An Interesting Write Up About Jim & Artie

[tyche]

Before I have everyone jumping down my throat about the content of this 'essay' this is from a slash site. I do not subscribe to this view and never have done.

However, I would suggest that the writer makes some interesting points and that Artie & Jim do love one another as two people who share one soul and the kind of friendship that rarely happens between two people. I believe Kipling's The Thousandth Man comes close to describing it. Anyway, the site's below and you can have a look if you wish.

fanficdepot.com/writerguide.html

Catch you later!

[California gal]

I came across this site a long time back, and actually printed out this description of the series for reference, especially the names Artie assumed for his disguises.

I certainly don't agree with everything said but the writer has their affection for each other down pat... except he or she attributes it to different motives than brotherly love!

[rielle]

I could say much the same thing as CalGal, some assumptions made on that site I would not 'jump to'.

But if you ignore that, the rest of the information catalogued can be a real boon to fanfic writers... such as how many times our guys got 'clonked on the noggin'... and so forth.

Now I'm gonna repeat something I've said on this forum and Kristin's, the real problems with most / fanfiction are basically as follows:

1) nine times out of ten the writers are straight women who have next to no grasp of what same gender couples are like, or what they do.

2) something the writers at that site don't mention but something that has become a kind of hobby horse of mine is that any and all of the gestures, words and actions in shows and films made in our lifetimes that viewers and writers today MIGHT interpret as intimate, weren't seen that way AT ALL in the Victorian era. The Victorians had very close friendships with people of the same gender, more than they had cross gender, ever.
Men and women lived very separate lives, not to mention inequal... from birth to death, including their schooling. The Victorians called these relationships 'passionate friendships' and the annals and correspondence of the major players in the Civil War ... especially the West Pointers are full of examples... And when they said passionate they were not talking about intimacy the way WE DO, they were not using those words the way WE DO. they were talking about caring profoundly for their friend, for their well being, for their lives, for their health, etc. They were 'as close as brothers' and regarded each other that way. They were not involved in romances or even [yuck hate this made up word! 'bromances]

3)
Nor were men's friendships seen that way in the mid 1960s when W3 was produced. At that point buddy shows were a BIG DEAL on tv and remained in great demand through the 90s. There was no conception by the writer/producers such as Jim Garrison that they were showing anything but a good, tight, working friendship. We can all point to shows from Laramie to Man From Uncle, from Starsky and Hutch to Star Trek for these friendships
and only after the shows aired were some fanfic writers 'inspired' to take a whole other perspective... and outside that clique, the stories just don't work. YOu have to buy into the whole idea or just don't bother reading them... Suspension of disbelief ... not going on, its not even tried for, either you swallow the whole concept from page one or forget it. Its really sort of narrow minded in an odd way, imo.

[tyche]

Hi Rielle,

Could these types of relationships, these passionate friendships exist between women as well?

[California gal]

Well said, Rielle.

There are some people who simply cannot grasp how different civilization and cultures were in a time beyond their own. And of course it's why some read letters written by historical characters and decide that more than simple "friendship" existed between two persons of the same gender.

tyche, I have no doubt that the same "passionate" relationships existed between and among women. After all, who did they have to turn to besides each other? They were second class--worse, third class--citizens at the time with few rights and fewer recourse. No doubt it's partially why some women of upper class developed close friendships with their personal maids! Someone to talk to, to commiserate; someone who understood.

Some people just put blinders on. Jim and Artie were definitely hetero; otherwise, why all the gorgeous dames all the time?

[snish]

I agree with Rielle's analysis, with the exception of one point. Michael Garrison, the series creator, was gay. I'm sure he was able to imagine two men living and working (and more) together in a way that most of us wouldn't.

This doesn't mean that Jim and Artie are a couple. They're not. There's no way such a show would fly on 60s TV. The way this writer analyzes every single pat on the back as potential evidence of "something more" than friendship is silly. And the reason they sit and stand so close together is a simple, practical one--they have to be close together to fit into the camera frame. But for any work of fiction, once it's out there, people are free to interpret as they wish.

