This has been written at both jumptheshark.com and amazon. The writers doted Charles's character something fierce. He often had the best lines of anyone on the show. he was usually such a winner-what actor could fail in the role? Watching almost any ep with him in it it is obvious that half the reason the character is so successful is the writer-reasons already mentioned. Larry Linville, as Frank, actually was a better actor than Stiers. Linville had hundreds of different ways to play Frank. Alan Alda credited Linville and Lorretta Swit of having incredibly so many different ways to play their characters.



PS Personally, I think it would have probably been good if older actor Gene Barry (fomerly of Burke's Law) could have played Charles-a Charles older than Stiers's characterization. Barry is a very classy guy!

I don't know. I thought Linville was good, but Stiers has a certain subtlety to him that I absolutely love. Granted, the character of Frank isn't big on the subtle, but I really enjoy watching the character of Charles, and think that DOS did an amazing job. It can be hard to take a character like that and yet still make the fans like him, no matter what lines the writers give you.

The difference between Frank Burns and Charles Winchester is Charles, in spite of some of his self-absorbed cultural demeanor, knew how to eventually interract with Hawkeye and B.J., while Frank just let his overly arbitrary and political views get the best of him almost all the time. Hawkeye and B.J.(and Trapper, before him) found it real difficult to reason with him about anything. Frank never really interacted well with Hawkeye, Trapper and B.J. I still remember M*A*S*H's last regular episode where Charles spoke about Hawkeye and B.J. not leaving anything in the time capsule from Frank Burns. Moreover, during his speech, Charles wasn't hesitant to describe Frank as infamous, which was true. Afterwards, Hawkeye explained to Charles in regard to Frank's perceived life-threatening surgical skills that they wouldn't want to leave any "deadly weapons". At the end of that episode, as Hawkeye, B.J. and Charles, along with Klinger and So-Li(his future wife), were headed to the officer's club on the base and notice it's crowded. Charles planned to reduce the crowd congestion by using a fake grenade to scare off everyone. When it comes to interraction, I'd take Charles over Frank.

I think that Charles grew more as a character throughout the show then Frank did, too. I agree that both Stiers and Linville are great actors, and trying to compare them is difficult.

The difference between Frank Burns and Charles Winchester is Charles, in spite of some of his self-absorbed cultural demeanor, knew how to eventually interract with Hawkeye and B.J., while Frank just let his overly arbitrary and political views get the best of him almost all the time. Hawkeye and B.J.(and Trapper, before him) found it real difficult to reason with him about anything. Frank never really interacted well with Hawkeye, Trapper and B.J. I still remember M*A*S*H's last regular episode where Charles spoke about Hawkeye and B.J. not leaving anything in the time capsule from Frank Burns. Moreover, during his speech, Charles wasn't hesitant to describe Frank as infamous, which was true. Afterwards, Hawkeye explained to Charles in regard to Frank's perceived life-threatening surgical skills that they wouldn't want to leave any "deadly weapons". At the end of that episode, as Hawkeye, B.J. and Charles, along with Klinger and So-Li(his future wife), were headed to the officer's club on the base and notice it's crowded. Charles planned to reduce the crowd congestion by using a fake grenade to scare off everyone. When it comes to interraction, I'd take Charles over Frank.

I believe that was the last M*A*S*H scene ever filmed.

I don't know. I thought Linville was good, but Stiers has a certain subtlety to him that I absolutely love. Granted, the character of Frank isn't big on the subtle, but I really enjoy watching the character of Charles, and think that DOS did an amazing job. It can be hard to take a character like that and yet still make the fans like him, no matter what lines the writers give you.

I don't like Charles's character so please don't act like you speak for everyone when you say he was likable. He was really a creep. Often he did nice things for self-absorbed reasons or because of his family. like when the writers had him give the kids the chocolates. It was a family tradition to give poor folks candy at Christmas time. Charles was written to only show that stuttering guy mercy cause Charles's own sister stutters. He almost beat up the diplomat who wouldn't help the Korean baby really only
cause the man challenged him and said Charles's friends in high places were useless. BTW the man who played the diplomat may have been cast
good as Charles (in addition to my after-suggestion Gene Barry). Charles once admitted he was worried about a patient so not to get the man's possible death as a blemish on his service record (or something like that).

