rarr.

[lyssie]

I was reminded, a second ago, that I was reading a transcript of an Amanda Tapping interview, and she made some comment about how "Sam is defined by her relationships" and how she thinks that's great and needs to be explored more.

Dear Ms. Tapping, please tell me you were saying that to piss people off. Love, Lyssie, who is NOT defined by her relationships and thinks that saying Sam is basically makes her a stock Romance Novel Heroine and pointless. Unless you really feel that way, in which case, you are now added to the list of actresses who are stupid as fuck.

sigh. No wonder people keep saying Sam is no longer a Strong Woman.

eta: So... Women are defined by their relationships to people and men are defined by their dick length?

Seriously. I've never heard of male characters defined by their relationship to other characters. (and, in the end, at this point, ONLY SAM)

eta2: *eyes LR and Liz* Did you two go to Vegas and get married by Elvis and not tell the rest of us?

eta3: Instead of saying the same thing to, ah, five (six?) different people: I'll accept that men and women are defined by their relationships. I just suspect I've never seen it applied anywhere until now which pushes my hot button. Not the exact wording at least.

Especially fictional men and women, because they are only what we see on the screen/read on the page.

Cable, for instance, can be defined by his relationships to women, to his father, to his mother (and her clone), to his future and--*digresses*. Sam is defined by Cassie, Jack, Daniel, Janet, Teal'c, Hammond, her dad, Mark, her mom... etc.

Comments

[mylittleredgirl.livejournal.com]

Did she say it in the context of romantic relationships specifically? Because I think *most* characters are defined by their relationships with other characters. Not romantic, necessarily, but her ability to command others, her interactions with her father... all of that are a big part of her character. Not all of it, no, but if we pretend she's not talking just about who she's into one week to the next then it's a more reasonable statement. *ponders*

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

I think she meant relationships in general. But I would hate to think people are defined by their relationships to people.

If I were defining Sam, I'd go for her brain and guts... sigh.

[liminalliz.livejournal.com]

"people" are different from "fictional characters" who don't get much screentime by themselves alone in a room. She's in an ensemble show, so she has to be spending a lot of time working on her character via her reaction shots.

[liminalliz.livejournal.com]

OMG WE ARE MARRIED! (look at my comment)

[liminalliz.livejournal.com]

BUUUUT, to be difficult, my love, was AT saying her romantic relationships or just her relationships with other people? If it was the former, then, yes, I madly agree with you. If it's the latter, then I'm supporting her on that as when you're a character in a ensemble show, you ARE defined by your relationships with everyone else, how you treat them, how you relate to them, etc.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

And, see, that definition confuses me.

Is Jack defined by his relationships? Daniel?

No. Just Sam.

[jacksrubberduck.livejournal.com]

::blinks::

That had so better be snark that didn't translate cos we can't see her facial expression.

Or I'm gonna have to add AT to the list of people to thwap when I ever get to Vancouver.

Geez that's almost as bad as saying that until a woman has a child she's unfulfilled and hasn't *really* experienced life.

Ack.

[jacksrubberduck.livejournal.com]

Although as others have pointed out (I'm too snarky and raging tonight to see details) she probably meant relationships with other people in general.

In which case no bad.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

Seriously. I've never heard of male characters defined by their relationship to other characters.

Okay, that is bullshit. I know you're pissed that AT is a fuckin' wuss (and, damn, does that show need an injection of Claudia Black), but it's totally untrue that male characters are never defined by their relationship to other characters, and I'm certain it's untrue that you've never heard it before. Avon is in large part defined by his relationship with Blake and Vila (and to lesser extents, other characters); you know nothing about him without that, it's all in how he conducts those relationships. Giles is defined entirely by his relationship to Buffy, and later redefined by his relationship to Ethan. Spike is defined by his relationships with Drusilla and Angelus, with the Slayer, and later with Buffy specifically. D'Argo is defined by his relationships with his son, with Chiana, with John, even with Zhaan - who he is comes out of all of those.

So please, be pissed because she's a wuss with all the emotional daring of a soccer mom or an accountant, but not because it's not true of men, too, because it is.

[mollymoon.livejournal.com]

I just want to reitterate what everyone else has said. In fiction and in TV, the old cliche "no man is an island" really applies.

Look at BSG in the mini-series: Until we meet Lee, all we know about Adama is that *everyone* he has a work relationship with admires and respects him almost as a father figure. Yet when we actually meet his son, we find out that Lee feels Adama is a terrible father, to the point of blaming him for Zak's death.

I doubt that AT meant only her character's romantic relationships. No actress worth her salt would want to play a character that only reacted to what her lovers said/did. She plays a character who is very three deminsional; she'll react externally to situation and people, but she also has to look at her character's history, and react to what elements of that would bring to each scene. Think of her final episode with her "father" this year for the perfect blending of all three.

