James West’s invention is everywhere — yet his name is rarely known. The physicist, born in 1931 in Virginia, co-invented the electret microphone in 1962, a small, reliable, and affordable technology that revolutionized how we capture and hear sound. Found in everything from phones and laptops to hearing aids, his innovation powers over 90% of modern microphones. But West’s impact extends beyond invention. Throughout his career at Bell Labs, he championed STEM education for minorities and co-founded initiatives to diversify engineering. His legacy, marked by over 250 patents and a lifelong commitment to education, is a testament to how one quiet innovator reshaped the world of sound. Yet, as his technology becomes ubiquitous, his story remains underheard. How long can we ignore the man who made the world listen?
Featuring a lovely musical interlude with Loveless and Antoinette, Jim punching Voltaire "in the tummy" and Loveless seeming to show genuine concern for Jim (even though he has his ulterior motives).
Honestly, I could just listen to Michael Dunn talk and sing for hours.
I think there’s something very specific about the formula and writing style of non-serialized/semi-serialized shows from the 60s to 80s that featured two grown men going on wacky dangerous adventures that makes my gay little literary analysis brain go absolutely off the wall bonkers. I’m trying to figure out why!
I’m writing this on my Trek blog because I don’t think this pattern in people actually shipping these types of relationships the way they do if fandom as we know it wasn’t born via TOS in syndication. That being said! I also think it has to do with the way these shows are designed that makes myself and others OBSESSED with a specific character dynamic that feels (to me) damn near impossible to replicate in modern television. In a way that’s more than just fandom, it’s in the way TV like this was written at the time!
I think what it usually boils down to is this. There’s a charming protagonist whom without the series could not operate, frequently top billed or the title character! (See: Wild Wild West, Starsky & Hutch) BUT he doesn’t have anyone to play off of! So what do they do pretty much every single time? Give Mr. Idealized Vision of Time-Period Masculinity For Genre a second guy to rhyme with!
See but the other guy has to play opposite but parallel to our hypermasculine protagonist. So what frequently ends up happening is that in order to play off our “normal” guy, even though he’s also a white dude, is that he’s still somehow Other.
They’re always perfect for each other, and they always get into scenarios that would be written, shot and interpreted by conventional audiences as romantic IF either one of those characters were a woman! Especially at the time these shows were made in.
If the one is aggressive, the other is gentle. If the protagonist is violent, his counterpart is intellectual. If the one is stoic, the other is emotional. Which (while one size def doesn’t fit all) usually makes the second guy come off as much more queer-coded (and sometimes other minorities like neurodivergent/disabled etc) than the other because of the traits associated with masculinity vs gayness at the time! Our prime examples in these gifs are Spock, Hutch, Artemus, and also *BJ!
*(M*A*S*H is a bit of a unique case since the show flirts with queerness more openly in ways that people more into the series have explained better than me but I think it still fits the formula I’m discussing.)
Here’s the thing though right? We’ve got two best friends, and the show NEVER really feels right if one of them is missing unless the focus of the story is how A & B operate without each other while trying to find the other one. They stick with and rescue each other unfailingly in scenarios that might destroy a regular friendship.
Hell, there’s often stuff that would emotionally/physically destroy a regular person/character in modern media. But because it’s not serialized they always seem to pull through seemingly through the power of friendship alone or dealing with it off-screen! Emotional consequences? Yuck! (Unless it’s M*A*S*H or Starsky & Hutch, like I said, not monolithic)
Here’s the thing that some people might say throws a wrench into the interpretation I’m discussing. What about the absolutely non-stop parade of conventionally attractive women the main protagonist (and less frequently the supporting man) goes through?
I would reply: how many of those female characters actually emotionally impact our protagonists as characters long term?
The answer is of course, because it’s NOT serialized, almost none! Kirk can watch Edith Keeler get killed by a car accident and still be making eyes at Spock the next episode. Hawkeye can have a “life changing” romance with a Vietnamese humanitarian woman, then share a blanket with BJ next episode like she never existed!