Look you've all missed my main points. Alan Alda in his own autobiography wondered how Linville and Swit managed to come up with so many different ways to play their characters. Frank was never the same guy twice. Stiers had no such talent to do that with Charles. He was almost always the same. I feel a greater actor than Stiers could have played Charles stuck up but
always really warm underneath. Gene Barry indeed would have been able to do that. Even the guy playing the diplomat in the Korean baby ep maybe too
. (Who is the diplomat-actor I am referring to I don't know his name) Stiers's Charles came off to me and some others as way too broad, one-dimensional
hateful and his kind actions often didn't come off kind enough and they seemed too much the invention of writers when they weren't really self-absorbed or family-absorbed motivated. And do not forget. the writers gave Charles all that great stuff to say! Stiers in real life may not have such incredible things to say all the time.

PS Gene Barry also played Bat Masterson, in addition to his playing
Amos Burke on Burke's Law. And hey Lorretta Swit was Linville's near equal in acting. And she was warm at times.

First off, I'm not speaking for everyone, my statement saying that the fans like him was a generalization of opinions, just as your statement that Linville was a better actor than Stiers is a matter of opinion. I don't know enough about the acting world to say if one of the two was better than the other. One of the reasons I enjoy MASH so much is that I think all of the actors are absolutely amazing on the show, and I'm not here to criticize any of them.

Secondly, I never said that I would like Charles as a person, I just think that he interacted with the other characters in ways that Frank never could have, which opened up more doors for the writers, as Dynomite already pointed out.
Take for example the scene in the season eleven episode "Sons and Bowlers" where Charles comforted Hawkeye when Hawk's Dad went in for surgery. Frank would not likely be able to come across as sincerely showing such compassion, whereas Charles's character could. This doesn't mean that Stiers is a better actor than Linville, or vice versa, just that the character of Charles let the writers do different things than were possible with Frank.

I too read Alan Alda's autobiography, and what he said about Swit and Linville is that they played "scenes of comic passion in so many ways I wondered how they did it without repeating themselves" (Alda, 154). He also mentioned that Stiers "could so disappear into the character of the aristocratic Winchester that audiences who have seen him since in movies probably don't recognize him" (Alda, 152). It does not appear to me that Alan Alda was saying that one actor was better than another, and you can not use his opinions out of context to further your own ideas.

The writers also gave Frank many great lines and situations. For instance, as stated above by Alan Alda, Frank and Margaret had lots of "rendezvous'", and many other situations in which they got to showcase their acting talents. If the actors seemed to give Charles better scenes than Frank it was probably due to what Charles's character allowed for. Besides, saying he got better lines is also a matter of opinion. Frank himself had many fantastic lines as well, that were pulled off amazingly.

My point is, is that it is your opinion that Frank was a better character than Charles, and Linville a better actor than Stiers. That is a perfectly acceptable and welcome opinion, but when you post on these boards expect people to sometimes have opinions that differ from your own. Not everyone will agree with you, and that is the beauty of these boards as you get to hear everyone's ideas and then discuss them, not declare yourself right and everyone else wrong.

As a final note, it is hard to compare Stiers and Linville as actors solely based on MASH as their characters were so different. And neither would I want to as I think that they were both wonderful in what they did, and each brought something of their own to the show.

I really liked the character of Charles, and like someone said earlier, he could interact on some level with Hawkeye and BJ. Although Charles could be arrogant and self-centered, there were times when he showed that he could be caring of others and fit in with the others even though he wouldn't admit it. Like the time Col. Flagg wanted him to spy on Hawkeye and he refused because he knew it was wrong. Or the time he was playing practical jokes on Margaret and Hawkeye and BJ making them think they were playing them on eachother. In the end when Margaret said she wrote a letter to BJ's wife telling her they were having an affair, Charles was genuinely concerned and admitted he was behind the practical jokes and in reality they were playing a joke on him. So even though he was aloof most of the time, he really did find himself fitting in with others.

