Finally making my first stab at a thread; hopefully it doesn't go the way of Worf's dignity every time a hostile alien invades the bridge.
There are a few recurring characters in TNG that, to one degree or another, are considered problematic, even derided and dismissed by some. I thought it might be interesting to look, with as open a mind as possible, at these characters, see if the dislike is truly justified, try to identify the source of genuine problems, and what could have been done to address those issues. I must stress: this is purely one person's opinion and speculations. To start with, and as an example, I give you Ship's Counsellor Deanna Troi.
That very title is the root of the trouble with Troi for many; why does a ship even need a counsellor, let alone one that sits next to the Captain on the bridge? Department of Redundancy Department, particularly on a ship full of perfectly flawless people, right? Well, no.
Emotional and psychological well-being is easily as important as physical well-being, arguably even more so, given how strongly the former can impact the latter (as an anxiety sufferer, I can vouch for that). That Starfleet acknowledge and respect that so much is likely a big reason why the crews are so well-sorted - though not, I would suggest, perfect; they made mistakes, and doubted themselves, and struggled with things, just didn't have many of the pointless hang-ups we do - and a counsellor so visibly at the heart of ship's operations is a pretty clear statement. Gene was actually kinda ahead of the curve on that one.
There's also the useful perspective a counsellor could provide in many situations: how the people involved are likely to behave, how they'd likely react to you, and how you could adjust your approach to be most effective. This gains another layer in Troi's case courtesy of her empathic abilities, which can provide instant feedback and context, and in several episodes actually do. All of this is useful narratively, but especially the latter; she can tell you someone's being deceitful, but not why; you know something's up, but not what, helping to advance the story without giving too much away.
All that considered, I'd argue that the idea of Troi wasn't bad, it was - and if this thread continues I don't doubt I'll be saying this a lot - the execution that caused issues. Something, or many things, got lost in translation somewhere, and we ended up with a frustratingly mishandled and inconsistent character. She had her moments, and anchored some strong episodes, but she was also saddled with some pretty poor ones (The Child comes readily to mind) and had thuddingly unsubtle moments ("I feel great happiness!"). Many of the writers just didn't seem to know what to do with her.
Beyond what I've already outlined, something that may well have helped was making her the head of a full department, one with a broader remit than just the psychological. The show itself did something towards that by putting her in charge of education in later seasons, and I'm sure broader logistics regarding the families on board could be folded in, as well as strong ties to Medical. Emotions are intangible, difficult to quantify, so give her something tangible and more accessible as a foundation of sorts. Also a different title, maybe, though what that could be...
Ultimately, though, a lot of it, I believe, comes down to this: if you're unwilling to accept emotions matter, then you're highly unlikely to accept a character focused around them, irregardless of their execution. Troi was an interesting idea, ahead of her time, but poorly realised, and possibly doomed never to truly work.
Fascinated to see if people chime with this, what other perspectives are thrown in, and if we can get a nice discussion going. If this thread clicks enough with people, I do have two more characters in mind, and if any others occur, feel free to say. :-)
There are a few recurring characters in TNG that, to one degree or another, are considered problematic, even derided and dismissed by some. I thought it might be interesting to look, with as open a mind as possible, at these characters, see if the dislike is truly justified, try to identify the source of genuine problems, and what could have been done to address those issues. I must stress: this is purely one person's opinion and speculations. To start with, and as an example, I give you Ship's Counsellor Deanna Troi.
That very title is the root of the trouble with Troi for many; why does a ship even need a counsellor, let alone one that sits next to the Captain on the bridge? Department of Redundancy Department, particularly on a ship full of perfectly flawless people, right? Well, no.
Emotional and psychological well-being is easily as important as physical well-being, arguably even more so, given how strongly the former can impact the latter (as an anxiety sufferer, I can vouch for that). That Starfleet acknowledge and respect that so much is likely a big reason why the crews are so well-sorted - though not, I would suggest, perfect; they made mistakes, and doubted themselves, and struggled with things, just didn't have many of the pointless hang-ups we do - and a counsellor so visibly at the heart of ship's operations is a pretty clear statement. Gene was actually kinda ahead of the curve on that one.
There's also the useful perspective a counsellor could provide in many situations: how the people involved are likely to behave, how they'd likely react to you, and how you could adjust your approach to be most effective. This gains another layer in Troi's case courtesy of her empathic abilities, which can provide instant feedback and context, and in several episodes actually do. All of this is useful narratively, but especially the latter; she can tell you someone's being deceitful, but not why; you know something's up, but not what, helping to advance the story without giving too much away.
All that considered, I'd argue that the idea of Troi wasn't bad, it was - and if this thread continues I don't doubt I'll be saying this a lot - the execution that caused issues. Something, or many things, got lost in translation somewhere, and we ended up with a frustratingly mishandled and inconsistent character. She had her moments, and anchored some strong episodes, but she was also saddled with some pretty poor ones (The Child comes readily to mind) and had thuddingly unsubtle moments ("I feel great happiness!"). Many of the writers just didn't seem to know what to do with her.
Beyond what I've already outlined, something that may well have helped was making her the head of a full department, one with a broader remit than just the psychological. The show itself did something towards that by putting her in charge of education in later seasons, and I'm sure broader logistics regarding the families on board could be folded in, as well as strong ties to Medical. Emotions are intangible, difficult to quantify, so give her something tangible and more accessible as a foundation of sorts. Also a different title, maybe, though what that could be...
Ultimately, though, a lot of it, I believe, comes down to this: if you're unwilling to accept emotions matter, then you're highly unlikely to accept a character focused around them, irregardless of their execution. Troi was an interesting idea, ahead of her time, but poorly realised, and possibly doomed never to truly work.
Fascinated to see if people chime with this, what other perspectives are thrown in, and if we can get a nice discussion going. If this thread clicks enough with people, I do have two more characters in mind, and if any others occur, feel free to say. :-)