Beta Central: Sidebar

[golden-bastet.livejournal.com]

So - I don't have a story to post (not yet, anyway), but A Mod Supreme (aka byslantedlight :D) has allowed me room to expand on some thoughts and start a conversation.

Characterization.

Characterization!

Characterization is a huge bugbear for me. I'm not a Brit, I'm not a lad, and I discovered Pros pretty recently. I've seen the series end-to-end exactly once. So parts of canon just don't come naturally to me. Getting Bodie and Doyle down takes quite a bit of effort (and frankly, I don't think anything I've written has ever completely gotten it). I don't mind the effort at all, but this is why I'll probably never volunteer as a primarily canon beta.

But characterization is the meat and potatoes of any fandom, not just Pros.

The Professionals as a series evokes a certain time and place (not to mention much Capri love) in Britain. (That would be a very interesting discussion on its own; hopefully one day someone will start it.) But it's the chemistry and interaction between the lads (and, to a lesser degree, the other characters) that make the series. For every low-rent apartment and imposing manse, every squealing tire and blast of a gun, it's the shared looks and banter, the covering of backs and upholding of the partnership that really tell the story. Fic writers have changed the setting, the time, the place, and sometimes the pairing. But it's the presence (or absence) of the Bodie-Doyle unit which drives the engine. Chalk and cheese, yin and yang, a dancehall routine with all its steps perfected.

These are also two tough guys who get little recognition for what they do. The toughness is necessary for the job, and perhaps part of the reward is in the toughness: the testosterone that underlies the guns, driving, never-ending women, and even the competition between them also makes them the best at what they do. That little bit of recognition is something they do have.

And this may be where canon and fandom (or at least slash) collide.

Slash is usually meant to bring characters together romantically. We're not talking about them running through a field towards each other in slow motion, Charmaine playing in the background. But it does imply some sort of emotional expression or exchange (recognizing there are some fine fics that take the inverse tack) - the antithesis of "tough."

In addition, fandom is supposed to be about self-expression and reimagining the original; if it weren't we wouldn't exactly be here.

So for Pros, the trick is to balance their innate toughness - their Bodie-and-Doyle-ness - with some demonstration of emotion towards each other.

But how does one capture all this on paper? And how successful can it be? Where is the line?

Should they clearly acknowledge each other's feelings? Would they ever say "I love you"? In public? In private? Only if the other were unconscious? Or would they just grunt knowingly?

Would they cry (and keep in mind, that actually is in canon)? Be affectionate? Or kick someone's puppy in an effort to deny, deny, deny?

And all bets are off if it's crack. :D

I know what I think, but what's your line in the sand, if any?
And how would you communicate it to an author without overriding the author's work?

Or is this just looking at it from the wrong angle? :D

ETA: fixed typos

Comments

[ci5mates.livejournal.com]

That is a really interesting discussion point and generally I don't wade in but this has me mulling things over and wanting to contribute. People may or may not know that I am gen in what is pretty much a full on slash community so I don't expect my pov to be widely agreed upon which is fine and is why discussions are so interesting. If we all had the same pov it would be a dull old world :)

I think that both lads are tough hard men and even in a slash relationship (I do read slash and enjoy many of them) I can't actually see them saying things like 'I love you' or being 'mushy'. To my mind that is more a metrosexual bloke's way of expressing himself rather than the way 'my lads' from the 1970's-80's would behave. I call them 'my lads' because we all percieve them differently and this is just one view, my view. As you have noted Golden Bastet and I agree, ... fandom is supposed to be about self-expression and reimagining the original; if it weren't we would exactly be here. So by that reckoning no one is right and no one is wrong, it is about what we as individuals enjoy reading and writing.

In regard to tears and highly emotional responses to dire situations, I believe that it is realistic. No one is that tough that they don't feel emotions, but with 'my lads' it is more likely to be shown in private unless it was absolutely dire! We know Doyle cried when Bodie was stabbed although to me it was too early in their partnership for him to feel such a strong emotional response. It would have been more believable if it were in a later ep/series with a similarly serious event. Anyway I digress...In answer to your question I think slash stories do collide with cannon because often their characterisation is more of a modern take on 'gay' guys than the hard and fast action heroes I see on the screen (who I obviously don't see in a homosexual relationship) although I do understand why slash is so popular and why in the fandom, people want to read and write 'their lads' the way they do.

IMO it is too hard to draw a definitive line in the sand. I constantly blurr the lines myself when I write and I suspect that some genners think that I make 'my lads' too emotional even for gen. I don't have a problem with a few tears or misty eyed as it is cannon however I don't tend to like howling and sobbing. Maybe in the event of death of the other that might be realistic however I tend to think not unless in private.

Personally if I thought an author misrepresented the characterisation I would not say anything because it is obviously how they see them, unless of course they asked the question directly and then it would be my nature to explain it as tactfully as I could. But I'd never say I'm right because I am not god!

I will be interested to hear everyone else's views. *g*

[heliophile-oxon.livejournal.com]

Just a drive-by post to say that I agree with much of the above: making either of them too-easily moved to tears or otherwise over-emotional is a terrible pitfall. British, blokes, 1970s-80s - three major factors in having them stick to banter, stoicism (well, up to a point!) and being reticent about their feelings. I'm all for powerful but terse and understated expressions of love, preferably in the form of insults *g*

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

In answer to your question I think slash stories do collide with cannon because often their characterisation is more of a modern take on 'gay' guys than the hard and fast action heroes I see on the screen (who I obviously don't see in a homosexual relationship) although I do understand why slash is so popular and why in the fandom, people want to read and write 'their lads' the way they do.

I'm curious about the idea of a modern take that you mention here. I might not be interpreting your words properly so I'll just ask a question and see if I am. What about the British writers who wrote slash during the original run? Their take is "same era" as the lads. Or do you chalk their idea of a slash relationship to the writers being female (us gals want love!)?

Thanks for the discussion. Interesting. Personally I base my stories on canon. Anything else behind the scenes (off camera) is up for grabs! :)

[shooting2kill.livejournal.com]

[Reading your post again and some of the responses to it, I hope in the following I've not wandered too far from the original question? I think I've addressed it more as a question of how can we achieve tough guy characterisations without getting the lads to whisper sweet nothings to each other, rather than to what extent would the lads whisper sweet nothings to each other?! because the first question interests me more! And a thousand apologies for all the edits.....]

So for Pros, the trick is to balance their innate toughness - their Bodie-and-Doyle-ness - with some demonstration of emotion towards each other.
But how does one capture all this on paper? And how successful can it be? Where is the line?
And how would you communicate it to an author without overriding the author's work?


