in s02e03 radar's report he contemplates how easy it would be to kill a patient who he perceives has caused the death of another patient. this is commentary on how state propaganda affects civilians because in the opening scene, trapper states "they're all brainwashed to see any american as the enemy", in reference to the same patient, a chinese soldier - his single most plot-relevant lapse imo.
he's stepping out on his wife and she's probably not cool with it but it's hard to link to an obvious overarching flaw because he's shown to be otherwise honest, loyal and selfless, just not towards louise. the flaw here for me is marrying her in the first place instead of living by his values, so maybe even connected to the previous bullet point - dishonesty to oneself as a result of outward influence
misogyny. no two ways about it, but kind of boring because it's not unique to him.
he shares a personality with hawkeye - but this is a concern that the audience might have, not a concern other characters might have. unless you're frank burns i guess, in which case, the flaw is being a bleeding heart liberal (which would make for an interesting fic imo)
he's not quite passive, but he's less active than Hawkeye, so maybe he could fall into apathy without a spark to set him off - but again, this is me trying to find a watsonian explanation for the Trapper character being the follower half of the HawkTrap duo
there's a handful of other instances where he does some unsavory stuff, but they're almost always one-offs that are contradicted by other consistent behaviours:
stealing hawkeye's watch in s03e22 - I mean, he steals hawkeye's watch to bet in a poker game, but it's a good thing he does because hawkeye uses the winnings to get the army off his back. also like, hawkeye bet Trapper's face for a chance to fuck Margie so shrug
i feel obliged to mention the note thing but again, it's a one-off, and what's the flaw here? avoidant? nope, he waited around as long as could. not anticipating a need that even the audience couldn't have anticipated at this point because there's never a mention of it up until s04e01? but he's steadfastly stood by hawkeye at every turn up until this point, it's hard to imagine what could have led the writers to write such an exit except for the fact that wayne rogers unexpectedly left the show. in this way, trapper's exit is not unlike henry's death: bad luck, bad timing
he's dismissive of hawkeye at first in pierce/hyde instead of, idk, playing along with the delusion or whatever the good option was here. the epilogue kind of negates this though because it implies he knew what was "wrong" with hawkeye the whole time... but i suppose we can pretend it only occurred to him when he saw hawkeye drive off hauling the general in the latrine
i think when considering Margaret and her much lauded 'character development' it's less about her developing from a bad person to a good person, but from a narrative device, as she was in MASH 1970, to a three-dimensional character. the former isn't inherently poor writing.
this happened deliberately as the show shifted from satirical plotlines that emphasized the moral bankruptcy of the systems that prop up the war machine to a show about how being in the war wore on the characters individually and changed them as people.
season 4 and onward focus more on individual character drama, highlighting the flaws and virtues of each character, their interiority, their changing relationships with one another and brings in their relationships with offscreen characters - most infamously, Peg and Erin Hunnicutt but also Dr. Pierce Senior, Radar's mother and uncle who eventually passes and Honoria Winchester. Even minor characters get at least one episode that focuses on some offscreen relationship, Mulcahy's sister Kathy and Klinger wife/ex-wife Laverne.
maybe with the (blessed) exception of Frank Burns, I think the function of all the characters changes from 1-3 to 4-11 as the show made this shift.
Trapper is a lancer. we get some glimpses into there being more to him, in Kim and Check-Up - but most of what we see is him performing a specific function, propping up Hawkeye, who in turn props up the messaging of the show. I would have loved to see Trapper's interiority explored more in the later years but I'm not mad about it missing in 1-3 - it's not about him getting "more", he got plenty in terms of what he was created to do. him having 'conflict' with Hawkeye isn't something that would've ever occurred to the writers at that time and you would never hear trapper say something like 'i can't divide myself emotionally' he doesn't have enough of an emotional self to divide.
when it comes to Hawkeye, in 1-3 i think the details of his life beyond what we see of him on screen are extraneous. hence the inconsistencies with his backstory, his sister, his mother, him being form vermont - this stuff just didn't matter back then. focusing on it now can be fun if you're trying to explore the character in fanwork, but the reason Hawkeye's sister (who i've affectioned named 'benjamina pierce') disappears is because they weren't really thinking too hard about her in the first place, you're not supposed to remember her and so the show assumes you won't.
