. My squee is not harshed! I'll continue to like Keller, regardless, and also to write her a better end for herself than TPTB can imagine - which, frankly, isn't that hard :D And thank you for the very interesting back and forth!

Re: new thoughts, part two

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

No, thank you for the back-and-forth, I've really enjoyed this discussion! You raise a lot of fascinating points, and aspects that are important to keep in mind whenever these debates come up.

But I do think that for many people - not all - there's also a subconscious element that springs from the social conditioning I outlined in my first 'new thinky' comment.

The one thing to note, concerning subconscious trends - and I think it's worthy of note, because yes, I do see unreasonable prejudice against female characters (SPN fandom is a frightening place for that) and I agree that a lot of what you theorized may often apply. That being said:

I have seen a *lot* of fans say that they wanted to like Keller - that they love Jewel Staite, that they didn't like Carson and were looking forward to a new CMO. I was this way myself. Rather than starting out resentful of her because she was going to be playing with our boys, we were looking forward to seeing her do just that. And then we found ourselves gradually liking her less and less - and I will fully admit that pairing her off with Ronon and Rodney contributed to this (and yes, I'd probably be more neutral about Keller myself if it weren't for the romance factor) but I'm convinced there's more going on. How much of that "more" is actually sexist writing, and how much is just *bad* writing, I can't say. (Maybe it's not that Keller's a woman; maybe they just can't write doctor characters very well!)

But while I completely agree that character dislike is an emotional rather than rational reaction, in the case of Keller I don't know if I buy that subconscious societal prejudices against female characters are a primary reason for the negative emotions of many fans now (some, almost definitely yes; but not all or even most, I don't think.)

Which isn't to say that you're 'wrong' for liking her - character-like is just as emotional a response as the opposite, and you shouldn't have to defend it (rationally or not)! I wish I could more easily switch back to the side of like myself - and I might well read the better end you have for her (especially if it involves her & Ronon settling down to have adorable Wraith-slaying babies...!)

Re: new thoughts, part two

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

I'm not necessarily arguing it's primary - just part of the puzzle that I think can get overlooked. I think there's clearly something bigger than simply 'bad writing' going on in the large scale reaction toward the character - our show is not a bastion of Emmy-winning script-writing, but we work with it on most occasions. In this instance, however, there's been an overwhelming sea change, and I think any widespread phenomenon of that nature, particularly considering our loving indulgence of the source material on most levels and on most occasions, requires looking beyond that for what else could be at work.

So I still think we're in agreement :D

Re: new thoughts, part two

[gnine.livejournal.com]

(yes, let's try this again, actually putting the link in this time :-p)

Very much in agreement, I'd say. In my opinion, the final decisive strike against her, and I do think this was just a bad choice on the writers' parts, not necessarily bad writing, is the introduction of the romantic elements. I think *why* people reacted badly to the romance has a myriad of reasons, but I do think it's what's made the situation so extreme. As you said, you didn't like Carson, I know quite a few who didn't, wasn't a big fan myself. Personally, I didn't much like Elizabeth either, found her boring. And Keller, I think, would have been dismissed in the same way, Meh, not my thing, but for the romance.

It splits up OTPs, multiple ones for different people, especially with three characters involved. It's not something they've particularly done in the past in SG, and for most fans, it's not something people considering them doing *well* when they have attempted it. Beyond the OTPs, it threatens to break up the TEAM, the heart of the show for oh so many. One, because, unlike the Sam/Jack or Jack/Daniel, or John/Rodney or John/Teyla or Teyla/Ronon or any of those, she's an outside. And, because she's being pursued by both of them, it has the potential to break up Rodney and Ronon's friendship, which is all kind of sadness, cause well...we adore their relationship! ^_- Added to that the fact that many of us feel female characters often are there JUST for romance, and I've seen a lot of people saying "oh c'mon, isn't she a person in her own right, more than the guy she's gonna eventually sleep with?!". And, because she's new, unlike in any of the other pairings I mentioned above, I think she gets the "blame" of the romantic elements, it's falling all on her shoulders, as an unlikable character trait, versus an unlikable event in the show, because we didn't get much chance to gauge her as a character in her own right, instead mostly only in terms of her romantic relationships.

I think all the other problems we see with her that we're focusing on or just reacting to subconsciously are valid, but I think this really is the major impetus. And it's not just for the slash fans (cause I've seen quite a few male fans on Gateworld expressing frustration over the romantic element getting introduced. Fear of going soap opera, and what not...)

Again, it's not really her fault, per say, but she's the easiest target to blame, because this focus on romance didn't really start till she arrived *and* she's at the center of it, with not one, but two men in hot pursuit.

