SGA: on Ford and character flaws...

[permetaform]

bascon had a short-fic/drabble writting panel; I came in late, but I managed to get this out:

There are four ways to define home, Ford thinks.

He makes his wry smiles and brings it to his team, but cracks it wider (than he ever would, for them), full of teeth. He finds her loyalty and brings it to them, his team, little parts of Wraith that he gives to them, to put inside. He finds ingenuity, in a little man who talks fast and is cowed easily, and he finds manpower (grunts), and tries not to find them familiar.

Ford creates his home, bit by bit, assembling it out of muscle and tissue and brains, all stitched together with a sickle grin (and needlepoint).

There are four ways, to define home, Ford thinks; he has, here, created them all (again), he looks at the bobble-ling heads all around him.

And smiles.

[]

So I was reading this meta on Weir by mari4212 and what registered to me both in this piece and saeva's post was how much SGC was not especially keen to having her around...

This brings home even more the idea that SGA is really a story about a bunch of misfits pushed to extremes, 'cause it's like a one-way trip and you *know* SGC was thinking, "Oh, well, you're expendable. Go ahead."

'Cause I mean, it's easy to see how Rodney and Kavanaugh won't exactly be missed and how John is all black-marked and how Beckett has extremely shady medical ethics (wherein 'Poison In The Well' is Beckett's 'Trinity') and how Heightmeyer is a psychologist like a shady, shady researcher ("Teyla/Rodney you shouldn't be freaking out for losing control of your body. Loose it again. Show me more.").

And it's not just possibly problematic writing of the show (that, for instance, Beckett is written as a shady doctor, because maybe he *is*), the patterns appear too often for that...So in a way, it was a relief to finally see where Weir was coming from, that SGC literally didn't want her around because she was a threat to the power structure and because she's really more a negotiator than a leader.

Which brings up an interesting question: What was up with Ford? Why were they so willing to let him go?

I haven't watched SG1 so I can't extrapolate from there...but perhaps I can guess from what I've seen of Ford in season 1. Please jump in if you've noticed stuff too or you have things to add from SG1!

As far as I could tell at first glance, Ford is a energetic guy, very young compared to the other characters, competent.

But this is SGA, and nothing is quite so cut and dry as appearances. 'Cause as early as ep3. (38 min.), we see Ford towards the end losing it and just slamming against the wall in this surprising rage. And I forgot which ep, but they were playing Prime-NotPrime and Ford kept losing and getting all irritated, and Ford's reaction towards being used as wraith-bait, and the little bits of reaction throughout the season that had him disgruntled or overlooked...

[lierdumoa points out: Ford freaked out in S1 and it was identical to how he reacted in S2, but with the enzyme "he was on that razor edge *constantly* instead of only in particular situations."]

And then we have Season 2 Ford. See, the man likes explosives, yanno. Ticking time-bombs, and I can't help but look back and wonder at Season 1 Ford, and wondering if I'd read the Good Boy thing wrong. If I'd mis-read their team-family dynamics. I can't help but wonder if Ford had just that One Really Bad Day that pushes a good man to do evil.

And I can't help but wonder if it's in his records that he may be closer to that snapping point than other people. I can't help but compare Ford's reaction under the enzyme to Teyla and Ronon's reaction, to McKay's reaction, and to John's reaction, and then trying to figure out relative dosages and the effects of sedatives and still still still coming back to the fact that Ford's reaction is extreme (he formed a drug gang and ate Wraiths. DUDE.) and that I wouldn't be surprised if Ford was written as an explosives expert for a *reason*.

Ticking time-bomb, heh.

Which...sorta causes one to go back and re-evaluate the S1 team dynamics once S2 Ford comes along, because John and Rodney and Ford and Teyla made a family of a team dynamic it's just...a somewhat dysfunctional one. More than anyone might've possibly guessed. (and Ford went ahead and created his own family, out of the skin of friends ::shakes head:: ah Ford.)

[edit] I'm not drawing a line saying that Ford from season 1 absolutely and straight-forwardly and conclusively leads to Ford from season 2, not at all, because I believe that he's essentially a good person who is relatively mentally stable considering the situation that they're in. However, the potential for Ford to react as he did in season 2 was always there and was referenced through in small ways through season 1, and that was what I was trying to awkwardly get at. He had that One Bad Day that throws good men into doing evil things.

Also, btw?

Zelenka. His arc hasn't come yet...but I can sorta see it coming (sideways, if I squint) ever since Siege III. And it's coming like a trainwreck.

Which, you know, will DESTROY THE BRAIN when it happens.

::is SO looking forward:: Because SGA is EVIL, it'll make me flail at the screen, I just know it.

Comments

[permetaform]

::covers eyes:: umm, you're missing my meaning again.

I'm not arguing that the plots are canned, because they are; but I'm saying that these similar plots are used as different symbols to point to different themes. The blessing of a genre is that one can subvert the message within the genre itself by following very specific patterns; therefore showing something new while at the same time keeping the safety of the familiar. In this way, some of the best critique can arise, from within the source itself; but it does this most easily and most safely by steadfastly keeping themselves within established conventions in other ways.

It may be because I've only seen a few episodes of SG1, but it never captured me the way that just two episodes of SGA did; I have an inkling of why, but I'm still forming my theories on that.

In sum, I think the two shows are using similar plots to point to two different places; but not having seen SG1 I can't make any solid overaching comment on it's themes, just what I've noticed other's mainly picking up on.

Regarding the dysfunctionality, I wasn't referring to family dysfunctionality of the individual team members; rather, I was referring to the dysfunctionality of the team itself, in microcosm, and the expedition as a whole.


One can make the argument towards SG-1 being mythic and SGA being human, which is probably the greatest divide they do have, but even there it's a difference in how the plots play out, the consequences, and not the beginnings. It's not that Sam doesn't have a Trinity -- she blew up a sun, once, and that's not even the worst thing she's done -- or Daniel doesn't have a Hot Zone -- he? managed to destroy (to dust) the planet he called home -- but that they don't have to suffer the consequences of those actions in the same way.

err...could you re-state this? I think I see what you're getting at, but I'd hate to make assumptions that'll get us more confused.


But the parallels are there and they're very conclusive -- SGA is using so many of the same things SG-1 did and just renaming them

Yes, exactly. =) It's a stable framework from which SGA can use as point of derivation. It also follows very many sci-fi conventions from the various Star Trek and Babylon 5, that I know of, and I think some other sources that I remember others pointing out.


[I've recently been having my friends quiz me on that, naming things in Atlantis and seeing if I could trace them back to SG-1. If you'd like to join the fun, feel free to name something.]

As a point of curiosity, how were the Ancients introduced in SG1 and what is the tone of SG1 towards the Ancients?

[saeva.livejournal.com]

I am totally wasted by way of flu right now. I will so come back and answer the last question in-depth when I am not.

- Andrea.

[permetaform]

awww ::hugs:: I hope you feel better! I look forward to your response. =)