The Problem of Wesley
Thursday, 2 September 2010 06:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Of course, the whole thing was more or less sparked by my discovery, over vastly circuitous sf fandom routes (possibly via the Whatever), of Wil Wheaton's blog. I have an unholy fascination for the Wesley Crusher phenomenon: for the incredible outpouring of fan hatred which managed to pillory not only the character, but the unfortunate actor, who seems to be a likeable sort of person who really didn't deserve that. I'm a few episodes into Season 5, and of course Wesley has now left, to "go to the Academy", but really for the shattered teen actor to hie him off into the middle distance and try to regain some sort of self-esteem. It's all rather unfair: being a teenager is a poisonous enough experience without legions of geeky sf fans craning over your shoulder and insisting not only that your character's a dweeb, but that you are.
But I have to ask myself, even in strictly narrative terms - what the hell was going on here? I mean, yes, the writing in the first couple of seasons was really very clunky, and Wesley didn't exactly shine as an example of logical plot decisions, character development or emotional coherence. But then again, nor did anyone else. Honestly, I spent about the first season and a half dropping stitches in my knitting while shouting enraged instructions at the screen - for heaven's sake, beam them out of there! or use your empath! or why the hell are you putting a teenager into that situation? it makes no sense! And I have ranted elsewhere about the dialogue. Good grief. But these generalised problems don't seem to have generated the frenzy of frothing hatred that poor Wesley did. Putting an immature and inexperienced kid, however intelligent, onto the bridge is dodgy, but I think there's more going on here, and most of it is about fan identification.
See, Wesley is a geek. He's written as super-intelligent, accomplished and precocious; he solves problems adults can't. It's not realistic in many ways, but it's no more unrealistic than other aspects of the series, which really abandons all sorts of logic in the pursuit of both story and budget. (The stand-alone episodes drive me crazy: Significant Person or Moment introduced for an episode arc will vanish without a trace with the closing credits, never to be seen again despite the fact that really they should continue to affect the Enterprise and its inhabitants. Like Worf's bonded brother. Bleah). Wesley being a geek shouldn't be any more of a problem than Worf never being able to win a fight, and it particularly shouldn't be a problem given that the bulk of the viewers are themselves geeky science-fondling types. And Wes is not written as an arrogant smart-arse: he's an eager kid, probably intended as a rather endearing point of identification for geeky types whose reaction to the Enterprise would be an identical wide-eyed wonder, because all this spaceship science is just so cool.
And this, I think, is where the problem lies. However badly he's written, the root of the Wesley Crusher problem is not the fact that the character is unlikeable or unrealistic. It's actually a problem of over-identification, not failure of identification. I think too many geeky Trekkies see themselves in Wesley, and they find it excruciating to watch - oh god Wesley is where I would like to be, bumming around on the bridge with an enormous grin on his face, and he's completely dorky and has no right to be there. He both embodies and dramatises the fact of the watcher's own eternal exclusion from the bridge. The revulsion is thus because he represents the watcher too closely, at least the kind of watcher who spends a lot of time at Star Trek conventions. I think it's significant that, at least anecdotally, a lot of female Trek fans seem to really like Wesley. They don't have to watch themselves, and cringe, knowing full well that if given half a chance they'd be babbling just as excruciatingly about the ways in which matter and antimatter could be aligned even more efficiently in Dilithium crystals. (They might well so babble, but at least they're not watching themselves).
I don't like Next Gen as much without Wesley. There's a gap on the bridge, and I'm very aware that the writers partially created it by being really very bad at finding a realistic place for a teenaged geek in Star Trek - but only partially. In fact, the fans created it by being intolerant and incredibly cruel, and that intolerance is directly and slightly unforgiveably about the whole unhappy, marginal geek package - about insecurity. It's sad. I wish it had gone differently. I like Wesley, and he didn't deserve that.
And in broader terms, the whole Trek thing's bloody annoying. Now I'm going to have to re-watch the recent Star Trek movie and see if I actually like it any more than I did now that I'm all Trekkified. Phooey.
Open Flailing Channel
Date: Thursday, 2 September 2010 09:45 pm (UTC)I remember also being annoyed when Doctor Pulaski briefly replaced Doctor Crusher in Series 2, I believe. She didnt last long, fortunately.
