#TWW meta

[thewinchesterclowncar]

Name of Work: The Meliai

Fandom: Supernatural

Rating: Teen and Up Audiences

Tags: Castiel/Dean Winchester, Dean Winchester, Castiel, AU, Greece, Greek Mythology, Meliai (wood nymphs), Creature Castiel, Human Dean WInchester, Oiti National Park, Hopeful Ending

Username(s): @wiseoldowl72

Summary: Dean is taking a well-earned trip after finishing his degree in mechanical engineering. He's hiking in the Oiti National Part when he slips and hits his head on an ash tree. What follows makes him question whether he dreamed it or could it possibly have been real.

Link:

[onekisstotakewithme]

Allison's "Institutional Memory" Costume

So in order to recover from rewatching the finale, I decided to sit down and watch an interview on Ellen with the WW cast that they did during the final season (it's a gem, just for the conversation about borrowed props alone! Go forth and watch!)

And as I was watching, I began to notice something. During the interview, Allison is wearing a pink long-sleeved shirt with frilly cuffs, over a white tank top, and a necklace with a white pendant.

(please forgive the crap quality)

And of course, being me, I immediately went "hang on. isn't that Allison's costume from 'Institutional Memory'?"

I'd say pretty conclusively, despite the crap quality of the YouTube video, that Allison is wearing the same shirt (and possibly the same necklace?) as she is in IM.

And I know they were in the middle of filming the final season during this interview (Allison mentions that she and Richard have their last scene together to film, iirc? Which was also in "Institutional Memory!") but the fact that she's wearing the same shirt AND the same necklace?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN??

Anyway, please appreciate this nerding out, courtesy of my having seen IM about 600 times in the past month.

[nicosraf]

The Watermelon Woman is such a wonderful gem! Meta narratives about black lesbian womanhood + film history ftw!!!!

AAAGHH yes one of my favorite movies ever. It really reminds me of Funeral Parade of Roses because of the style of going in and out of a "documentary." In a sense, both movies are trying to argue for the existence of their queer people — TWW argues for the existence of Black lesbian womanhood in history and FPoR argues for "gay" (drag queens and trans women mostly) people being both content with their lives and "born that way".

The Watermelon Woman though is a lot more authentic. It doesn't fall into that voyeuristic gaze that FPoR does (saying this as someone who adores FPoR). And it's a lot more of a love letter of a movie and definitely one of the more authentic depictions of WOC navigating lesbian spaces. Sorry I can't go 3 minutes without raving about this movie ahjksasda

[malkaleh]

💌✅👀🧠(CJ for the last one!)

💌 How do you feel about comments and feedback? I never expect it and nor am I entitled to it (and people should not feel guilty for not being able to comment etc) but it absolutely makes my entire being to get positive comments/feedback. Especially if it’s long comments. Just THE BEST. Also people making fic of my fic/fanart/edits of my fic is THE DREAM.

✅ What’s something that appears in your fics over and over and over again, even if you don’t mean to? Trauma and with trauma - especially the aftermath of sexual violence. I swear, I don’t actually deliberately mean to do that all the time but uh, it happens. Also kindness. I am so deeply deeply into kindness as a concept. Probably also families of choice.

👀 Tell me about an up and coming wip please! So all of my Hunger Games AUs are multi fandom really so I’m currently contemplating Grishaverse Characters Meeting TWW characters in my head for a fic I tell to myself. For an actual one, I want to try to make a meta/fic post about Sam Seaborn in the Hunger Games verse.

🧠 Pick a character, and I’ll tell you my favorite headcanon for them: My very favourite CJ headcanon is actually that she’s the youngest in her family of origin but somehow still the Oldest Sister (because the only girl in part) and the oldest sister in her family of choice. Also that she was very much both Leo and Jed’s daughter from very early on, they just weren’t always great at expressing it (someone please give me the conversation post Manchester Part II where both Leo and Jed have to grovel because they realise that CJ always thought she was less than/lesser/disposable).

[wittyno]

I have way more thoughts on this than I can express at this late hour and will probably reblog again with this weekend with a frankly too long meta.

I think another thing that sets TWW and the Newsroom apart is that the Newsroom uses real events.

Much like @clintbeifong I adore the newsroom. I think it’s great, but even I can realize that using real life news stories was a bad idea. Arguably a fatal one.

