Bumbling heroes was RE: Gaiman's American Gods
Rowland, Jennifer A B
jennifer.rowland at ic.ac.uk
Mon Oct 15 06:08:38 EDT 2001
From: christian nutt [mailto:ferricide at hotmail.com]
>>But I would say Cat and Nan are like this, and possibly Jamie and
>i guess the difference between any of these characters (including cat) and
>the arthur dent/richard mayhew/etc type character is that cat has deep,
>innate talents that he's surpressing. those two don't, imo. so cat has the
>potential to grow up to be a competent charatcer, while those two are
>already grown up and permanently bumbling.
Good point. All right, dwj doesn't really do hapless heroes. Even the
magicless ones (or the ones who are no more magic than everyone around them)
have Inner Strength, they just don't know it at the start.
(Actually, I do think Arthur Dent changes- he becomes more purposeful in So
Long, And Thanks For All The Fish. (I prefer to regard Mostly Harmless as
uncanonical and having a completely separate cast of characters who just
happen to have the same names. Load of ends-tying-up
the-universe-will-be-destroyed not-vintage-Adams tripe, so it is, with a few
good bits like the Perfectly Normal Beasts.))
Speaking of Hitchhikers, did any other UK listmembers watch the Top 10
Sci-Fi on Saturday night? I liked the clips- I wish they'd do a rerun of
Sapphire And Steel now- I'd never heard of it (too young, sorry), but it
looked wierd. I don't think the Tomorrow People or Buck Rogers reeeaallly
deserved to be in there- though there haven't been that many sf shows to
choose from! Yay for Red Dwarf coming third. I suppose Star Trek deserved to
beat Dr Who- I just wish there'd been a tiebreaker on theme music. (All
together now..) Any US people who have only seen the Dr Who tv movie with
Joe McGann a couple of years ago and think it was rubbish, you're right, but
the serieses were triffic.
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj