She talks too much.
Aug. 22nd, 2004 02:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swatkatMeta! Meta! I'm drowning in meta! Oh, what an absolutely *lovely* way to spend your Sunday morning. RL has been something of a whirlwind (in a good way, but a whirlwind nonetheless), and it will continue to be so for God knows how long, so can I just say that I'm very, very grateful to fandom for this lovely lazy Sunday morning that has given me so much food for thought? *g* I shall now bombard you with all the links, and my takes on them, but before that, I must tell you something else.
I watched Roman Polanski's Macbeth last night, and goodness, I'm still walking about in a daze.It has, of course, nothing to do with the fact that the lead actor was HOT.
It was a brilliant adaptation, touching upon those very things you've always thought were there but couldn't really express in words. The end scene with Donalbain, especially, was a masterstroke. I do wish they'd left *some* of the soliloquies intact instead of making all of them thoughts in a voice-over, although I suppose that wouldn't have been suitable for the film medium. *sigh* I also liked the symbolism in the Nude Sleepwalking Scene, but I still prefer the original white nightgown and candle, because I feel it addresses the issue of identity crisis a lot better than in the movie. Lady Macbeth's character suffers a bit in the movie, because really, how can you achieve that *grand* effect unless you allow her to *say* those lines? I also noticed that they omitted the bits about her inability to kill Duncan, the fact that she needs alcohol to gather enough strength for the night, which suggests that she too, is not all black.
Anyway, back to fandom. The first essay that caught my eye is this one, by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
reenka: Dumbledore and the Epic Problem of the Hero's Choice. If you're feeling like backing out because it's an HP essay, then please reconsider, because it doesn't really require a detailed knowledge of canon to enjoy this essay. It considers the question of Good and Evil, White Hat and Black Hat on much more meta level, which makes it very interesting reading.
Pure Goodness can really only function as a single, brilliant point rather than a plane that humans can sustain existence on. Meaning: 'mundane' reality cannot keep functioning in the absolute terms of Ideal. Therefore, one can achieve it, but not sustain it indefinitely in the multiplicity of the larger society, with everyone's needs being impossible to satisfy...?
Lily seems to have had that one point of selfless compassionate 'Good' too, while during her adolescence she was more focused on some (easily corruptible) idea of `justice' & fairness. So maybe that one moment of incorruptibility then becomes the ultimate possible expression of Good?
Gah! See? How can you not want to read? Fandom has this attitude of seeing everything in a very black-and-white manner, and then declaring that the text supports it, because *clearly* Harry is the Hero, and clearly Voldie is the Villian, and therefore Harry = white and Voldie = black, and how can it be otherwise? While I confess not giving a lot of thought to Voldemort as a character, I will generally tend to agree with the point that Voldie and the DEs= black. But Harry and the good guys = white? Not so much. How can you say that, when the so-called good guys have a bazillion issues of their own to deal with, and when they themselves do things that are not-so-white after all? As for the numerous complaints about the lack of depth of the 'evil' characters, well, all I have to say is – maybe it's because the books are not about the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys', but the moral problems that are faced by the 'good guys'? The 'bad guys' exist, because you need someone to oppose the 'good guys', but in reality it's more a text about the good guys themselves. That is the reason why Harry grows and develops into a complex character while Draco remains the nasty, somewhat childish bully he had always been. Well, that's my take anyway.
This is the dilemma: once you realize the insolvability of some real ethical conflicts, what would be the ethical solution---? If the ethics of black-and-white absolutism aren't a complete method of solving real-world problems, then what is, and who decides...? And how does one justify deciding merely because one has been put into a position of power, where such decisions are -possible-?
I'm quoting this bit from the essay again, because aren't these the same questions that Nikita learns to deal with in Section? Nikita's journey from S1 to S5 is one of disillusionment, innocence lost, knowledge, because she has to learn the hard way that the usual definitions good and bad, hero and heroism, which seem very fine in the outside world, don't work that well in Section. *sigh*
And now, for the next essay, bypanadarus, which left me in a state of blubbering ecstasy: Hero.
OMG! This is such a fabulous, fabulous thing! The whole essay, and the discussion that follows below (please, please read it, because w/o the discussion you'll not enjoy the thing nearly as much) is unbelievable. It also discusses RL issues which I found very interesting - I wish I could comment, but the only thing that I can think of is 'Bush is a moron', and that will probably not be a very mature thing to say in a discussion like this.