The Doylist explanation of course is not just the fact it wasn’t serialized but also just, constant, blatant 20th century sexism. Which SUCKS!!! As well as not wanting a long term love interest to throw off the character dynamic of our duderagonists. It’s the 20th century tv equivalent of bros before hoes.
However the Watsonian explanation always seems to result in no love interest EVER being more important than what the two protagonists have no matter whether you think they’re queer or not. No attractive woman could make our reputed babe-hound protagonist abandon his buddy. There’s no earnest romance our more queer-coded supporting man doesn’t end (or get ended for him) often for the protagonist’s sake.
Now some of these women are incredibly well written and straight up GOOD matches for our guys. So why wouldn’t they get involved in something long term UNLESS!! They were in love with each other the WHOLE time?
What if protagonist (frequently the babe hound) doesnt know he’s queer, or knows but doesn’t know he’s in love with his bestie, or any number of similar fruity explanations? The supporting man also runs into this explanation but people tend to believe he’s already aware that he’s queer but either also doesn’t know he’s in love or is keeping it to himself because time-period homophobia and/or thinking (probably not unreasonably) that babe hound is straight?
Between the inherent closeness of being narrative foils. The regularly scheduled life or death drama creating sometimes insanely romantic (in the narrative if not a literal sense) drama between the two. The revolving door of weekly women they never seem to get attached to enough to leave one another. The non-serialized nature resulting in sparse personal information/history about the protagonists as a result.
I think between the very NATURE of the way tv shows were written at the time. Plus the way fandom was shaped by a dynamic that has rippled through how media works and is interpreted by fans for decades upon decades. It’s not hard to imagine getting really emotionally invested in the possibility of the protagonists being in love is a fantastic way to enjoy the media!
In conclusion, it’s really fun and easy to go “these bitches gay! Good for them good for them!”
In some fairly good acting from Robert Conrad, during ‘The Night of the Pistoleros’, you can tell that Jim West is miserable the entire episode after Artie “dies”. He does not look even mildly happy again until Artie is back with him, and of course there’s the famous moment where Artie reappears to save Jim and Jim looks at Artie like he hung the very moon in the sky.
When I say I was not PREPARED. I mean, I had seen gif sets of this clip before but I was NOT prepared for the AUDIO. Oh my god poor Artie!
The Night of The Death Masks really was Artemus's terrible no good very bad day. He gets betrayed, drugged, kidnapped, shot in the leg and then is led to believe he killed his boyfriend best friend!
The dropping the gun and then to his knees in despair, the terrible little "oh no's" and the way his voice breaks when he says "Jim". The closest we get to this level of sad before then I think is in Druid's Blood where Artemus is very visibly trying not to break down while Jim is seemingly gravely injured and comatose.
But what REALLY gets me in this scene is the sobbing, which is wild considering by that point Artie knows Jim isn't dead! A testament to how good of an actor Artie/Ross is!
I mean it's really difficult to get crying/sobbing to sound right when you aren't actually crying let alone look real and he does both. He's actually shaking and everything, you can feel it, I feel like some actors even today forget we cry with our whole bodies, and he does.
That's really impressive. Especially considering the fact that art hadn't exactly been perfected for TV or film yet. Male characters in particular considering how such intense displays of sadness were rare (unless somebody actually died) and even then it was kinda hit or miss at times. I'm just so impressed.
Acting (good acting anyway) tends to lead you to pull from real life experiences to put emotion into your performance. I can only imagine Artie just sort of, unpaused the emotional reaction he was having when he really thought Jim was dead in order to convince Stark and Co that he still believed it.
It would've been really easy for them to have played this scene for laughs. To let Artie play up the crying as a comedic bit, but neither Ross nor the director took that angle I really love that.
The emotional depth of Jim and Artemus's relationship is really well displayed in how this scene was done. Even if part of it was a ploy and they jump back into the action-adventure shenanigans right after. It's really well balanced, and in a time where it feels like a lot of TV writing has lost touch with when to be tender/intense and when to be funny this scene just really stuck out to me.
