#earnest semi soapbox moments

[omnivorouswallflower]

I used to binge watch friends and I’m frustrated now

The show was funny, right, like, it was. But the older i got looking back i can’t EVEN with some of it. 

Let’s be real, it’s just mainly Ross. Like, Chandler has his problematic moments, but I find his overall character to be earnest, ignorant not toxic. 

Ross...let me soapbox. None of this is probably ground breaking for you brilliant folks but why not has it out again. 

Ross is literally written to be a sympathetic if slightly pathetic male protag. The point is we are meant to like him and sympathize with him for a good amount of the show, and root for him at the end. 

HOW i ask you? 

His literally intro is how he is the victim of the angry lesbians, who are out there to steal your wives. Who are straight, naturally, but the lesbians are just soooo....well frankly, it just seemed like they were more healthy in their relationship, you know, supporting and caring for one another. 

And they try to make Susan this bitchy character, but she’s just not having Ross’s manbaby shit. 

So Ross has this semi-obsessive relationship with Rachel, and I don’t mind a long pining backstory, I think it can be cute and endearing, but how they decided to break them up, just killed any ability I had to forgive Ross for his behavior previously. 

He literally whines that he’s not getting enough attention. SHE LIVES WITH YOUR SISTER BRO. YOU ARE OVER THERE ALL THE TIME. I just. I can’t. 

Side note: I do think they were on a break and what he did technically wasn’t cheating, but he is still an emotional slumlord given the fact he had been single for less than four hours before he was literally fucking someone, and that’s just as shitty as cheating on her, frankly, because it implies the same level of respect for her. 

I feel like Ross’ portrayal became ‘Funny Loser’ for a while, and that was fine, because that’s what he was. But the attempted redemption arc fell SO FLAT. Like, he didn’t change. He learned nothing. 

It feels like his relationship with rachel is so emblematic of what people think of/thought of as a ‘good guy’ relationship. He’s so nice, he’s so good, except he’s really just manipulative and selfish. 

I know there were female writers and producers, at least i was under that impression, so i have to wonder if this was INTENTIONAL? like, we the Uterun-Blessed members of the creative team like.."ahh, he’s a shitstain” and the teste-afflicted members like, “HE’S ASPIRATIONAL”? IDK. 

But then why the ending? Why make Rachel give up her DREAM job to stay with Ross, when he’d been jumping around careers and could have just as easily moved with her? I mean, he never saw his freaking son anyway, so that was a throw-away excuse at BEST. 

I have lots of feelings clearly and this is a shitpost, but fml, this bothers me when I rewatch it now. Other things bother me too. The shitty way Monica’s parents treated her and there was never a real discussion of the fact that they probably gave her an eating disorder, which is like, relatable to a lot of people.

IDK, it was a product of its time, but it feels like there were some cool things they just glossed over and left firmly in the humor category instead of ever pulling them out to deal with them on an honest level too? 

[onelungmcclung]

Hello <3 Could you share what behind the scenes goodies are making you interested in Welsh/Roe? Also, could you share some more about the W*bgott dislike? Specifically how W*b comes off as anti-Semitic? I genuinely want to be educated and appreciate it in advance!

hey!

re welsh/roe: haha, sure thing.

re My Soapbox: that’s a more serious question, but you asked very courteously and I’ll do my best to answer. I hope it will taken in good faith by everyone who reads it. I haven’t discussed it publicly before, and I’m unlikely to do so again.

[nb. I’m going to request no rebl/gs on this, just because it’s a two-part answer dealing with two entirely unrelated subjects.]

i. welsh/roe: it came to me in a vision (it did not)

It’s Not That Deep: sometimes I like to pick two characters and speculate what their dynamic would be like in canon and how it might play out as a ship. (sometimes my experimental oneshots backfire on me horribly and I lose sleep over what is suddenly The Love Story of the Ages. I still think the basic approach is... fun? no I have not “learned better”.) so, that’s a mindset in play.

I think perhaps it was this that made me realise that they don’t have much onscreen interaction and thus wonder what their dynamic would be like. I guess baberoe being such a popular ship (and I do like it!) means that most of the roe fic is written through the lens of that dynamic (much angst, much fluff), and I just like to try out other angles. rarepairs are a great way to investigate characters’ less-explored facets. roe is often written as angst-ridden; welsh is probably one of the least angsty characters in the show; he’s a tiny fearless powder keg of energy & humour. what would they bring out in each other? this is for research purposes. (they certainly share a tendency to charge headfirst into danger without hesitating.)

roe does shout at welsh (“an officer & a grownup”, etc). I think welsh respects it, tbh. and I think that’s pretty much their only interaction apart from when welsh is injured.

which brings me onto rick warden’s quote about shane covering him while harry’s injured - he’s discussing it more in the context of acting choices, but the character implications are what I care about. roe is trying to protect welsh while he can’t protect himself; welsh feels protected by him. which is something welsh very rarely seems to need.