As you said, I don't think our dislike is really rational, in this as much as anything else, but at the same time, I think the writers' could have made a wiser decision. Mallozzi even mentioned in an interview before the season began that they were introducing more romance this season than ever before, "much to fans excitement...or chagrin". Separately, on his blog, he's mentioned that they were aware of Keller dislike, and that's one of the reasons they've been giving her so much focus this season (That in itself I think is was a bad call, xparrot wrote a post on that entire concept here). But it also shows their awareness that fans were having issues with her after 4th season. Making her the focus of a romance, again something they seemed aware of could be an unpopular decision, just strikes me as a really bad judgment call. :-p.

Also, just a side note, xparrot won't be replying anymore, at least tonight, cause she knows she'll get scolded if she does cause she's *suppose* to be writing fic for the h/c challenge that's due Wed. And it's very much not done (and the last bit she wrote ended in a cliffhanger place, which, as her beta, is just a not nice thing to do to me, personally! ^_-)

Re: new thoughts, part two

[gnine.livejournal.com]

A lot of what you said was what I was thinking/going for! ^_^ The points about the women not getting to be the big damn heroes, the Thelma and Louise stuff, etc. Just a couple points I want to chime in on.

You mentioned the competitive urge towards these women, towards Keller. And I think we do do that to a point. We compare ourselves to them, wonder why we can't be in their place. Half the time, we're jealous. If *she* can, why not me? It she gets them, so can't I? But I do think for Keller, that's not the whole story. It's not just her failings (or possible successes?) in what we desire/need/is realistic in a female character (I think this may be one aspect, see xparrot's reply for my thoughts on that), it's something more:

The fundamental core of Keller's character is out of sync with the entire rest of the SG message. She doesn't jive not just what we want, but with everything else we've previously been given. If her character was the same, but male, we'd still be having these problems. On another show, maybe a male character we could respect, and a female one we'd be feeling competitive towards, predisposed to irrationally reject. But this is SciFi, more so, this is Stargate. SG has never been about the average man/woman slowly coming into their own (though Universe might be, which seems to have a lot of people cringing). Yes, the characters change and grow over the course of the series, but they all have something in common at their foundation: they're unique. They're not the "every man", the person, man or woman, we could be if we really tried. They're more, they're special, they're not 'us'.

Sam and Rodney have their absolute genius, shown time and time again as being better than all the rest, smartest individuals in two galaxies. We see the other scientist never getting it, or not getting it as quickly as them. Daniel has his unique, wacked, totally correct, theories and his crazy linguistic abilities. John, just your average soldier (debatable) but he's also got the gene. And while fandom loves to exploit this more, the show still makes it clear, even up to the most recent episode, that no one can handle the chair like can John. Teal'c, the one in millions of Jaffa who can stand up to his god and proclaim him false, who can lead a revolution. The list goes on and on, but there's something exceptional in every case.

On the other hand, take Bill Lee, he's a really bright guy, and he can do a *lot* more than your average person. He's not an idiot by any means, but even so, compared to SG-1? To SGA-1? He becomes the punch line to a lot of jokes, because he may be good, but he's just not up to their standards.

It's not just that Keller is letting down women yet again by not being that big damn hero we want to see. It's not just that we feel threatened. It's that she's disrupting the very nature of the narrative they've been giving us for thirteen previous seasons. Sure, they're misfits, at times fuck-ups, but they're also the only ones who can do this. They're not in these positions because of luck or looks, but because, as much as they might screw up, no one else *can* do it.

Throw a character into the mix, of either sex, who doesn't fit the pattern and all the previous assumptions, canon and fanon, that have thus been made start to be questioned. Is Atlantis really that special? Maybe it's not. A character so out of step with the rest makes us start questioning all those already established, because maybe they're not special either, maybe they're not actually unique. If 'normal' can fill her very important job, maybe it's true of the others, too. Maybe it actually is just that easy to save the world, the galaxy. As you said, so many of us do love that big damn hero, we want to see the character's who aren't us, who can be more than us. We don't want everyone brought down to the normal level, and we resent the implication that they *can* be.

The other point I want to address....um...I'm going to continue in the next message cause, wow, this topic is just too interesting, and these things just keep getting away from me in length! ^_-

Re: new thoughts, part two

[gnine.livejournal.com]

She's like us, and that fucks with our transference, because we STILL don't want to be like Keller

You emphasize the *still* don't want to be like her, despite her being like us, but for me it's *because* she's too much like me. It's fun to see the characters you love have traits in common with yourself, but for me, I want to love them first (and that love often comes from their uniqueness) before I start finding similarities. My affinity for them develops from their coolness/funniness/badassness, etc, all the ways they're not me. After that, seeing that there's a bit of me in there too is always fun, but if it's just me in there, I don't want to watch it. For me, my fiction is about true escapism, it's why I've never been a big fan of sitcoms or slice-of-life dramas. But I do enjoy the dichotomy of the fantastic juxtaposed with the mundane.