And I do think it's interesting (and kinda weird) that slash writers are straight women, not gay men. If gay men aren't interested in seeing two TV buddies as a couple, then why are women? My guess is that it's the complete trust Jim and Artie have in each other, the way they're always there to rescue each other. We all dream of having such a trusting relationship in real life, and, alas, real life often falls short. And our dreams usually involve romantic relationships, not close friendships.

I also think the reason Jim never took a serious interest in any of the belles du jour on the series is that they figured out pretty early that their major demographic was 12-year-old boys, who didn't want to see any of that mushy stuff. Season 1 does have a more sophisticated air that was toned down later. I think it's a shame, really. I would have enjoyed seeing Jim really fall in love for once. Just as I enjoyed seeing Artie really fall in love for once.

[rielle]

Mar 24, 2012 3:39:07 GMT -8 tyche said:

Hi Rielle,

Could these types of relationships, these passionate friendships exist between women as well?

yes, they could but they weren't as much 'documented' in other words the correspondence was not published later, as it was with those Civil War generals and such. Good question.

[rielle]

Mar 24, 2012 7:51:03 GMT -8 @snish said:

I agree with Rielle's analysis, with the exception of one point. Michael Garrison, the series creator, was gay. I'm sure he was able to imagine two men living and working (and more) together in a way that most of us wouldn't.

This doesn't mean that Jim and Artie are a couple. They're not. There's no way such a show would fly on 60s TV. The way this writer analyzes every single pat on the back as potential evidence of "something more" than friendship is silly. And the reason they sit and stand so close together is a simple, practical one--they have to be close together to fit into the camera frame. But for any work of fiction, once it's out there, people are free to interpret as they wish.

And I do think it's interesting (and kinda weird) that slash writers are straight women, not gay men. If gay men aren't interested in seeing two TV buddies as a couple, then why are women? My guess is that it's the complete trust Jim and Artie have in each other, the way they're always there to rescue each other. We all dream of having such a trusting relationship in real life, and, alas, real life often falls short. And our dreams usually involve romantic relationships, not close friendships.

I also think the reason Jim never took a serious interest in any of the belles du jour on the series is that they figured out pretty early that their major demographic was 12-year-old boys, who didn't want to see any of that mushy stuff. Season 1 does have a more sophisticated air that was toned down later. I think it's a shame, really. I would have enjoyed seeing Jim really fall in love for once. Just as I enjoyed seeing Artie really fall in love for once.

I agree with this as well, it would be a challenge, one that I've often thought of trying to make it believable in a fanfic... because 'canon' leaves so little room for Jim to be seriously romantic about a woman.
Drat that canon anyhow! LOL
In fact that leads me to a question that I've been formulating to ask the forum here

Do you think it would be ABSOLUTELY out of character for Jim West to seriously fall in love, as, for example, Artie did with Lily?

I've thought of OC possibilities for the woman involved but come up with nothing that satisfied me and so I don't think would satisfy the reader...

A princess/a widowed regent for a young prince, was one thought, whom Jim had to protect from their royal enemies [ a story with sort of a Count of Monte Cristo meets Prisoner of Zenda feeling to it]

A kissing cousin of Jim's who shows up again and renews their past closeness - she would be the one who encouraged him to attain his schooling and his earlier career in the Army [that's based on my backstory for Jim alone here] And so she would be the person he gave his class ring to, because 'she's the one who earned it'.

or
a stranger, maybe another young heiress or a widow with or without kids, who without being out of character for a Victorian woman is in fact strong as many of them were to survive and doesn't want the agent's protection... I think I like this one best... even though its the least romantic.

I'd love to know how you talented people would answer the main question, and if any of those scenarios sound viable to you..

[artiesniecewannabe]

Rielle, I think the third scenario sounds best. An independent woman, so that they kinda spit at each other before coming to a place of trust and eventually more than that.



And then I think that Lydia from Inferno might fit that bill.

[California gal]

If you remember, in my TNOT Shattered Heart, Jim did fall in love, but he did not realize it, and fought against it, until almost too late. Then of course he lost her. I did not want to tie Jim into a relationship for subsequent stories, since I have a running thread through most of them. On the contrary, though, I felt Lily was so right for Artemus that I wrote her into his life.

