9.02 The Separation Oscillation

[Ratman77]

This brings up a fascinating question of the validity of character VS plot. To my mind there is character foremost, comprised of a set of personality traits, predilections, mannerisms, and private history. You set this character up, and henceforth he is an independent existent. Then there is plot or circumstance. The situations you put this character through in order to entertain or drive a story.

It is perfectly possible to be interested in a character but not in the particular plot devised for him. Indeed, you can easily and happily extricate the character from this plot and put him somewhere else, perhaps more suitable to his nature. Writers particularly are prone to such imaginings.

Captain Ahab was fixated upon the nothingness behind the whiteness of the whale. The horrible, unknowable noumenon. He was a driven, fanatical man, prone to ornamental and metaphorical language, comparatively humourless, blind to his own martyrdom, gruff and blousy in his manner, and utterly hellbent in his quest.

You can take this character and put him anywhere. He doesn’t need to be on the sea for him to still be Captain Ahab. He could be in the desert, chasing a mirage. The character’s the same, the external aesthetics of his situation alter.

Sheldon, as he was created and established in the first 3 seasons, had a very specific set of personality traits, idioms, mannerisms, vocal patterns, and a sense of well-defined PURPOSE.

He was a driven, analytical, neurotic, sensitive, whimsical, histrionic intellect, with a wounded aspect, and alien charm. An eccentric and a man of science. THIS is the character that we admire, and are “shipping” with a counterbalancing character who is warm and generous, chaotic and intuitive.


The plot that happens to be taking place on CBS is, artistically speaking, completely irrelevant, having established these characters. Sheldon could be on a submarine, and he would still be Sheldon. Penny could be (and has been in fanfic) a barista on a Space Station, and would still be Penny.

Romantic inclination on television is not a personality trait. It is a boardroom decision.

Leonard is the “star”, ergo he gets “the pretty girl”. Sheldon was not MEANT to be the upstart he was, nor were his interactions with Penny meant to spark the imagination of the audience. So they were ruthlessly contorted into new plots. From this point on, we will always be dealing with unnatural and contrived circumstances.

For theoretically, if Penny, within the realm of CBS, can date everything from Stuart to Kurt, then dating Sheldon (for whom, unlike the others, she has demonstrated great warmth and affection) should not be a great stretch. Likewise Sheldon, who breaks all his own rules for Penny, oddly enough within the CANON confines of CBS itself, could very easily be written to fall for Penny, the infuriating catalyst.

Hi, "Idle Miscreant"!

I want to take the chance to write a-late- reply to your great post because there are points which I am interested in general. “Comparisons” and the constellations of figures.
(Because it is too long, I split it up in two parts)
Part one:
Your comparison with Melville’s “Ahab” and your point, that Leonard was written to be the “star” (or like you written in your other post “the hero”) brought my thoughts back to a movie with whom I have spent a lot of time of my childhood- and that can be use –in a special regard- also as a comparison to the “TBBT”. (Of course, only from my POV).
The movie which I mean is the Blake Edwards- classic comedy “The great race” from 1965. Starring Tony Curtis (as the “hero” “Leslie”), Natalie Wood (as the “love interest”) “Maggie Dubois” and Jack Lemmon (as Leslies rivals “Professor Fate”)
Curtis figure was the “hero” from the first minute,…… but also the least interesting one.
(Well, nothing against Mister Curtis-he belonged to the great ones of the cinema. No doubt).
But that does not change the fact, that his character “Leslie Gallant III” was (for me) pale, boring, and even annoying. His actions were so predictable that he seemed very one-dimensional, and frankly there was no scene in which I am identified with him. (Like Leonard)
“Professor Fate”- with all his quirks- was very more interesting. His habits gave him more personality, he had his own dignity, and his efforts to arrive his goals gave the funniest scenes of the whole movie.   
However, even today for me “Fate” is the unofficially (but true) hero of the story.
If I remember the movie, then the “Fate”- scenes, and well…. …. I think there is the similarity to the figure of “Sheldon”.