Hawkeye writes home to his father but we don't learn a whole lot about Daniel Pierce at the time, he's only there for Hawkeye to narrate to, that doesn't mean Hawkeye doesn't love him, it's just that the writers don't intend for you to focus on their relationship until at least The Late Captain Pierce.
Other major developments wrt to Daniel happen much later on: he is retconned into being a doctor in the later years when the show wants to care about developing those details of Hawkeye's life and in season 10 we get Sons and Bowlers.
Hawkeye gets a little more character stuff than the rest of the cast because he's the protagonist but there's still a marked shift between 3 and 4, starting with his emotionally charged personal drama re: Trapper - before that, he does have moments where he emotes but it's always to fulfill the show's anti-establishment messaging: Yankee Doodle Doctor, Carry on Hawkeye and yes, even Dr. Pierce and Mr. Hyde. again, that doesn't mean we can't diagnose him with a laundry list of issues based on that episode when constructing headcanons but his mental state alone can't be divorced from the messaging at this point. "why does he do these things?" asks Henry at the end of Pierce/Hyde, and Trapper replies not that Hawkeye is damaged or hurting or broken (even though he may be all these things) but with the show's central thesis "he took this oath never to stand by and watch people die" - his breakdown directly ties back to the show's criticism of state violence. compare to Bless You Hawkeye, which might've taken place anywhere whenever Hawkeye smelled mouldy pond water.
so if even Hawkeye is more of a device than a character in the early years, what can we say for Margaret?
the Margaret character does her job. the hypocrisy of "fighting for peace" is paralleled perfectly in her relationship with Frank. these are two people who claim to be god-fearing, well-to-do, conservative Americans, but they engage in the same vices as Trapper and Hawkeye: drinking, promiscuity and scheming and worse, Frank and Margaret look down on others for it.
i get why people want something 'more' (really, something 'else) from Margaret and I'm glad we did eventually get that because it was sorely needed, but tbh i adore early Margaret and i think it's a little silly to call her a 'bad person' or 'underdeveloped' - she's just a villain clocking in.
similarly i don't think we're meant to reflect on Hawkeye/Trapper/Henry's philandering as assessments of their character so much as they are clear statements on traditionalism and sexual liberty. you can personally dislike whatever you want in a character but i think the context of the show airing in 1972 when attitudes towards sex, particularly female pleasure, were starting to finally loosen, is relevant.
some people want character drama from MASH and that's their preference, but character drama isn't inherently 'deeper' or 'more complex' than satire. on the contrary some of the writing is so technically strong in the early years, the jokes on-the-ball, the witty criticisms of American foreign policy and the traditional values that uphold it buried within objectively hilarious episodes like Tuttle (where they create 'the perfect American man' except that he's not real and make fools out of ranking officers while they're at it)... I'd argue that that's highly complex.
i don't see the point in getting hung up on the morals of a character who clearly intended to be a villain when judging whether or not they're a 'good' character or not. calling her 'flat' when they're all somewhat 'flat' because the show is not trying to get you overly invested in their personal lives seems unfair to me. same can be said for comparisons of Frank and Charles which are critical of Frank. or my most beloathed criticism: of Henry for being an 'incompetent CO' - that is a feature, not a bug.
