There's an issue here with fan perceptions and the opinions therein that really comes down to two parts, both of which lead into the same thing.
Part of the issue is that (Lt. Col.) John Sheppard isn't meant to be the accessible character and Rodney McKay is.
You state that John's character is the one that we're automatically disposed towards liking but I don't think that -- on a whole as watchers of science fiction in general (for much of the audience these aren't the only science fiction they watch or read), and the Sci-Fi Channel programming and Stargate in particular -- is true. McKay is the accessible character and the character that we identify with because his reactions are most reasonably connected to the audience at home. We like him because we would be having screaming panic attacks as well, and David Hewlett plays to that very, very well.
It's the same reason fanon softens McKay's character, giving him more characteristics of who we, as the general we of fans, are. And that's something the writers -- such as Peter DeLuise, who is the softened version of McKay as any of his director's series interviews will attest to -- recognize, being of geekdom themselves. A fact which fandom doesn't pay enough attention to when they start discussing the writer's possible intentions in my experience.
Playing into that is the other part: If McKay is the accessible character, and meant to be the accessible character, then he needs someone to play off of and contrast to. He needs a subdued (straight) man to his loud (funny) man, and that's the role that John Sheppard fits. Sheppard's humor often exists for McKay to react to or to cause in reaction, because that dynamic works.
And so Sheppard's revelations are smaller, quieter than McKay's, and fandom often neglects to notice that they're there. It's written off as "mysterious", or a coincidence, or missed entirely with the infamous selective vision fandom possesses. (My favorite selective vision incident as of late is nearly everyone's commentary about Beckett's doctorly ways when he explicitly states in the episode that he wished to treat the Wraith only in order to keep him alive so that he might tell how to reverse the demolecurization process.)
So, while you see commentary upon commentary on McKay's declarations, bitches, and revelations, Sheppard's more subtle tendencies are only rarely discussed and then often only in context of McKay. (A response that's rampant in the SG-1 side of the fandom with Teal'c, though ironically we have the most background about him, his actual political leanings, his goals, desires, and barriers, etc, out of all the SG-1 team.)
You see endless discussion about what McKay's fainting really meant -- when it might very well have been to establish he has hypoglycemia as he says he does -- but much less discussion about Sheppard's awkwardness with trying to impress a woman who's company he enjoyed, when the latter says quite a bit about the character and his possible romantic history.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-12 02:14 pm (UTC)Part of the issue is that (Lt. Col.) John Sheppard isn't meant to be the accessible character and Rodney McKay is.
You state that John's character is the one that we're automatically disposed towards liking but I don't think that -- on a whole as watchers of science fiction in general (for much of the audience these aren't the only science fiction they watch or read), and the Sci-Fi Channel programming and Stargate in particular -- is true. McKay is the accessible character and the character that we identify with because his reactions are most reasonably connected to the audience at home. We like him because we would be having screaming panic attacks as well, and David Hewlett plays to that very, very well.
It's the same reason fanon softens McKay's character, giving him more characteristics of who we, as the general we of fans, are. And that's something the writers -- such as Peter DeLuise, who is the softened version of McKay as any of his director's series interviews will attest to -- recognize, being of geekdom themselves. A fact which fandom doesn't pay enough attention to when they start discussing the writer's possible intentions in my experience.
Playing into that is the other part: If McKay is the accessible character, and meant to be the accessible character, then he needs someone to play off of and contrast to. He needs a subdued (straight) man to his loud (funny) man, and that's the role that John Sheppard fits. Sheppard's humor often exists for McKay to react to or to cause in reaction, because that dynamic works.
And so Sheppard's revelations are smaller, quieter than McKay's, and fandom often neglects to notice that they're there. It's written off as "mysterious", or a coincidence, or missed entirely with the infamous selective vision fandom possesses. (My favorite selective vision incident as of late is nearly everyone's commentary about Beckett's doctorly ways when he explicitly states in the episode that he wished to treat the Wraith only in order to keep him alive so that he might tell how to reverse the demolecurization process.)
So, while you see commentary upon commentary on McKay's declarations, bitches, and revelations, Sheppard's more subtle tendencies are only rarely discussed and then often only in context of McKay. (A response that's rampant in the SG-1 side of the fandom with Teal'c, though ironically we have the most background about him, his actual political leanings, his goals, desires, and barriers, etc, out of all the SG-1 team.)
You see endless discussion about what McKay's fainting really meant -- when it might very well have been to establish he has hypoglycemia as he says he does -- but much less discussion about Sheppard's awkwardness with trying to impress a woman who's company he enjoyed, when the latter says quite a bit about the character and his possible romantic history.
[To be continued. Argh!]