Have you seen the "Star Trek" episode of Family Guy?
http://www.familyguy.ws/2009/08/02/not-all-dogs-go-to-heaven/
Also, did you know that Yaphet Kotto was originally a candidate for the role of Picard, and Denise Crosby (later Tasha Yar) was considered to play Troi..? It could have made things interesting. :-)
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/08/star-trekcasting.html
Re: Open Flailing Channel
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 07:36 am (UTC)Borg
Date: Thursday, 2 September 2010 09:52 pm (UTC)Re: Borg
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 07:41 am (UTC)Captain Kirk is climbing the mountain
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 05:47 am (UTC)http://www.epbot.com/2010/09/and-now-musical-interlude.html
Re: Captain Kirk is climbing the mountain
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 07:29 am (UTC)Re: Captain Kirk is climbing the mountain
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 08:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 07:11 am (UTC)I found the character insulting, but not remotely for the reasons you suggest. The heavy handed "identification pandering" was an insult to my sophistication as a viewer.
Similarly, he grated in an analogous way to the way fanfic grates.
no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 07:34 am (UTC)And I also don't think your response is very far from the fan response I'm identifying: if you're reading it as "heavy handed identification pandering" then you are recognising something of yourself in him, and resenting it - I think you're just more self-conscious about the process than the majority of Wesley-hating geeks. In a sense, what you're responding to is the writers' stereotyping of the geeky fans; same problem from a different angle.
no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 07:55 am (UTC)You should totally watch Deep Space Nine
because it's the awesomest Star Trek evarbecause it has Jake Sisko, a recurring teen character somehow done in a way which didn't piss anyone off*. He gets to grow up on the series. He does go away for a bit and come back, but he comes back properly and has a significant role later in the series.Of course Jake Sisko is a different character to Wesley in a lot of ways. We find out later that [SPOILER] he doesn't actually want to go into Starfleet, something his father had always just kind of assumed he would do, and eventually becomes a writer. Which I guess could make him a Fanfic Writer Sue. ;) [/SPOILER] He also has a good friend his own age since either the pilot or something very close, and maintains that friendship throughout the series -- unlike Wesley, who is a lone teen surrounded by adults (and sometimes, I think, children a lot younger).
* Mind you, this could be because so many Trekkies hated DS9 as a whole that not enough watched it to develop a significant hater base for Jake.
no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 08:02 am (UTC)I find it weird that I really don't remember most of the DS9 I watched on TV - I remember the Babylon 5 stuff vividly. The name Jake Sisko is familiar, but I can't say any more than that.
no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 08:33 am (UTC)I particularly liked the weaselly Cardassian character.
ST
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 09:12 am (UTC)I watched the new movie after I watched all of TNG and most of DS9 and I still didn't like it. It's too actioney and not intelligent enough. For me ST was always about intelligent commentary on stuffs. Meh, I obviously just don't like change :).
But you should re-watch DS9 so you can see the whole political plot arc, it's a very good series. TNG will always be my first love (because it was the first ST I watched, when it was on TV in the 90's) but DS9 comes a very close second. I love Bashir and Worf gets really awesome. Also, I kinda love Gul Dukat. Maybe it's a forehead thing.
Then, you can watch all my Voyager! It's somewhere between the two previous series, it's on a spaceship but has lots of long story arcs. Also, 7 of 9 and the Doctor ftw.
And don't say Trekkie like it's a bad thing.
Re: ST
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 11:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 10:28 am (UTC)This is pretty much what put me off Farscape
no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Saturday, 4 September 2010 08:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 12:11 pm (UTC)Just look at boingboing comments. Some of the posts are just naff, but inevitably you'll get a stream of "Just look at it!" parroting. Anything else gets slapped down by the fascist moderators because anyone not following the herd must be trolling.
Whatever the reason, I agree it comes down to a security issue. I'm not sure that being insecure is a notably geek characteristic though. We're social animals. Blame our primate ancestors.
no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 12:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 01:24 pm (UTC)At the same time, he still trades on having been Trek actor (even one everyone hated), with books and podcasts about Trek memories. It's perhaps just a more down-to-earth post-Trek life than most Trek actors, condemned to the con circuit.
no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Friday, 3 September 2010 08:43 pm (UTC)