criticisms of 'flat' characters in general are definitely valid, but imo only when those characters exist alongside nuanced characters who have rich interiority. since Margaret exists alongside Trapper and Frank, I don't think that critique is valid here. she actually gets a few solid moments where we get the sense that there may be more to her, in Aid Station and Carry On Hawkeye. compare that to episodes that frame her as being entirely sympathetic when she's been a terror to people she holds structural power over: The Nurses or the Birthday Girls - both good episodes in general, but it's another kind of flatness to present a character as being wholly sympathetic when they've turned around and done the very same thing that was done to them to others. just something to consider about how making Margaret 'more nuanced' actually glossed over some of her interesting complexities.
idk if anyone is saying 'repressed trapper' anymore but in addition to my thinking that that is a shallow read of him, we might also trust hawkeye on this one, because he knew trapper best.
hawkeye says of trapper, to trapper, "you were open and honest, you let me lean on you" which is the opposite of repressed.
There is no reason why I shouldn't believe that Trapper had at least an inkling of how much his leaving suddenly would affect Hawkeye, regardless of the fact that Trapper had no reasonable means to do anything about how had to leave. And I could get even more meta about that because the line between actor and character is so blurry wrt Trapper's departure because it was Wayne's decision that became, for many, the final word on the Trapper character. Unfairly so imo, because Trapper cannot speak for himself on the matter. I think it was a decision influenced primarily by the reality of production and not what made sense for the Trapper character or the Trapper-Hawkeye relationship.
By narrative requirement (and interpretation, if you're like me and you fancy that), Trapper and Hawkeye had a near-psychic connection which ensured that Trapper could finish Hawkeye's sentences and always be on board with his schemes no matter how "silly" or "pointless" they appeared to be to everyone else.
In Dr. Pierce and Mr. Hyde, Henry asks "McIntyre, why does he do these things?" and even tho Trapper has been at his wit's end with Hawkeye and even told him he was turning into a fruitcake, the narrative knows there's a reason for Hawkeye's mania and backs it up constantly as being the only sane reaction to an insane situation - and because Hawkeye is incapacitated, it's Trapper who has to do the talking for him, which is the practical reason he answers Henry's question without skipping a beat. But we are also still meant to believe that Trapper gets Hawkeye.
So although Hawkeye's whole deal about goodbyes isn't addressed, I think Trapper knew, and he has to shoulder the burden of that knowledge while also having just lost his other half, and having been without him for a week, right after Henry's just died, under Frank and Margaret's heel. The "us against him" Frank and Margaret gleefully fantasize about in WtK 2? That's been Trapper's reality just before he gets his discharge. I have to imagine it was an intensely lonely time for him, and then he's denied any kind of closure with Hawkeye. Hawkeye receives the kiss at least.
We get a onesided look at how Trapper's abrupt exit lands with the character closest to him, but I don't think it's plausible that there wasn't some lasting damage for Trapper too. And tbf, it's true that at least he's home now - I'm not faulting anyone for not wondering about him beyond that because the show isn't concerned with it either. I just don't think we can conclusively say that he never thought about the war or the relationships he built there after he left, and even something like "who knows if he did" seems implausible to me as a read of Trapper.
hello I would like to hear your thoughts on himbo trapper
Thank you for the question! it's a long one:
TL;DR: I don’t hate himbo Trapper, sometimes I even enjoy it, but I think it’s a shallow interpretation and I’m a bit defensive of him because I think there’s plenty of evidence in the source to support a reading of him as being intelligent. Also I blabbed on about some of the other popular fanon characterizations of him that I see as being similarly flat.
On its face, i’m a fan of the himbo trapper concept and i see where it comes from:
He can’t play solitaire
Hawkeye: “You big, dumb strong silent types”
And imo, the strongest piece of evidence: when it comes to shenanigans/schemes, if he’s not the straight brawn to hawkeye’s brain (requiem for a lightweight), it’s always the case that hawkeye that comes up with the plan and trapper who helps him execute it - too many examples to name because this is practically every single episode they appear in
And for fun, I’m fine with the stereotype because on the whole, it’s meant to be a positive thing. We have women to thank for taking a masculinized version of the term ‘bimbo’ - which has always been a pejorative hurled at women who are conventionally hot and therefore ‘stupid’, sexually promiscuous or just enticing to men - and immediately elevating it to the point where it’s not just seen as positive, it’s seen as highly desirable. A himbo will treat you right and won’t manipulate you, while also being a hot piece of ass - imo Trapper fits some of that criteria on screen but tbf, he’s also cheating on his wife and I think we’re meant to assume that she’s unaware of that, which I think is somewhat manipulative of him. Idk, I don’t have enough information about that.
