#You see what I mean? | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

canichangemyblogname · 1 month ago

Text

If any writer is out here seriously arguing that Characters in a TV show shouldn’t have growth because of the nature of the medium, fucking run. Run from their projects. They will be bland, tired, uninspiring, and boring.

TV characters don’t grow or change *in the same way* they would in a movie or novel. That’s the key phrasing here: in the same way. When a movie or novel ends, many of the central problems and conflicts specific to that book or movie have been resolved. A TV show is built on a series of ongoing conflicts, often with one overall larger situation pushing the plot forward or tying the narrative together. Think of ATLA. Every week, the characters landed on a new island and had someone new in need of their help, but the overall larger conflict, the war, always loomed on the horizon. The episodic plots created growth while the overall serial plot created great change, and each character still maintained their “sense of self.” People have mistakenly begun to argue characters maintaining this “sense of self” and an ongoing source of story means they do not grow or eventually change. That is incorrect.

Aang matured and learned to control his powers, but he is still kind, loyal, and sticks to his conviction that he will not kill to end the war. Katara became a master water bender who can hold her own and protect her own, but she remained passionate and strong. Sokka found a sense of purpose and self-identity, but he remained intelligent and witty. Do you see what I’m getting at here?

Walter White changes in the sense he becomes more morally corrupt as the series continues, but what doesn’t change is the fact he’s cooking meth. The overarching conflict-driving situation doesn’t change for the characters until the very end, even if episodic conflict-driving situation ends or the character is dynamic. ATLA ended when the war ended. The Sopranos ended with an abrupt cut to black meant to be interpreted as Tony’s death (confirmed by the creator). Mad Men ends with Don Draper— a character plagued by emotional suffering and who was characterized as unable to change for the better— meditating on a hilltop at a retreat before the show cuts to the real-life 1971 Coca-Cola “Hilltop” commercial.

A TV show isn’t one long story, but a series of shorter stories that tie together. Episodes have their own beginning, middle, and end. The show itself doesn’t necessarily have that, especially given the modern TV landscape where shows get canceled after one or two seasons all the time. There’s no planned end because the end could be in a couple seasons or this next season. The writers have to figure out an end for the show only when they’re faced with its end. Until that moment, though, each episode is its own story, and each episode’s end is supposed to leave the story with possibility for more stories to develop or come, but the overall plot-driving conflict does not resolve until the end.

The issue with 911? There are a couple characters with what seems like no overall plot-driving conflict fundamental to them. Buck’s story doesn’t revolve around evading the authorities and doesn’t end with him fittingly dying among the meth that corrupted him. Hen’s story doesn’t end when she fully realizes her powers and defeats the warlord threatening to burn the world to the ground. Of course, yes, because that’s not the genre they’re in, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make here. They seem to no longer have an overarching source of story. Not like Eddie. Not like Bobby.

Or, at least, production is not utilizing these character’s source of story.

Bobby’s past struggle with addiction is an ongoing source of story for him. Eddie’s past loss of the love of his life is an ongoing source of story for him. The reason Athena became a cop in the first place; her motivations, is an ongoing source of story for her. The abuse Maddie suffered in the past from Doug is an ongoing source of story for her. None of these traumas are things that will change about these characters. If Maddie stops picking up phones to help people at their most vulnerable; in their greatest time of need, and Athena hangs up her badge, and Bobby retires and comes to peace with the lives he’s lost and saved, and Eddie forgets Shannon, these character’s stories end. Boddy, Athena, Maddie, and Eddie’s stories are shaped by ghosts in their past. When those ghosts finally rest, these characters will see resolution.

But Buck and Hen do not have the same ongoing source of story. And I know the writers have realized this because Minear himself characterized Buck as being on some sort of character “hamster wheel.” There’s nothing driving his story forward.

And fans have noted the same of Hen, joking about “Hen and Karen lose their kids, part VI… 😒.” Karen, actually, has more of an ongoing source of story than Hen, with Karen’s ghost being that she does not share DNA with her any of her kids, making her claim to motherhood vulnerable. We see this cemented by the IVF storyline and how devastated she was that her body could not give her a kid recognized by the state as her’s and always hers. Hen’s ghost was Eva Mathis, who also became a source for Karen’s ghosts (“Everyone I ever loved belonged to you first”). But Eva hasn’t been seen since season 5’s “Ghost Stories” when she fucked off out of their lives and told both Hen and Karen that she’s leaving California and won’t be back. And 911 completely dropped the Nathaniel (Denny’s dad) plot line, so this ongoing source of story was essentially resolved. But the show recognizes the situation it created and continues to recreate this ongoing source of conflict with new antagonists trying to take Hen and Karen’s family from them, instead of using those past ghosts.