First off, I'm not speaking for everyone, my statement saying that the fans like him was a generalization of opinions, just as your statement that Linville was a better actor than Stiers is a matter of opinion. I don't know enough about the acting world to say if one of the two was better than the other. One of the reasons I enjoy MASH so much is that I think all of the actors are absolutely amazing on the show, and I'm not here to criticize any of them.

Secondly, I never said that I would like Charles as a person, I just think that he interacted with the other characters in ways that Frank never could have, which opened up more doors for the writers, as Dynomite already pointed out.
Take for example the scene in the season eleven episode "Sons and Bowlers" where Charles comforted Hawkeye when Hawk's Dad went in for surgery. Frank would not likely be able to come across as sincerely showing such compassion, whereas Charles's character could. This doesn't mean that Stiers is a better actor than Linville, or vice versa, just that the character of Charles let the writers do different things than were possible with Frank.

I too read Alan Alda's autobiography, and what he said about Swit and Linville is that they played "scenes of comic passion in so many ways I wondered how they did it without repeating themselves" (Alda, 154). He also mentioned that Stiers "could so disappear into the character of the aristocratic Winchester that audiences who have seen him since in movies probably don't recognize him" (Alda, 152). It does not appear to me that Alan Alda was saying that one actor was better than another, and you can not use his opinions out of context to further your own ideas.

The writers also gave Frank many great lines and situations. For instance, as stated above by Alan Alda, Frank and Margaret had lots of "rendezvous'", and many other situations in which they got to showcase their acting talents. If the actors seemed to give Charles better scenes than Frank it was probably due to what Charles's character allowed for. Besides, saying he got better lines is also a matter of opinion. Frank himself had many fantastic lines as well, that were pulled off amazingly.

My point is, is that it is your opinion that Frank was a better character than Charles, and Linville a better actor than Stiers. That is a perfectly acceptable and welcome opinion, but when you post on these boards expect people to sometimes have opinions that differ from your own. Not everyone will agree with you, and that is the beauty of these boards as you get to hear everyone's ideas and then discuss them, not declare yourself right and everyone else wrong.

As a final note, it is hard to compare Stiers and Linville as actors solely based on MASH as their characters were so different. And neither would I want to as I think that they were both wonderful in what they did, and each brought something of their own to the show.
Jaina, a lota, lotta actors could have played Charles one dimensionally as a cultured winner. Not anywhere near every actor on Earth could do what Larry Linville could with mostly loser Frank.


Jaina, it is a minimum 10 times harder to play the same character so differently than it is to play a character so solidly. Proof Linville was a better actor than Stiers (Swit is better than Stiers too). You agree Charles's character had the best lines. Every ep I watch of the show doubly confirms Charles's strength actually laid less in Stiers's performance and more in the writers doting on the character of Charles something fierce!
Alda had praise for nearly all the Mash actors but his praise for Lnville and Swit was the strongest and by far most deserved (i wonder if Linville secretly taught Swit how to do that variation on the character trick).

Now to a question I sensibly raised no one answered. One: who was the actor who played the guy at the embassy in the orphaned baby ep?

(I'm adding this part in on Feb 20,2008)
No one has told me who that guy playing the diplomat was!

And Jaina if you are still there. I believe I never said Frank was a better character just that a better actor than Stiers played Frank!

I really liked the character of Charles, and like someone said earlier, he could interact on some level with Hawkeye and BJ. Although Charles could be arrogant and self-centered, there were times when he showed that he could be caring of others and fit in with the others even though he wouldn't admit it. Like the time Col. Flagg wanted him to spy on Hawkeye and he refused because he knew it was wrong. Or the time he was playing practical jokes on Margaret and Hawkeye and BJ making them think they were playing them on eachother. In the end when Margaret said she wrote a letter to BJ's wife telling her they were having an affair, Charles was genuinely concerned and admitted he was behind the practical jokes and in reality they were playing a joke on him. So even though he was aloof most of the time, he really did find himself fitting in with others.
Larry Linville could have interacted just as well as Stiers did if the writers had permitted Linville to. You are confusing actor ability with the way the writers wrote the characters.

