Re: Stereotyped, monotyped, poorly typed.

From: Felix Lee <flee_at_cse.psu.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 06:53:48 -0400

Andy Hill:
> There's a reason for this "staying focused on the main characters",
> and it's got more to do with marketing than anything else.

yep, and I don't quite understand it. there's always the villains,
and there are plenty of them. there's no marketing drive to stay
focused on one particular villain, is there?

> I found Manx hilarious personally, I don't know that he was
> "stupid", more like a representation of a politician whose first job
> once they get into office is to do as little as possible until
> they're re-elected. These people exist.

oh, it would have been fine in an occasional joke, but as a recurring
character, Manx's incompetence gets pretty annoying. he's not a
freshman politician. he keeps getting reelected, so he must be good
at something.

shrug. so Callie does all the real work, and Manx is just a
figurehead. why doesn't Callie run for mayor?

> Callie, not sure about her. I don't find her
> overly interesting so far, she doesn't seem to have any character quirks
> that bear exploration further.

why does she put up with Manx? does she have a family? is she
married to her job? why isn't there more conflict between her and
Feral?

> I'm sure the urge must've been there for
> the writers to have her "develop" some kind of relationship with either
> of the guys,

eesh. I hope not. it unbalances everything.

> but I've seen that done elsewhere in ac/adv - it's always a
> bad idea.

I wonder why. it should be possible to do it well. mmm. maybe it's
too hard to avoid damsel-in-distress syndrome?
--

Received on Sat Apr 22 1995 - 06:50:56 PDT