We all know Richard Armitage enjoys playing baddies. Of course, I don’t even consider my first and favorite RA ChaRActer, Sir Guy of Gisborne, to be truly bad–just misunderstood.
Excluding the Sultan of Smoulder, who is your favorite amoral/immoral bad boy ChaRActer? Tell us why. Is it someone not listed here? If so, who?
Until a couple of hours or so ago, this was one of my down days (after falling asleep sometime after 5 a.m. this morning). No new posts, no responding to comments or visiting other blogs, no new artwork, no writing, just—rest. And thinking about aspects of my novel.
I am continuing to enjoy reading Wired for Story on my Kindle—so much excellent advice and food for thought for someone writing fiction.
As a fiction writer, you want to give your reader a sense of place and time. In the case of my novel, that is England, and to a lesser extent, France in the mid-18th century.
I do wrestle with things such how much detail to inject into certain scenes. What to put in and what to leave out. How much information does the reader need about this particular character, this bedchamber, this locale at this point in the story?
This particular quote from Wired for Writing really struck me tonight:
~Each thing you add to your story is like a drop of paint falling into a bowl of clear water. It spreads and colors everything.
As with life, new information causes us to reevaluate the meaning and emotional weight of all that preceded it, and to see the future with fresh eyes. In a story, it influences how we interpret every single thing that happens—how we read every nuance—and in so doing raises specific expectations about what might occur in the future . . .
Chekov once said in a note to S. Shchukin, “If you say in the first chapter a rifle is hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there.”~
Excellent advice, methinks. And this leads me to think of some of the metaphorical rifles that have been hung on the walls but have never truly, properly gone off for an Armitage character.
Specifically, MI-5 agent Lucas North.
Lucas. Such a fascinating and enigmatic character. So much that piqued my curiosity from the moment he came stumbling out of that car boot.. Those Russian prison tattoos. His affection for William Blake. The failed marriage to a woman he obviously still cared for deeply.
Our first glimpse of Lucas–disheveled, thin, with haunted eyes. I fell in love right then and there.
The damage done by all the torture and deprivation experienced during those eight years in prison—surely a case of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder?–and how he coped with it.
We got glimpses into those horrific times, brief references to his earlier years.
Unfortunately, almost everything that had been established about Lucas by the writers of series 7 and to a lesser extent, series 8, was completely thrown out the window by the writers of series 9. He literally became a different person.
I know that Spooks was an ensemble show and that storylines couldn’t solely focus on one character, and I understand that.
But a huge chunk of S9 was devoted to the downfall of Lucas, Plenty of time was spent deconstructing the character that might have otherwise been utilized to create a “Lucas breaks down” storyline that was more plausible but still compelling. I never thought Lucas was free of flaws or demons; I just didn’t see him as a greedy, mass-murdering immature git.
Now, I know there are those of you who believe the entire John Bateman story was simply “classic Spooks” and perfectly acceptable in the context of this particular production.
I am not going to try to change your mind, any more than you would be able to change my own.
However, in terms of crafting a good story that showed continuity in terms of what had been previously established, I have to say it was a major failure.
S9 displayed outlandish potboiler writing more suited to a soap opera than an “intelligent and stylish” production. Richard’s performance was amazing, kudos for him from keeping this series from being a total farce. However, as a writer, I thought the material stank to high heaven, frankly.
And dammit, they didn’t give Lucas that “elegant death” that RA had hoped for. Just a long, sad, cowardly dive off a tall building to an ignominious demise.
I don’t think I will ever quite forgive them for that. I kept wanting Ros to show up, alive and kicking (arse) and say: “Get a grip, people! This isn’t Lucas, just some dodgy imitation. Where have you hidden him? And where’s the hidden camera, because this is all obviously a really bad joke . . .”
An awful lot of rifles were hanging on that wall that just didn’t get fired, y’all.
Ah, the good old days. The dynamic duo.
At midnight, I’m going to record a National Geographic Channel special on Russian prisons that Benny recommended to me. “You know those tattoos that Armitage had for that role? Well, they show them on there. Those places are—” He should his head and expelled a huge sigh. I thought of poor Lucas and eight years of hell in such a place. Enough to break almost any man. One more reason I disavow the reality of John Bateman. If Oleg knew every corner of Lucas’s mind, why didn’t he sniff out that little nugget?
And no matter how much “John Bateman” may have wanted to atone for his sins, I just don’t see that fluidly moral creature being able to tough it out. Lucas attempted to kill himself; Bateman would have eventually succeeded.
It seems much more plausible that Lucas was implanted with false memories to be activated at a later date. At any rate, I will report back my thoughts after I watch the show, but I think I will wait on that until tomorrow. In the meantime, more images of our lovely lad in his various guises. (comments are now disabled on this post)
Hello, ladies. Angie and I extend our sincerest thanks to you for your support of her endeavor to cover Comic-Con and, hopefully, spend a little time with yours truly . . . donations are most welcome.
Fedoralady would like to clarify something for readers. She does not equate bad boys and bad guys as being one and the same. Please note an earlier post was entitled And the Bad Boys, not the Bad Guys.
When I refer to someone as a bad boy, he isn’t necessarily involved in criminal activity. Maybe he just can’t keep it in his speedos (hello, Lee!) maybe his ethics are weak, his morals are a bit too fluid. Maybe he’s an habitual liar and a cheat. Doesn’t have to be an ax murderer to qualify as a “bad boy.” Under that definition, Philip Turner does qualify as a bad boy, if not a bad guy. And an extremely attractive one, I might add. Bad boys are often quite charming and disarming when they take the notion to be.
A “bad guy,” on the other hand, is how I would categorize Heinz Kruger. He’s a enemy spy responsible for the deaths of a number of people. If John Bateman actually existed, he would definitely have to be considered a bad guy. Guy starts out a bad guy, killing and torturing for the sheriff, but we see a transformation take place as he becomes an anti-hero and redeems himself as a good guy. Of course, to those of us who adore Guy, he was never really bad, just–misunderstood. 😉 Sometimes goodness or badness re a character is in the mind of the beholder, I do believe.
Now, sometimes it’s just not easy to classify a character as a good guy or a bad guy or a bad boy. Sometimes they overlap because, as we know, Richard’ s characters have many shadings. As would be the case in real life, no character is all bad or all good.. Paul Andrews is a character that fits into this area for me. He is a complex fellow with good intentions. He’s not a monster; he’s a loving dad and tries to discipline his partner’s brattish son. But he has certain character flaws, weaknesses, vulnerabilities that lead him into foolish, irresponsible actions that result in a terrible tragedy. You could consider him as a bad boy and/or a bad guy, depending on how you look at things
I hope this helps to sort things out. Sorry I didn’t define things more clearly for you all in terms of how I categorize the characters. Don’t want you worrying yourself into a frazzle about who’s good, bad or indifferent. 😉 I leave you with one of the undisputed good guys, Harry Jasper Kennedy.
Harry and Richard–definitely two of the good guys.
the armitage effect 