Triaxiansilk.com

Which way should I go with this guy? Some people write him the way they wish he had been written in the series. Some people write him as he was in the series and let it go. Some people write him as he was in the series and have the people around him react realistically to him instead of worshiping his incompetant butt.

I have been trying ot write him as he was in the series but show him as trying to slearn and grow into something resembling a grownup. However I have been getting a few complaints about being cruel and mean to the guy by doing this. Which way should I do this? Am I being merciless to Archer in my fics? I ask for feedback please.

How about a 40/60 mix? I still think of him as a loser, but as time goes on, he should be maturing and becoming someone worthy of becoming one of the founding fathers of the Federation. Getting schooled by T'Para should have taught him a valuable lesson, and I hope he doesn't make the same kind of mistake twice.

Meh...We all have our tool moments.....especially Archer.

Don't get me started on the Gazelle story.....I'd love to find out who put that in the script.



In any case I didn't see anything wrong with the way you portray any of your characters.

He was so inconsistently written on the show that a writer could just pick and choose which "version" of him to use - they'd all be more or less "correct".

Personally I tend to prefer when he's written as being a competent commander, like he is in Rigil's stories. That's the only way to reconcile the fact that he is supposed to be this person instrumental in the forming of the Federation. That means he has to be a good C.O. and (eventually) a good diplomat.

In a way, I blame Daniels for Archer's hubris. I think being told how crucial he was to the timeline went to his head.

I like the way you're showing Archer grow up. It fits really well, if he's so important, but hasn't happened overnight. And I think he should stop making very many assumptions after getting chewed out by T'Para.

KTR's right. Very inconsistant. Just pick a version of him and write. No harm done. If you get flamed - send it to me, I could use the larph.

I don't think you've been cruel to Archer. As depicted on the show, he wasn't much of a leader. He learned a few lessons in the Expanse, but he still had a long way to go to be the great man Daniels indicated he would become. T'Para took him to task just like she did Trip and T'Pol. She wouldn't waste her time on a lost cause. She must have seen something of value in Archer. Unless we're made aware of our weaknesses, we can never improve.

Although some of us might not want to admit it, Archer did have some strengths. You can show Archer's learning curve, but build upon what he does well: ability to bring people together, ability to inspire loyalty, perseverance in the face of adversity, etc.

And the ability to leap tall buildings in a single...wait...

I haven't seen any problem with how you're writing Archer either. He's learning lessons that he should have already known before they pinned on the fourth pip. Do what you do best, man, and write him how you want to write him. If you compromise on your image of him and his growth, the story will suffer...

"This above all things: to thine own self be true" (Hamlet, 3.1.81).

Still pretty fair advice if one were to ask me.

I don't see any problem with your story regarding Archer. He obviously has some failings and has to overcome them some how. Obviously he has not learned yet so some outside agent will have to teach him.

You are simply offering one particular path of personal growth for this individual.

Some may find it harsh. Life is often harsh. We tend to learn the most from our failures if we are willing ot look at them honestly. Usually we don't like it but so what? Lessons learned at an early age are always easier than those learned later.


HtH

JadziaKathryn wrote:In a way, I blame Daniels for Archer's hubris. I think being told how crucial he was to the timeline went to his head.

I like the way you're showing Archer grow up. It fits really well, if he's so important, but hasn't happened overnight. And I think he should stop making very many assumptions after getting chewed out by T'Para.

i dont think it went to his head at all.
he didnt consider himself to be more important which is why he went on to the weapon.

i also didnt see hubris at all in the scene in expanse when he is drinking with trip and the grim realization that he may have to change from the person he has been into more of a commander along the mold of the former captain he told malcolm about in minefield.

but most of the time i like archer even with his faults and i know i am in the minority around here about that.

I like Archer. I liked everyone on Enterprise. Never really got to know about Travis or Hoshi that much. Outside of TnT i liked Phlox a lot.

Me three. He had his faults, of course, but I kinda like the guy. In some eps more than others, but I could say the same of Trip. Can't say that I noticed any hubris - bad acting, yes... And Phlox is my third fave.

Re: his portrayal: follow your heart.

I thought that, given the fact that the era was supposed to be really early in Earth's exploration, an era before we were aware of and ready for the dangerous elements of space travel, and where (as far as Kirk is portrayed in TOS which is LATER), Captains basically have complete autonomy about decisions, and cowboy-diplomacy is common, that Archer should have been harder than he was. He was too 'Mr. Rodgers' and not enough 'Mr. Bauer'

He was "Mr. Bauer" for part of late season 3, but that was the exception rather than the rule. His moments of anger and threatening weren't believable or intimidating at all... When he yelled, it sounded like whining (case-in-point: lecturing Reed and Hayes in Harbinger).

In short, I think Archer should have been a little more the hardass and a little less the idealist, even though he could still have been ever-the-idealist. Sort of like the 50's were the era when hardass Marines like John Glenn were the space pilots, but as things evolved, it was the 90's when astronauts were computer nerds... though of course Glenn was still very intelligent, he was still a "hoss" . I kind of think a similar personality evolution could be envisioned for warp ship crews/pilots from 22nd century to 24th. Maybe in the 24th, Captains were Shakespearean philosophers like Picard or modern day Marie Curies like Janeway, but "back in the day" I think it should have been a good ole' fashioned hardass.

"This is Captain Jack Bauer of the USS Dammit! Drop your disruptor! Drop it NOW!"

I hate Archer! Yeah I know I've said it before, but he's not a good Captain for me, I grew up with Picard. Archer lacks stability, one minute he's Jimmy Stewert "awe schucks I'm just an ordinary man in a extraordinary situation, then he's egotistical bigoted jerk who can't be reasoned with and is always right! Excuse me not a good combination for a great leader. He reminds me of Henery the Eighth without the brilliant mind. If he has to become a leader of the Federation thaen beat him until he's ready. Even if it kills you or him.