(no subject)

[olivermoss]

A meta post on OG Leverage before the new one airs.

I keep seeing the cast, writers and producers talk about how Leverage is a comfort show for most people, and then make some comment about it feeling good to see people take down the bad guys. Now, I don't expect them to get into a deep analysis during janky zoom call interviews, but a lot of shows do that, so it's not really an answer for how it's comfort show for so many. I want to get into why it's a comfort show for me and why it is fundamentally different from a lot of media.


The show seems to take place in the same reality I do. It's a comedy, it's relentlessly optimistic, but it takes place in a dark world with crime and deeply flawed systems. For a lot of shows and movies, the initial status quo is good and the resolution is based on the economic and governmental systems they are in not being all thaaaaat bad. A lot of shows make the plot work by taking place in a better, gentler world. Even if the plots are gritty, those terrible things are out of the norm.

Most shows are about a patch of darkness in the light. Leverage is about a patch of light in the darkness. The wish fulfillment of found family or heroes on most shows doesn't work me for because those shows assume that that systems we live in are basically good and any problems are aberrations. In this show the found family and growth hits me differently. It actually feels accessible, because it takes place in the same world I do. A world with judges sending kids to prison for cash kickbacks, predatory businessmen and the opioid crisis.

I keep wanting to do a deeper dive on plot structure and how it inverts what most 'story structure' theory claims to be the golden ratio below all good stories. And how in other crime stories the baddies just need to be handed off to the police or court system, because the systems we are in are fundamentally good in those stories. But Leverage typically can't do that. The crew can sometimes hand over certain baddies or rely on public outcry, but not reliably and it's never an easy hand off. They have to breadcrumb things carefully. The cops / media / people being basically good actually doesn't ever swoop in and right the wrongs.

This meta isn't fulled baked and I couldn't quite find the right words for a few things. I stand by the structure inversion making it light in the darkness rather than a spot of dark in the daylight. I wanted to get this out before the new show hit ... partially in case it drifted from this theme.

Comments

[james]

I agree with all of this! For me, one additional reason it's a comfort show is that I know, no matter how bad it gets, the team is going to win. There is never an episode where they take their lumps and swear to remember this day and you hope in a season or two they revisit. But each time, by the end of the episode (or there was a short arc once, I think?) the bad guy has clearly lost.

So the darkness they show us doesn't make me anxious.

[olivermoss]

They always win and they will never, ever have like Hardison pull a gun on Eliot for Sweeps Week. The weird, character breaking things other shows do for ratings or because they had an outside writer for an ep wont happen on Leverage.

They also don't do cliffhangers to try to secure renewal. If they show's next episodes aren't guaranteed, they make sure the show has a satisfying ending point. The show has a level of creative control and also respect for it's audience that is rare. From interviews, it sounds like they did expect a season 6 (one that would directly follow S5 at least), but it wasn't set so the show ending on what was a very good ending point for a long time. Though, I think they did know they where cancelled when they were wrapping up the last eps filmed and could tweak them a bit, add a few lines.

The show really is unique, but I am not going to manage a fully baked essay on that before the new eps scamble my brain :)

[mistressofmuses]

YES. I love that explanation! I hadn't really thought about it that much, but the "spot of light in the same realistically dark world I live in" vs. more typical "gritty dark parts of a lighter world where justice prevails is default."

Thinking about it, it seems obvious, but I hadn't ever put it together quite that way. So many shows (Law and Order comes to mind, but most procedurals do it to some degree) have "ripped from the headlines!" type episodes or plot structures. But most of those DO assume that the police/the FBI/etc. are going to be the Big Damn Heroes taking down the Evil Bad Guys. Maybe sometimes the episode baddie will be a corrupt politician or an asshole businessman, but those are presented as anomalies to the Good Status Quo.

Leverage tackles the kind of evil corruption that is SO widespread, yet often protected (or at least left untouched) by any part of the mainstream justice system. And that IS a pretty uncommon thing to find. (And yes, competence porn and found family and fun characters and witty dialogue all make it great, too. But that core element to the plot structure is a big part of what makes the show unique.)

[olivermoss]

Every time I went to try to read about plot structure, the whole:

Status Quo -> Bad Thing Happens -> Bad Thing Overcome -> (Return to Status Quo / Return to Status Quo but now it's slightly improved / Return to Status Quo but now as a more mature person more able to be part of it / Return to Status Quo with a deeper appreciation for why it's good )

Approach to plot is always taken as given. Like it's the golden ratio underneath all good plots. This is why I am so bad at story structure. Every time I go to read about it, my brain just rejects what I'm reading. Took me until very recently to figure out why. A lot of plot and story structure theory just takes it for granted that that's what plot even is and also the point of all fantasy stories is to mature into a person who more fits the Status Quo. I vaguely remember getting upset in a college English class when the teacher was being super insistent about that.

... Anyway, yeah, I really need to write that big plot structure ramble post at a point.

[mistressofmuses]

YES. That is always the plot structure that I see touted. There's always *some* sense that the status quo is worth returning to/worth protecting, and that dissatisfaction with the status quo is one of the things a character must outgrow or overcome.

There are certainly exceptions in published works, but advice on writing and plotting so very frequently comes down to that being the "standard."

I suppose there's plenty to be said about how this is by definition an anti-revolutionary/pro-conformity thing, whether intentional or not.

You're not alone in having an instinctive rejection of that being a plot requirement. It may work for some stories fine. But in general, the idea that every story should resolve with the status quo relatively unchanged, and characters changed to better suit it, is just so BORING.

[olivermoss]

It's nuts that it took so long for me to realize why my brain rejected everything I read about plot. Plot and story structure have frustrated me for so long, and then I go to read about it and it's gibberish. I knew I was having a block with it, but didn't know what.

It's anti-revolutionary, but it's also weird if like ... you are trans or something. Or likely lots of other identities. Rejecting or wanting to escape the status quo is framed as juvenile in plot theory.

[mistressofmuses]

It seems really obvious now that I'm seeing it pointed out, but I never quite connected with the "why" either. I've certainly been bothered by it in certain books/shows/movies, but never completely fit it into that broader advice and WHY it resonates so poorly.

Absolutely! So many types of queer identities, but especially trans/nonbinary/genderqueer identities, as well as other types of marginalization that put you at odds with the status quo. The idea that the only type of growth or maturity is ultimately conformity/assimilation... is actually kinda gross.

[olivermoss]

Yeah, it is really gross. And it's definitely one of the things that has held me back in writing. I vaguely remember a lot of conflicted feelings talking plot things and 'mature versus juvenile' approaches back in school.

[mistressofmuses]

I wonder if that's part of what's made me balk at trying to formally plot any of the original fic ideas I've played around with. Because so much of the official advice I've seen does push that idea of "ultimate conformity can be the only indicator of maturity" theme, and... that's both uninteresting and offputting.

[olivermoss]

Yeah, it definitely held me back. I wish I could send just a few note cards back to my former self. A lot of them would read 'no, actually, you are right about X'. Maybe figuring that out can help. I am definitely starting to think about books I like and whether they fit that pattern.

[mistressofmuses]

Granted, my reading is basically all spec-fic of some kind or another, but the works that have stuck with me the most, or that I most enjoy, tend to NOT involve that arc. Some seem to actively oppose it. It would also be interesting to see how many books do or don't fit that pattern, and how many of the authors are in some way from marginalized communities.