[spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3)

[binkie]

Greetings, Jedi mind tricksters

Occasionally, I venture forth from... other threads and ask a question that has nothing to do with... other threads I'm afraid this time it is the turn of this thread to roll its eyes and wish I'd stayed away

Before I wheel out my question-of-the-day, let me be very clear that this is intended to occasion discussion. I'm not looking to be confrontational or mean-spirited. I don't want to upset anyone. I don't want to have to buy a rotten-tomato-proof coat. Please please please don't take this as a declaration of hostilities.

So, my question is this: When did Spooks come to be all about Harry, and should we be worried?

I have seen several posts in this thread (including its predecessors) and others to the effect that Spooks is nothing without Harry, and that the show without this character holds no innate interest. I wonder if this is suggestive of a kind of attenuation of dramatic potential for the character and for the show. Here is a character who exists at the heart of a narrative in which 'anyone can die', and yet we can be more or less certain he won't. In most other shows, this would hardly matter, as kidnappings, physical peril and near-death experiences are presented as elements in a classical hurt/comfort formula. In Spooks, though, jeopardy has to mean something, because outcomes have to illustrate the necessity of loss within the context of the show's well-established and well-observed rhetoric of risk.

I understand that Harry represents continuity, and that this is important to a long-running drama with a rapid cast turnover. But I am curious about the extent to which much of the good will that exists towards the character is transference from the good will that exists towards the actor. If, for example, Harry was Harriet, or if the character was portrayed by someone with the physical and moral aspects of Rupert Murdoch or Norman Tebbit, rather than those of Peter Firth, would that good will persist? Does the popularity of the character represent a liability to the meaning of the character? Does the popularity of the character undermine the sense of the show?

I'm not agitating for an episode in which Harry is pulled apart by horses. Neither am I suggesting that he should be killed off quickly - or at all - so Ruth can be miserable (and in love with a ghost) and Kudos can test its own version of the Grissom/Langston replacement solution. I am, however, genuinely interested to see what responses might be generated by this post. There is a lot of in-depth interest and knowledge on this board and in this thread, so I await - with some trepidation - whatever mixture of opprobrium and analysis might come my way