My favorite thing about Eliot Spencer is how invested he gets in whatever job/role he’s doing for the con. He has to play a caterer? He will give you a gourmet menu and poach some pears for dessert. He has to play a minor league baseball player? He will hit a home run and he will be excited when the local deli names a sandwich after him. He has to play a police officer? He will make Hardison respond to a call that’s nearby because there might be kids in that house. Eliot commits.

that’s so interesting because he is ALWAYS freaking out at how deeply Hardison commits to his characters.

I think there are key differences in how Eliot and Hardison over-invest in their roles, which is why Eliot fusses at Hardison about it without equating it to what he does himself. (Note: I’m focusing on original series only here.)

Eliot gets over-absorbed because he gets really into what his character does (chef, baseball player, etc.) and loses focus on what the con is trying to accomplish, which isn’t helpful but tends to add authenticity to his individual role. Eliot’s main risk is getting so immersed that he forgets it’s just a con and tries to be that persona rather than doing just enough to fool the mark. He may have some broad-strokes backstory in his head in case someone asks, but his main way to sell his character is just to play the role to the hilt in the current moment. (Prior to the team, he didn’t have a hacker or do long cons, so his main grifting option was to keep things simple, play the role, improv as needed, and hope no one asked too many questions before he finished the job. And be prepared to punch his way out if they did.)

Hardison doesn’t forget he’s playing a role. The part he overdoes is building an “interesting” (often meaning complicated) role and tending to over-act, which tends reduce the authenticity of his performance. The obvious example is “The Ice Man Job,” but it’s the same thing with the overall con in “The Gold Job”–he’s thought out every backstory detail and how to deliver it to the mark, but he lays on the perfectly constructed backstory too hard without reading when to dial back the complexity or exposition. (Prior to the team, it’s implied that he did most of his criminal activity on-line rather than in-person, so the exhaustive planning and documentation was his practical grifting approach.)

If you assign Eliot to be a chef, he’s gonna be a chef. He’ll get distracted from the con by the fact that they’re running out of onions and he just can’t get the flavor of this sauce quite right, but everyone around him will believe he’s a chef. If you ask him where he went to culinary school, he’ll glare at you and maybe throw out some sparse details (trusting Hardison to back it up if anyone tries to check it)–dig too far, and he’s probably gonna be relying on dodging questions or having Hardison in his ear feeding him backstory details.

If you assign Hardison to be a chef, he’s going to have thought out and documented every detail of his backstory, researched his character’s favorite recipes so he can discuss them in detail, etc. You ask him something–anything–about his character and he’ll answer in such detail that your head will spin. But if you tell him the kitchen’s down to its last onion and ask what he wants you to do about that, he’ll be caught completely by surprise and flummoxed about what to do (unless Eliot is in his ear telling him who to send on a supply run to and what menu items to scratch in the meantime).

@onyxbird, I love this distinction, thank you!! What I’m hearing from your lovely meta is that Eliot gets so stressed about Hardison overcompensating. if you want to lie, stick as close to the truth as possible, don’t give out too many explanations, and act casual. BE casual. But Hardison has to constantly prove how smart he is, how prepared he is, how well he fits in–so he automatically stands out. Online you need receipts all the time, but in real life you can trust non verbal cues.

Can I point out?

Oh no

The difference is Hardison is just making up characters. It’s fiction to him, here’s what a millionaire diamond smuggler would be like, here’s a fun adventure story to tell.

But Eliot is discovering different people he could have been. In another life he could have been the minor league baseball star, the country singer, the chef, the gym teacher. And just for a little whole he gets to be that other person, maybe a better person, maybe a happier person. Of course he gets wrapped up in it, and of course it’s hard for him to have to stop being that version of himself. What if things had been different. What if he hadn’t done what he’d done. What if he could just be this instead.

@mj–spooks

@gnar-slabdash how very fucking dare you be so so correct and break my heart like this 😭😭😭

I want to point out also that when Hardison has No Time To Prepare– like mile high job, or bank shot job, he does great! he goes with the flow, a little nervously, but he grifts solidly. A little awkward, but normal-human-levels of awkwardness, people go “oh yeah, Teme the violinist is just Like That” he gets the mark’s company to throw him a birthday party! he wins a court case! It’s only when he has time to plan ahead of time that things get a little iffy– the difference between a stilted, scripted skit and solid improv. you assign Hardison to be a chef, and you get a mess. but If Someone needs to be a chef and Eliot’s not there and you shove Hardison in the kitchen, I believe he could make it…at least long enough to channel Eliot, shout ‘who put raw onions in this?’ and run while everyone’s distracted.