This is such an interesting and thought-provoking question. When you use the word ‘demonstration’ I immediately thought of the (often-discussed) idea of the writer getting them to ‘show/demonstrate' their feelings rather than explicitly 'telling' the reader. One technique which manages to do this is via a third party e.g. Geraldine Mather in Welcome to the Jungle:

"Yeah, yeah," Doyle replied though he didn't move a muscle. His hands plunged into his pants pocket, he stared grimly at the nearest pile of boxes. The panther shifted even closer, wrapped a long arm around Doyle's waist and pulled him into a partial embrace. I stiffened, my muscles tensed where I huddled in the dark cold, waiting for an explosion of temper from the mercurial Doyle. It never came. Instead the tension leached out of his body; he melded himself as fluid as water against his partner's larger frame. His hand closed over the panther's arm, squeezing tightly, then releasing. As swiftly as he had relaxed, he peeled himself away and darted away into the shadows, leaving the panther looking bereft, a tall black shadow alone in the night.
The moment he stood there was fleeting; gone in the space of time it took me to breath. I could have imagined it all. I could have been wrong. But the whole world was so skewed that night, turning on an unfamiliar axis. Enemies had become protectors, life was cheap, the most powerful man I'd ever met had feelings for his male partner.

(I’m not even sure the writer has to explain the last bit to the reader?)

And the scene in Helen Raven’s Freezing where Doyle projects his very deep feelings for Bodie onto his 'rival', Colin:

“And ... I’ve seen enough of him ... of the two of you ... at work - without the curries and the films and everything ... Well, I’ve seen enough to know that he’ll make you happy. The way he looks at you. It’s obvious. I see him sometimes ... He’s noticed the way your hair curls just after it’s been washed. The way the smell of you changes as the day goes on. Hasn’t he? Everything. And he tells you. Can’t help himself. Though it’s obvious, anyway, that he thinks about you all the time.
“And when he tells you ... he watches you so carefully. Doesn’t he? D’you know why? D’you know what he’s storing away for the daytime? He’s in love with the way every line of your face softens, and your mouth falls open like your lungs need more than air, and your eyes seem to be seeing ... something else. And the way you don’t even know that it’s happening. You think you’re just smiling. Sometimes I see him look at you, and I know ... he’s remembering.
“It doesn’t frighten him, you see. For him it’s ... it’s wonderful. He wants it. He likes feeling his heart ... turn over. Doesn’t frighten him. Not at all. You see, he knows what you know - that it’s all going to work out. No need to rush, even. He’ll keep you happy. Always. And he knows it. s’ ...” A loud swallow. “You’ll always ... soften when he ... Always think you’re just smiling. He’ll always be what you want. What you need....

I love that scene. Doyle manages to convey to the reader his love for Bodie without actually saying it directly and perhaps without even admitting it to himself (yet).

And for what it's worth, some of my favourite Pros stories have been written by Americans, Canadians, Australians and an Italian so please don’t think you have to be British to get it right!

Thanks for this.

[ci5mates.livejournal.com]

This is such an interesting and thought-provoking question. When you use the word ‘demonstration’ I immediately thought of the (often-discussed) idea of the writer getting them to ‘show/demonstrate' their feelings rather than explicitly 'telling' the reader. One technique which manages to do this is via a third party e.g. Geraldine Mather in Welcome to the Jungle:

I couldn't agree more with this statement. Less is more in a most of cases. I remember reading this story and I was blown away by it. The pov was refreshing. It was amazing and so beautifully written that I could see and feel and hear what was happening. I thought it was among the best pros stories I have ever read, which is a pretty big call I know.

And for what it's worth, some of my favourite Pros stories have been written by Americans, Canadians, Australians and an Italian so please don’t think you have to be British to get it right

Too right! Having a great brit beta helps though :)

[taverymate.livejournal.com]

Beta Central: Sidebar - Characterization

Characterization is, indeed, central to fannish endeavors and fodder for endless discussion in writing circles - fannish and otherwise. I'll be curious to see how folks respond here.

However, I have to disagree with one of your basic assumptions. It may be partly a reflection of your word choice but I think it also highlights a fundemental difference in how people approach fandom and fannish endeavors. To simplify things, I'll focus on writing, but the points hold when looking at all manner of fanworks (e.g. art, vids, reviews) and other participatory activities.

You say: "In addition, fandom is supposed to be about self-expression and reimagining the original; if it weren't we wouldn't exactly be here."

That may be true for some, but for others (including myself) fandom is about exploring and celebrating the original source - NOT necessarily "reimagining the original". In every case, what has drawn me towards a fandom is my interest in the source material. I'm interested in learning more about the characters and the world they inhabit. I'm not interested in playing fannish dress up dolls as a means of self-expression.

When I hear the phrase "reimagining the original" what immediately springs to mind is the recent rash of remakes of classic TV shows into films, such as Star Trek, Starsky & Hutch, I Spy, Miami Vice, and Sherlock Holmes (TV as well as film). In many cases, the original source has been, IMO, very badly treated and often "reimagined" into a caricature - which definitely colors my reaction to your use of the term.

A person's approach to fandom will heavily influence how they treat the issue of characterization, specifically weighing the balance of externally and internally consistent characterization. Is the focus primarily on source material with a stronger focus on canon compliance or is the focus primarily on "reimagining the original" with less concern for canon (though, I hope, with attention paid to internally consistent characterization)?

I also disagree with the characterization binary you've set up: "So for Pros, the trick is to balance their innate toughness - their Bodie-and-Doyle-ness - with some demonstration of emotion towards each other."

Granted, that aspect of characterization can prove particularly challenging for Pros fans, but both the show and all the characters (not just Bodie & Doyle) are far more complex than such a binary would allow. So it's one element of characterization but not necessarily the central element.

Back in 2005, Rachel Sabatini wrote a short essay on characterization that produced quite a bit of interesting discussion and is still highly relevant today. It's very useful - and quite short - so do read. Really, it's short! It's relevant! It's useful! Read it!

"Three-Point Characterization, or No, We Really Aren't All Watching the Same Show" by Rachael Sabotini can be found at the Fanfiction Symposium:

Replace hXXp with http
hXXp://www.trickster.org/symposium/symp172.htm

Rachael points out how people extrapolate from source data points to create characterization and the pitfall that can result.

"And sometimes, the author will be working from only 3 points of data to draw their lines, or stick only to their 'preferred behaviors' even if those happened in only a couple of episodes....An author will take those 3 points and create a completely new behavior chart, extrapolating from that....And sometimes, occasionally, when the author hasn't seen much canon, some of those points are crafted from stereotypes and fanon."

She ends with: "Three points can create a line, or a plane, or a triangles -- and sometimes it creates a damn fine story.

And sometimes it's just...three points."

One reason that I prefer those who are canon-focused is that they tend to include more data points in creating their characterization, so not only is complexity better represented but the pitfalls that Rachael point out are more likely to be avoided.

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

My experience of Brit men of that age at that time - not limited to the one I eventually married - tells me they wouldn't have said or done anything in public - they probably wouldn't even have held a female's hand - but in private they would have been more insistently analytic and angsty about feelings than most women were, and they would perhaps have been overly romantic in things like gift tags or book inscriptions. I have always assumed the private outpourings were to compensate for the public stoicism. I can't think that homosexual and heterosexual couples would have differed all that much.

By the 70s homosexuality was legal, even though there were all the problems about privacy etc. and even though it would probably have shocked the eyebrows off people like Cowley. They would have been careful about the repercussions if they were 'out' at work. They wouldn't have been over-secretive at home/on holiday, though there was still a lot of homophobia so they would have been aware that they needed to see who might be watching.Some areas were different, too. James Anderton, who was Chief Constable in Manchester then, was rabidly homophobic and forced his reluctant police to trap gays into 'public' shows of affection. London wasn't as much of a worry.

There were a lot of gays fighting for equality at the time - I remember our National Housewives Register (a bit like Women's Institute but not...) had a group come to talk to us in 1974 (or maybe 5) - they were trying to raise awareness nationally about things like property rights, pensions, hospital permissions, etc.

As an American you can absolutely write Pros OK but if you set them in modern UK make sure you get a good Brit beta. Sometimes a dictionary or wikipedia will tell you if a word or phrase is Brit but there are nuances of meaning and usage that need a native to explain!!*g* One problem with betas is that younger ones have often taken on a lot of Americanisms themselves via films and TV and sometimes don't realise the particular phrase wouldn't have been used in the 70s/80s.

Interesting post!

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

...they wouldn't have said or done anything in public - they probably wouldn't even have held a female's hand - but in private they would have been more insistently analytic and angsty about feelings than most women were, and they would perhaps have been overly romantic in things like gift tags or book inscriptions...

I can tick men of that era & slightly later too - NZ ones of course, but not too dissimilar - and agree wholeheartedly. Makes me think of that scene in "Madness of Mickey Hamilton", where Bodie's embarrassed because his girlfriend's kissing him - and then makes the 'plumber' joke to Doyle.

Although I expect CI5 agents would probably be a bit careful about putting things in writing as well - this is one of my bugbears with epistolary fic, if it's too obviously giving the game away. I tend to think of very carefully worded messages and hidden meanings (that the other person decodes or, occasionally, doesn't).

[taverymate.livejournal.com]

Beta Central: Sidebar - Characterization - Complexity

I wanted to add a few words - ha! - sbout Pros characterization, canon, and complexity.

Pros fandom is lucky that the source material is rich in canon details which provides ample opportunity to craft complex characterization that is both internally and externally consistent and beliveable.

Pros episodes show us the main characters (Bodie, Doyle, Cowley) at work, home, and play (e.g. Bodie=martial arts, Doyle=motorcycles, Cowley=golf). We see them interact with colleagues (male & female), subordinates, and bosses (yes, Cowley has bosses - even if they're not his "superiors" *g*). We see them interact with the general public, with victims and predators, with heroes and villains.

We get a sense of how Bodie, Doyle & Cowley view women through different lenses. We see them in serious relationships with women: Bodie & Marrikka (Fall Girl), Doyle & Ann Holly (Involvement), Cowley & Annie Irvine (Look After Annie). Casual sexual relationships are too numerous to mention. *g* However, not all their interactions with non-CI5 women are sexual: e.g. Ann Seaford (The Female Factor), Susan Grant (Cry Wolf), Frances Cottingham (A Hiding to Nothing). And though women are woefully underrepresented in CI5, there are a few notable exceptions: Betty (most of Season 1), Susan (The Purging of CI5), Ruth Pettifer (Hunter/Hunted, First Night, Rogue) and a personal favorite - though not CI5 - Elizabeth Walsh (Spy Probe).

We see The Lads & Cowley dealing with people from their past and often conflicting loyalties: Bodie & Krivas (Where the Jungle Ends; mercenary past), Bodie & Martell (Hunter/Hunted; mercenary past), Bodie & Keller (Kickback; SAS past), Doyle & Syd Parker (When the Heat Cools Off; police partners), Doyle & Maurice Richards & Brownie (Hunter/Hunted, Doyle's copper past), Cowley & Barry Martin (Rogue; Army colleagues).

Despite fandom's propensity for portraying Cowley behind his desk, the episodes show Cowley is often actively working in the field: Old Dog With New Tricks, Stopover, Servant of Two Masters, Need to Know, A Man Called Quinn, and many other instances.

We see how they react to the politics of their day: e.g. IRA (Runner), racism (Stakeout & Klansmen), Soviet-British spying (Dead Reckoning), Arab-Israeli tensions (First Night), abuse of police powers (The Rack), gay rights & police corruption (In the Public Interest), biological weapons (Private Madness, Public Danger), nuclear weapons (Stakeout).


This all to say that Pros offers fans a tremendous amount of character detail and backstory with enormous scope for exploration and further development, so please, use it!

For those intimidated by the thought of getting details wrong - well, there are multiple resources for fact-checking: re-watching the episodes (never a hardship), reading the transcripts (Thanks to Pen & the volunteers!), checking episode guides, asking on mailing lists or LJ/DW, and, of course, the Pros classic canon compendium "Professional Insight"!

I adore "Professional Insight" - it's a fanwork created from love and obsession that satisfies the list-maker in my soul *g* and it's slash-friendly.

Unsolicitated promotion follows. *G*

As the publisher notes: "Everything you ever wanted to know about The Professionals; episodes, agents, headquarters, flats, relationships, bloopers, guns, girl friends, clothes etc. Over 200 pages."

