CHUCK with a thousand faces

While waiting for the recap for tomorrow's episode it makes me wonder... wonder and ponder. This fandom, with all its glorious battles both past and coming (the NS/DS/NB thrown down will be MAJESTIC!) doesn't really have a lot of essay-like postings, does it? Concrete study of character development, analysis of behavior and understanding of the course of action the writers have undertaken to bring the characters to their current circumstances. Well I'm about to undertake one.

Setting aside ALL relationships I would like to take up a very controversial subject. And WOW, like we're NEVER controversial, right? At times I feel like Bill Maher here, it's kinda great, isn't it? And for those of you that dont know who Bill Maher is please go away, you're probably too young to read the things we fucking post about anyways.

But seriously. Every story has their characters and each character plays a role aside from their actually character. There's a sense of purpose. Like Dan is supposed to be the outsider looking in, who judges and criticizes what he sees, Serena is the golden girl who has everything her best friend wants, Blair is the anal heroine who will pull you to her side with her vulnerability and her idealism, Chuck is the morally corrupt character with a heart, Nate is the golden boy with everything except a facial expression, Jenny is the outsider who looks in on the UES and wishes she was all that she is not and of course we've established that Vanessa has no other purpose than to annoy us. So, in looking at this I would like to take a moment and talk about Male Heroes, their purpose in this show and who is charged with what.

If this were an Austen novel Nate would be a Mr. Bingley with his good humor, pleasant smile and adoration for all things pastoral. Dan would be a type of Mr. Knightly if you would but with characteristics of Robert Martin and of course Chuck is more of a Bronte character, wouldn't he? A darker more complex character, morally tenebrious and misunderstood like Edward Rochester or a darker version of Darcy. The boys all play a part and it's not to say that one is better than the other, it's to say that some are more important than the other. Indeed one can even go as far as to say that some are more INTERESTING to write than the other. For example, why didn't Austen write the book around Mr. Bingley and Jane? Why were they supporting characters as opposed to the main ones? Wouldn't it have been interesting to explore Mr. Bingley's thoughts and reactions to believing Jane was only interested in his money?

Writers, both past and present are often intrigued by the beauty of what a misunderstood, complex and dark character can do to one's imagination. In Gossip Girl we're experiencing the same similarities. Blair is to Serena what Chuck is to Nate. Meaning? Meaning that although the initial intent was to make Nate and Serena the center of the show the long-term ideas resulted in that being switched and flipped to their darker counterparts. And honestly, the point of this post is not to convince you because it already is what it is. The point of this is to EXPLAIN why this occurs and why your insignificant whining will do nothing about it. By whining I mean my favorite little posts of how the books where golden and the show is not because NB were so perfect in the books.

I also aim to explain why Nate never has been and never will be the hero of this story. You're welcomed to read if you're looking for a harsh dose of reality.

Like Austen, Bronte and even James created way before our time so has the time come for the writers of our dear show to also create something. Now, the grand different between a novel and a TV Show is that in writing a novel one can craft a character to one's like. Meaning if he does something stupid in Chapter 6 you can go back and correct it so that it flows with the rest of your story. In a TV Show once an episode airs it's canon and what has happened has happened. It's very common to convince an attune audience that the character is not as horrible as you have made them out to be in a previous episode. This is why there is a tendency for bad yet reformed characters to become more popular over holier-than-thou ones. Because in the great words of Jack Sparrow: I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid.

When you start out with your character at the very worse low point in their story, the worse thing they can do you have the ability to progress that character towards goodness. However, when a character is so very awesome all around you have to dirty them up a bit to have the audience identify with them. Regardless of the attempts at making them better it will always be evident that it's a plot device since the previous morally corrupt characters have already captured the imagination of your audience.

Where am I going with this, you're wondering. We know this, you think. What I'm attempting to reach is the OBSESSION that the MAJORITY of Nair fans have with Chuck. Work with me here for a minute. You see, we've ALL seen that the arguments posted by Nairy-fans tend to include Chuck or Chair in them somehow. I have now come to an UNDERSTANDING of why this happens. In a strange, crazy and near-psychotic level the Nair fans want Nate to be Chuck. What do I mean? I dont mean LITERALLY I mean that if Nate was as loved as Chuck, as hailed by the media, as supported by the fans, as complex and exposed as Chuck and Chace was as talented as Ed then things would be different. Things would be VERY different.

Let's explore this. When the show started Chuck's role was clear and defined. He was Nate's best friend. Chuck had no real plot of his own except to make Nate look good. His little rivalry with Dan was a 4th-line storyline at best. Yet in a quick and decisive manner his role in the show changed as did Nate's. In bringing back the original direction of this essay. Austen. In Sense & Sensibility the character of Col. Brandon remains in the background for a good time while Marianne is fixated with Willoughby. It's not that Col. Brandon is not important it's that he, at this point, shouldn't be important to the reader. I sense the same thing happened in GG in the early episodes. It's not that Chuck wasn't LESS important in the beginning of the show, it was that he was lurking in the background until it was his time to come out. It's a crafting method. The same can be said about Chair during the pilot and this HAS been confirmed by the writers so you can sit there and deny it all you like. Chuck and Blair were purposely kept away from one another in the pilot until the very last scene. Why? Because though the audience knows that they're friends they dont actually have a conversation or share a scene ALONE until the pivotal finale. It's crafting of a storyline.

The same can be said with Nate and Chuck. You THINK that in the beginning Nate will be the hero of this story, his good looks and easy charms make it SEEM so. Yet, as the story progresses, seasons pass the shift continues until we reach this moment that we're standing on now. It's not that Nate is not important, because he is. It's just that at this point Chuck is MORE important than Nate, more fleshed out than Nate and more liked by both the audience and the writers.

Now, for those of you who enjoy traditional storylines may argue that Chuck goes against ALL that a typical hero should be. Which is true, which is why Chuck is the anti-Hero of the story. But what I find most interesting is once more the OBSESSION that Nair fans have on Chuck. On everything - from bashing his wardrobe, hair, weight, negative personality straits, mistakes, actions, lack of actions - etc. It's a clear obsession. Very similar to our own obsession with Vanessa because we KNOW she's a threat to the storylines just like they KNOW Chuck is a threat to Nair.

Based on the very quick and simple analysis I was wondering if anyone would take a challenge. I would like to read an essay on Chuck Bass based on The Hero with a Thousand Faces. If you're up for it let us know. I would like to see the following explored:

• the stages Chuck has taken
• the stages he will take
• in relation to character development
  
• the journey
• relationships (family, friends and Blair)
  
• and what the future holds for him

I do firmly believe that Chuck Bass is the anti-Hero of this show, wheather you choose to believe he was originally intended for it, that he earned it or that it was stolen from another character it's up to you. Regardless people can't stop talking about it. Both the lovers and the haters.

I'd say his mission has been accomplished.