First off, I'm not speaking for everyone, my statement saying that the fans like him was a generalization of opinions, just as your statement that Linville was a better actor than Stiers is a matter of opinion. I don't know enough about the acting world to say if one of the two was better than the other. One of the reasons I enjoy MASH so much is that I think all of the actors are absolutely amazing on the show, and I'm not here to criticize any of them.

Secondly, I never said that I would like Charles as a person, I just think that he interacted with the other characters in ways that Frank never could have, which opened up more doors for the writers, as Dynomite already pointed out.
Take for example the scene in the season eleven episode "Sons and Bowlers" where Charles comforted Hawkeye when Hawk's Dad went in for surgery. Frank would not likely be able to come across as sincerely showing such compassion, whereas Charles's character could. This doesn't mean that Stiers is a better actor than Linville, or vice versa, just that the character of Charles let the writers do different things than were possible with Frank.

I too read Alan Alda's autobiography, and what he said about Swit and Linville is that they played "scenes of comic passion in so many ways I wondered how they did it without repeating themselves" (Alda, 154). He also mentioned that Stiers "could so disappear into the character of the aristocratic Winchester that audiences who have seen him since in movies probably don't recognize him" (Alda, 152). It does not appear to me that Alan Alda was saying that one actor was better than another, and you can not use his opinions out of context to further your own ideas.

The writers also gave Frank many great lines and situations. For instance, as stated above by Alan Alda, Frank and Margaret had lots of "rendezvous'", and many other situations in which they got to showcase their acting talents. If the actors seemed to give Charles better scenes than Frank it was probably due to what Charles's character allowed for. Besides, saying he got better lines is also a matter of opinion. Frank himself had many fantastic lines as well, that were pulled off amazingly.

My point is, is that it is your opinion that Frank was a better character than Charles, and Linville a better actor than Stiers. That is a perfectly acceptable and welcome opinion, but when you post on these boards expect people to sometimes have opinions that differ from your own. Not everyone will agree with you, and that is the beauty of these boards as you get to hear everyone's ideas and then discuss them, not declare yourself right and everyone else wrong.

As a final note, it is hard to compare Stiers and Linville as actors solely based on MASH as their characters were so different. And neither would I want to as I think that they were both wonderful in what they did, and each brought something of their own to the show.

If you can catch old eps of Mannix or one of the original Night Stalker watch how incredibly varied Linville can be. He was virtually the single most talented actor to ever be on american tv as a regular. Fitting his first name was Larry (like Larry olivier).

Also, no one has acknowledged my point that Charles's character was actually often written to do nice things for self-absorbed or family absorbed reasons. The character was written to be a better surgeon but personally mostly every bit the prig Frank was. Charles was meaner to Mulcahy than Frank was (courtesy of the writers).

Question number two I asked no one has answered. Does anyone think Stiers can in real life come up (on the spur of the moment) with so many incredible things to say like Charles was written to?

Check Gene Barry out in the 1953 film War of the Worlds or on an old ep of Burke's Law (available occasionally on dvd). See how classy but still nice he could play it and then somebody come back and tell me he probably wouldn't have been good as Charles ( a little more mature than Stiers's characterization).

Asking this question on Feb. 20, 2008: anybody here check Gene Barry's acting out on my advice?

Frank's character was written worse than Charles's. The lines Linville often uttered, if spoken by a lesser actor, would have seemed vastly inferior! Most of David Ogden Stier's lines were great no matter who said them! In other words if Mash was transplated to say the stage and Frank Burns was written the same way there as he was on tv he would most likely seem intolerable, foolish and harrassing to the audience as well as those in the play because a definitely lesser actor would be playing. (Forget Robert Duvall making it well as Frank Burns as his Frank was written to be very tough) But if that Mash stage play also included Charles (written with some of the great lines he had on tv and also as a successful Harvard-educated blueblood surgeon) the character would probably score big with the audience as Charles was written better than Frank on tv but played slightly inferiorly in that medium!