"Professional Insight" remains in print and can be ordered from Sara at PearTree Press for approx $22 including postage (England to the US, varies slightly if you want air mail or are in other locations). Full details & contact info can be found in the Proslib files at the Yahoo web archive or on the Proslib CD, or you can email Sara at Sara.Peartree at btinternet dot com

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

has allowed me room to expand on some thoughts and start a conversation
Hey - feel free to do that any time here, no one needs permission! *g*

Such an interesting question though - how to deal with characterisation... (sorry, I might be expanding on your specific questions a little... *g*

Something I found really interesting about your post was your early comment about finding characterisation difficult, which you explained partly with I've seen the series end-to-end exactly once. So parts of canon just don't come naturally to me. Then later on you say In addition, fandom is supposed to be about self-expression and reimagining the original; if it weren't we wouldn't exactly be here. and I was absolutely hit by the contradictions compared to the way I see writing the lads and characterisation.

My instinctive reaction is that of course characterisation would be difficult to "get", if you've only watched the series once! Their characters are about time and place and chemistry and interaction, and two tough guys - but they're so much more than that, as well as being all the subtle nuances of those things. How do they interact? What's their chemistry like, and how can we tell it exists, how does it manifest? How do they represent "their time and place" - which is so much more than the '70s/'80s, it's also the years in which they grew up, the areas in which they were raised. A Bodie growing up in Liverpool is going to be very different to a Bodie who grew up in Hertfordshire, for instance, even if they both spend the 1980s in London! But the way we find out about all these little things that make up characterisation is by watching the episodes again and again and again, until we read the transcripts in their accents, and know which way they'll turn in a particular situation better than they do!

So imho, characterisation is about the canon - if someone doesn't know the canon, they really are going to struggle with characterisation! Unless... what they're doing is "self-expression and re-imagining the original", which to me is something entirely different and doesn't come with any promises at all about "good" characterisation. I don't want to re-imagine Bodie and Doyle, and I don't want anyone else to do that either - what I want, I'm afraid, is more of the same! I want more of the canon, more eps, more of our lads together - that's why I'm exactly here, otherwise I'd be out reading original, imaginative fiction! I'm also not "re-imagining" them when I slash them, because that's what I see on screen - two blokes who are absolute soul-mates, and are in love whether or not they know it yet. (Of course one of the fun bits of writing slash is to work out when they do come to know it... *g*) And this is actually where I fall down as far as being "a fan" goes, because I'm just not... I might be a fan of Bodie/Doyle, but I'm not "a fan" in the sense that my interest is in "self-expression and re-imagining" and I've begun to realise that it's perhaps that that is what makes "a fan" - or at least the kind that revels in lots of different "fandoms", that enjoys writing for several different characters or pairings or shows... that's how "fans" tend to define themselves.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

I've tended for a while to think in terms of two different types of fans (I'm generalising, of course!) - fans who are there for the show, and fans who are there to show other people what they can write/create. I think you might have captured just what I mean in your post here! For me (and for TaVeryMate above, by the sounds) a fandom is about the canon, and it's about exploring that canon and what it means. For other people, it's about "self-expression and reimagining the original", which doesn't necessarily involve such dedication to canon material.

The impression I've gathered from my reading in Pros over the years is that the authors who convince me they're writing about Bodie and Doyle (ie, get the characterisation right) are the ones who are writing from the kind of passion that means they've watched the eps over and over and over again - because they just had to! And for all they might explore different styles of writing, or venture into AU, they're writing because they're more interested in what those canon characters might do rather than anything else.

Stories I tend to put down pretty quickly, authors who I know aren't going to convince me they're really writing about Bodie/Doyle, are often people I've heard talking about how original or whacky, or crack-y they are. They're absolutely into self-expression and re-imagining, but that's not what makes a well-characterised Prosfic. (Not that original, or whacky, or crack-y Pros fic can't be well-characterised - but it starts from the canon/characters first and is secondarily original and whacky and crack-y, if oyu see what I mean... *g*)

Going back to mixing the lad's toughness and slash - as I said above, I have no problems with that because I see the slash in the canon! I don't have those slash-goggles things, to the extent that even though I thought I did, I didn't for ages actually understand what people meant by them! (It's okay, you can laugh at me *g*) Now I know that if I have to "put slash goggles on" for a show, then I'm just not interested in the slash - I don't want to see what's in me (that's a whole different thing!), I want to see what's in the show, and if it's not there I don't understand the point of trying to put it there - why not just move on to something that already has it? *g*

Bodie and Doyle show us they're in love with a hundred looks and touches, as well as with the more overt signs of affection and worry and pure disobedience to Cowley when necessary! Surely all we need to do is copy that into our stories? Okay, we want to be a bit more explicit, so we extend that into our stories. We never see the lads declaring "I love you!" - okay, there might be practical tv-in-the'70s reasons for that. But we don't see them declaring "I'm worried about Bodie!" or "Oh no, you're hurt, here Doyle - lean on me!" or even "You're my partner!" I didn't hear a single guy saying anything like that when I got here, and I'd never read it in books or seen it on tv or in films either - Bodie and Doyle are men of their time. So why would I have them doing it in fic? It just doesn't make sense to me... It might come a little more easily to me because I'm over here and because I've always been half-Brit, even when I didn't live here, but it's mostly come from reading and watching stuff set in the UK. It's like canon, just something I naturally wanted to do, and so was immersed in over the years. Anyway - so if the lads don't say it out loud, how do they express themselves? As you said - in the looks, the touches and so on. We can do that in fic too, without needing to re-imagine anything...

And this is already way too long so I'm going to stop here for now and hope that I'm making any sense at all... *g*

[merentha13.livejournal.com]

I probably should not be jumping in here. I've had a long and frustrating day at work and I'm probably not thinking like I should be, but a couple things said in the comments here have, well, irritated me a bit! Like golden_bastet, I am relatively new to Pros and have only had the chance to see the episodes one time through. Does that mean I shouldn't be writing Pro's fic, because I couldn't have learned "canon" with so little exposure? And is canon set in stone so that there is only one way to write the lads? I believe canon can be interpreted and can mean slightly different things to each of us. Not in moving grossly away from the characters we see in the episodes. I'm not talking about turning the lads into soft-hearted fools who break down in tears every time they have an argument. But if we all wrote them the same way, it would be a pretty boring fandom. I think there is room to apply our own version or interpretation of the lads to the stories we write. As Taverymate wrote: Pros offers fans a tremendous amount of character detail and backstory with enormous scope for exploration and further development We're all different and we're all going to do the exploration and development a little bit differently.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted some of what's been written here, but it seems to me we need to be a bit more tolerant, or understanding, of people's different opinions or interpretations of the lads. If someone can't abide a story written differently than what they would have written, I think its their loss for not trying something a little bit new. But this is all just my opinion, I've been wrong before! *g* A very interesting discussion!