And she's like us, we know her, so we snap to that greatest gift patriarchy has given us - the ability to see competition, not alliance, in a woman who's our peer, all from about fifty paces - and we want her off our screen so that she's not taking up the time of the men who are ours, goddamit, we staked them out ages ago.

One of the things I so love about John and Rodney being together is how perfect they are for each other. They're both humongous dorks AND they're big damn heroes AND they're smart AND they have similar senses of humor. I love them and I have things in common with them, but the truth is, I don't think I would be unique enough, big damn hero enough...crazy enough ^_-. And if she's like me, how is she right for them?

Sort of a corollary to this, you said we don't latch on to Teyla and Elizabeth in the same way as the guys, because their roles in the story are just less appealing, leader and administrator just fundamentally not that interesting. But there I disagree, point again to the failings of the writers to write as captivating women. It's not that we failed to connect because those roles can't be the fun, adventurous, "big damn heroes" but because the writers don't write them that way. And I can't help but wonder if it's because they were giving those roles to women, so just assumed they couldn't be/didn’t take the time to make them as cool, not vice versa.

I can think of many shows across the board that the administrator or leader of the people was the big damn hero, was AWESOME. Captain Picard from ST:TNG, Sheridan from Babylon 5, Delenn, also from B5. They rock the house, and fall into the same category as Elizabeth or Teyla's functions do. Even Woolsey, this season, has been getting a LOT of love from the fans, mainly, my personal theory is, due to being hysterically funny.

Re: new thoughts, part two

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

Oh, and, lemme throw a thing in here. I don't think that Teyla's less interesting - not at all! I just think it's hard for most of us to imagine being the de facto leader of an entire nation. I think we admire that in her, and she's a Big Damn Hero because of it, but I don't know that many of us imagine ourselves in her place because of the sheer weight of responsibility - and isolation - involved.

Elizabeth - well, I got nothing much to go on here, except my own thoughts, but I honestly think some of the reaction against Elizabeth was that she was an administrator, in the worst pencil-pushing sense of the word (meaning her job description there, not her personality), and if there's one thing women have always been, it's the secretaries. Yes, she gets responsibility, but she's also not on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, or also kicking military ass as she goes (in the way Carter did). She's a diplomat (and hellishly bad at it), whereas the women we tend to respond most positively too not only have that ability, but others beside, especially the ass-kicking ones. We don't want to be secretaries, even secretaries in space - we want to be Big Damn Heroes, and I don't think Elizabeth fit that bill.

Re: new thoughts, part two

[gnine.livejournal.com]

Hmm, the secretary thing, good good point. And I think that we might actually be responding to Woolsey, in all his even more paper-pushing glory, better because he is a man. A woman we'd be just "so they're a glorified secretary, oh, thanks so much". Which is again, reverse sexist in a way, but it is, like you said...somewhere...above (goes looking for the thread ^_-), these societal issues that are so important to question, not just brush aside.

Also, on a bit of a different note, I mentioned the competition thing above, how I'm not sure how closely I relate to that. One other theory I have about that, and this is again where I think male writers have a tendency to falter, is that we so rarely get to *see* women being friends. As you say, a woman, like us, in a position of power, we should be rooting for and instead we go competitive (a patriarchal instinct, as I think you put it). And I think, part of what plays into that instinct, is that we're rarely shown the alternative, in the series. We see male/male interactions and female/male interactions, but female/female get so much less weight. We don't get to see these female characters that we may be feeling threatened by making nice and being really close to the other women. If we did, we might be able to have more transference of the friend nature in that respect. Oh, she's so close to all the women around her, maybe she'll be friends with me, too.

They do give it to us occasionally, like "Missing", and I liked them for that. But the bond that formed/should have formed between Teyla and Keller seems to come and go. The closeness that we see time and again between John and Rodney, or John and Ronon, or Rodney and Carson, or John and Teyla, etc, we never really see as deep a bond between the women. In a moment of crisis, they're working together, sure, but we never get a scene of just them hanging out, chatting about boys, etc. (Sunday gave us a smidgen, but then they went and blew one of the girls right up). That emotional reliance, just being good, happy *girlfriends* we never really get to see.