Frank was my fave character on the show...for reasons ive specified elsewhere, and I never cared much for Charles, however, I will say one thing: The episode where Charles is upset by people making fun of stutterers was more than just a gimmick , DOS is himself a serious stutterer and the episode was very close to his heart.

Frank was my fave character on the show...for reasons ive specified elsewhere, and I never cared much for Charles, however, I will say one thing: The episode where Charles is upset by people making fun of stutterers was more than just a gimmick , DOS is himself a serious stutterer and the episode was very close to his heart.

Didn't know Stiers stutters. But remember its the writers who thought of the great stuff Charles says and does!

Jesus Christ Best Man, we get it, you hate Charles.

David Ogden Stiers was a horrible actor and the writers were responsible for anything that made the character remotely interesting.

Frank was awesome Charles sucked.

We get it, we get it, we freaking get it.

Jesus Christ Best Man, we get it, you hate Charles.

David Ogden Stiers was a horrible actor and the writers were responsible for anything that made the character remotely interesting.

Frank was awesome Charles sucked.

We get it, we get it, we freaking get it.
:thumbsup: Thank you!

While I prefer the first three seasons of the show, I do like Charles better than Frank. Frank was funny, but after awhile he just became the poor misfit loser who was always picked on by the popular jocks. Charles at least gave back as good as he took it. I think he was a much better adversary for Hawkeye and the rest than Frank was.

While I prefer the first three seasons of the show, I do like Charles better than Frank. Frank was funny, but after awhile he just became the poor misfit loser who was always picked on by the popular jocks. Charles at least gave back as good as he took it. I think he was a much better adversary for Hawkeye and the rest than Frank was.
Ok Homer. But realize Charles was written to be able to make good comebacks on Hawk and Beej. Stiers couldn't for sure do this to others in reallife on spur of the moment!

Ok Homer. But realize Charles was written to be able to make good comebacks on Hawk and Beej. Stiers couldn't for sure do this to others in reallife on spur of the moment!

How do you know that?

Do you know David Ogden Stiers personally?

How do you know that?

Do you know David Ogden Stiers personally?


:thumbsup:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: While I prefer the first three seasons of the show, I do like Charles better than Frank. Frank was funny, but after awhile he just became the poor misfit loser who was always picked on by the popular jocks. Charles at least gave back as good as he took it. I think he was a much better adversary for Hawkeye and the rest than Frank was.

Here is how my bf describes it........Frank bounced better off of Henry Blake better then he did Potter. Blake was as out there and loony as Frank. Potter was a little more educated, and stricter, so he and Charles bounced off of eachother better.
Yes in some ways I believe Linville was the better actor, after all he even said in an interview that he had to work at how smarmy Frank was.
I liked Charles tho, because he was able to spar with Hawkeye and BJ so well. But as for comparing them, I cant, they were never on a show together, and they werent playing the same parts either. So it would be like comparing apples and oranges, just cant do it.

Didn't know Stiers stutters. But remember its the writers who thought of the great stuff Charles says and does!
Well, of course, but, that particular episode was written for DOS because he wanted to promote understanding for people who stutter

I didn't know he sttuters! So when he was on "THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW" he wasn't just pretending to.


(James Earl Jones does too, BTW)

nope, he wasnt pretending, he works very hard to keep it in control...as a stutterer myself, I know what its like (I stutter terribly when I am nervous)

I used to do it, but now I only do it occasionely, thanx to my meds.

Best Man -- The diplomat in the Korean baby episode was Major Ted Spector . He was played by Howard Platt who also played Dr . Phil Newman on "The Bob Newhart Show" and Officer "Hoppy" Hopkins on "Sanford And Son" .

David Ogden Stiers was a way better actor and Charles was a much better character than Frank. I'll take Charles to save my life than Frank.

Since we're on the subject of Charles and Frank, why did their characters have the rank of Major when neither one was a career officer. Hawkeye, Trapper and BJ being Captains made sense; they were doctors and the lowest functioning rank was Captain. Comedy show aside, it's doubtful either Frank or Charles would've been Majors.