[taverymate.livejournal.com]

Sorry you had a crappy work shift - I can sympathize with how that can spill over into the rest of the day. I hope your week improves dramatically.

Like golden_bastet, I am relatively new to Pros and have only had the chance to see the episodes one time through. Does that mean I shouldn't be writing Pro's fic, because I couldn't have learned "canon" with so little exposure?

I've reread the comments several times and I think you are inferring things that were not actually said - or even implied.

What golden_bastet said was that watching the series only one time through - so far - is partly the reason why "parts of canon just don't come naturally to me." byslantedlight agreed with her: "So imho, characterisation is about the canon - if someone doesn't know the canon, they really are going to struggle with characterisation!"

Struggling with characterization does not equate with a prohibition on writing! New fans often write stories without complete or repeated exposure to source material. That first flush of fannish love can be hard to resist! *g* Sometimes those stories suck and - more rarely - sometimes they can hit all the right notes.

As Rachael Sabotini points out: Three points can create a line, or a plane, or a triangles -- and sometimes it creates a damn fine story.

And sometimes it's just …three points."

While it is possible to write a story with well-defined canon characterization with limited exposure to source material, it's difficult - and is, in many ways, a crap shoot.

Less exposure means smaller sample size and greater liklihood of picking outlying data points and producing skewed results (i.e. characterization). It's basic statistics. A writer's chances of selecting those data points widely recognized as core traits goes up with greater exposure to the source. Not just because you have a geater chance of randomly selecting those data points, but because greater exposure to source means that you are better able to identify and reject data points that are outliers.

And is canon set in stone so that there is only one way to write the lads? I believe canon can be interpreted and can mean slightly different things to each of us.

Well, canon is canon. As an old teacher of mine was wont to say, the facts is the facts is the facts. By its very definition, fannish canon is what is found in the source material. (Leaving aside for the moment pesky things like secondary sources - e.g. Pros annuals or Pros authorized novels.)

How much weight is given to those facts, which are considered major data points, which are considered minor, and which are seen as outliers - that's where interpretation comes into play.

So, yes, I would say there is room for varying development of canonical elements - as I said above, the characters have complexity - but that canon itself does not vary with each viewer. Canon is not fanon.

Edited to fix typos *sigh*

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Does that mean I shouldn't be writing Pro's fic, because I couldn't have learned "canon" with so little exposure?
Absolutely definitely not - and I'm sorry if that's how you read my comments, because that's definitely not how they were meant! I'd never tell anyone they shouldn't be writing anything - and I didn't up above. Writing's far too much fun for anyone to give up if they're enjoying it!

What I was trying to say was that there seemed to be two different kinds of fan and/or writer, those that base their writing on canon, and those that are more interested in other things (GB's "self-expression and re-imagining", which I called their own writing). In my opinion I think that must surely have an effect on the characterisation in someone's story (for the reasons TaVeryMate has given about datapoints and so on). That's not a criticism, it's an observation which up for discussion, which is why we're here! I think it's interesting to read and hear about the idea of characterisation varying, and why people might think it does.

But, now that I'm a bit more awake (well, sort of *g*) I'm thinking that there's a question we haven't yet asked about all this - what is characterisation, anyway? We're assuming that we all know and have the same ideas, but maybe we don't? In fact I don't think we can, because to me "good characterisation" means capturing the lads as close to the way we see them on screen as possible (which means knowing the eps inside out will help) but for people who've never watched Pros at all, but came into it through fanfic (and there are alot of Pros stories out there written by people who've never even seen a single episode) it must surely mean something different? If someone's never seen a single episode, but are writing based on other fanfic and therefore on fanon, perhaps "characterisation" isn't even on their radar - or perhaps it just means something completely different.

if we all wrote them the same way, it would be a pretty boring fandom...We're all different and we're all going to do the exploration and development a little bit differently.
Definitely - although I'm not sure that "characterisation" is the same as "writing in the same way"?

I tend to think of Pros writing/characterisation as a kind of web. In the centre is the canon, and then people stick more or less closely to that, and so the web moves outwards until perhaps the outer edge includes people who've never seen much canon or read much other Pros fanfic at all. They're still there in the web, and an important part of it, but they're further from the canon, and not every reader will get that far. Then there are some writers who don't see certain things in the canon, so there's a little skip or hole in the threads that take us to them (eg, Jane when she portrays Doyle as ever-so-slight and fragile and unable to look after himself), others add bits in through their interpretation so that the web looks either thicker in one area, or perhaps a bit skewed, depending on how others feel about their interpretation (eg, Sebastian tending to portray Doyle as somewhat thoughtless and cruel). Readers might skip over the holes or skewed areas without any problems, or they might trip and stumble a bit on them and decide take another path through the web instead. Either way, we're all playing in the web and adding our own bits to it, and readers are coming and going along the different threads at will! That's just Pros... *g*

But I still come back to my new question (or maybe it's GB's, but worded differently *g*) - what do we call "good characterisation" in the first place, and how much weight do different people put on it, and the different aspects that make it up? I suspect that's always going to vary, because as you say we have our own interpretations of things - though as TaVeryMate says, canon is canon - Doyle does have a bashed cheekbone, Bodie was a mercenary in Africa, Cowley was once in love with Annie Irvine. I still think it's an interesting thing to talk about, though.

And I'm sorry you had a rubbish day at work, that can make everything look horrid! I hope things are looking up again by the time you read this...

[jaicen5.livejournal.com]

I don't usually go into heavy discussions as I'm with ci5mates in the minority by being gen preferred, but I thought I'd join in this one. A little bit anyway. I think that labelling the chacterisation of D&B is as varied as there are people on the planet.

People will always see something according to their own particular makeup when characterising anyone, partner, sibling, friend, workmate. They will also see what they want to see, or prefer to see for a variety of reasons - loyalty, fear, sympathy etc.

Brian Clemens created two men, gave them a vague background, put them into CI5, made them irresistible to women and indispensable to their boss. They were tough and streetsmart, heterosexual and fought a war using the same scruples as their enemies. How many stories were written to this formula? Not very many, it seems it was not as satisfying to us on pen and paper as it seemed to be on screen. We wanted more.

Enter MS & LC, who read their scripts and decided that their characters had no flesh. They used their brilliant acting skills to give their characters a bit more, a strong partnership, a fondness and understanding of each other, some humour, some chivalry with women and moral codes. Still tough, still streetsmart, still heterosexual. There are some fics written to this formula.