While the west wing does take storylines from real life. The season 1 story about the FBI standoff is real. So is boy who was murdered because he was gay. His real name is Matthew Sheppard. The stay of execution story for a drug lord is real too. His name is Juan Raul Garza. Hell, even the MS plot line is technically based on the Lewinsky-Clinton affair. The problem is not that he has MS / an affair, it’s that he lied about it.

But it wasn’t every episode. Yes; there were a fair few “ripped from the headlines” episodes but the show did not bill itself as such. You never got the feeling that Aaron Sorkin was trying to tell the Clinton administration how to do their jobs. While TWW ran mostly through the Bush II years its inspo is very much the Clinton administration. In the Newsroom you very much get the feeling that Aaron sorkin is telling newsrooms across the country that they could be “better” if they decided to. All while sitting on his high horse. I get why people were turned off by that. Aaron sorkin is writing a tv show where reality is what he wants it to be. It may look and feel like the real world but its a story. Pre planned and written rather than experienced. A show could never truly capture the complexity of working in a real newsroom and all the challenges that come with that. In real life, execs don’t slowly change to be better people. They don’t go on pre-determined character arcs like Leona and Reese.

In the newsroom you can absolutely tell that sorkin has an axe to grind in a way he just doesn’t in the west wing. It takes a lot of shots at other newsroom orgs. Fox in particular making them look foolish. They were calling Geraldo out by name. In the west wing the threats are far more numerous and nebulous. The bad (but secretly honorable) Republican changed week to week. In the newsroom it’s straight on at the 4th estate. Will literally calls them their newsroom the media elite.

The only other real world example is the shots that the daily show (at the time with John Stewart) was taking at the real news. And reporters understandably didn’t like that very much. He was making a comedy show about the news. They were doing actual reporting. It’s not the same.

they aren’t the same sorkin. The sorkin that wrote the west wing is not the sorkin that wrote the newsroom. He hadn’t written the social network yet either. Not to say he didn’t have great credits to his name but he didn’t yet have what was one of the defining moments of his career yet. I think it’s neck and neck with the Social Network in the list of his credits. Probably bigger because I don’t know how many people associated him with that. Rather than David Fincher. My point is that Newsroom! Sorkin is man whose already made the west wing. Who has way more sway and freedom now than he did when he was making the West wing. It’s rumored that someone on the sopranos said after loosing yet another award to the west wing “why do we even come to these things?” As explained, west wing was on network tv, while newsroom was on hbo. Less notes fro on the studio. He could go full sorkin and no one would stop him. And for the record I love it. It’s amazing but it’s very much an acquired taste. Even I tapped out during the rape campus story in season 3. It’s a lot while west wing sorkin is more restrained has more people to answer to. Has to work with more people. He had other writers. While there are other writers on the newsroom his voice is way more present.

All this said I would eat up a sorkin show about the Ed Murrow / Walter Cronkite days of news. Which was a heavy inspiration for the newsroom. Will even names them in his first big on air speech.

Again both are great but I would absolutely start with the west wing if I were you.

can someone PLEASE tell me what drug they put in the west wing bc i literally feel completely unique emotions when watching & thinking abt that show. how did they make it that good.

[iceman-maverick]

@larsulrichburneracc and a handful of anon's who took the the x-coded, y girl west wing quiz asked for me to elaborate on the hot take about leo being the show's go-to antagonist so here's my semi-coherent thoughts on the subject lmao

(ty all for taking it and thinking about it, it means a lot <3)

Basically I think that Leo, unlike the rest of the staff, doesn’t actually have a defined code of character. Josh has ideals and you can anticipate how he’d react to a situation based on those, same goes for Jed or CJ or Toby or Donna or or or or pretty much anyone else. But Leo is different. He doesn’t have his own perspective- he’s simply reactive to those around him.

He’s the first to say “no”, the anchor to Jed’s idealism, the strong hand to reel in Josh, the devil’s advocate to CJ, etc. I understand that this characterization was deliberate, but I find it troublesome because it means Leo changes on a whim based on plot needs.

And what the plot needs more often than not is for a member of staff to put the brakes on the momentum of whatever pie in the sky bill/policy they’re going for. Further, he’s the presumptive roadblock for any initiative, regardless of where it falls on the liberal-center-conservative spectrum. We can anticipate CJ will resist policy that's brushing up against women's rights. We know Josh will fight anything that compromises too willingly with Republicans. We know Sam will fight anything that's the popular option but not the ethically right one. But with Leo, he pretty much rejects anything that comes his way just for the sake of it.

