![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 10th, 2007 05:47 pmStill marathoning House. I'm currently on "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie," toward the end of the second season. And Cameron is still driving me insane. It's weird. I probably agree with her stance, but she's being so self-absorbed and moralistic in this episode that I'm driven to dismiss her side, which I can only assume was not the writers' intention.
I've noticed something peculiar in my reactions to fictional characters. If they're intentionally shown to be kind of harsh or assholeish (House himself, for instance), I'm much more likely to forgive them their trespasses. Conversely, if the writers show all signs of wanting me to see a character as 'good' and 'moral,' I rebel and become hyper-critical. Maybe it's just that I don't like things shoved down my throat - and for the most part, the House writers are amazing at shades-of-grey. A sense of humor also goes a long way, which is why I don't mind Wilson being House's conscience. If Cameron lightened up, I bet I'd agree with her a lot more on an emotional level.
Some of it also has to do with my own take on morality - if you believe something is wrong, act on it, instead of preaching to others. Not only is it more effective, but it's bound to annoy less people. (In fact, so much of my personal morality can be summed up with the words 'don't preach,' even I admit it's kind of ridiculous.)
It probably doesn't help that the female doctor on the team is shown to be the least professional. The others are discussing differential diagnosis, and Cameron? First she's bitching about Foreman stealing her article, and then she's bitching about the ethical issue. What isn't she doing? Differential diagnosis.
This isn't me saying that Foreman stealing her article wasn't a crappy thing to do, or that her ethical standpoint isn't valid. And if everyone was completely professional 24/7, that wouldn't be the best characterization, but I wish they'd rotate this sort of thing. Let one of the guys take the emotional stance from time to time, or something. Otherwise, it gets to a point where it bugs me and you get to see me rant about it all over livejournal.
I've noticed something peculiar in my reactions to fictional characters. If they're intentionally shown to be kind of harsh or assholeish (House himself, for instance), I'm much more likely to forgive them their trespasses. Conversely, if the writers show all signs of wanting me to see a character as 'good' and 'moral,' I rebel and become hyper-critical. Maybe it's just that I don't like things shoved down my throat - and for the most part, the House writers are amazing at shades-of-grey. A sense of humor also goes a long way, which is why I don't mind Wilson being House's conscience. If Cameron lightened up, I bet I'd agree with her a lot more on an emotional level.
Some of it also has to do with my own take on morality - if you believe something is wrong, act on it, instead of preaching to others. Not only is it more effective, but it's bound to annoy less people. (In fact, so much of my personal morality can be summed up with the words 'don't preach,' even I admit it's kind of ridiculous.)
It probably doesn't help that the female doctor on the team is shown to be the least professional. The others are discussing differential diagnosis, and Cameron? First she's bitching about Foreman stealing her article, and then she's bitching about the ethical issue. What isn't she doing? Differential diagnosis.
This isn't me saying that Foreman stealing her article wasn't a crappy thing to do, or that her ethical standpoint isn't valid. And if everyone was completely professional 24/7, that wouldn't be the best characterization, but I wish they'd rotate this sort of thing. Let one of the guys take the emotional stance from time to time, or something. Otherwise, it gets to a point where it bugs me and you get to see me rant about it all over livejournal.