Enter viewers, fans of the show that became fic writers, all with their own favourites, ideas, wishes, interpretations. We can't watch a fic, we read it, which adds far more than an acted scene, thoughts, feelings, dreams, wishes. It gives the writer the ability to subtly alter the characters created by BC to ones that please her. I think someone else on here mentioned a good example. For instance, a Bodie fan may make Doyle seem mean and thoughtless, in order to make Bodie stronger and more attractive (as he is to her), another writer may see them as perfect and will skip any faults or weaknesses so that the characters are a little too good to be true, a maternal sort may have one fragile while the other is strong to protect him. And of course, those that wish the lads to be far closer than BC penned, will slash them. None of it is wrong, it's what is seen by that particular writer.

There are endless interpretations of what we see on screen and why we think like we do. Episode discussions are rife with conjecture on why and wherefores and rarely does anyone agree on the one thing. We can take one single expression on a screen cap from one of the lads and imagine what caused it - and a hundred different opinions will arise, as varied as the people watching the episode.

Then there are the writers who have based their characters on fanon, not canon, Doyle with red hair for example, or the "Game" which is rife through a lot of fic. The fanon has been such a major influence that even though we all know MS has blue eyes, Doyle is still being penned as having green.

For myself I only see the lads on screen as BD intended them to be. Not gay, but tough, streetsmart and definitely men of their times, not adverse to calling a spade a spade. I like to read the same with more fleshed out characterisation. I have and do read different interpretations from other writers and enjoy many of them. But pigeonholing a true characterisation? Don't think that will ever happen.

Jaicen

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

But pigeonholing a true characterisation? Don't think that will ever happen.
And yet most people here seem to agree that the characters are meant to be "tough" - I wonder if there's a certain set of characteristics that most of us would agree on? For instance that Doyle is thoughtful/philosophical or that Bodie is more happy-go-lucky in the general run of things, that Doyle thinks more about a healthy lifestyle, and Bodie an enjoyable one (though they actually both live healthily in their own ways)? I bet there are a few core characteristics that most people would agree on... *g*

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

For myself I only see the lads on screen as BD intended them to be. Not gay, but tough, streetsmart and definitely men of their times, not adverse to calling a spade a spade...

I find this comment very interesting and I have a few comments to put forth.

I don't understand that a tough man can't be gay. One must "see" the gayness for someone to be gay. By default, one must see the straightness for one to be straight. I'm a bit surprised because a gay man or woman doesn't wear a label saying, I'm gay! Sure, there are gay people who dress flamboyantly who telegraph that message to the world. But what about the bi-sexual man who's married for twenty years and has children? His own wife didn't know he was "gay". It's not something that's tattooed on one's forehead. :)

There have been very macho men (actors, sports figures, etc) who lived for decades before revealing they were gay (or bisexual since many had relationships with women). Nobody had an inkling they were "gay". So for me my brain doesn't quite understand the idea that somebody, anybody, who doesn't appear gay, isn't. Or that a man who has more feminine qualities must be gay when he's straight. A "butch" woman isn't always a lesbian any more than any other woman. One's outward appearance can hide myriad things behind it, whether it be sexual conduct, abuse of their own children, drug use, etc. How many times have we heard stories about someone we know in our own neighbourhood or even family smacking around their own wife and we're shocked because he was "such a nice man". A serial killer who lived on the same block for years and all the neighbours liked him.

Now nobody is obligated to see anybody as a slash couple. Heck, I see very few slash couples even in fandoms where it's supposedly "apparent" on the screen. But to assume that one is gay, straight or "sky blue pink" isn't something I would do personally.

[jaicen5.livejournal.com]

Byslantedlight wrote: I'm not choosing it, or doing it on purpose so that I can write slash - it's just what's there to me! I can see how some people don't interpret it that way - I certainly didn't when I originally watched and adored the show in the eighties! - but it's the slash that draws me to read and write more about the lads.

I'm really curious about this line. You say that you don't choose to see slash, that it's already there, and yet you then admit that you didn't see it when you first watched it in the eighties.

Did reading your first slash stories prompt you to see it, if you didn't originally? And if so, would you have never seen it, had you not read a slash story or knew anything about slash?

Sorry to go a bit off topic.

J

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

You say that you don't choose to see slash, that it's already there, and yet you then admit that you didn't see it when you first watched it in the eighties.
Did reading your first slash stories prompt you to see it, if you didn't originally? And if so, would you have never seen it, had you not read a slash story or knew anything about slash?>

I was thinking about this when I wrote my comment above, but I thought I'd rambled on for long enough! *g*

I was young when I first watched Pros, a teenager in the middle-of-nowhere in rural Australia. I loved all sorts of tv series - perhaps I was more of a "fan" back then than I am now! *g* I adored Pros in the same was as I adored Simon and Simon or Dukes of Hazzard or The Tomorrow People or Blake's Seven, which was pretty much as stories where I felt something for the characters. As I think is true for most teenagers, it was more about me than the characters, so I was happy with seeing the lads - Doyle in particular - as someone I fancied and could relate to. To be honest thinking about anyone being gay was pretty far off my radar. There was a lad in our class that everyone "knew" was gay - it didn't mean much to me except that he was who he was. I didn't know him very well, though I liked him well enough (even if he did pinch the Raiders of the Lost Ark cinema poster that had been promised to me), he was just him and I had other things to think about.

About 6 years ago now - or 7? Wow! - I was searching through available old tv series to compile my Lovefilm list (where you need to add all the shows/films etc that you want to see to a list, and they send them to you one at a time for a monthly price *g*) I came across Pros in the list, thought Oh, I used to love that - wonder whether I'd still like it now? and added it. Lo and behold, it was one of the first dvds sent to me, and I actually did fall in love with it all over again - only this time there was something more. I didn't just fancy Doyle, and I didn't just love the way the lads worked together, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was. I just knew I wanted more of it, and my eyes were especially glued to the screen when the two lads were there together. I'd ordered what dvds I could from Lovefilm and still wanted more, so I googled to see how many episodes there were all together, and whether you could buy them - because I knew I wanted to watch them all again already. There was, of course, a whole string of links not just to the series, but to fanfic - the first I'd ever come across it, really. The first one I opened was Kitty Fisher's fanfic site (now sadly gone), and apart from being amazed and thrilled that fanfic existed at all, when I realised what was happening in the story I thought Yes! That's exactly what I'm seeing! I watched another ep, and everything about it fell into place - now I knew why I was loving it so much, it was because the lads were more than just friends, they were part of a completely different world that I still didn't know much about, but was now interested in seeing more of.