But there’s a few pieces of his characterization that are in direct conflict with the himbo archetype - as a society I think we value STEM a lot, so there’s this general idea that people in the medical field are ‘smarter’ than your average person but at the same time fatphobia, racism, ableism and misogyny are still rampant in medical settings leading to entire populations receiving sub-par care so… I don’t think you must accept that doctor = an intellectual in general. There’s different ways to be smart! Your having gone to medical school clearly doesn’t exempt you from being a critical consumer of all the medical texts you’ve read and being able to situate them in a socio-economic and political context when providing care.
All of this to preface my saying that: he’s a surgeon. He’s at least intelligent enough in one way to be a surgeon and a good one at that, while recognizing that that isn’t the only thing I’m basing my argument on.
He’s emotionally intelligent:
In Ceasefire he has the opportunity to gloat about his being right about there being no end to the conflict after having been openly doubtful the whole episode, but he knows that it’s not the time and he even encourages Hawkeye to remain optimistic – a truly brainrot-inducing moment (affectionate) if there ever was one
Operation Noselift he’s just as earnest as Hawkeye trying to get Private Someguy (id remember his name) to accept himself as he is without going under the knife
Check-up don’t even talk to me about Check-up!!! Trapper could’ve accepted “you let me lean on you” as is. I mean, I think they both know what Hawkeye means by that and so do we the audience but I think his “What?” is making space for Hawkeye to be Hawkeye and spill his guts about his feelings because that is what Hawkeye needs; he does the same with Margaret, albeit while she is drunk off her ass, later on in the episode which is a nice moment for them because she reveals something (she’s playing house with Frank because he’s around) that I don’t think she’s ready to accept for herself, but Trapper listens to her.
Bombed which gave me Trapper/Margaret brainrot, yeah he starts off hitting on her but he stops when she asks him too and he still picks up that she needs comfort, makes her laugh and reassures her that he’s coming from a good place. That is what I get from his suggestion that they cuddle and I think Margaret does too because she accepts.
Kim - we learn he can be emotionally vulnerable even with his wife who, up til this point, is represented as something of a thorn in his side at worst, an ambiguous off-screen figure at best.
These are some of the examples that stand out to me but there are many examples of his good bedside manner and empathy that he freely extends to one-off characters like Young-Hi and George.
He’s pretty much toe-to-toe with Hawkeye in terms of witty dialogue, it’s just that he doesn’t often get the last word nor the spotlight. The role of the Trapper character is that of a follower to Hawkeye’s lead in their comedic and heroic scenes. Like if he comes off as being not quite as smart as Hawkeye (which I wouldn’t say is the case) then I think it’s a matter of their being deuteragonist and protagonist respectively, and the show playing up the ‘best surgeon in the army’ angle for Hawkeye in part as a way to save him from being disciplined for insubordination multiple times.
And finally, I think it’s worth mentioning that at the onset of American involvement in the Korean War, the American public was generally supportive. That support eroded over time but I do think that the American government, in the 50s and also to this day, goes to significant lengths to circulate pro-war propaganda and convince its citizens that war is only way. During the Gelbart years (S1-4) there was strong, consistent anti-military messaging that extended to critique of traditional masculinity in general – this frequently manifests in how Trapper and Hawkeye are positioned on moral high ground vs. Frank, Margaret and the military. So like, Trapper was a part of all that. He was, at the very least, in league with the popular ACAB Hawkeye, Queer Hawkeye and general Rabble Rouser Hawkeye that are favourites of the fandom – I think it takes a certain degree of intelligence, whether emotional or intellectual, to resist and undermine state propaganda, especially at your own personal expense. And I’m giving that to Trapper because he was around when the show was aware of itself being specifically anti-US-imperialism, rather than just generally anti-war or even anti-death later on - which isn’t ‘less smart’ it’s just more vague and there’s less of a specific effort made by the state to brainwash citizens into thinking otherwise.