But what the writers seem to have neglected in their resolution of Hen’s past ghost (Eva) is that Hen’s ghost wasn’t ever legal powerlessness over her kids because she didn’t physically birth them and never could get pregnant like she’s long wanted, as it has been Karen’s. Hen’s ghost is the life she had before Karen (see: Hen begins, as the begins episodes do a good job of revealing what each of these characters ongoing source of story will be). Her ghosts are Eva and Daniel and pharmaceuticals and watching someone she loved succumb to addiction and repeatedly blow up their lives. Her ghost is also a different form of addiction: an addiction to chaos or danger or excitement, previously in the form of Eva. (And I think that’s part of what made Hen and Bobby’s relationship feel different from Bobby’s relationship with other members of the 118. Bobby struggled with addiction and Hen knew what it was like to lose people to it.) While Karen’s ghost is the fear of losing her kids (she became a stay at home mother and everything), Hen’s *could successfully have been* the reason she became a firefighter in the first place: a desire to save lives, especially after seeing people she knew almost lost or totally lost to emergency and illness. She goes from working for the industry that started our addiction epidemic to saving lives impacted by it, and the ghost that drove her to do that would have been the past love she lost to addiction. Her ongoing source of story would have mirrored Bobby’s in a way (potentially setting up nicely a poetic end where he passes the torch to her, also bringing her full circle from a probie intentionally left out to the woman with the run of the house), in that she is driven to save lives because of those she’s lost or almost lost. And it is easily a part of all her arcs, like when her mother gets sick or when Bobby relapses or when her kids or wife get injured.

Luckily, I don’t think they’ve screwed the pooch by writing Eva off. Eva could return. Hen’s past as a pharmaceutical rep could come back to haunt her. This narrative of “this is why I became a first responder” *has* permeated Hen’s entire story, it’s only recently that it seems like her story is repeating itself. I think resolving this issue would 1.) require the show to see Hen as more than “the show’s lesbian with a family,” and 2.) a simple jolt of creativity. Production can let someone new come up with an idea or hire other staff or whatever to bring in some fresh perspective. I really think this is solvable and they have the resources to take Hen’s story in a refreshing direction.

Which I want to compare to another character in the show, Buck.

Buck is also stuck in a cycle. Buck’s ongoing source of story has always been about creating “emotionally weighty” relationships due to an emotional neglect he suffered as a child. It’s why he slept around. It’s why he often feels a sense of abandonment and derived purpose from his work. It’s put him at odds with his sister, Maddie, at times. His ongoing source of conflict; his ghost, is his parents (and Daniel) and how this created an emotional wound Buck wants to fill. We see that he had this open wound early in season one, mostly around a desire for emotional intimacy and feeling a lack of a sense of place or significance. He tells Bobby that his job as a firefighter is all he got, he suggests to Maddie that she cast him off for Doug, he tells his sister he’ll make something of himself one day but doesn’t know what yet, he and Taylor talk about meaningful relationships (he’s surrounded by them), he confronts his parents past emotional neglect (and forgives them), he also takes on his subconscious about “mattering” more in a made-up world, and toward the end of season six, he concludes that he is enough; he has all he needs in the real world and then comes to peace with the fact he doesn’t have to perform for others (something which he’s been doing his whole life to get the attention and approval of his parents). And the issue with this is that, well, Buck finding a sense of purpose outside his utility and finding innate value in who he is (this idea he is enough as is) in season six kinda sorta wrapped up his ongoing source of story. They even tried partnering him up with a nice girl (which is unfortunately revealing of the fact they think Buck’s sense of significance and his struggles with loneliness are tied to his romantic struggles as opposed to emotional abandonment as a child by his caregivers).

The writers or the creator unfortunately seem to want to argue that Buck’s ongoing source of story is his lack of a romantic relationship, rather than finding purpose with his life and struggling to build or maintain a community of emotionally weighty relationships around him as life brings people together and draws them apart. We saw this illustrated well in his arc with Red, the retired firefighter. Buck is worried about dying alone, but not really because he doesn’t have a significant other at the time. He’s afraid of this because of the response his coworkers/friends gave when he asked if they ever keep in touch with former coworkers. Part of Red’s story may have been that he let the love of his life go, but the other part was that he never kept in contact with his old friends.