of course this is just what roe does. but for both of them, it’s a crucial moment. and for me, I’m always interested in small, potentially revealing interactions between characters who don’t have much screentime together.

ii. so you hate w*bgott

oof. ok.

a disclaimer: it’s only recently I analysed why I’m Not Into this ship. when I first discovered its popularity, my initial thought was “why?” but I didn’t dwell on it. (ship hate means it’s time to go outside.) coming back to the fandom made me think about it a little more closely. 

admittedly, I find webster self-absorbed, entitled and privileged in almost every scene he’s in, so that doesn’t help. but I’m capable of taking an interest in his friendships (1st platoon, for example); I just do not think he and liebgott are friends, at any point in the narrative, and I would ship liebgott with literally anyone else in the company before w*bgott would ever occur to me. frankly I think it’s as plausible as martin/webster or guarnere/liebgott, and it never did occur to me. (that is, of course, just me, but this is my Opinion Hour and everyone has to live with it.)

firstly, I dislike the scene in wwf when he pulls a gun on the german shopkeeper. to some viewers, I think this reads as righteous anger. to me, it reads as self-involvement. what he should be doing is helping the prisoners, not threatening random shopkeepers. (lesniewski gets that. web doesn’t.) no doubt the shopkeeper is complicit in local antisemitism and his business has likely benefited, but he’s not important. the wellbeing of the jewish prisoners is the priority. 

(his anger towards the german troops also comes across as self-indulgent and rather... unearned. the rest of the company has gone through a much more brutal war than he has. I’ve tried, for the sake of argument, to read his anger as altruistic, but that is not how it comes across to me.)

liebgott prioritises the prisoners completely. when he realises the nature of the camp, he reins in his feelings - of horror, grief, anger - in order to focus on the man he’s talking to. he knows this man has seen horror, cruelty and death beyond anything he himself has ever seen or imagined. this is the first time in a long time he has been around other jewish people, and it is nightmarish, and all he cares about is helping them. these people could be his friends, his family, his neighbours, himself: they are his people. at first, he refuses a direct order to tell the prisoners they have to remain here. when he relays it to the prisoners, he tries hard to be calm, not to distress them further. when he cries, it’s only for a few moments, because they are still what is most important: not his own grief for them.

I emphasise this as the emotional context of the mountaintop scene in “points”. liebgott feels unable to show his grief in front of the other soldiers, because they don’t share it, but he can show anger. the commandant mission offers the possibility of some catharsis, of a glimpse of revenge. (what he needs, I think, is to be among other jewish people, to grieve with them, to know that his feelings are understood, shared, recognised, accepted; but he wants to avenge his people.)

webster has lashed out at germans twice: the shopkeeper, the troops. he views that anger as justified. and yet in this instance - an order to interrogate and kill a nazi commandant - he balks. he argues the man might be innocent. the commandant is more culpable than anyone else they’ve encountered, but webster treats liebgott’s anger, which is far far more personal than webster’s, as disproportionate and irrational. he has no understanding of liebgott’s grief and rage; he makes no attempt to understand. he’s uncomfortable with it; he dismisses it. it’s deeply privileged and condescending.

part of me thinks this is just bad writing: it’s a contrived moral debate; webster wasn’t on the mission irl and his presence seems unnecessary; if he’s so opposed to the mission, he should have voiced that to speirs, not liebgott. but bad writing or not, this is the show and characterisation we’re all working from as fans. 

(I think this ship is somewhat responsible for fans mischaracterising lieb as “angry”, for... reacting to antisemitism?. but because I don’t read anything for this ship, I have limited engagement with that.)

just for the record, while I’m pouring out my heart, I don’t see any evidence of a friendship, even a volatile one, in tlp. web didn’t know the men in 2nd platoon particularly well before, and still less post-bastogne. I think he plays politics with jones to try to get off the patrol, and then plays politics with 2nd platoon in order to be more accepted by the group. (the fact neither plan works is... quite entertaining, really.)

I know people point to their conversation about plans for the future as evidence of a friendship, but to me that interaction seems fairly one-sided. liebgott is looking forward to getting home; he wants to talk about it. web isn’t particularly interested in the conversation. that and their scenes together in “points” seem scripted to emphasise how little they have in common. and, of course, that their backgrounds have little in common isn’t necessarily a barrier to friendship, but webster dismissing liebgott’s anger over the camps is. there’s no way to write them being friends that doesn’t involve a heartfelt apology and a lot of slow relationship development.

I don’t lose sleep over what other people write/ship; that’s their prerogative. I don’t have to read it (in this case, I haven’t and won’t). I’m not telling anyone they can’t write this - or any other - ship. I’m simply uncomfortable with its popularity. 

liebgott has some great onscreen friendships (mostly implied, as is the way of the show): tab, popeye, grant, ramirez, babe, mcclung, alley; maybe dukeman, jackson, tipper, luz, martin, malarkey, roe... I could even make an argument for liebgott & lesniewski. personally, I would much rather see more attention given to any/all of those.