26158
« on: February 04, 2008, 06:04:07 PM »
I don't think that a character can't be both "good" and interesting. It's lazy writing that gives a protagonist a neutral personality. Writers seem to have an assumption about there being the "hero" who appeals to everyone (nothing appeals to everyone), and therefore can't have individual traits or an original personality.... and then there are the "character" parts played by "character actors".
The various Star Trek series seemed reluctant to let the lead character (who is always the highest raking person for some reason) exhibit much of an individual personality. DS9 re-evaluated all its characters partway through, and actually gave Sisko a personality, this made him interesting, and the really program improved at that point.
Julia could have been interesting because of a sharp mind and her willingness to jump into situations that would throw most people completely. I don't think being duplicitous is interesting necessarily, though it can be. I want a Julia who surprises us with her reactions to, and solutions for, the mysterious and deadly threats that are thrown at her, without losing her need to do the right thing, despite pressures on her to give up, betray people, or look out for herself. It's a challenge to make that kind of character interesting, but it's the best kind of character when it works.
I like supposed character actors to be cast as leads. Barnabas/JF would be the perfect example, except for when they make him a standard bland hero. What a great opportunity missed..... "evil" Barnabas, interesting but limited.... just plain "good" Barnabas, worse... but a conflicted Barnabas, torn in different directions, cursed but trying to fight through the haze of his curse to put things right for the family.... 1897 Barnabas, especially early on, is perfect, I think.
Another example of the lead as a "character"... Doctor Who.