[golden-bastet.livejournal.com]

I'm been going through a few rounds of 7 and 8 am conference calls (and 11-hr days), so will just post a brief note for now. But I did want to thank everyone for a pretty intense discussion.

One thing I did want to mention, before it took on a life of its own: the term "re-imagining."

A couple of people may have been reading something into my phrasing that was never meant to be there (which may be a reflection of writing it after a different long day).

Even with my limited exposure, I can't see the series being meant to tell the story of two homosexual men. They goof around and touch, they banter, and they show an extreme closeness (in the face of being basically hired killers - for the "good guys"). But, you know? The main point seems to be that they're the closest of mates (which humanizes them in a pretty harsh world), not lovers.

Nothing in anything I've read about the series itself has ever indicated otherwise, even with written slash dating back to the original broadcast. (And even with Brian Clemens being known for inserting various types of camp into his series at different points.)

And because of that, any slash fic would have to be a reimagining. It doesn't mean it's necessarily bad, and it doesn't mean everything else in the story can't closely follow canon. But the slash itself isn't canon.

If someone's seen something I've missed on that, I'm more than happy to revise the above.

I also don't want this to collapse to a too-narrow discussion on "right" and "wrong" fic (which I actually think it's avoided). There are a lot of good points raised here, and I'll try to get back to them later tonight or tomorrow.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Hmmn, you could be right, it could be that we're interpreting the word re-imagine differently. To me "re-imagining" is starting from scratch again, saying "right, we take these two lads called Bodie and Doyle and..." whereas what I do with Pros is more "interpreting". I'm saying "What these lads are doing here is this and this and this..." I'm describing it. An extension of the re-imagining might be "we take these two lads called Bodie and Doyle, and they're in love and they go to a restaurant and have dinner" whereas my extension is "what these lads are doing is going to a restaurant and they're sitting very closely together, and look at the way their eyes keep meeting and then darting away, I think they're in love...". And I don't know whether that'll make sense to anyone, but there's a definite difference to me...

Maybe it'd be clearer to go back to TaVeryMate's example - she said that "re-imagining" to her is what people did when they re-made a tv series into a film and that's how I feel. The New Professionals was a re-imagining of Pros. The film, if they ever make it, would be a re-imagining. Sherlock is a re-imagining of Conan Doyle's Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. There are connections between the two, but the second versions are new, they're starting from scratch, they're re- ("again"> imagining something.

Fanfic based on Sherlock is a re-imagining of C-D's original, but an interpretation of the new series.

So fanfic based on the canon of Pros is an interpretation of the series. "Re-imagining" it would be something else altogether, to me. So that's where I was coming from in my comments!

It's not about what a series was meant to tell though, either - as I was saying above to Jaicen. It doesn't matter what they were portraying originally, what does matter is what people see on screen and how they interpret it. In the case of characterisation (*g*) then I do still wonder if that's one of the things that make a difference, whether people are sticking closely to what they see in the canon, and therefore interpreting it, or whether they're going with the idea "there are these two lads and they're called Bodie and Doyle..." and therefore re-imagining it, which I think would probably result in very different characterisation...

[firlefanzine.livejournal.com]

Very interesting thoughts! :-)
I sniggered about that image you created of Bodie and Doyle 'running through a field towards each other in slow motion, Charmaine playing in the background.' *g*

"And this may be where canon and fandom (or at least slash) collide.
... So for Pros, the trick is to balance their innate toughness - their Bodie-and-Doyle-ness - with some demonstration of emotion towards each other."
I don't understand that. For me that are two sides of the same coin.
Why 'collide'? Wouldn't 'meet' be better? Or 'melt'... :-)
Where is the difference to a (serious)relationship with a woman? Would a marriage(Doyle tried) fit into that Bodie-and_Doyle-ness thing, but not a 'I love you' at home in bed between the two of them?

[maddalia.livejournal.com]

I'm jumping in late again, and as one of the newest fans here -- so bear with me as I ramble hopefully towards a point!

Getting into Pros about eight months ago, my first impulse was to watch the eps back-to-back, then go back and watch my favourites over and over again. Some of them, I've still only seen once, but I am getting slowly more familiar with them. 'Canon' is gradually seeping into my brain, and hopefully improving me as a Pros writer.

My next impulse was to check out fic. I thought I'd be a gen writer at first, but Pros slash sold me like no other slash has before. The impulse after that was to write. And write. And write. And write some more.

Why all the writing? (Apart from the lads being v. inspiring :D) I'd say most of it has been characterisation exercises. I've tried a variety of things -- like purposely understated. And thought 'yes, OK, I can do a bit of that, next thing please.' Then I've done purposely overstated -- I've read fic where the lads (especially Doyle) cry in front of each other, as in not just a brief tearing-up, but really crying, and thought 'nah, they'd never do that.' But it made me want to explore it. So I wrote it. It didn't make me believe in it any more, but it made my reasons for not believing in it all the more clear to me.

Another example: I've read fluffy romantic fics, and I will always like them whether I believe in them or not, just because they're fun. So I wrote some fluff, but, again, getting it "wrong" on purpose (and I mean my wrong; I'm not judging anyone else's opinions) just made me feel I could tick that off, know that it didn't work for me, that it wasn't "my" lads. It's all part of me getting to grips with the characters, and hopefully, eventually, getting it "right."

Much of the appeal of B/D for me is how comfortable they are with each other. Not that they don't have uncomfortable moments, but generally, it seems like an "easy" relationship, even when it's being difficult. (Well, that makes sense to me ... *g*) There seems to be a lot of "because we can" about it. D being seen thoughtless and cruel has been mentioned in this discussion, and there's a lot of emphasis on his moodiness, and judging him negatively for it, in fic. But I just look at D having a grumpy five minutes and think 'well, he would wouldn't he? Bloody stressful job. And he's being like that around B because he can't be like that around anyone else.'

