We're saying it's unrealistic to change him into an entirely selfless self-aware person. Subsequently, that's not interesting storytelling. It's a cheap betrayal of the character they've so ably built.
-
Theoretically spoilerish:
Spoiler: -
but you see... its not unrealistic as mckay is a work of fiction ergo the writers may do as they please... and it is not a betrayal for a creator to change his creation to his satisfaction...Originally posted by MrMcKayCan View PostColonel Jack O'Neill: So what's your impression of Alar?
Teal'c: That he is concealing something.
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Like what?
Teal'c: I am unsure. He is concealing it.Comment
-
But it is unrealistic simply because the point of good fiction is to write consistent characters in a realistic manner.Originally posted by IrishPisano View Post
Obviously our definitions of realistic human behaviour differ greatly.sigpic
Comment
-
The idea is to create characters that, to a reasonable threshold, could exist in the real world. OF COURSE the writers can do as they please since he's a work of fiction, but what would be the point of taking a realistic character -- who has worked in a very real and reasonable way to adjust his flawed behavior -- and turning him into something so different that it ceases to be realistic?
It's a betrayal of the character when he is realistic and you make him act completely different, effectively tossing aside all of the great nuance and subtlety that has been put into developing him.
I have a feeling the writers would agree with that, despite it being their perogative to significantly alter who and what he is.Theoretically spoilerish:
Spoiler:Comment
Comment