The question of the hero is something very important in all fandoms, esp. the ones like HP, where canon is clearly something akin to the Hero's Quest, and the easiest way fans try to deal with it is of course the age-old 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys' technique. LFN is, of course, no exception, because inspite of all the talk about shades of grey and moral ambiguity, what most fans do is paint the characters of their choice in black and white. Which is the reason why we have Heroic!Michael and Psycho!Hosebeast!Madeline, even when the so-called hero regularly did things that were *so* not heroic, and the psycho hosebeast did things in her own quiet way that cannot be termed any thing else. Inducing a heart attack? Dude, if that's not 'heroic', what is? True, *she* does not think of it that way, and she'd laugh at me if I told her that (you can laugh too. I don't mind. Really.), but one of the most important things about heroes is that they do not *think* they're heroes, but just keep doing their job (we will not go into what is right and what is wrong right now, because that's another post). This is the reason why IMO Wesley is more of a 'hero' than Angel. [/fangirl] Of course, with characters like Buffy, and Harry, who have no choice but to follow the path that has already been laid for them, it is slightly different. They have these superhuman ideals and expectations to live up to, and I find it unfortunate that they are criticised for displaying moral hypocrisy and high-handedness when all they are doing is trying to live up to the design that has been *set* for them, because they HAVE NO OTHER OPTION. Harry can't help being the Boy Who Lived, although God knows he *does not* want it – all he wants is a normal life.
Applying the usual standards of 'heroism' to the LFN characters, could we call them heroes? No. Definitely not. Which is the reason why we have so many attempts to whitewash their faults and magnify their good. But, for once, going back to the tragic heroes like Macbeth, Hamlet, Lear, Oedipus, and the whole lot of them (seepandarus' essay) - if we apply the standards that we apply to these characters and term them heroes – then we could very well call the LFN characters (Paul, Madeline, Michael, Nikita) heroes in their own way, without being heroic in the modern sense of the term.
If none of the above makes sense, please ignore it as pointless rambings of an insane mind. I *did* tell you that RL has been very busy, remember? *g*
I watched Roman Polanski's Macbeth last night, and goodness, I'm still walking about in a daze.
It was a brilliant adaptation, touching upon those very things you've always thought were there but couldn't really express in words. The end scene with Donalbain, especially, was a masterstroke. I do wish they'd left *some* of the soliloquies intact instead of making all of them thoughts in a voice-over, although I suppose that wouldn't have been suitable for the film medium. *sigh* I also liked the symbolism in the Nude Sleepwalking Scene, but I still prefer the original white nightgown and candle, because I feel it addresses the issue of identity crisis a lot better than in the movie. Lady Macbeth's character suffers a bit in the movie, because really, how can you achieve that *grand* effect unless you allow her to *say* those lines? I also noticed that they omitted the bits about her inability to kill Duncan, the fact that she needs alcohol to gather enough strength for the night, which suggests that she too, is not all black.
Anyway, back to fandom. The first essay that caught my eye is this one, by
reenka: Dumbledore and the Epic Problem of the Hero's Choice. If you're feeling like backing out because it's an HP essay, then please reconsider, because it doesn't really require a detailed knowledge of canon to enjoy this essay. It considers the question of Good and Evil, White Hat and Black Hat on much more meta level, which makes it very interesting reading. Pure Goodness can really only function as a single, brilliant point rather than a plane that humans can sustain existence on. Meaning: 'mundane' reality cannot keep functioning in the absolute terms of Ideal. Therefore, one can achieve it, but not sustain it indefinitely in the multiplicity of the larger society, with everyone's needs being impossible to satisfy...?
Lily seems to have had that one point of selfless compassionate 'Good' too, while during her adolescence she was more focused on some (easily corruptible) idea of `justice' & fairness. So maybe that one moment of incorruptibility then becomes the ultimate possible expression of Good?
Gah! See? How can you not want to read? Fandom has this attitude of seeing everything in a very black-and-white manner, and then declaring that the text supports it, because *clearly* Harry is the Hero, and clearly Voldie is the Villian, and therefore Harry = white and Voldie = black, and how can it be otherwise? While I confess not giving a lot of thought to Voldemort as a character, I will generally tend to agree with the point that Voldie and the DEs= black. But Harry and the good guys = white? Not so much. How can you say that, when the so-called good guys have a bazillion issues of their own to deal with, and when they themselves do things that are not-so-white after all? As for the numerous complaints about the lack of depth of the 'evil' characters, well, all I have to say is – maybe it's because the books are not about the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys', but the moral problems that are faced by the 'good guys'? The 'bad guys' exist, because you need someone to oppose the 'good guys', but in reality it's more a text about the good guys themselves. That is the reason why Harry grows and develops into a complex character while Draco remains the nasty, somewhat childish bully he had always been. Well, that's my take anyway.