Just two examples I thought of off the top of my head of senseless antagonism:

In the Woman of Qumar, he’s completely unsympathetic to CJ’s significant concern about selling tanks and guns to a country that's regularly executing women. I went up and found the literal script direction which is → Leo makes a hand gesture like 'What do you want me to say?'. which is just like WHAT? If that was Jed, he’d go into a whole “ends justifies the means” thing. If it was Josh, he’d go into a whole “the world is awful why do we have to be the only ones held accountable”. Etc. but Leo just has nothing to say.

Throughout the entire shutdown Leo is just ????, he’s completely weak-willed and over eager to take the bullshit Republican deal and then fires Josh for being the straw that broke the camel’s back on that one Dem that flipped Republican, as if that senator wasn’t obviously just waiting for an excuse to flip. Not very “man in the hole” of Leo in that moment to completely sack Josh in a complete overreaction for a room that was on fire long before Josh walked in.

Leo’s lack of definable character makes him the easiest avenue for conflict within the staff. It’s an easy sell that he’d disagree with Sam’s solving cancer push, with Toby’s college tax credit, with CJ’s reluctance to lie, or with Josh’s literally anything because he disagrees with everything, just for the sake of it (read: cause the plot demands it). We know who Josh is, we know how he thinks and how he feels, and as an audience we can make assumptions based on how he’d react. We can recognize when he’s not himself in Noel because we know him.

Throughout my multiple viewings of tww, I personally feel as though I’ve never learned who Leo is beyond his alcoholism, his loyalty to Jed, and his inclination to roadblock literally anything that lands on his desk. This isn’t nearly as throughout or articulate as I’d like it to be but it’s 1:00am LOL but yeah

TLDR; Leo’s a blank slate character that is molded to whatever the plot demands which is typically unneeded and irrational tension/contrarianism with zero justification. And it fucking annoys me LMAO

okay that's just my take :) sorry if you read this long and he's your fav, i just can't stand reactive characters because there's no point in doing meta on them because everything is in character when there's no parameters to confine yourself to LOL

[regardstosoulandromance]

cjd*nny shippers like to pretend that it’s some big ideal romance but I can’t get over how danny randomly disappears TWICE and both times CJ doesn’t care and never mentions him or acts like she missed him when he comes back or anything. she has zero object permanence when it comes to that asshole.

[aerielz]

Omg your TAGS on the script post! I remember the first time I saw that set and I was literally foaming at the mouth upset about it. That kind of detail is too good to be left as just description!

YES. I AM LIVID. 

IT ABSOLUTELY RUINED MY DAY. or maybe it made my day? I have no idea what I’m feeling. I understand that they wanted it really low key, but COME ON.

It’s such a brilliant piece of writing that will forever be stuck as just writing, and that makes me so sad.

I’d have killed to see a more direct parallel... Imagine we’d had a close up of her receiving the first tag and then cut out of the flashback to a close up of her fiddling with her WH pass! A little bit on the nose, but ugh.

I needed something to really capture what this description says. I mean, jesus, the sheer intimacy of it. Turning the tag into jewellery revels so much about how Donna and Josh are on the same page about what they do. Josh gives it to her like it’s something precious (he’s giving her his own pass. what matters the most to him. Bartlet’s campaign is something he gave up a comfortable position to gain himself. it’s something that literally stays close to his heart). and donna receives it as such -- it is jewellery, for her. it’s rare and bright and even more than that. it’s a piece of him.

this description will haunt me for the rest of my life.

[ada-cackle]

What are the benefits of being a time Witch Miss Cackle? Is Miss Hardbroom a time witch too? And I thought messing with time was dangerous even with your skill level.

It’s an interesting discipline that I think gives practitioners an appreciation of structure and how one decision can alter the very fabric of a reality. It’s also good to be able to fix mistakes. @hecate-hardbroom-s-lab is not one but she is skilled in the area. Messing with time for selfish and nefarious gain is not only dangerous but in some instances punishable by the council. All certified Time Witch’s sign an oath in addition to the Witches Code. 

[actuallylorelaigilmore]

I have an odd TWW question for you: Do you think Amy and Donna could ever be friends or at least have a good working relationship? I don’t know how much they’d be working together in the Santos Administration, but I’m assuming they’d have to interact from time to time.