I didn't know he sttuters! So when he was on "THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW" he wasn't just pretending to.


(James Earl Jones does too, BTW)
He really stuttered there.

David Ogden Stiers was a way better actor and Charles was a much better character than Frank. I'll take Charles to save my life than Frank.
A great actor, yes, but the scripts by then were really starting to weaken.
Though there were some less-than-stellar early eps., there were far more lesser-quality eps. after Radar left (even before).

Since we're on the subject of Charles and Frank, why did their characters have the rank of Major when neither one was a career officer. Hawkeye, Trapper and BJ being Captains made sense; they were doctors and the lowest functioning rank was Captain. Comedy show aside, it's doubtful either Frank or Charles would've been Majors.
That's true.

Also, no one has acknowledged my point that Charles's character was actually often written to do nice things for self-absorbed or family absorbed reasons. The character was written to be a better surgeon but personally mostly every bit the prig Frank was. Charles was meaner to Mulcahy than Frank was (courtesy of the writers).
True.
Chas. was more dismissive of Mulcahy, like the good father, being a priest, wasn't "equal" to the "Man of Medicine."

Charles' character was one of the most greedy & self-centered ever to appear on TV.


Frank's character was written worse than Charles's. The lines Linville often uttered, if spoken by a lesser actor, would have seemed vastly inferior! Most of David Ogden Stier's lines were great no matter who said them! In other words if Mash was transplated to say the stage and Frank Burns was written the same way there as he was on tv he would most likely seem intolerable, foolish and harrassing to the audience as well as those in the play because a definitely lesser actor would be playing. (Forget Robert Duvall making it well as Frank Burns as his Frank was written to be very tough) But if that Mash stage play also included Charles (written with some of the great lines he had on tv and also as a successful Harvard-educated blueblood surgeon) the character would probably score big with the audience as Charles was written better than Frank on tv but played slightly inferiorly in that medium!
I like Frank's character better & prefer the first 5 seasons.
However, Frank & Charles were far different characters.
I wouldn't invest so much time debating and arguing about them.

I didn't like Frank or Charles (But then neither of them was supposed to be likable). But I'd say I hated Charles more. He was a rich snob into "culture", fancy foods, and opera, and classical music and stuff like that. I hate all of that. Just give me a cheeseburger and country music any day LOL. Even though Frank wasn't likable I feel he was more relatable in some ways. But I think not liking Charles also has to do with the actor for me. I haven't liked David Ogden Stiers in anything I've seen him in. Anything. I'm not sure how to describe it but I just don't like the man or his acting style.

Ed.

But there were things Charles did that Frank never would have thought of. Charles hated the war. Frank loved the war. Charles cared more about his patients. He helped a soldier who is concert pianest played music with his good hand. Frank would never done anything like that. He gave candy to some orphans even though it helped got cabbage. He helped get an orphan baby girl to a monastary. Now and than he played jokes instead of always being the butt of them. Frank was a cartoon while Charles was more flesh and blood. I'm glad that Frank was gone. Five years of him was enough.

But there were things Charles did that Frank never would have thought of. Charles hated the war. Frank loved the war. Charles cared more about his patients. He helped a soldier who is concert pianest played music with his good hand. Frank would never done anything like that. He gave candy to some orphans even though it helped got cabbage. He helped get an orphan baby girl to a monastary. Now and than he played jokes instead of always being the butt of them. Frank was a cartoon while Charles was more flesh and blood. I'm glad that Frank was gone. Five years of him was enough.

Big deal! It was all merely scripted for Charles to do those things. Charles was also scripted with genuinely, appalling unlikable snob moments too.

Furthermore, it was 100% appropriate to stop Kim II Sung from taking South Korea by invasion (something the real life leader never mentioned on Mash just pestered Joe Stalin for permission to do and thus start the war--see my earlier threads). It was not actually wrong of Frank to be scripted to be proud to be there stopping Sung. I started this correct thread and I stand by my earlier words over 10 years later!

Big deal! It was all merely scripted for Charles to do those things. Charles was also scripted with genuinely, appalling unlikable snob moments too.

