#and 1-3 give us a good foundation to do that - as @marley--manson pointed out there's decent character stuff in 1-3 too

[majorbaby]

@insulindian-phasmid i hope you don't mind, these are really great tags. i've reformatted them so they're a bit easier to read:

#this makes a good point i've been thinking about lately. not just about mash but stories and audience tastes in general

#western writers typically focus on characters as individuals

#we believe good literature is about A Complex Main Character and the humans around them

#and what's most important is everyone's thoughts and feelings. what are their flaws? can they change & grow? literature as psychoanalysis

#i'm making it sound godawful but of course it's not. this is hamlet. this is 90% of our favorite fictional series

#but it's not the only type of story

#a good story doesn't have to be about a three-dimensional character with flaws who changes over the course of three acts

#in the context of well-developed evolving relationships with other flawed three-dimensional characters

#a story doesn't have to be about individual characters at all. stories don't have to be about our humanity

#they can be about systems. a Nation. the gods. political philosophies. or stories that are just fucking funny

#where the characters are automatons programmed by the writers to serve a specific function. and in mash seasons 1-3 it's satire

i think when considering Margaret and her much lauded 'character development' it's less about her developing from a bad person to a good person, but from a narrative device, as she was in MASH 1970, to a three-dimensional character. the former isn't inherently poor writing.

this happened deliberately as the show shifted from satirical plotlines that emphasized the moral bankruptcy of the systems that prop up the war machine to a show about how being in the war wore on the characters individually and changed them as people.

season 4 and onward focus more on individual character drama, highlighting the flaws and virtues of each character, their interiority, their changing relationships with one another and brings in their relationships with offscreen characters - most infamously, Peg and Erin Hunnicutt but also Dr. Pierce Senior, Radar's mother and uncle who eventually passes and Honoria Winchester. Even minor characters get at least one episode that focuses on some offscreen relationship, Mulcahy's sister Kathy and Klinger wife/ex-wife Laverne.

maybe with the (blessed) exception of Frank Burns, I think the function of all the characters changes from 1-3 to 4-11 as the show made this shift.

Trapper is a lancer. we get some glimpses into there being more to him, in Kim and Check-Up - but most of what we see is him performing a specific function, propping up Hawkeye, who in turn props up the messaging of the show. I would have loved to see Trapper's interiority explored more in the later years but I'm not mad about it missing in 1-3 - it's not about him getting "more", he got plenty in terms of what he was created to do. him having 'conflict' with Hawkeye isn't something that would've ever occurred to the writers at that time and you would never hear trapper say something like 'i can't divide myself emotionally' he doesn't have enough of an emotional self to divide.

when it comes to Hawkeye, in 1-3 i think the details of his life beyond what we see of him on screen are extraneous. hence the inconsistencies with his backstory, his sister, his mother, him being form vermont - this stuff just didn't matter back then. focusing on it now can be fun if you're trying to explore the character in fanwork, but the reason Hawkeye's sister (who i've affectioned named 'benjamina pierce') disappears is because they weren't really thinking too hard about her in the first place, you're not supposed to remember her and so the show assumes you won't.

Hawkeye writes home to his father but we don't learn a whole lot about Daniel Pierce at the time, he's only there for Hawkeye to narrate to, that doesn't mean Hawkeye doesn't love him, it's just that the writers don't intend for you to focus on their relationship until at least The Late Captain Pierce.

Other major developments wrt to Daniel happen much later on: he is retconned into being a doctor in the later years when the show wants to care about developing those details of Hawkeye's life and in season 10 we get Sons and Bowlers.

Hawkeye gets a little more character stuff than the rest of the cast because he's the protagonist but there's still a marked shift between 3 and 4, starting with his emotionally charged personal drama re: Trapper - before that, he does have moments where he emotes but it's always to fulfill the show's anti-establishment messaging: Yankee Doodle Doctor, Carry on Hawkeye and yes, even Dr. Pierce and Mr. Hyde. again, that doesn't mean we can't diagnose him with a laundry list of issues based on that episode when constructing headcanons but his mental state alone can't be divorced from the messaging at this point. "why does he do these things?" asks Henry at the end of Pierce/Hyde, and Trapper replies not that Hawkeye is damaged or hurting or broken (even though he may be all these things) but with the show's central thesis "he took this oath never to stand by and watch people die" - his breakdown directly ties back to the show's criticism of state violence. compare to Bless You Hawkeye, which might've taken place anywhere whenever Hawkeye smelled mouldy pond water.

so if even Hawkeye is more of a device than a character in the early years, what can we say for Margaret?

the Margaret character does her job. the hypocrisy of "fighting for peace" is paralleled perfectly in her relationship with Frank. these are two people who claim to be god-fearing, well-to-do, conservative Americans, but they engage in the same vices as Trapper and Hawkeye: drinking, promiscuity and scheming and worse, Frank and Margaret look down on others for it.

i get why people want something 'more' (really, something 'else) from Margaret and I'm glad we did eventually get that because it was sorely needed, but tbh i adore early Margaret and i think it's a little silly to call her a 'bad person' or 'underdeveloped' - she's just a villain clocking in.

similarly i don't think we're meant to reflect on Hawkeye/Trapper/Henry's philandering as assessments of their character so much as they are clear statements on traditionalism and sexual liberty. you can personally dislike whatever you want in a character but i think the context of the show airing in 1972 when attitudes towards sex, particularly female pleasure, were starting to finally loosen, is relevant.

some people want character drama from MASH and that's their preference, but character drama isn't inherently 'deeper' or 'more complex' than satire. on the contrary some of the writing is so technically strong in the early years, the jokes on-the-ball, the witty criticisms of American foreign policy and the traditional values that uphold it buried within objectively hilarious episodes like Tuttle (where they create 'the perfect American man' except that he's not real and make fools out of ranking officers while they're at it)... I'd argue that that's highly complex.

i don't see the point in getting hung up on the morals of a character who clearly intended to be a villain when judging whether or not they're a 'good' character or not. calling her 'flat' when they're all somewhat 'flat' because the show is not trying to get you overly invested in their personal lives seems unfair to me. same can be said for comparisons of Frank and Charles which are critical of Frank. or my most beloathed criticism: of Henry for being an 'incompetent CO' - that is a feature, not a bug.

criticisms of 'flat' characters in general are definitely valid, but imo only when those characters exist alongside nuanced characters who have rich interiority. since Margaret exists alongside Trapper and Frank, I don't think that critique is valid here. she actually gets a few solid moments where we get the sense that there may be more to her, in Aid Station and Carry On Hawkeye. compare that to episodes that frame her as being entirely sympathetic when she's been a terror to people she holds structural power over: The Nurses or the Birthday Girls - both good episodes in general, but it's another kind of flatness to present a character as being wholly sympathetic when they've turned around and done the very same thing that was done to them to others. just something to consider about how making Margaret 'more nuanced' actually glossed over some of her interesting complexities.