My honest opinion? Yeah, they could. In canon, they’re both good at their jobs. Donna holds herself back professionally sticking close to Josh, and Amy was not great AT relationships, to be honest…but they’re both amazing at what they do in the White House and on the campaign trail. 

Okay, actually we see that Amy’s not so good at deferring to a President, but I think that will be less of an issue in the Santos Administration because she knows going in that her involvement is wanted TO make waves and have debates, which is her forte. 

Also, it’s not like we ever saw them get into actual fights when they had to interact before. Donna wasn’t pleased watching Amy come and go from Josh’s orbit, it wasn’t a cycle she liked witnessing, but she held her tongue and tried not to let it affect her direct relationship with Josh (see: “my man! you came back to me!” after his Russia trip, while he’s dating Amy…because their banter remained the same). 

And Amy heard rumors about Josh and Donna before she even considered dating him, but she talked to her on the phone like an adult and works directly with Donna during Commencement. I love that episode and seeing the actresses together because they’re both amazing and there’s so many layers underneath their bland professional rhetoric before it dives into the personal. Even then Donna barely snaps at her, answering a direct question because Amy pushes her into it. 

And I think it’s important to note that–that it’s Amy who’s always the one crossing those lines, both with Josh and Donna. She’s the one with impulse control issues (gosh I love her, I find that painfully relatable and human) who throws water balloons after pretending she isn’t interested, who kisses Josh first instead of the other way around, who pokes her faves with sticks and leaves a dead fish and instigates a very public article, who isn’t willing to see that Donna is annoyed and then just let it go. 

By season 7, though, she’s grown up enough I think to see the difference between what she likes and wants (fights, passion, competition) and what she needs to be healthy and happy (civilization, quiet moments, someone who doesn’t need to race her anywhere). Post-canon, I don’t know whether Amy’s relationship with the wood sculptor is gonna last though. I think it’s a lot easier to know what’s better for her than actually live with it…especially given how uncomfortable she clearly is when she describes it to Josh. 

As a restless soul myself, I’d understand if Amy ended up imploding that relationship eventually rather than being able to make it work the way Josh was able to get past his issues long enough to make Donna a priority in S7 and fly away to work things out. Amelia Gardner might just not be the settling down type, even if she finds someone more grounding, the way Josh needed someone like Donna who could meet him on both the political-junkie and eat-a-real-meal-you-idiot levels of companionship.

In my personal opinion, by “Requiem,” Amy is over Josh and isn’t just trying to set him up for some weird ulterior motive. I think she honestly sees their past as passed. Which means finding out about him and Donna once they’re all in the Santos administration will likely (again in my opinion) be hilarious to her. Like, she tried to get him to admit his feelings before the reelection campaign! How clueless he was. 

I doubt it’ll bother her much by then, because I think her interactions throughout S3 and 4 are infused with a constant awareness that they guy she’s with has feelings for his assistant but refuses to admit them to himself. Amy was willing to date him anyway, but always knew. So it would be weird if post-canon she was bothered by it ‘coming out’ when she was always kind of side-eyeing them and waiting.

Whatever Amy’s destiny is, I see no romantic future with her and Josh. And I like to think that he and Donna stay together until they die. Therefore, she and Donna, talented political pros that they are, should be able to work briskly and well together, like the “Commencement” scenes we might have gotten if Amy wasn’t back in Josh’s romantic orbit during that time. If you take the romantic tension out of that thread, the women are just great coworkers for a minute. It’s awesome.

And if you look at the early stages of Josh and Amy, Amy and Donna have friend potential to me. “Dead Irish Women” is great, with the booze and girltalk in the residence and Amy being the one to remind Josh that Donna needs him. Donna talking to Josh about his girlfriend being a loon on his day off is not awkward like you’d expect given her feelings. It’s just kind of cute; she’s happy Amy makes him happy (while that lasts).

My main takeaway from this is, just think of what kind of amazing exchanges and dynamics we could have had on TWW if the show believed more women can support each other and coexist beyond their love of men. But that’s a seriously other rant tbh.

tl; dr Yes, I think they have that post-canon potential, because I think they could have had that potential IN canon if the writing of the women of TWW were more complex than it is.

[scienter]

TWW REWATCH: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc; 1x02

My Impressions, Commentary & Random Musings

The Hat Joke

There’s a lot to love about this scene, but my favorite thing is Bartlet asking Josh to explain “post hoc, ergo propter hoc:

Bartlet: Twenty-seven lawyers in the room, anybody know “post hoc, ergo propter hoc?” Josh?