I think of Jim as one of those men who believes he would want a cloying, helpless woman--as seem to be most of their dates--when in reality he would be happiest with an independent, spirited woman who would challenge him almost daily (and perhaps nightly ).

A couple of times in the series we are given the impression that Jim has no interest in a long-term relationship, possibly because of his job (and sometimes Artie seems to share that attitude). However, a few of the women he encountered seemed to get closer to him than others.

[artiesniecewannabe]

*movin' away from the keyboard...*

[California gal]

Mar 24, 2012 14:05:34 GMT -8 @ace said:

Ah Calgal!! What are you insinuating with the spirited woman nightly challenging Jim?

Is that something I should look up on Wiki? ;D

Are you applying for the job? ;D

[artiesniecewannabe]

As long as I get this guy:

[artiesniecewannabe]

What, I brought everything to a screeching halt?

[California gal]

Everybody is probably wondering why you'd want that nasty fellow over charming Artie.

[California gal]

He might look like our Artie but he's sure not our Artie.

[tyche]

Actually CalGal that (without giving too much away) was the premise for Jim first falling in love - I promise to post the story when I've worked out the kinks (I'm still debating whether to make it a 'story' or to incorporate it into another story)

That said, as one my characters says in one of my fanfics, any woman Jim West fell in love with would have to be someone special whether she lost her life in the performance of her duty or just because someone wanted to get back at James West and decided to do it through her.

I'm definitely going for the independent woman at the moment, someone who can hold her own in a crisis and who doesn't dissolve into hysterics at the first sign of trouble. But that's my own thought and I'm working on a large arc involving those people in the background who make sure that 'our boys' get all the support they need.

But that's me and since I've probably gone completely off-topic now I probaly ought to stop there!

[Paradox Eyes]

I thought it was a pretty good article over all. And I agree with what everyone has commented so far. I find it amusing that the writer remains pretty neutral until he/she gets to the “Matters of the Heart” section. There is paragraph after paragraph describing characteristics and actions that absolutely fit within the parameters of hetero male behavior. It isn't until the very last paragraph:
(“None of this, of course, is enough to "prove" anything. However, it is certainly enough to make it clear that Jim and Artie love each other, at least as friends, and to hint at the possibility of something more. Besides, what other explanation can we hypothesize for the fact that they invariably share a hotel room with only one bed ("Poisonous Posey," "Cut-Throats," "Glowing Corpse" and others)?” )

I find it to be a needy stretch of the imagination that sleeping the same bed would prove they are “more” than friends. This person obviously has not taken the time to read/study or become aware of the social norms for the period or much of the history preceding it. It was perfectly normal for travelers to share beds. Total strangers shared beds in hotels and other accommodations. There would no reason for Jim and Artie to take up precious room space in small towns with limited accommodations. It would put a burden on the owner of the establishment to have that much space available or that many beds so that people could be alone. They used what they had and they shared. The rooms were for sleeping and storing your gear. It's not like you could fix yourself a drink, get snacks from the little refrigerator and lie there alone and watch TV at the end of your day. We live in a whole different world... Unfortunately, one that has some very presumptive ideas about 'just friends' spending time together.

[artiesniecewannabe]

Mar 24, 2012 17:07:58 GMT -8 California gal said:

Everybody is probably wondering why you'd want that nasty fellow over charming Artie.

Less competition!

[SpottedPony]

I disagree with the author on Jim's language abilities. The article implies that Jim had just enough French and Spanish to get by, I'd agree with the Spanish, but not with the French. Was it in Bleak Island that Jim mentioned being in Paris at one time? Then in the Bottomless Pit, they were on Devil's Island which was a French prison colony, where only French would have been spoken. In that episode, Jim's French was good enough for him to pass for the French prisioner he was impersonating. So I'd say that Jim was fluent in French.

It seems to be a theme in fanfiction in that if you have guys who are good friends and happen to be sharing sleeping quarters, then they must be gay, never mind that it may be a dorm room and they had no choice in the matter.