This is the dilemma: once you realize the insolvability of some real ethical conflicts, what would be the ethical solution---? If the ethics of black-and-white absolutism aren't a complete method of solving real-world problems, then what is, and who decides...? And how does one justify deciding merely because one has been put into a position of power, where such decisions are -possible-?
I'm quoting this bit from the essay again, because aren't these the same questions that Nikita learns to deal with in Section? Nikita's journey from S1 to S5 is one of disillusionment, innocence lost, knowledge, because she has to learn the hard way that the usual definitions good and bad, hero and heroism, which seem very fine in the outside world, don't work that well in Section. *sigh*
And now, for the next essay, by
panadarus, which left me in a state of blubbering ecstasy: Hero. OMG! This is such a fabulous, fabulous thing! The whole essay, and the discussion that follows below (please, please read it, because w/o the discussion you'll not enjoy the thing nearly as much) is unbelievable. It also discusses RL issues which I found very interesting - I wish I could comment, but the only thing that I can think of is 'Bush is a moron', and that will probably not be a very mature thing to say in a discussion like this.
The question of the hero is something very important in all fandoms, esp. the ones like HP, where canon is clearly something akin to the Hero's Quest, and the easiest way fans try to deal with it is of course the age-old 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys' technique. LFN is, of course, no exception, because inspite of all the talk about shades of grey and moral ambiguity, what most fans do is paint the characters of their choice in black and white. Which is the reason why we have Heroic!Michael and Psycho!Hosebeast!Madeline, even when the so-called hero regularly did things that were *so* not heroic, and the psycho hosebeast did things in her own quiet way that cannot be termed any thing else. Inducing a heart attack? Dude, if that's not 'heroic', what is? True, *she* does not think of it that way, and she'd laugh at me if I told her that (you can laugh too. I don't mind. Really.), but one of the most important things about heroes is that they do not *think* they're heroes, but just keep doing their job (we will not go into what is right and what is wrong right now, because that's another post). This is the reason why IMO Wesley is more of a 'hero' than Angel. [/fangirl] Of course, with characters like Buffy, and Harry, who have no choice but to follow the path that has already been laid for them, it is slightly different. They have these superhuman ideals and expectations to live up to, and I find it unfortunate that they are criticised for displaying moral hypocrisy and high-handedness when all they are doing is trying to live up to the design that has been *set* for them, because they HAVE NO OTHER OPTION. Harry can't help being the Boy Who Lived, although God knows he *does not* want it – all he wants is a normal life.
Applying the usual standards of 'heroism' to the LFN characters, could we call them heroes? No. Definitely not. Which is the reason why we have so many attempts to whitewash their faults and magnify their good. But, for once, going back to the tragic heroes like Macbeth, Hamlet, Lear, Oedipus, and the whole lot of them (see
pandarus' essay) - if we apply the standards that we apply to these characters and term them heroes – then we could very well call the LFN characters (Paul, Madeline, Michael, Nikita) heroes in their own way, without being heroic in the modern sense of the term. If none of the above makes sense, please ignore it as pointless rambings of an insane mind. I *did* tell you that RL has been very busy, remember? *g*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-22 09:21 am (UTC)One thing before I go off and read all these things...just who was Teh Hawt actor playing Macbeth?
no subject
Date: 2004-08-22 09:29 am (UTC)Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-08-22 10:06 am (UTC)Yes
Date: 2004-08-22 02:39 pm (UTC)Swatkat
Ahhhh, these look quite interesting!
Date: 2004-08-24 01:36 am (UTC)OK, I've now read both essays
Date: 2004-08-24 02:40 am (UTC)I loved the panadarus one, though, and especially the reference to the classical tragic hero. In classical tragedy, as she points out, the hero *fails* -- albeit spectacularly. That's an unacceptable result by today's popular standards, especially in the United States, which has retained, even if in very warped and secular form, that Calvinist belief about the Elect: that success is proof of one's virtue, and failure proof of one's sin.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 04:15 pm (UTC)Ah, I should've clarified. *g* It's in response to the Dumbledore is an evil manipulator (he is a manipulator, but not evil. shouldn't intent count?) and a villian POV that's quite popular in the fandom. Dumbledore is a nasty old bastard, but JKR portrays him as Dumbledore the White, so JKR mustn't have any morals of her own (see the fangirl in me rising again? *g*).
I loved the panadarus one, though, and especially the reference to the classical tragic hero. In classical tragedy, as she points out, the hero *fails* -- albeit spectacularly.