Josh: Uh, uh, post, after, after hoc, ergo, therefore after hoc, therefore something else hoc.

Bartlet: Thank you. Next?

It’s like Josh is the kid who gets cold-called in class and doesn’t know the answer. And I love Toby’s amusement of it - as if this is a typical Josh response.

Mandy

There’s one moment that is critical to understanding Mandy’s character, her role in the TWW, and why she ultimately failed to fit in with the Bartlet Administration:

“You know what the worst part about this is? [ ] It’s the party they’re having right now in the West Wing at my expense. [ ] I worked for these people for two and a half years. They like to win and then they like to gloat.”

Really, Mandy? That’s the worst part of the situation? 

Here’s the thing: Mandy is all about image – both professionally and personally. Consider her situation: Mandy “left a job at a top-tier marketing firm” where she had stock options to work on Russell’s presidential campaign. Lloyd Russell is her only client. Mandy and her business partner, Daisy, have to pay rent, student loans, credit cards, food, etc. But Mandy considers the Bartlet Administration gloating over her loss the worst thing about losing her only client.

Mandy preoccupation with image carries over to her role as White House Media Director (E.g., arguing that white house staffers should test for drug use or Bartlet should nominate Harrison instead of Mendoza), and it’s thematically significant. Throughout the first season the Bartlet Administration is also preoccupied with image. They have a 40-something approval rating, hindering their ability to enact their progressive policies or nominate a justice to the Supreme Court (See: The Short List, He Shall From Time To Time, Let Bartlet Be Bartlet, etc.). In other words, Mandy embodies the Bartlet Administration’s internal conflict in season 1.

I don’t think that Mandy was a poorly written character (or poorly acted) as some have argued. Rather, I think that Mandy, as the White House Media Director, became thematically obsolete by the end of the season. I also think it’s part of the reason why she failed to click with the rest of the White House staff.

By the way, Mandy was totally right:

Josh & Donna

I find it remarkable that Josh is nonchalant about Donna entering him into a college football pool especially given that she makes such lousy bets.

Josh: You picked Central Indiana State against Notre Dame?

Donna: Well, technically, you did.

Oh, Donna. I love you.

It’s also why Josh finds Donna so endearing. Would most bosses causally shrug off their assistant betting their money without consent? I doubt it.  It’s a small moment, but it hints that this isn’t a typical boss-assistant relationship. There’s more to these two.

Josh & Mandy

Surprise, Surprise! I not overly fond of this pairing. Specifically, I don’t like Josh and Mandy’s hostility or combativeness towards each other. I just don’t find it as compelling as the cute & endearing nature of Josh & Donna’s relationship.

Sam

Sam: About a week ago, I accidentally slept with a prostitute.

Toby: Really?

Sam: Yes.

Toby: You accidentally slept with a prostitute?

Sam Call girl.

Toby: Accidentally?

Sam: Yes.

Toby: I don’t understand. Did you trip over something?

I love this exchange because Toby’s calm demeanor. He’s usually shouty when shit hits the fan so I find hit quite amusing to see him struggle to grasp Sam’s news.  

This episode also introduces one of Sam’s notable character traits: Sam is a perfectionist.

Sam: I’m done.

Cathy: You’re sure?  

Sam: Yep.

Cathy: You’re done polishing?  

Sam: Yes.  

Cathy: You’re done tweaking?

Sam: I’m done tweaking, I’m done polishing. Done. Take it to C.J. [Cathy starts to walk.] Wait. [looks at the speech one final time, to double check] Yes, I’m done, really.

It’s a sign of a great writer that a seemingly extraneous comedic moment establishes a core character trait. Sorkin doesn’t use this little detail as an extraneous joke. This moment gives insight into Sam, and is repeated later in the series.  

By the way: If Sam didn’t have deadlines would he ever finish writing anything?

Sam & Laurie

Oh where do I begin? I love Sam, but I hate his paternalism towards Laurie in this episode.

Laurie: I don’t need saving, Sam.

Sam: Yeah, you do.

Moving on . . .

Mrs. Landingham & Bartlet

Their big sister/younger brother relationship can be distilled into this shot:

Jed’s not fooled. He knows that Dolares swapped his 12 center cut prime fillet Omaha steaks for a lousy red shirt. 

