SGA meta musings
Aug. 18th, 2005 12:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lierdumoaSo ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
adrienne2 and I have this thing where we have slightly different initial impressions of a characer and the discuss and discuss and discuss until we think we've formed a ful picture
I'm thinking of the introduction of Kavanaugh in "38 Minutes." Wherein Weir is all sexy and authoritative and Kavanaugh is kinda slimy.adrienne2 pointed out -- wait, but it was a valid concern Kavanaugh raised. The explosion was a valid concern. His way of bringing up the subject was really obnoxious, but this was important info.
Then I was thinking -- yes, it was valid, but after watching this scene for the third time (I know I'm obsessed, shut up) I was like hmmm. The debate Kavanaugh is having with Simpson isn't made altogether clear. Or rather, I could see that the potential for explosion was a valid point, but not why Simpson would not want to share that information, so the sharing of that information must not have been what Simpson was arguing with Kavanaugh about.
Oh, okay, it's the sheild they're arguing about. And maybe I'm pointing out the obvious here, but it took a while for it to click in my head. No one was thinking about inertia. Everyone expected that the minute the drive pods retracted the puddlejumper would fly right through the gate.
Which means, in the event that the puddlejumper had exploded, they may not have had to raise the sheild at all, because depending on the locus of the exlosion, the puddlejumper may or may not have been pushed through the gate at all -- it may have simply exploded in front of it.
But, since everyone was forgetting about inertia, and assuming that the puddlejumper would fly through the instant the drive pods retracted, the question was this -- do we assume guilty till proven innocent, or innocent till proven guilty.
Which is to say, Rodney tells Elizabeth, "We might explode, and if you we do, you'll only have 7-9 seconds to put the sheild up."
But Kavanaugh wanted to put the sheild up preemptively. Kavanaugh was assuming that the instant the drive pods retracted, the puddlejumper would fly through the stargate, so essentially, he wanted to leave the sheild up, in which case, there would have been only 7-9 seconds to take the sheild *down* in the event that their *wasn't* a catastrophic explosion.
So Kavanaugh and Simpson were essentially arguing as to whether or not to put the sheild up preemptively. Kavanaugh was essentially arguing something that would make it 1) safer for the people in Atlantis, but 2) less safe for the people aboard the puddlejumper.
More fascinating, perhaps, is Elizabeth's never say die attitude. It's idealism, asadrienne2 pointed out -- Elizabeth was a professional diplomat before the Atlantis program. I think a part of it is that she tends to lack perspective when it comes to John Sheppard, much the way John lacks perspective when it comes to her.
And I'm not saying that in the shippery sense. Essentially, asadrienne2 pointed out to me, being a diplomat, she was always arbitrating over people who were not *her* people. In the past it has always been easy for her to have perspective. She's never had something to lose before. John, similarly, had no one before coming to Atlantis. Atlantis is his only family. John is very much like Elizabeth -- he goes by the same never say die philosophy on life. At least, never say die about other people. John is perfectly willing to volunteer himself on suicide missions.
Elizabeth, in her position as leader, hasn't the luxury of volunteering herself on suicide missions. John, in a sense, doesn't really have that luxury either, but John also has very little respect for rules. I refer to "The Rising" where he runs off to do the dangerous rescue thing and Lt. Ford tells him -- I should do it, sir, because I am not the leader and ergo less valuable than you are and John ignores him. Elizabeth has internalized her role as leader. John has not, really. John is far more likely to risk himself.
The only time Elizabeth risks herself is in the very desperate situation she finds herself in during "The Siege" wherein she goes to the Genii home planet to barter for nuclear weapons. In that sense, Elizabeth has much better perspective than John when it comes to risking her own neck for her people. But then, Elizbether is much more well adjusted than John, which should be fairly obvious considering the happy suburban home life she left behind on Earth.
Elizabeth fascinates me, 1) because I find her devastatingly atttractive and 2) because I'm not exactly sure why I find her so.adrienne2 pointed out there's a Tracy Flick-ness about her (if you've ever seen the movie Election). The whole I'm ambitious and I'm right and I'm kind of sneery. Only it's not annoying like it is with Tracy Flick, I think because Elizabeth very deeply cares about her people, more than she cares about herself, and when she does teh speech giving thing, beyond the surface "god you really love to hear yourself talk, don't you" aspect of it, there's the underlying fact that she really *means* what she's saying, even if she is pitching it too much like an infomercial.
Okay, there's also the thing where she's dressing down Kavanaugh, and I honestly don't care if Kavanaugh means it or not because her voice does that deep purring threatening thing and omghot.
