Writing Daniel Jackson
Nov. 15th, 2004 01:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusI write Daniel Jackson in Stargate SG-1 because I identify with him. I started out very much a believer in my own world, and no, it wasn't the scientific community, just about as wide-open as James Spader plays the role. Then I went through a few battles of my own.
I think he's an archetype a lot of people can identify with actually: that of innocence lost. What do you do then?
I spoke with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cyanei (gosh, I hope I spelled that right Nope. Now corrected.) about the difficulties of writing a character that's been played by two very different actors, who has over the last eight years gone through a lot of development and major changes. I liked it enough, I've decided to post it here.
I've been working on Daniel in this and the previous piece. He's quite... elusive. Difficult to grasp.
Partially because he's changed so dramatically from the movie to the TV show, partially because Shanks' portrayal has slowly shifted over the years. Jack has always been Jack, but Daniel's changed a lot. Jack's very real to me becausewildernessguru talks a lot like him, has a similar blunt, cynical attitude.
It's an almost-seamless transition between the Spader and Shanks -- Michael Shanks is good. He picks up Spader's delivery and timing beautifully, but changes the role just enough to give himself some room.
James Spader played Daniel with an almost child-like wonder and... innocence isn't quite the right word... clarity. Gentleness.
Michael Shanks delivers the same lines with an underlying dry sarcasm.
The Spader!Daniel wasn't arrogant, he was oblivious to the toes he might step on, tripping his way to understanding. Shanks!Daniel has that slight academic haughtiness from the get-go.
Spader!Daniel made a fool of himself on a regular basis. In fact, he was almost a living representation of the tarot card, the Fool: confident in the universe and possessed of tremendous luck.
Shanks!Daniel is more self-aware. As he grows increasingly observant of his impact on those around him, first in his time on Abydos, and then in his trips through the stargate, he matures and becomes aware of what an idiot he makes of himself at times.
Then there are the Daniel phases, like the phases of the moon.
First there is the pre-Abydos phase: the down-and-out Daniel, struggling, but a believer in the pure science of what he's learned. So much a believer that he can't imagine that others wouldn't accept simple facts. He's completely apolitical and naive. Unjaded.
Then there's the Abydos Daniel: the one whose confidence has been built by his relationship with Sha'uri (ha! Thank you, I've seen the other spelling on the back of the CD boxes) and his role as a leader. And, quite frankly, by his boldness in facing Ra almost without blinking. He learned a lot about himself and what he could handle then.
Next the hunting-for-Sha'uri Daniel: mono-focused, angry, willing to abandon his moral stand in his quest, often caught between his new military role and his old roles. Aware of the dichotomy of his feelings towards the Goa'uld and his neutral stance towards almost everything else. He takes sometimes crazy risks in his quest, makes a fool of himself often. His innocence and wonder appears from time to time as he steps out onto a new world, but it's usually buried in his fire to free her.
Then the-post-Sha-uri Daniel: silent about it, almost grim, doing his job because the others depend on him and they have a purpose -- but looking for something to give her death meaning. He's beaten, actually. Matured perhaps. But the sarcasm has full reign, and he's, okay, somewhat cynical. He no longer believes in the fundamental goodness of others. Instead he feels he has to fight for goodness, as it's something rather rare.
Then there's the post-Ascension Daniel: he's restrained, cautious. Quiet. Not fighting for anything. Patiently doing his job, expecting little and asking nothing of anyone. He's turned completely inward, shutting everyone out of what used to be out there on his face for all to see. A tough nut to crack. Does he believe in anything anymore? Has he become completely ordinary, abandoned seeking beyond himself? I ache when I watch the post-Ascension Daniel.
The are a few common threads you can find in all these Daniels, however.
- The first is scientific (cultural anthropologist) curiosity, with a tendency to stick his neck out because of it (how skillfully depends on the Daniel).
- The next is his tendency to say the unexpected. Where a normal person would say, "may I come in?" Daniel will point to your beer and say, "feel like sharing?" It's jarring and jolts the listener out of their normal modes of thinking.
- The third is his honesty. Daniel doesn't lie. At worst, he withholds the truth.
- The last is that Daniel shuts people out. Partially it's that Daniel lives in another world where few can really communicate with him. Partially it's that he doesn't entirely trust other people to understand, or to listen.
I believe that his interest in linguistics stems from the very fact that he says such surprising, out-of-sync things to people. I think he knew he was bad at communicating and tried to figure out where the wiring was wrong, what was happening, why didn't people understand him? He eventually became good at understanding others, but never quite succeeded in making himself understood. So he learned to say nothing rather than be misunderstood (or opposed). So he relies on no one but himself, tells no one his full plans, and that was true from the original movie.