Furthermore, it was 100% appropriate to stop Kim II Sung from taking South Korea by invasion (something the real life leader never mentioned on Mash just pestered Joe Stalin for permission to do and thus start the war--see my earlier threads). It was not actually wrong of Frank to be scripted to be proud to be there stopping Sung. I started this correct thread and I stand by my earlier words over 10 years later!
I respect your opinion. But aren't we all human? He was still better than Frank and he was likeable. I hated Frank. Frank was an a-hole but Charles was more human where Frank was a cartoon.This is my opinion.

I respect your opinion. But aren't we all human? He was still better than Frank and he was likeable. I hated Frank. Frank was an a-hole but Charles was more human where Frank was a cartoon.This is my opinion.
Barely my opinion. The show was scripted! And I for one didn't like Charles! Neither did quite a few other viewers. And Frank was the one to point out that if they (the US) left South Korea the communists would take over. So his character was scripted to be politically knowledgeable. Charles was never written to also demonstrate this same political understanding.The writers made Charles so that he was way too much in business just for himself. And occasionally CEW was was written to be a real jerk himself.

Remember and/or realize, please, what I wrote about the real life Kim II Sung.

To me, after Radar left the show, all of the characters were unified. Charles was still snobby but the character seemed to get along with everyone much better. It was as if the show had no antagonist anymore. I loved Larry Linville and David Stiers in their own merits. I loved how Charles was written in his first two seasons the most. It’s a shame Stiers wasn’t ever nominated for an Emmy. His performances in Morale Victory and The Life You Save were amazing.

He was nominated twice but didn't win. I wished he did.

To me, after Radar left the show, all of the characters were unified. Charles was still snobby but the character seemed to get along with everyone much better. It was as if the show had no antagonist anymore. I loved Larry Linville and David Stiers in their own merits. I loved how Charles was written in his first two seasons the most. It’s a shame Stiers wasn’t ever nominated for an Emmy. His performances in Morale Victory and The Life You Save were amazing.

Mash was simply very well directed. Almost every actor seemed to turn in a great performance. Charles a product of the writers.

Charles was multilayered in his personality.

Burns was a jerk. So was Charles. But Charles was also pompous, stuck up, felt superior to his station at the unit, but he was also kind, considerate, passionate, and a nice guy at heart.

Linville quit the character because the character was painted into a corner and there was no real way to humanize him away from his jerk character, and the character was out of place when the show steered more into an Alda dramady.

I think the writers and producers learned from Frank Burns that having a cartoonish foil became monotonous and made the show boring. They gave Charles a real personality which made him much more interesting. Unfortunately they could never give up their preachy left-wing propaganda machine which turned me off the show for good as an adult.

All Charles was (thanks almost solely due to writers) was merely interesting (and far less than Frank originally had been) and not anywhere enough to make the increasingly dull show better. Frank had been amazing and great until the writers took away almost all his depth that he had shown the first four years. By the last season he was increasingly nothing but a one-sided prig. Not Linville's fault he could not make Frank more interesting in season 5. Another excellent performer named Ben Gazzara could do nothing for his one dimensional character on the 1960's series 'Run for your life' either. Face it. When the writers, directors and producers on the show you on which you work are all against you having any depth as a character and they control all the public sees of you as this very character your Goose is totally cooked. Poor Larry Linville-- a tremendous talent the public got tricked into believing was a loser.

PS While 'Run for your life' was actually a good drama it was still typical squeaky clean 1960's American TV fare. Gazzara mostly disowned the show for the rest of his career. Rarely did he work on TV ever again and he stuck to deep films where his also tremendous talents were much better spent.

Look everyone. Maybe you all should skip viewing almost all the last season of Frank as a regular on Mash. Stick to the first four seasons as he is far better as a character in them. In season one Frank actually even helps the sick get better (in the gold episode 'Major Fred C. Dobbs') something they usually never let him do after that first season.

David Ogden Stiers was a tremendously talented man/actor. It seemed to me that he had impossible shoes to fill, and I thought he was great as Charles from season 6-8. After that, the show was so bad that nobody shined.