Spotted Pony

[California gal]

Jim told Cloris in Amnesiac that he had been to Paris. I like to think that when Jim and Artie went to London to assist Sir Nigel they took advantage of their time and traveled across the channel in order to visit several countries. I think I mentioned it in some story but I can't recall which one.

Also, the author of that web page conveniently ignores Murderous Spring, where Jim tells the hallucinated Artie that Artie's room is "next to mine." They did not always share a room, and we have no real proof that they actually did. Perhaps the closest is that Jim is in the same room as Artie in Poisonous Posey--shaving? I can't remember. Still doesn't mean that they did.

[tyche]

The sharing a bed thing is, Paradox Eyes, something most writers tend to gloss over. I remember reading Moby Dick at a very young age where the narrator 'call me Ishmael' has to share a bed with the Maori whose name I can't remember for the life of me.

As you so rightly pointed out we tend to assume that hotels then were like hotels today. And as a related point, I don't know if you had it in the USA but a very well-known and popular TV program was called Upstairs, Downstairs and chronicled the life of the servants 'Downstairs' and I distinctly remember being quite shocked when the two youngest maids were shown to get into bed with each other but as my grandmother pointed out - she'd done a similar sort of thing going into service in a big house - this was very common and perfectly normal.

We tend to attach our own values and twentieth and twenty-first impressions onto situations and because we do, they make no sense.

Anyway, now that I've had a moan, I'll be quiet.

[artiesniecewannabe]

I remember some group making a big deal of Abraham Lincoln as a young man traveling down the Mississippi on a small boat with a male friend. They were business partners and were, if I remember, taking a load of merchandise down river to sell it. And some group tried to use this as 'proof' that young Lincoln and the business partner were a couple. Oy.

[California gal]

They also used the fact that Lincoln shared a home and a bed with a friend, as well as warm letters, to "prove" he was gay. Again, a case of someone not knowing the customs of the times!

Houses were generally small, or if they were larger, the family had umpteen kids to fill those rooms. Guests had to take what was available, and that meant 2 or 3 (or more) to a bed. Did any of you ever hear the song by Little Jimmie Dickens called "Sleepin' at the Foot of the Bed"? It's about a memory of his childhood (probably in the 1920s or 30s) when relatives visited and the kids took whatever was left--in his case, the foot of the bed. Same was true of guests, often.

When my family moved back to Pennsylvania, I was 10, my older sister 13, and my younger sister 8--and the three of us had to share a bed for the first year. My brother had to sleep with grandpa! What a luxury it was when we were able to move and have our own rooms--though in my case I shared it with my younger sister.

And tyche, yes, Upstairs Downstairs was aired here, though I have never seen it. I plan to get the DVDs one day. Of late, I'm hooked on Downton Abbey and can't wait for season 3.

[artiesniecewannabe]

Yeah, I just love buddy shots!

[California gal]

Good job, Ace. I love that scene, and I have no clue why anyone would think it means anything other than just good buddies.

[California gal]

For whatever reason, some people don't believe in "friendship." They prefer to look on two same gender friends as gay. Somehow it pleases them. Don't understand it myself, but as was said above, this is not the only show that someone has tried to change to "preferences" of the heroes. Oh well, to each his/her own. I happen to like buddy shows!

[artiesniecewannabe]

Yup.

[California gal]

My favorite, after The Wild Wild West, is "I Spy," with Robert Culp and Bill Cosby. I need to rent them from Netflix and watch them again...

Starsky & Hutch is a good one too. And of course, Laramie.

[tyche]

I know we've all been talking about perception and how some people today perceive both the relationship between Jim & Artie in the late 19th century and in the twentieth century.

But I will say (write) this: Having read everyone's comments and having watched my Wild Wild West DVDs again I can honestly see that what people like Rielle, CalGal and others have been saying is right, this is not a relationship the way we think of a homosexual relationship today, this is a 'passionate friendship' and we can't think of it in twentieth century terms or in sexual terms because it isn't - and some people (no-one here fortunately) assume that they must have been having some sort of sexual relationship. As I said before I do not believe this to be the case and never have.

Actually I'm beginning to think it's all Freud's fault. Him, Jung and the others. Anyway, am off to do some writing as I have to get back to work tomorrow. Oh joy.