It's good to hear from you again! I've been reading your recent Torchwood meta and found it interesting. Although you'll probably want to avoid mine as I'm not so fond of that show. ;)
Sharpe is an interesting case. He's definitely gotten to be a bit too much of a traditional hero in the later books, which are really formulaic. I prefer the earlier ones, which I think are darker and more raw.
I think Cornwell does an interesting job of keeping Sharpe as a rogue figure even as he rises through the military ranks. He's always getting ridiculed and excluded as an outsider because of his social background. And he's always ending up in these situations where he's either on his own with his team or he's under some corrupt superior officer that he has to defy; either way he ends up breaking rules and making his own decisions. And I like that he's doing all this not for the Greater Good or Patriotic Duty but because he's ambitious and it's literally the only way he can rise in the world.
I do think he's vulnerable, although maybe that's more in the movies with Sean Bean doing the big teary eyes. But he's definitely very insecure and clueless, especially when it comes to women or dealing with anyone of a higher class, which I think gives him an appealing vulnerability that counters his tough action hero role in battle. The big thing he's missing for me is the joy or sense of humor, although you get it sometimes with his interactions with Harper or his occasional snarky comments.
You know, I've never read a Sherlock Holmes book. (*feels woefully uneducated*) He's never been that appealing to me, I guess because I'm not a huge mystery fan and, yeah, I never got the sense that they were books that delved much into emotions or the hero's dark side.
So I guess my question is how far from your ideal can a character deviate before you lose interest?
Hmm. Well, I am fannish about some characters that don't fit into this criteria much (like Luke Skywalker, although that could've been because I was seven at the time, or "Stephen Colbert," which is a whole other thing related to politics and humor). When I already like a character like this, I tend to lose interest when their story becomes about something that counters one of the things I originally liked about them.
Like, I'd had it with Spike when he became Angel's comic relief in AtS S5. (In fact, I'd pretty much had it when he became Buffy's puppy in BtVS S7.) I lost interest in Brian Kinney when his story became all about whether or not he'd settle down and have babies with Justin. I lost interest in Logan Echolls when I began to feel that the show was exaggerating his flaws just to teach a lesson to Veronica. And so on... and I guess it particularly annoys me when I feel like the narrative is making moral judgments about my character and using him to teach a lesson to other characters.
no subject
Sharpe is an interesting case. He's definitely gotten to be a bit too much of a traditional hero in the later books, which are really formulaic. I prefer the earlier ones, which I think are darker and more raw.
I think Cornwell does an interesting job of keeping Sharpe as a rogue figure even as he rises through the military ranks. He's always getting ridiculed and excluded as an outsider because of his social background. And he's always ending up in these situations where he's either on his own with his team or he's under some corrupt superior officer that he has to defy; either way he ends up breaking rules and making his own decisions. And I like that he's doing all this not for the Greater Good or Patriotic Duty but because he's ambitious and it's literally the only way he can rise in the world.
I do think he's vulnerable, although maybe that's more in the movies with Sean Bean doing the big teary eyes. But he's definitely very insecure and clueless, especially when it comes to women or dealing with anyone of a higher class, which I think gives him an appealing vulnerability that counters his tough action hero role in battle. The big thing he's missing for me is the joy or sense of humor, although you get it sometimes with his interactions with Harper or his occasional snarky comments.
You know, I've never read a Sherlock Holmes book. (*feels woefully uneducated*) He's never been that appealing to me, I guess because I'm not a huge mystery fan and, yeah, I never got the sense that they were books that delved much into emotions or the hero's dark side.
So I guess my question is how far from your ideal can a character deviate before you lose interest?
Hmm. Well, I am fannish about some characters that don't fit into this criteria much (like Luke Skywalker, although that could've been because I was seven at the time, or "Stephen Colbert," which is a whole other thing related to politics and humor). When I already like a character like this, I tend to lose interest when their story becomes about something that counters one of the things I originally liked about them.
Like, I'd had it with Spike when he became Angel's comic relief in AtS S5. (In fact, I'd pretty much had it when he became Buffy's puppy in BtVS S7.) I lost interest in Brian Kinney when his story became all about whether or not he'd settle down and have babies with Justin. I lost interest in Logan Echolls when I began to feel that the show was exaggerating his flaws just to teach a lesson to Veronica. And so on... and I guess it particularly annoys me when I feel like the narrative is making moral judgments about my character and using him to teach a lesson to other characters.