President Bartlet

This episode provides some great insight into Bartlet: he feels out of depth with military matters.

“I had a meeting this morning with the Joint Chiefs. I’m an accomplished man, Morris. I can sit comfortably with prime ministers and Presidents, even the pope. Why is it every time I sit with the Joint Chiefs, I feel like I’m back at my father’s dinner table. [ ] I’m not comfortable with violence. I know this country has enemies, but I don’t feel violent toward any of them. I don’t know whether that’s a weakness or not, but I think I know how the Joint Chiefs would answer that question.”

Bartlet’s insecurity stood out to me because he’s so competent and confident in other presidential matters. Economics? The guy’s got Nobel Prize. Governing and Policy? He’s the former governor of New Hampshire. Washington Politics? He’s a former member of the House of Representatives. NASA? Jed knows the temperature of Mars and knows how to convert Fahrenheit to Celsius in his head. Bartlet is usually the smartest person in any room. Yet, he feels like he’s back at his “father’s dinner table” when sitting with the Joint Chiefs. Bartlet probably finds being Commander-and-Chief of the armed forces most difficult part of his job.

So it’s telling just how much Morris’s death/the airforce transport attack affects Bartlet:

Bartlet: I am not frightened. I’m gonna blow them off the face of the earth with the fury of God’s own thunder. Get the commanders.

LOOK AT LEO’S FACE. Jed’s assertion worries him! I don’t think that Leo ever seen this side of Jed before. 

Great acting by Martin Sheen at the end. You can see the weight of the situation in his posture.  

One Last Thought

Bartlet: Yeah, I figured. Morris, I made a joke about golfers yesterday, and now it consumes the whole damn building.

One thing came to mind when I heard that line:

VEEP: the show where the Vice President’s gaffes consumes the staff’s attention on a daily basis.

[thewinchesterclowncar]

Hey there! Welcome to The Clown Car!

The Clown Car is here to support all The Winchester Way Discord server creatives. 

Whether you make amazing gifs or edits, create worlds with your words, use your enviable talents to immortalize your favs in one of a multitude of art mediums, or write incredible meta -  we want to see your work, we want to share your work, we want to shower your work with love!

While TWW is mainly focused on Supernatural and The Winchesters, all fandoms are welcome here. 

All works will be tagged and rated appropriately.

Your work can be shared in two ways:

You can submit a post with your work. You must follow our template

OR

You can utilize one of our tracking tags.

Our Mods will review and approve submitted posts and scan our tracking tags on a regular basis.

If you aren’t a creator and still want to participate, you know how this works - like and reblog our creators’ content to help increase exposure. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to send us an ask and we’ll get back to you shortly. 

Mods for The Clown Car: @ididitallofitforyou @free-to-be-impaled @kayliemalinza

Submission/Post Format:

Name of Work:

Fandom:

Rating:

Tags:

Username(s):

Link:

Tracking tags: 

#The Winchester Way, #The Clown Car, #TWW weekly prompts, # TWW writes, # TWW art, # TWW meta, # TWW creates, #TWW fanfic friday, #TWW fanart friday

[celestial-alignment]

Could you write meta on Jim/Artie, pretty please?

Hiya! I’ll be honest, I almost never write meta because I assume no one cares to hear my thoughts, but I was really excited to get this ask! So thank you, Anon! 

I don’t know what kind of meta you’re craving, so I’ll just start and see where it goes, okay?

Okay. So, one of the things I love so much about the dynamic of Jim/Artie is how much they obviously love each other. And it doesn't even have to be in a romantic way.

The way that Jim looks so fondly at him when Artie shows off his repertoire of knowledge, the way that Artie looks so proudly at Jim when he accomplishes athletic feats. They finish each other's sentences and punchlines and laugh together, never really at each other. They have contingency after contingency to make sure that they can always be there for each other.

With any portrayed professional partnership, they're usually going to get close in some way just by the shared experiences they have. Brothers-in-arms and all that. But that kind of bond can happen between people who otherwise would never like each other, or who still don't necessarily like each other even though they have this bond. In other shows and movies, we see this as a sort of butting heads, being reluctantly fond, pretending to hate each other, etc. (Which, don’t get me wrong, is also a really fun dynamic. Napoleon Solo and Ilya Kuriyakin, for example.)

