Characters

by **Cerise** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:57 pm

I've always wondered this........
Okay, I know there's a biography for everyone, but it doesn't go into much personality detail. Now why is it that almost all fan fiction agrees the personality traits of all the characters - including the ones we don't get to see often on the show itself? And everyone changes Magenta's personality from that shown on the series (well they would, it's just not realistic on the show) but everyone does it in the same way. Is there something very subtle in the biographies that everyone is interpreting the same way or is it just a strange coincidence?

by **Marion** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 8:42 am

Well, I would hazard a guess that we are all following each other's lead - because as you say - the bumbling, over-enthusiastic Patrick Donaghue of the TV series isn't likely to have lasted 5 minutes in the Mafia....
I remember someone saying they thought that might be a clever ploy by him, to hide his real nature but I suspect - if it was - they'd have all got pretty fed up with him rather quickly and he'd have stopped play-acting, realising that the others weren't fooled anyway.
It is hard to reconcile many of the 'biographical' details with the personalities we see on screen - or think we see - and those created by our fiction. I have never really seen Captain Scarlet as a laugh-a-minute type of guy - even before his Mysteronisation. I see him as 'driven' - feeling he has a lot to prove in the wake of his family's past achievements. If he is the only son (only child as well?) the weight of his parent's expectations would all fall on his shoulders - however much they tried not to influence him. There might be a sense of humour somewhere in there - but it would be wickedly dry.... and maybe with a slightly acerbic edge to it?
Of course, I may be out to lunch on this one... it wouldn't be much of a surprise .

P.S. Dark Blue may not be the best colour on this background.... what do you think?

Added from Chris: Not really... especially with the darker background. How about white? :wink:

by **hazel** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:26 pm

I think part of the trouble is that Gerry was never that hot on characterisation, so whoever gets in first with a decent rendition of a character's personality tends to set the pace, as it were. There's a rather nice term for that kind of thing - "fanon".

by **Mary** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:39 pm

I suppose I'm to blame (or credit?

) for formulating some of the fan fiction characters' personalities, being as mine was really the first fan fiction many of you had read. I just followed my own personal logic as to how a certain trained, professional person would act in certain situations.

I hope I got it right... :oops:

by **Marion** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:11 am

Well I reckon it's hats off to Mary, then! Cos I think our characters - in the collection of fanfic stories - are much closer to 'real' people than some of the biographical details would allow them to be.
There are very few living saints about, (or super-intelligent shades of the colour blue for that matter - I learnt my lesson, don't fret! :wink:

) so the people who live and work on Cloudbase are going to have irritating habits, blind-spots and quirks - just like we all do. That they are noble, brave and ( according to Linda Nolan ) SO good looking - is just our good fortune!

by **chrisbishop** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:54 am

We may have elaborate on the characterisation but I don't think we went out of those characters. Remember, for instance, that 'Patrick Donaghue' is supposed to have been a mob boss when he was approached to be in Spectrum. That's according to the 'official bio'. Now the bumbling attitude we see in the show doesn't quite agree with that. A question to our expert (that's you Hazel!), oo you know if the bios written AFTER or BEFORE the episodes were written or aired?

I tend to use the background showed in the official bios as basis for characterisation. What is fun is that that basis is not that detailed, so it alows us - any one of us - to use our imagination and to 'elaborate' our character more - like it was said before, making them look and sound more humans. I think that a half-hour show wasn't enough to just do that, and still be as effective as it were as an action show...

Now if we had had a one-hour show... Maybe we would have had MORE characterisation (a la Thunderbirds) and perhaps even a little more action :wink:

? But maybe that would have made it more difficult for us to use our imagination and elaborate more on those characters?

Naa... probably not!

by **Clya Brown** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:58 pm

Magenta's a problem, no question about it! I think I'd have to believe that his expertise lies in duplicity as opposed to simple thuggery, and I therefore see him as a con-man with an extraordinary head for deception. But even that’s not quite right: to be a successful hoodlum of any sort he'd need a certain presence to stand up to the inevitable intimidation that would follow a successful swindling operation, and I just can't see that presence anywhere in his persona. He’s described as a teddy bear in "Operation Minerva": to me, that sums him up perfectly.

Speaking personally I find it very difficult to write for Scarlet - I see him as something of an enigma, with most of his feelings being kept bottled up inside him, even though he managed to throw a tantrum or two in the TV series. I feel he's a very intense sort of person, who would probably have difficulty relating to his parents on an emotional level: I thoroughly enjoyed reading the treatments of that aspect of his persona in "Chance for a Lifetime" and “Under the Microscope”. I don't think I'd dare try to address it: my very limited contact with the military mentality makes me think I'd find it impossible to empathise with it at all: there's an essential ability to make critical and often immediate decisions on the basis of hopelessly inadequate data that looks to an outsider like sheer pig-headedness, coupled with an ability to demand and get immediate respect and obedience from others that both Scarlet and Colonel White clearly possess, though whether that's an innate ability or one that's learned at Sandhurst I don't know. Probably a bit of both. Their voices clearly convey it, anyway - I see from the biography that Donald Gray was an officer with the Kings Own Borderers in 1941, and did I read on this forum somewhere that Francis Matthews was a colonel at some stage in his career? Correct me if I'm wrong on that, someone.

The Angels are difficult too - I suspect the scriptwriters didn't have any real role models to work from in their case*, and they therefore tend to come over as a bunch of mannequins in the TV series - at least, I think they do, which leaves them very much open to interpretation. I loved the fencing Rhapsody in "The Quest": that was exactly as I see her - as fast and as sharp as any man on the base, and then some. There's a paragraph in the paperback novelisation of the first couple of episodes of UFO that I remember, in which Paul Foster (formerly a test pilot, and clearly not a man who would anticipate having problems dating women) tries his luck with one of the female SHADO operatives shortly after joining the organisation, and is brushed off like a fly, making him realise that he still had a long way to go. I think I'd see the Angels rather in that light: not the sort of girls you'd try to date unless you'd got good reason to be very confident.

[* I can count the number of female air aces I can think of on the fingers of no hands, and the only other young women of a comparable status are fictional characters anyway: Seven of Nine, Emma Peel, Leela from Tom Baker’s Doctor Who years, Wonder Woman, the latter-day Charlie’s Angels, most of the recent James Bond girls. But then, almost all role models are fictional characters anyway, aren’t they? The real heroes and heroines are the ones who never talk about their exploits afterwards, so nobody ever hears about them!]

by **hazel** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:15 pm

In response to Chris - it's my understanding that the early Scarlet stories in TV21, and the first Scarlet annual, were written while the series was still in production. This would explain the apparent discrepancy between Magenta's portrayal on screen and in print.
Many years ago, there was an interview with (I think) Alan Fennell, then responsible for Century 21 Publishing, in which he said there was very little feedback between the production and publishing arms of the Century 21 organisation. They took best guesses at character backgrounds and equipment usages, which led to such things as Magenta's shady past (presumably because his face looks rather criminal and also somewhat Black Irish), Captain Black being born in Manchester (despite his American accent at the beginning of Episode 1) and the SPV tilting up on its caterpillar tracks. At the Fanderson exhibition in Eastbourne a few years back, I had a chat with Mike Trim, and he confirmed that TV21 had got it wrong - the tracks WERE intended to flip down for extra traction. It's just that they never got used onscreen.
I have to say, I'm rather glad characterisation was so thin on the ground - it gives us so much more to play with!

PS - more fun facts for trivia lovers: in the first Angels story in 'Lady Penelope', when the Angels meet for the first time, Destiny Angel says she is from Sweden, and Rhapsody has been working as a pilot for an airfreight company called ALFA.

by **Marion** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:55 am

Oh yes, the ever-busy Angels! Here are these women pilots - top notch aces - with umpty-twiddly degrees to their names and experience in espionage and motor racing and round the world solo flying - all in their mid-twenties :lol:

If it is tough to work out how some of the 30-something men got to pack so much in their lives - its dowright impossible with the women!
And then - to make it all that more confusing - even the Anderson-people can't agree as to where they were and what they were doing... not to mention - in Destiny's case - where they are from!
Isn't it just wonderful...?

by **Doc Denim** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:27 am

Just a quick reply to Doc Brown's comment regarding Magenta as a teddy bear, as he was kind enough to agree with me in the post above:

well. 'teddy' because he's cute. "Bear" because they're dangerous, even when you don't think so......

Gotta run!

Doc Denim

PS - this also includes a certain amount of animal magnetism----

by **Carrie** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 11:19 pm

Yep..Mary's fan-fiction was the first I read..Thanks Mary! I'll never be the same again!
And I guess it must mean that new writers read all the fiction before they start out perhaps? I know I did.

Magenta is certainly the character with the biggest unbelievability factor..however, I have to say that Sue Stanhope's stories DO bring HIS particular character to life so beautifully...his reasons for doing the things in his life ARE believable..and you warm to him as a written character, which then sort of rubs off on the TV character (for me at least).

And I totally agree with Marion..if only the TV icons displayed the gamut of emotions that our fanfic has ascribed to then I would have been..(and still would be..in 7th heaven!!!)
And I have to concur with Marion and Doc's observations on the Angels too..and I guess the only explanation is ..child prodigies...

Funnily enough. the TV series character who seems to have the most indication of depth is that of Colonel White...he displays a wonderful sense of wit and he certainly gets most of the best lines. And he even gets a special smiley head on occasion! (I'm thinking of Model Spy here..)