![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
athousanderrorsvia http://ift.tt/2hmmgm4:
gingersnapwolves:
polytropic-liar:
I was thinking today about Leverage–as one does–and about the various grifting styles we see the team employ, and how most of them have a very particular grift strategy that they rarely stray from when they have to be the main one in the spotlight. And what I think is really interesting is how their strategies are often exact opposites.
Eliot’s syle of grifting is to flatten himself, to make himself seem simple. He plays nerds, ‘manipulate-able’ fighters, awkward librarians and accountants and basically people it’s easy to dismiss or to pigeonhole as one thing (whereas in reality he’s anything but that). In direct contrast, Sophie’s entire grift style plays up her mysteriousness. She draws people in because they want to know more about her, because she’s intriguing and fascinating and there’s the suggestion that if only the mark were worthy of her time and attention, she knows things they could only dream of.
Nate’s style is to be incredibly obnoxious. Which, let’s all congratulate him on playing to his strengths, first of all. But second of all, it’s a really interesting grift style, because basically it manipulates people by annoying them. While Sophie draws people in and directs their attention and clouds their judgement by making them want her around, Nate directs people’s attention and clouds their judgement by making them want him to leave. They’re both very effective at getting a person to do exactly what they want!
And while Eliot’s grift style almost always involves him pretending to be bad at something (physically harmless alien nerd, unsophisticated boxer who can’t people good, etc), Hardison’s grifts almost always involve him being an expert at something (Iceman, FBI agent, even conspiracy theorist) and using his expertise to gain access, authority, etc.
And then I was thinking about Parker and trying to pin down her style, and I realized that another reason why she was an excellent choice of leader is that she can kind of do them all. Every grift she does has that tinge of ‘weird’ to it, because that’s who she is, but she’s able to switch between strategies in a way that the others never really employ. She can be unassuming and underestimated (Alice, baby reporter), off-putting and upsetting (that pop star with the duck), an expert who comes in and takes over (FBI agent), or intriguing and enticing (that scene with the diamond necklace, you know the one, we all know the one, you whispered “oh no she’s hot” at the screen don’t lie). I wouldn’t say she’s the best grifter, that’s definitely Sophie, but she might be the most versatile one.
Basically Parker is the best, Leverage is the best, we all knew that, thank you for your time.
let’s all congratulate him on playing to his strengths
gingersnapwolves:
polytropic-liar:
I was thinking today about Leverage–as one does–and about the various grifting styles we see the team employ, and how most of them have a very particular grift strategy that they rarely stray from when they have to be the main one in the spotlight. And what I think is really interesting is how their strategies are often exact opposites.
Eliot’s syle of grifting is to flatten himself, to make himself seem simple. He plays nerds, ‘manipulate-able’ fighters, awkward librarians and accountants and basically people it’s easy to dismiss or to pigeonhole as one thing (whereas in reality he’s anything but that). In direct contrast, Sophie’s entire grift style plays up her mysteriousness. She draws people in because they want to know more about her, because she’s intriguing and fascinating and there’s the suggestion that if only the mark were worthy of her time and attention, she knows things they could only dream of.
Nate’s style is to be incredibly obnoxious. Which, let’s all congratulate him on playing to his strengths, first of all. But second of all, it’s a really interesting grift style, because basically it manipulates people by annoying them. While Sophie draws people in and directs their attention and clouds their judgement by making them want her around, Nate directs people’s attention and clouds their judgement by making them want him to leave. They’re both very effective at getting a person to do exactly what they want!
And while Eliot’s grift style almost always involves him pretending to be bad at something (physically harmless alien nerd, unsophisticated boxer who can’t people good, etc), Hardison’s grifts almost always involve him being an expert at something (Iceman, FBI agent, even conspiracy theorist) and using his expertise to gain access, authority, etc.
And then I was thinking about Parker and trying to pin down her style, and I realized that another reason why she was an excellent choice of leader is that she can kind of do them all. Every grift she does has that tinge of ‘weird’ to it, because that’s who she is, but she’s able to switch between strategies in a way that the others never really employ. She can be unassuming and underestimated (Alice, baby reporter), off-putting and upsetting (that pop star with the duck), an expert who comes in and takes over (FBI agent), or intriguing and enticing (that scene with the diamond necklace, you know the one, we all know the one, you whispered “oh no she’s hot” at the screen don’t lie). I wouldn’t say she’s the best grifter, that’s definitely Sophie, but she might be the most versatile one.
Basically Parker is the best, Leverage is the best, we all knew that, thank you for your time.
let’s all congratulate him on playing to his strengths