Okay, I'm going to cut this off because I have shit to do, but next time -- Ronon and bad vs. good Ronon characterization and also much fangirling because Ronon is sex in, like, every way.
adrienne2 and I have this thing where we have slightly different initial impressions of a characer and the discuss and discuss and discuss until we think we've formed a ful pictureI'm thinking of the introduction of Kavanaugh in "38 Minutes." Wherein Weir is all sexy and authoritative and Kavanaugh is kinda slimy.
adrienne2 pointed out -- wait, but it was a valid concern Kavanaugh raised. The explosion was a valid concern. His way of bringing up the subject was really obnoxious, but this was important info.Then I was thinking -- yes, it was valid, but after watching this scene for the third time (I know I'm obsessed, shut up) I was like hmmm. The debate Kavanaugh is having with Simpson isn't made altogether clear. Or rather, I could see that the potential for explosion was a valid point, but not why Simpson would not want to share that information, so the sharing of that information must not have been what Simpson was arguing with Kavanaugh about.
Oh, okay, it's the sheild they're arguing about. And maybe I'm pointing out the obvious here, but it took a while for it to click in my head. No one was thinking about inertia. Everyone expected that the minute the drive pods retracted the puddlejumper would fly right through the gate.
Which means, in the event that the puddlejumper had exploded, they may not have had to raise the sheild at all, because depending on the locus of the exlosion, the puddlejumper may or may not have been pushed through the gate at all -- it may have simply exploded in front of it.
But, since everyone was forgetting about inertia, and assuming that the puddlejumper would fly through the instant the drive pods retracted, the question was this -- do we assume guilty till proven innocent, or innocent till proven guilty.
Which is to say, Rodney tells Elizabeth, "We might explode, and if you we do, you'll only have 7-9 seconds to put the sheild up."
But Kavanaugh wanted to put the sheild up preemptively. Kavanaugh was assuming that the instant the drive pods retracted, the puddlejumper would fly through the stargate, so essentially, he wanted to leave the sheild up, in which case, there would have been only 7-9 seconds to take the sheild *down* in the event that their *wasn't* a catastrophic explosion.
So Kavanaugh and Simpson were essentially arguing as to whether or not to put the sheild up preemptively. Kavanaugh was essentially arguing something that would make it 1) safer for the people in Atlantis, but 2) less safe for the people aboard the puddlejumper.
More fascinating, perhaps, is Elizabeth's never say die attitude. It's idealism, as
adrienne2 pointed out -- Elizabeth was a professional diplomat before the Atlantis program. I think a part of it is that she tends to lack perspective when it comes to John Sheppard, much the way John lacks perspective when it comes to her.And I'm not saying that in the shippery sense. Essentially, as
adrienne2 pointed out to me, being a diplomat, she was always arbitrating over people who were not *her* people. In the past it has always been easy for her to have perspective. She's never had something to lose before. John, similarly, had no one before coming to Atlantis. Atlantis is his only family. John is very much like Elizabeth -- he goes by the same never say die philosophy on life. At least, never say die about other people. John is perfectly willing to volunteer himself on suicide missions.Elizabeth, in her position as leader, hasn't the luxury of volunteering herself on suicide missions. John, in a sense, doesn't really have that luxury either, but John also has very little respect for rules. I refer to "The Rising" where he runs off to do the dangerous rescue thing and Lt. Ford tells him -- I should do it, sir, because I am not the leader and ergo less valuable than you are and John ignores him. Elizabeth has internalized her role as leader. John has not, really. John is far more likely to risk himself.
The only time Elizabeth risks herself is in the very desperate situation she finds herself in during "The Siege" wherein she goes to the Genii home planet to barter for nuclear weapons. In that sense, Elizabeth has much better perspective than John when it comes to risking her own neck for her people. But then, Elizbether is much more well adjusted than John, which should be fairly obvious considering the happy suburban home life she left behind on Earth.
Elizabeth fascinates me, 1) because I find her devastatingly atttractive and 2) because I'm not exactly sure why I find her so.
adrienne2 pointed out there's a Tracy Flick-ness about her (if you've ever seen the movie Election). The whole I'm ambitious and I'm right and I'm kind of sneery. Only it's not annoying like it is with Tracy Flick, I think because Elizabeth very deeply cares about her people, more than she cares about herself, and when she does teh speech giving thing, beyond the surface "god you really love to hear yourself talk, don't you" aspect of it, there's the underlying fact that she really *means* what she's saying, even if she is pitching it too much like an infomercial.Okay, there's also the thing where she's dressing down Kavanaugh, and I honestly don't care if Kavanaugh means it or not because her voice does that deep purring threatening thing and omghot.
Okay, I'm going to cut this off because I have shit to do, but next time -- Ronon and bad vs. good Ronon characterization and also much fangirling because Ronon is sex in, like, every way.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 08:42 pm (UTC)I don't think Elizabeth lacks perspective wrt John; she lacks perspective wrt all her people, who are her babies, her responsibility. She protects them with her life at all cost and will never admit defeat until they are actually dead.
I also find her devastatingly attractive.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 09:55 pm (UTC)That is what I was trying to say in the paragraph right after the one you're referring to, though I see now I wasn't very explicit. Gah. One day I will learn to stop writing posts as if everyone can read my mind.
That is, Elizabeth lacks perspective w/ John because he is one of her people, and we get more examples of her losing perspective over John than over other people because he gets himself in perspective losing danger more than the rest of her people combined.