Spectacular - that's the key word in tragedy, really. I've been thinking a lot about this lately - before I read this essay actually - and I've been meaning to rant about the misuse of the word 'tragic' in the LFN fandom, because most of the insane!DOM/HRs seem to think that Michael/Nikita story is a love story with a tragic ending, and there isn't anything you can say to convince them otherwise, "let's not ruin our enjoyment by *analysing* things like that". Do you think, by modifying our definitions a little bit, we could call Paul and Madeline tragic characters? Why?
Swatkat
Aha!
Date: 2004-08-24 05:43 pm (UTC)That explanation puts it in much better context. Thank you.
Do you think, by modifying our definitions a little bit, we could call Paul and Madeline tragic characters? Why?
I don't think you even have to modify the definitions. To me, Paul and Madeline are much closer to classical tragedy a la Aristotle or Shakespeare than Nikita and Michael.
With Paul and Madeline both, you have the "noble," larger-than-life characters struggling to fight evil in the world, beset by tragic, inherent flaws that lead to their own ultimate failure and destruction.
With Nikita and Michael, you have to bend the definition a bit more. Nikita, arguably, *prevailed* in the end, which is the antithesis of tragedy. Moreover, most of her problems seemed to arise due to the actions of other people, and not due to some inherent flaw in her character. As for Michael, well, I'm not even sure what he was struggling to achieve, much less whether he succeeded or failed. He certainly wasn't destroyed in the end -- and again, his problems didn't arise from a *flaw* in his character, but rather because of a virtue: his love of Nikita. The only "sad" part of the ending was that the two lovers were separated, but I don't think that quite counts as being destroyed.
Take a look at some of Shakespeare's tragic heroes: MacBeth, Othello, King Lear, etc. Who among the LFN main 6 is closest to that archetype? I'd say Paul, hands down. He's got the typical tragi-heroic qualities: a brave soldier, leading his troops against evil, with grand ambitions to redeem the world. He's got the inherent, tragic flaws -- several of them! And it is indeed his own flaws that lead to his downfall, rather than an outside party. He even "redeems himself" in death (a common tragic plot device) by his attempt to save an innocent young boy, even if he failed and his motives weren't entirely pure.
In large part, the "tragic" resonance in this character is one of the main reasons I find him so interesting.
Huh. Wow. Blinks.
Date: 2004-08-24 06:07 pm (UTC)With Paul and Madeline both, you have the "noble," larger-than-life characters struggling to fight evil in the world, beset by tragic, inherent flaws that lead to their own ultimate failure and destruction.
For real? I don't mean to be snarky at all here, but, wow. Somehow when you said similar things in the past, I assumed that you were exaggerating a tiny bit for effect or to make a point.
No wonder you felt pulled and pushed by me - I misconstrued several things of yours quite badly and added them up to create a more or less completely wrong headed set of assumptions.
I apologize, sincerely.
Oh dear
Date: 2004-08-24 06:59 pm (UTC)***With Paul and Madeline both, you have the "noble," larger-than-life characters struggling to fight evil in the world, beset by tragic, inherent flaws that lead to their own ultimate failure and destruction.***
For real? I don't mean to be snarky at all here, but, wow. Somehow when you said similar things in the past, I assumed that you were exaggerating a tiny bit for effect or to make a point.
No, I wasn't exaggerating. That really *is* how I view these characters.
Am I saying they rise to a Shakespearean level? No, of course not. But to *me*, they fit the archetype in many interesting respects.
I understand you don't see this in the slightest, and think I'm being ridiculous. It's hard to know what to say in response, other than shrug and say, "Hey, that's me." Just because I happen to think it's a valid possible reading of canon doesn't make it so, and I have no problem with people thinking (and telling me) it's utter b.s. So feel free -- don't feel that you have to tiptoe around me in case of causing offense. After all, I hang out in a fandom where the vast majority of the fans think my beloved "tragic" characters are Teh EVOL Incarnate, and it doesn't bother me a bit.
Here's a bit of information for you, though -- I am hardly an exception among TRs. Every single one of them that I have ever interacted with subscribes to one variation or another of the "tragic hero" theory of these characters. Knowing that might help you if you engage in discussions with other TRs.
No wonder you felt pulled and pushed by me - I misconstrued several things of yours quite badly and added them up to create a more or less completely wrong headed set of assumptions.
Well...I had *no* idea what assumptions you were making, which made it difficult to correct them, but yes, I often felt as if you were trying to put words in my mouth that did not at all reflect what I thought. But I lay the blame for that on my own inability to communicate clearly.