What I'm coming to is, the way they express their feelings for each other - in private, I mean - wouldn't be static. Like saying 'I love you' - imo, sometimes they would, sometimes they wouldn't. Even in canon, they don't always treat each other the same. Their relationship in private would be moody, too. One can have a very comfortable relationship, where you can tease each other, be irritable when you feel it, be affectionate (or not), laugh together, be serious together, blow up at each other to clear the air, etc. Through all those "moods" you never don't love the other person, but you don't feel it every second, or perhaps you don't always feel its intensity. But then it'll hit you like a ton of bricks. With B&D, I can totally see that happening. Most of us, I think, see their relationship as being huge, intense, full of high feelings - byslantedlight put it beautifully when she said they were 'absolute soul-mates'. And if that occasionally comes out in words, it's not at all at odds with the idea of them as 'tough guys.' I'm not talking about 'I love you' being said to be romantic, I'm talking about it as a statement of fact, perhaps a kind of release, or, in the odd euphoric, passionate moment, merely because they can. I think it's not incompatible with the subtler ways of expressing themselves, the banter, the looks, the touches, the occasional veiled(ish) comment (mobile ghetto, Bodie? Really?). They're just different moods, and I can easily see them co-existing.

But for all that, I am still very much on a learning curve when it comes to Pros, and I don't see myself as having definitive answers to anything. I'm eminently frustrated with my writing as often as I'm pleased with it. But the only way I feel like I'm going to crystallise "my" lads, is to write, and write, and write!

[murphybabe]

What a great discussion. Thanks to golden_bastet for starting it off and thank you all for your different insights. It's helpful to me as I consider putting pen to paper, but it is also very reassuring to know that we all see things differently. When it comes down to it, none of you will see the lads as I do. None of you have the exact same images in your head as you watch the same episode, or imagine to yourself what they said in the next moment. And the characterisation will differ depending on each of our backgrounds and experiences. I think the trick is to explore it and articulate it so that it resonates with people 'out there', so that they can say, "Yes, that's what I thought Doyle would say too" - but I think we all probably accept that others will read what we have written and think, "Never in a million years."

I read things where Doyle is frail and cries, and it's interesting but not really relevant to my view of Pros. I'm very new to writing so am trying different things. Some of them seem to work quite well, some of them fail dismally. I'm unlikely to write something where Doyle is frail and cries - but I will make him suffer occasionally *g* because I like to explore the relationship between him and Bodie, and that's the part where getting the characterisation 'right' is so difficult, because people take different things from canon. And that's great!

[maddalia.livejournal.com]

It *is* great isn't it! I love going through the episode related story lists on palelyloitering.com, and on the Proslib CD, to see how different people have interpreted the eps. I also get inspired that way, either to add to something that's there, or to comment on it by doing something different. I think the argument, put about by some academics, that fan fiction is a valid form of literary criticism, does have a point. After all, what is any form of criticism, but the response of an individual mind to a set text? And there is a moment in the cognitive process where the original, say an episode, splinters off into multiple 'realities', as it is processed and interpreted by the mind of the person watching.

I'm unlikely to write something where Doyle is frail and cries...
Me neither. But I may write something where Doyle is tough and cries.

but I will make him suffer occasionally *g*
MS just suffers so beautifully, that's the thing. Making Doyle suffer is irresistible sometimes. I was glued to the final episode of Apparitions the other day, watching Father Jacob suffer ... and I have to say, after watching episode 1 of George Gently, MS cries beautifully too ... and totally not in a frail way. It was weird, actually, because I imagined how Doyle might look and sound when properly in tears, and it was exactly how it was in George Gently. Which proves that MS is a pretty consistent actor! Or, I'm psychic. Or have a good imagination. Or study MS far more closely than is good for me. Any one works. :D

[ci5mates.livejournal.com]

I saw MS cry on stage too during 'Country Girl' it was very impressive!

[maddalia.livejournal.com]

Ah, I'm jealous!

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

I do think some times people confuse canon with characterisation. Canon is any show be it Pros or Doctor Who or Top Gear is what is shown or said on screen. To me, characterisation is how that information is interpreted into a story and presented to a reader.

We see Doyle cry when Bodie is knifed. That is a canon fact. It can then be explained away by a writer as Doyle having an eyelash in his eye or Doyle being a big cry baby. The fact he cried is canon. The reasons aren't because Doyle doesn't tell us. We tend to assume he cries because he's upset. Right? :) So then in another story, a writer has Doyle crying at every hang nail. That is her characterisation of Doyle, which the reader may or may not agree with. Clear as mud.

But to me, canon is important and I feel I must have a good knowledge of canon as a starting point for any story. My chacterisation of the character comes from canon. If there was no canon, there would be no characters.

[ci5mates.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with your point Fos, because when we watch the lads on the screen we see physical reactions but of course we can't see into their thought process so we don't necessarily know why they did something.

I think part of my problem when I write is that I put too much realism into a character and think what would be a 'normal' human response to something rather than what would Bodie's or Doyle's response to something be. For example in one particularly dramatic/stressful situation I had Doyle's legs getting shakey from the adrenaline dump after the crisis had past but it was pointed out to me that they didn't think Doyle would get shakey like that, he was too professional and 'tough' ot have that response. In that way I am putting my own RL interpretation on the character rather than being confident if Doyle would have that response. In that regard I think my characterisation are probably inaccurate but they are what I how I like to see them. (sorry I think I have digressed from the canon subject although it probably sits with the characterisation discussion)

[siskiou.livejournal.com]

How extremely interesting! And I managed to completely miss the whole discussion when it happened, and just spent an hour or more reading through it all.
The elusive characterization!
It would be great to somehow collect some core characteristics for both (and Cowley), that everyone agrees on, and discuss the ones that some people clearly see and others wonder where the idea is coming from (and I don't mean gen or slash).

Do we ever see a frail Doyle in canon? If we don't, does that mean he could never be? How about fresh out of hospital after DIAG? One of my favorite scenes is Bodie taking the bag of laundry from him, and then the two walking home together.
Does Bodie see Doyle as someone in need of protection, or someone who can take care of himself just fine? How about vice versa?

Does Bodie hide a wealth of hurt behind his big stories, or did he enjoy his time as a merc?

And there is "stingy" Doyle, who asked for his pen back, but actually pays for things more often than Bodie does.

Does one moment in canon make a characteristic that's written in stone, or does it have to be something that occurs many times, like Bodie enjoying his food (and please, not always Swiss roll!) and cracking black jokes, or Doyle tending to lean on things (*g*) and laughing at his own jokes?
Is Doyle really the taker in the relationship (seen in quite a few stories), and Bodie the giver? How is that shown in canon?
How does Doyle's moodiness differ from Bodie's, and how do they prefer to deal with their moods?
Cowley seems to have their measure fairly well, and interacts with each one quite differently, but then there are episodes like WJ...
Does Cowley really let Bodie get away with anything, and is much harder on Doyle? And if yes, why?

Hm, it seems this reader has only questions, and no answers! It's a good thing I'm not a writer!