But we kind of get the impression that even if Jim and Artie weren't both in the war, or in the Secret Service together, these are two men would still genuinely love each other's company if they had just met in a saloon one day. They make each other laugh, there is mutual extreme trust, and they just seem to GET each other, even if they seem like polar opposites.

But they're so alike in all the right ways. Their skill sets complement each other, and they're personalities are different enough, but they both obviously crave the thrill of the job, serving a president that they believe in, and doing right by the people they meet. They are both completely insane in all the right ways, too, but they are fearless without being stupid.

They both think ten steps ahead of any situation, but the best thing about that is that they both plan with the other in mind. It’s like there is no future without the other one there, the other one necessarily has to be there. Jim KNOWS he can count on Artie to scout ahead and get reconnaissance, Artie KNOWS he can count on Jim to follow up and use that Intel to complete an assignment. Jim can punch his way through a stampede and Artie can blend into it, but they learn from each other and can adapt when needed. Sometimes Jim sneaks, sometimes Artie punches. Neither of them have to pick up slack for the other. They are effortless together, like a self-perpetuating machine, and they are two halves of a whole, even if they are each individually forces to be reckoned with in isolation. And if you’re the bad guy who separates them, or threatens the other half, then God help you.

So yeah, that's what I think about daily when I think about Jim/Artie.

[ginandweas]

Hey! We need funny people. Yeah? You know any?

[addictedtostorytelling]

Okay, I finished The West Wing!

Physically I’m going about my life but emotionally I’m staring at a wall thinking about what I want out of television as a medium.

If you had to put your finger on the “secret sauce” that makes tww so good, what would you say it is? (other than being Generally Excellent lol) What makes a show where the stakes are so high feel so, for lack of a better word, cozy?

hi, @clintbeifong!

congratulations on completing the show!

welcome to the “so i've finished tww and now everything else is just details” club—free membership for the rest of your life.

in response to your question, i think that a lot of what makes tww so, so good is just the quality of the production all around: 

tptb assembled one of the most prodigiously talented and hard-working ensemble casts of all time, all of whom had chemistry with each other in scads; 

they were from the beginning possessed of a clear vision of what the show was about and adhered to their central thesis all the way through (“never doubt that a small group of thoughtful and committed people can change the world”); 

everyone involved in the production from the showrunners to the directors to the writers to the actors to the crew wholeheartedly “bought in” to the project and its ethos and applied the same kind of dedication to their work as did the characters whose stories they were telling;

they tackled big topics—hope! freedom! loyalty! love! liberty! honesty! legacy!—both regularly and fearlessly and never shied away from depicting heartfelt emotion, even at times when other productions might have done so for fear of being maudlin; 

they created a story world the was as immersive as was required of their subject matter, with beautiful set designs and detailed prop-work, avoiding anything that could cause the audience to cease to suspend their disbelief or to become conscious of the limitations of the television medium;

they remained highly aware of the mythological underpinnings of what they were doing throughout;  

etc.

but to me, even more than all of these other elements, the main thing that makes tww excellent is the writing.

even great actors can’t make bad writing sing. even shows with central theses are shit if the theses are poorly executed. no amount of technical wizardry or spectacle can ever make up for shoddy narrative work.

in the end, it always has to come down to the writing.

to the storytelling.

and the thing about the writing on tww is that while it did a lot of complex, nuanced, frankly impressive things and did them extraordinarily well, the foundations of its greatness lay, very simply, in how good it was at the fundamentals. 

if you'll allow me a metaphor, learning to write well is like learning to juggle: you start off just cycling one ball between your hands, then two, then three, practicing the motions so that you make the height on your throws consistent, so that your eyes learn how to track the arc of each ball, so that you develop muscle memory on how and when to move your hands, so that you memorize the feel of the action (up, over, under, up, over, under, etc., etc.).

these initial efforts are not at all flashy and don't impress anyone watching you, but getting these fundamentals down is key.

eventually, you can add more balls.

maybe switch out the balls for clubs or other objects.

if you get really good, work up to chainsaws.

start balancing on a tightrope and playing the kazoo while you're at it.

make it a death-defying, mind-blowing, highly-complicated, highly-staked act.

but the thing is, you can only get to that point if the fundamentals are sound.

you have to have the basics down pat. you have to always keep that same steady juggling rhythm in play, following the cycle, no matter what else you may be doing simultaneously; no matter how complicated everything else gets.

of course, different writing teachers will stress different fundamentals, and especially because different types of writing have different kinds of fundamentals, depending on their aims.