I think it'd be easier for us to chose friendship over competitive urges if we *saw* how good these female characters could be at being female friends. Err, does that make sense?

Re: new thoughts, part two

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

I think there's a real knee jerk response in us (in a good way!) to seeing women made glorified secretaries because, like you said, we're all, geez, Elizabeth's office manager of the pegasus galaxy? thanks a bunch. But Wolsey is a guy, and that *is* different to us. If he wants to be office manager, cool. Push paper, Wolsey, my friend - you obviously enjoy it, and your doing it does not limit *my* vision of what a woman can be.

And yes, I think you make an excellent point about female/female interaction being given short shrift. That's a big problem throughout the show, and that continuity would have gone a long way to make us feel better about many things that have happened on the show, not only Keller.

Re: new thoughts, part two

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

Push paper, Wolsey, my friend - you obviously enjoy it, and your doing it does not limit *my* vision of what a woman can be.

XDDDD Yes!! (in a related vein - did we also rebel against Elizabeth because she's the 'responsible' one? She's the one who's always trying to rein in the boys, cautions them about exploring the cool new spaceships and things - she's an authority figure, but she's the mother, school principal, the mature boring big sister. And that's okay, but we want to be *more* than that - we don't want to only be Wendy, we want to be Peter Pan, too! )

Re: new thoughts, part two

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

I know I did! She was mom! *I* would whine "Mooo-oooom" at her, even when John and Rodney didn't. And I still break out in hives when I re-watch season one and she has the mom hairdo. She was mom in charge of the typing pool and I have NO love for that :D

Re: new thoughts, part two

[xparrot.livejournal.com]

I never liked Elizabeth much, but upon consideration, I actually think she was seriously handicapped by the writers - not because she was a woman, but because her major skill was being a diplomat. But the key to being a good diplomat is being able to understand people of other cultures - and the SGA writers have absolutely no understanding themselves of people of oter cultures! So they could only "tell" about her ability; they never could "show" it. It's like writing a character who's supposed to be the greatest poet in the world - you can't ever actually write down their poems, because you (the writer) aren't the greatest poet yourself. While as with Rodney, they can say the greatest astrophysicist (besides Carter) because they're totally making up all his science; it's like saying he's the most powerful wizard. (Similar problem with doctors, really; you can say a doctor is awesome, but it's harder to prove?)

Re: new thoughts, part two

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

Oh, totally! Definitely, definitely. But truthfully, I *never* felt excited about Elizabeth being in charge, even when she was being a kick ass commander (ostensibly) and I think for me, it really does have to do with her being the office manager of the pegasus galaxy. She was most interesting to me in the one where she and John get possessed by the old people - I want a woman who is not only a diplomat, but more. But yes - she was written terribly. Because TPTB are, at heart, 12 year old boys still writing Westerns :D

Re: new thoughts, part two

[sheafrotherdon.livejournal.com]

I'm going to point you up to where I replied to xparrot :D Because I think much of what you say here is what I was replying to up there - that work?

Re: new thoughts, part two

[gnine.livejournal.com]

Totally works, cause yeah, I posted that as you posted your response and it just gets all kinda confusing. Though, in reply to your reply, I'll point to my sister's reply, cause...um...well, we share a brain, truly ^_-

One thing though, I too want to touch, about the debate. One of the things I was most loving about it was that people stayed very civil, offering up well-thought out arguments on both sides. I can't help it, I love debating, always have, (as long as it stays civil).

But it's true about the squee-factor as well. I think it did lower it -_-. Actually, some of what inspired me to do the original post was because we were having so much trouble getting over our mounting Keller-dislike that the rest of our squee was being tainted, and I hoped to maybe help some of that, when the positives were brought to light. Instead, it just became more frustrating. Which is sad, because one of the things I love most about this fandom is the sheer amount of SQUEE, both for the show and bandied about in the fandom. It's the original reason I friended your journal, because you are just the queen of squee and reading your posts never fails to put a smile on my face. (Well, and because I adore your fic ^_-).

Before SGA, we were heavy into the Smallville fandom, and the canon, while the fandom stayed friendly, started giving us so little to squee about. Every week it became a chore to watch the show and I never, ever want my lovable, dorktastic, romp that is SGA to go that way. And I don't want it to go that way for anyone else, either. And if the debate was harshing on some people's squee, I just feel so guilty!

...though I do still enjoy the debates themselves. ^_- Especially looking at writers'/shows/fandoms trends in general because it's something I'm actually hoping to tangentially do research on.

So, to repeat what xparrot said, if you in any way feel your squee being diminished, please do feel free to stop. I'm loving these thought out responses, these things that are really making me *think* but never at the price of squee! ^_-