[woodface]

L'enfer, c'est les autres.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

The more things change, the easier Lyssie's buttons are to push?

[lytarules.livejournal.com]

*fangirls you for your multi-lingual-ness*

[mrv3000.livejournal.com]

What? What what? How do you get from "Sam is defined by her relationships" to Sam is weak and something about dick length? Although dick length *is* naturally occurring in general conversation, so I get that. ;)

I'm not sure I would want to see a character who isn't defined by their relationships. And I think I'd put all of SG-1 in the category as being defined.

I know the natural instinct is to say that nothing and no one tells me who I am, dammit! But the truth is that we weren't raised by wolves. Our relationships to others have made us who we are and our current relationships continue to define us and our place on the planet. Daughter. Sister. Friend. Co-worker. Sure, we have the choice to throw all of that off, but we don't because we're social creatures. We need others to help make up who we are.

[liminalliz.livejournal.com]

I, on the other hand, WAS raised by wolves.

... ;)

*digresses wildly* Actually, that would be a great crack in that AU Stealing Harry where S/R raise baby harry...

[lytarules.livejournal.com]

I am defined by my relationship with ice cream. This is both sad and tasty.

[liminalliz.livejournal.com]

*falls off chair in laughter*

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

See, that, I get. Currently, I'm more defined by my relationship with my hand cream. Sigh. I hate dry skin.

[qwirky.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. I understand everyone's point that we don't live in a non-social environment, and that we must interact with other people, and in doing so, our personality traits come out. However, more often, I see people fawning over female characters because of romantic relationships with another character, whereas people seem to feel more secure in liking male characters for, apparently, who they are, rather than the romantic relationship they are in.

And maybe, this is related more to the fact that I see real women crying and whining and feeling angry at themselves and being depressed because they don't have a significant other in their life. I've seen some men like that, but by far, the women outnumber the men. Apparently, more women feel they are worthless if they don't have a romantic love, which is just sad.

It also comes about because fandom has some sort of obsession with pairing up characters together. I know I have it, and that it's because I like wanting to see pretty sex and smut, and have "aww" moments over adorable fluff (that ends in pretty smut), and because I'm sort of a romantic at heart (in the land of make-believe anyway). One sees that tendency in the extreme in fanfics where every friggin' character gets a lover, and then they all get married and have babies and are happily ever after. *gags*

Anyhoo, yes, we may never know how someone is without looking at their relationships or lack thereof with other people. But then, saying that one is defined by one's relationships seems to be pointless, and would be about as useful as saying, "I am defined by my actions and/or my thoughts." Uh, great. Super. Just like everyone else. Otherwise, it comes off as sounding, out of context anyway, like other characters' personalities are the ones that matter, and the character in question herself doesn't really matter =x

[emiwenis.livejournal.com]

if you guys want to actually WATCH the interview instead of just reading the transcript, i can put it up on yousendit :) let me know!

[surreallis.livejournal.com]

I'd have probably thought the same thing you did at first. AT is usually pretty smart about that type of thing so I'd have been horribly disappointed. Frankly, I've felt like lately it's PDL who needs a good kick in the ass. He's made some horrible plot decisions in the past year and a half(in my opinion) and it always affects Sam.

Interesting replies by some of your flist too.

[lisayaeger.livejournal.com]

I'm not a PdL fan, but if you're talking about the Affinity scenes (especially at the end), it was RCC who decided to keep it in there after AT balked at it. I blame PDL for writing it, but I also blame RCC for thinking it worked when it was stupid as shit.

[livilla.livejournal.com]

See, when you said that "defined by her relationships" thing, I figured all her relationships with family and friends and such. Amanda Tapping isn't a stupid woman.

[lisayaeger.livejournal.com]

Hope you don't mind a comment a few days late! I was browsing for fic and stumbled here, and well, I can't help but say a few words. Like most of the comments already posted, I also think that AT meant that Sam was defined by all of her relationships, not just by men, but by her father, Cassie (which AT has asked to revisit in S9), Janet, Daniel, etc... FYI, AT usually pisses me off in her interviews, but this happens to magically be not one of those times.

And in fact, she was so adamently against being cast as "Jack's girl" that she did request the boyfriend storyline which ended up defining her by another man, although I don't think that's what AT intended at the time (see the reply I made to [Bad username or site: @ livejournal.com] above). So, while I don't agree with AT's brand of feminism in general, I do think that she realizes Sam (like the other characters) is being defined by all of her relationships, and wishes it had been less about the men and more well-rounded overall. I don't think AT is at all stupid, although I think she has issues with the S/J ship that are OTT (the head rest in DK, for example), and make me wonder...

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

*nods*

I still dislike the whole definition thingie, but I'll live.

*blinks* The headrest in DK caused controversy?

And while I'm a PdL fan (he's very geektastic, and, er, reminds me of A.j.), I will say Affinity certainly had its issues (but so do most episodes of SG-1...).