There is a moment where Trapper appears to betray his moral and political (i’m using ‘political’ very loosely here) leanings when he goes to (presumably) kill the soldier in Radar’s Report but that is by far the exception not the rule and furthermore I’m not saying that people who are duped by the state and/or corporate entities into buying into the cycle of violence are “stupid” but I do think you have to actively fight against such indoctrination and one of the ways of doing that, aside from just being a compassionate person, is by learning to think critically for yourself. And I’m assuming Trapper has done one or both because he is as consistent as Hawkeye is in living those values. It helps that they have good chemistry and they’re bored and sticking it to the army is fun for them but imo they go pretty far sometimes just ‘for fun’.
So, Trapper is a technically competent surgeon, is emotionally intelligent and has come to reject some of the values that are pretty well ingrained in the society he’s grown up in. I don’t hate himbo trapper but I don’t think he’s stupid. Far from it.
Here are my less objective thoughts on the himbo trapper phenomenon and also have some straightforward trapper defense squad messaging:
I’m generally interested in pointing out trends in fandom, although I admit that my tolerance for content I don’t vibe with has lessened significantly the more time I’ve been active in mash fandom (we’re coming up on one year of straight obsession) – but from what I can remember about the popular, general portrayals of Trapper in fandom that I don’t see as having much footing in the canon: he’s a himbo, he broke Hawkeye’s heart, he’s homophobic (HATE), he’s hypersexual, he can be violent, he ‘doesn’t do feelings’, he’s not good with words… everyone is entitled to their opinion but the more I reflect on Trapper, the more I watch his episodes, the more I’ve come to question a lot of these interpretations.
I’ve already talked about him being a himbo, I’m not convinced he broke Hawkeye’s heart any more than Kyung-Soon or Carlye and I am certain it’s not intended to be a romantic breakup, he’s in league with Hawkeye in George – I’m not telling you what you can and can’t indulge in but, yk Hawkeye actually has a line to the effect of ‘i live with two dudes don’t call me a fairy’ and that’s got way more of a no-homo vibe to it than anything Trapper ever says.
He’s not any more sexual than Hawkeye is, not even because he has a big dick. Hawkeye and BJ both throw punches at some point and I also wouldn’t argue that that makes them ‘violent’ in general, but Trapper who doesn’t do it at all is the violent one. There are plenty of ways to be vulnerable and forthcoming and emotional without spilling your guts and anyway anyone could read as repressed when you hold them up next to Hawkeye Pierce. An emotionally repressed man could not extend an olive branch to Frank Burns nor could he write his wife an earnest letter in the hopes that he will be able to adopt and raise an orphan child nor could he be shown to have such a clear investment in outcomes during the episodes where there’s no clear, tangible goal to Hawkeye’s schemes.
This has turned into a critique of some of the more uncharitable interpretations of the character, on the list of which ‘himbo’ isn’t really all that bad. But I still think it flattens his character somewhat, like all these other interpretations do, and I can easily pick out a few examples of his canonical portrayal which challenge it. So while I’m not denouncing it completely because I think it can be fun and in the grand scheme of things, people can like whatever they want to like, I am sometimes inclined to gently push back on it.
working class irish (ex-)catholic trapper is my most cherished trapper headcanon because you can glean a lot about him by putting him in that box. there's just enough canonical evidence to support this theory, or at least there isn't anything that contradicts it.