However, it seems the show’s creator wants to argue that Buck’s story ends when he finally finds “the one,” romantically. But it’s not. Buck’s arc ends when he finds a sense of purpose or innate value outside of his work (it would be really blah, boring, if that “purpose” he finds is a romantic partner, btw) or settles with the fact that he has (and always will have) an “emotionally weighty” support system because he fights to maintain those relationships despite distance, time, circumstance or a change of jobs. Buck’s ongoing source of story has always primarily revolved around his platonic relationships. The point of Red’s story was that Buck is not Red, Maddie even says that Buck will never be alone because he has her. And while it could be argued that part of Buck’s resolution will be finding people who fight to stay in his life, always return, and show him that he matters to them, I think it would be shortsighted to suggest this refers (or would exclusively refer) to his romantic life. Buck will settle into himself because of the platonic and familial love he has fostered and fought for.

This means, I think it’s possible to stop giving him a revolving door of romantic partners (either commit to one or none, imho) without resolving his story when his story is about creating emotional support systems and deep connections with others despite the way life pushes and pulls people apart. Arguing his story resolves when he finds “the one” would be like arguing Chim’s story ended when he and Maddie first got together. Life pushed and pulled them apart several times, and they kept choosing each other. Chim has fought to maintain the family he’s created after the family he lost and also never got. Maddie has fought to maintain the happiness and safety she thought she’d never get. The show could give Buck a steady partner or a reoccurring romantic partner and still write narratives about the difficulties of maintaining platonic and familial relationships as an adult, including any potential expansion of that familial relationship through a romantic partnership.

In my personal opinion, if any of Buck’s ongoing source of story is related to romance, it’s his belief that his life and existing relationships will only be complete when he finds “the one.” As Taylor said, he’s surrounded by meaningful relationships (yet he doesn’t seem to find this enough—likely due to this idea he has to find romance). It could be argued that when he realizes this, and in the process realizes that he doesn’t need a romantic partnership to “complete” the picture, then his ongoing source of story will find resolution. This approach would necessitate a constant cycle of different relationships until Buck ends the series single and surrounded by—like—his nieces and nephews and friends. However, I do not think that this would satisfactorily resolve Buck’s picture (mostly because of the rather boring patterns it creates for Buck’s character and the way I think it would often lead to Buck re-hashing the same things over and over). I also don’t think the writers are setting out (or ever will set out) to tackle amatonormativity in narratives about family, belonging, and “ultimate” happiness.

Unfortunately, I do think that Buck’s narrative will continue to be stuck in a cycle of unsatisfying and incomplete or short-cut relationships until the show end-ends anyway. I think this because I think the writers and creator genuinely see this cycle as what drives Buck’s story (as opposed to just one potential aspect to include in an ongoing source of story about finding purpose outside utility and people pleasing, and surrounding himself with people who love him and who he loves in return), with the resolution to his ongoing source of story being Buck ultimately finding “the one,” and settling down with them. However, because romance has never been the primary focus of his ongoing source of story, this exclusive focus on break-ups and then moving onto the next until “the one.” will always feel unsatisfactory.

What will “save” Buck’s story isn’t a new jolt of creativity, but the creator and writers actively challenging and changing their amatonormative views of relationships. And I think that’s far less likely to happen than someone going, “What if Hen has a call about an overdose and it brings back some uncomfortable memories and new challenges for her and Karen?”

#tl;dr: if they don’t bring Tommy back that would actually make Buck’s story incredibly bland #because a constant cycle of break ups and new romantic partners misses the point on what has been the source of Buck’s story #his romantic relationships can be transformative #but still not the *primary* thing that drives Buck’s story (< which is something like a motivation or history)#because a character can grow with time. but this growth in character is not the ongoing source of the character’s story #even if it is related to or caused by the character’s ongoing source of story #Like Rebecca Welton can warm up to Ted Lasso because Ted is sunshine incarnate. This looks like it could be considered growth #but her primary source of conflict that drives her story is her contentions relationship with her ex-husband #that resolves when she forgives him for his affair or moves on and stops letting her animosity for her ex husband motivate her #You see what I mean?#TV characters can grow while still maintaining their character (‘sense of self’) and the conflict that drives their story #911 ABC #Evan Buckley

19 notes · View notes