but in fiction, regardless of genre, it always comes back to two things: character and conflict.

who is this person, and why can’t they have what they want?

in our juggling metaphor, that’s the cyclical motion, the fundamental act of moving the balls between your two hands: you let the audience know who someone is, what they want, and why they want it, and then you prevent them from getting what they want and show how they respond.

everything else—learning how to pace the story, mastering economy of information, developing your writerly voice, writing compelling and incisive dialogue, teasing out major themes, etc.—is the additional stuff, the steps beyond that first novice level, where you’re adding more balls and choreography, and, certainly, it’s crucial to the act, as well.

just also totally predicated on the fact of the juggling.

on that basic motion.

the tricks of writing itself—knowing how to throw in a plot twist or employ a nonlinear narrative technique, effectively using foreshadowing and callbacks, establishing complex metaphors, etc.—are chainsaws and tightropes, and they’re great if you can incorporate them seamlessly (and safely!) in a way that enhances the act.

they’ll make the audience ooh and aah.

but just the juggling itself, that’s still all based in character and conflict, conflict and character, over and over and over again, up, over, under, ad infinitum.

that’s the fundamental stuff of it.                 

it’s like vladimir nabokov says: “the writer's job is to get the main character up a tree, and then once they are up there, throw rocks at them.”

that’s the thing that if you learn how to do it both consistently and well, it will make everything else in the story eventually fall into place.

so back to your question:

the writers on tww were master jugglers.

they were amazing at dialogue. crafted tight, well-paced, stimulating narrative arcs, sometimes over the course of several seasons. could allude and overlay and imbue with the best of them.

but their greatest credit was that they were good character writers.

and characterization is the foundation of great storytelling.

it’s what make a story—even if it takes place in a milieu that is completely unfamiliar to the audience otherwise—feel like home.

that work of getting the characters “in” starts immediately on tww and continues throughout the entire rest of the show.

just look at the tww pilot episode, where each character’s introductory scene establishes them as part of the administration and shows something of what they want/what motivates them. we’re then immediately introduced to problems: josh’s gaffe with the christian commentators, sam sleeping with laurie, the president’s bicycle accident, the pr fiasco of it all. we’re given “ins” with everyone, creating a momentum right from the get-go.

of course, tww is unique in terms of its stakes—these people’s actions truly can change the world, for good and ill—and the fact that everything is so “big time” does certainly help to create a sense of urgency.

there’s also something to be said for how precisely the characters themselves are drawn and how three-dimensional they feel even just to start out with; that’s a place where you can see the experience and intelligence of the writers shining through.

it goes without saying that on a show where two of the main characters are themselves supposed to be generationally talented writers, the writers writing them have to be on their fucking games.

but at the end of the day, for me, it always comes back to the basic up, over, under of it all.

i never imagined that i would get so invested in a show about the nuts and bolts of the upper echelons of the american political system, but i did get invested in it because there was this group of characters that i cared about deeply, and what they wanted mattered to me, and i was desperate to see if they could overcome their problems and how they did so if they did (and even what happened when they failed).

the beautiful acting performances that brought the writing to life were important to my enjoyment of tww, as well, as were the themes of the show itself, the production values, the mythos, etc. i loved the fact that it could take on topical/current issues and make them timeless, almost epic. i loved the smaller technical aspects of the writing, too (e.g., the razor-sharp dialogue, the patient arc-building, the genius character beats, etc.). that stuff all served to improve upon an already stellar baseline.

but really it was just that they did the most basic things well.

that’s what makes it compelling.

that’s what makes it cozy.

at least to me, anyway.

thanks for the question! please feel welcome to send another any time. 

[terribleoldwhitemen]

cj walks into a room and says "i was wrong. we went up nine points," then after a beat the president says, "what's next," and inbetween those two lines of dialogue is the sudden weight of the last 45 minutes' worth of television paying off.

the feeling that overwhelms you, as a viewer, is triumph. show me any television show airing now or since taking such pains to craft a feeling like that—like the joy of a job well-done and praise for an accomplishment and the rush of relief at the end of a hard day, but make it more, make it hit you like the emotional equivalent of an orchestra swelling to crescendo. because for me, that's what made the west wing such an inimitable phenomenon. that was the genius of the sorkin years. seasons 5-7 were a tangibly different experience not because of their approach to character and plot, but because they no longer elicited vicarious triumph.