There's good reason Daniel's hard to write. He's a complex individual, and there are so many of him -- which Daniel do you write?
ETA: More edits. *snort*
I think he's an archetype a lot of people can identify with actually: that of innocence lost. What do you do then?
I spoke with
cyanei (I've been working on Daniel in this and the previous piece. He's quite... elusive. Difficult to grasp.
Partially because he's changed so dramatically from the movie to the TV show, partially because Shanks' portrayal has slowly shifted over the years. Jack has always been Jack, but Daniel's changed a lot. Jack's very real to me because
wildernessguru talks a lot like him, has a similar blunt, cynical attitude. It's an almost-seamless transition between the Spader and Shanks -- Michael Shanks is good. He picks up Spader's delivery and timing beautifully, but changes the role just enough to give himself some room.
James Spader played Daniel with an almost child-like wonder and... innocence isn't quite the right word... clarity. Gentleness.
Michael Shanks delivers the same lines with an underlying dry sarcasm.
The Spader!Daniel wasn't arrogant, he was oblivious to the toes he might step on, tripping his way to understanding. Shanks!Daniel has that slight academic haughtiness from the get-go.
Spader!Daniel made a fool of himself on a regular basis. In fact, he was almost a living representation of the tarot card, the Fool: confident in the universe and possessed of tremendous luck.
Shanks!Daniel is more self-aware. As he grows increasingly observant of his impact on those around him, first in his time on Abydos, and then in his trips through the stargate, he matures and becomes aware of what an idiot he makes of himself at times.
Then there are the Daniel phases, like the phases of the moon.
First there is the pre-Abydos phase: the down-and-out Daniel, struggling, but a believer in the pure science of what he's learned. So much a believer that he can't imagine that others wouldn't accept simple facts. He's completely apolitical and naive. Unjaded.
Then there's the Abydos Daniel: the one whose confidence has been built by his relationship with Sha'uri (ha! Thank you, I've seen the other spelling on the back of the CD boxes) and his role as a leader. And, quite frankly, by his boldness in facing Ra almost without blinking. He learned a lot about himself and what he could handle then.
Next the hunting-for-Sha'uri Daniel: mono-focused, angry, willing to abandon his moral stand in his quest, often caught between his new military role and his old roles. Aware of the dichotomy of his feelings towards the Goa'uld and his neutral stance towards almost everything else. He takes sometimes crazy risks in his quest, makes a fool of himself often. His innocence and wonder appears from time to time as he steps out onto a new world, but it's usually buried in his fire to free her.
Then the-post-Sha-uri Daniel: silent about it, almost grim, doing his job because the others depend on him and they have a purpose -- but looking for something to give her death meaning. He's beaten, actually. Matured perhaps. But the sarcasm has full reign, and he's, okay, somewhat cynical. He no longer believes in the fundamental goodness of others. Instead he feels he has to fight for goodness, as it's something rather rare.
Then there's the post-Ascension Daniel: he's restrained, cautious. Quiet. Not fighting for anything. Patiently doing his job, expecting little and asking nothing of anyone. He's turned completely inward, shutting everyone out of what used to be out there on his face for all to see. A tough nut to crack. Does he believe in anything anymore? Has he become completely ordinary, abandoned seeking beyond himself? I ache when I watch the post-Ascension Daniel.
The are a few common threads you can find in all these Daniels, however.
- The first is scientific (cultural anthropologist) curiosity, with a tendency to stick his neck out because of it (how skillfully depends on the Daniel).
- The next is his tendency to say the unexpected. Where a normal person would say, "may I come in?" Daniel will point to your beer and say, "feel like sharing?" It's jarring and jolts the listener out of their normal modes of thinking.
- The third is his honesty. Daniel doesn't lie. At worst, he withholds the truth.
- The last is that Daniel shuts people out. Partially it's that Daniel lives in another world where few can really communicate with him. Partially it's that he doesn't entirely trust other people to understand, or to listen.
I believe that his interest in linguistics stems from the very fact that he says such surprising, out-of-sync things to people. I think he knew he was bad at communicating and tried to figure out where the wiring was wrong, what was happening, why didn't people understand him? He eventually became good at understanding others, but never quite succeeded in making himself understood. So he learned to say nothing rather than be misunderstood (or opposed). So he relies on no one but himself, tells no one his full plans, and that was true from the original movie.
There's good reason Daniel's hard to write. He's a complex individual, and there are so many of him -- which Daniel do you write?
ETA: More edits. *snort*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-15 11:23 am (UTC)But you make me want to watch them! I may have to add the DVDs to my Xmas list. I'll make sure that Santa thanks you.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-15 11:33 am (UTC)Icarus