Introduction

Since I was basically just coasting along last week in the obligatory Harold-bashing article, I decided to tackle a character that's a bit more challenging: Rachel.

To write extensively about Rachel is a massive ordeal. Sure, the character is so bare-bones in her conception that there's little worth discussing, but the show never made the effort to truly integrate her either. That's what makes the character so interesting - the creators of the show literally just gave up on her. There wasn't even an effort to re-define her character, so if that doesn't secure her position as a black hole on the show that sucks the enjoyment out of the proceedings, than I don't know what would.

That's where the intrigue of the character comes from, though. She's incredibly weak, sure, but it's the sheer thought of the character's untold potential (or, of course, indulgent irony, something that never fails to amaze me in its power - I love finding ways to sound smug and unlikable) that makes her somewhat of a mythical figure. If I had to delve in percentages, I'd say that general perception of Rachel is 50% ironic appreciation, 20% loathing, 10% indifference, and 20% legitimate appreciation. Pushing aside the disproportionate false praise, there's still a decent amount of people who like the character, and that fact is driven home by the sheer vocal force of that minority. That's not to say it's particularly, erm, verbose praise, it's still there, so this goes out to y'all in particular.

The Actual Start of the Article

I guess the main thing preventing me from fully grasping the appeal of Rachel is just that I don't get her appeal at all, and her sole starring appearance in "The Party" didn't do her any favors either. It's an episode that helps exemplify one of Season 1's biggest issues: an inability to create characters with likable personalities, with them usually ranging from too extreme to having no personality at all. The biggest issue with Rachel, though, was her being conceived as simultaneously a tedious and "sympathetic" character - two things that don't mix. The mood whiplash part-way through the episode is completely unworkable. If she had a bit more built-in elbow room instead of her being an airtight prick, then there's at least a slim chance of her sudden change to be understandable, but that's not the case. She goes from entirely self-satisfied and antagonistic to a character that we're supposed to relate to or sympathize with.

Imagine this, if you will. A person knocks at your door. You open up, and they stick a gun to your face, telling you that the next day they plan to shoot your head off. The next day arrives, you open the door, and you find them crying and in need of emotional support with no relation at all to their ruthless tendencies. That's Rachel's character in a nutshell, weirdly violent metaphor notwithstanding: inconsistent, unappealing, and, akin to this scenario, a complete mess of creative liberty which probably should've been withheld.

As cliched as foreshadowing is, it needs to exist if you're going to pull some insane reversal off like this. We need to see some other side of the character before their collapse, and that doesn't happen for Rachel. One minute she's complaining about the dumb loser babies (that's how cool kids talk, right?) infiltrating her house; the next she's sobbing at the front steps because she's such a callous jerk that nobody came to her party. She's not even changed by the experience at all because she doesn't discover anything about herself along the way. Rachel has a gigantic mental block that prevents her from changing for the better, and on top of burdening herself, it burdens the episode.

The fact of the matter is that she's a character with no potential short of entirely erasing her foundation. At least other characters were workable - Rob's mild irritation at Gumball and Darwin in "The Pony" was nicely reconstructed as to make him a villain in the same vein - but since no facet of Rachel works, we either rewrite everything or throw her out. It should be obvious why the latter was chosen.

She's worse than Harold, a character that at least had a personality that was able to escalate to moderate success later in his episode. Sure, his range is "jerk" to "supreme jerk," but a practically tone-deaf range is better than having no range at all. She existed to be dispensable, and while that works for characters like, say, Yellow Guy who serve one purpose - to flourish - Rachel existed to dominate the proceedings, and unless a character is fully thought-out, it doesn't work out very well.

Circling all the way back to why people actually like Rachel: I honestly don't know. What I do know is that the argument that Darwin and Rachel belonged together is perhaps the most powerful conviction in support of the character, but even that doesn't make sense. For one thing, there's nothing that Rachel does that isn't completely bested by Carrie, who's not only compelling, but actually shares proper chemistry with him. Perhaps more concerning is that "The Party" never makes a solid effort to hide how half-baked the Darwin-Rachel relationship is, and even though the episode clearly set up Darwin for the position, Rachel just kind of sprang up at the opportunity and stuffed herself into it to a point where it felt intrusive. She was trying to fit into a mold contrary to that which she initially established, only serving to make everything feel looser and underdone.

What I'm saying is that it's good that Rachel was thrown out because she clearly just didn't work. Beyond that, though, it shows how aware the writers are of the shortcomings of Season 1 as to explicitly address it as such - even if the season is far from a highlight for the show, it was important as a matter of seeing what sticks and what doesn't. Rachel was a massive swing and a miss, and while it may have been interesting to see the character get re-worked, it's ultimately for the best that she's out of the picture.

I've already said too much about Rachel. I think we can all agree that Guy's "Good riddance" is sufficient enough.

Anyway, next week I'll be returning to the standard format with "A Second Opinion," though it'll be slightly different. I'd explain it more, but it's not like anybody really reads this stuff anyway (I don't blame you), so I'll just save the explaining for when the time comes. See you next week.