There's no need to apologize, and the fact that you have done so makes me worry that you no longer feel as free to engage me in debate as you once did. I reassure you that is not the case, and would be quite sad if you stopped.
I *do* wonder what assumptions you *were* making, though -- really more as a matter of curiosity. Knowing what they were might help me avoid miscommunications with others in the future.
No! I don't think you are ridiculous to see tragic heroes -
Date: 2004-08-24 07:47 pm (UTC)Actually the strangest thing for me is that this is such a romantic reading of the show, and of Paul and Madeline themselves - I guess was putting much too much emphasis on the *twisted* and not nearly enough on the *romantic* part of the TR label. *g*
You have such a no-nonsense personality, on line at least, and a tart tongue - which I appreciate very much! - and so it literally never dawned on me that you would see them in this way. I made the leap from our shared snarky commentary on overblown Michael and Nikita romantic cliches to the idea that you were hostile to *all* romantic tropes; including the tragic ones.
My assumption was that you liked Paul and Madeline because they reflected aspects of yourself, I think you've said or implied as much, and because the aspect I know of you best is not romantic in the least - if anything it is anti-romantic, I kept trying to read this onto what you said about LFN, or about Madeline and Paul.
In the end, I'm not so much it was any one thing you said, as a conflation of the *Jaybee* I know on-line, and your reasoned debate style, plus the way you write Madeline and even Paul as more logical than not, and able to control their sometimes unruly emotions, your criticisms of Nikita and Michael, that I never realized that under it all was a such a gloriously emotional reading of their situation.
I probably should have made more of your sympathies for Calvinist doctrine, which after all produced some of the most flamboyant sermons on hell and damnation ever committed to print. *g*
But I didn't.
Instead I wondered why you couldn't give me a simple explanation for why Paul sometimes acted the fool and why you liked him anyway. Because, I realize now, that's not how you see him at all. So of course you couldn't explain the Paul *I* saw to me. Anymore than Jaron could explain the Michael I see to me. Or Catsma the Nikita I see. I realize that this must sound extremley odd, but I really thought you could. I wanted you to be my *Paul" expert, and to some degree my *Madeline* expert as well, because they seem so familiar to you and I envied that.
That is clearly not going to work. Sigh. I guess I will have to go back to grappling with them on my own. Oh my. *bg*
Nell
Long Post, Part One
From:Long Post, Part Two
From:Yes - more or less.
From:(no subject)
From:Oh yes -
From:no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 06:41 am (UTC)The only reason I said we needed to modify the definitions is because LFN isn't a tragedy per se, although the show certainly does have certain aspects, and seeds of possible tragedy in it. *g*
To me, Paul and Madeline are much closer to classical tragedy a la Aristotle or Shakespeare than Nikita and Michael.
To be honest, Michael and Nikita don't come anywhere *near* the definitions of classical tragedy. That does not mean they're less interesting characters, of course – they just don't fit into these archetypes.
With Paul and Madeline both, you have the "noble," larger-than-life characters struggling to fight evil in the world, beset by tragic, inherent flaws that lead to their own ultimate failure and destruction.
With Nikita and Michael, you have to bend the definition a bit more. Nikita, arguably, *prevailed* in the end, which is the antithesis of tragedy.
Yes, exactly what I was thinking, really. Both Nikita and Michael stay *alive*, which almost automatically disqualifies them from being considered as tragic characters a la Shakespeare. A tragic character cannot survive, because the disturbance that they've created in the universe must be ended – one could say that this world cannot accommodate them, and they're better off dead.
Take a look at some of Shakespeare's tragic heroes: Macbeth, Othello, King Lear, etc. Who among the LFN main 6 is closest to that archetype? I'd say Paul, hands down. He's got the typical tragi-heroic qualities: a brave soldier, leading his troops against evil, with grand ambitions to redeem the world. He's got the inherent, tragic flaws -- several of them! And it is indeed his own flaws that lead to his downfall, rather than an outside party. He even "redeems himself" in death (a common tragic plot device) by his attempt to save an innocent young boy, even if he failed and his motives weren't entirely pure.
Again yes. I do realise I'm being very boring and agreeing to everything you say, but this is what I was thinking about when I asked the question. One thing that caught my eye about Paul – from episode one – is the… flamboyance of his nature. And it is probably this flamboyance which made me think of Paul first, when I thought of the tragic characters. *g*
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 04:26 pm (UTC)Ah, I see what you mean. Of course, if you approach the show from the perspective of considering Paul and Madeline to be the main characters (as we TRs do! Heh), maybe it *is* a tragedy. *g*
To be honest, Michael and Nikita don't come anywhere *near* the definitions of classical tragedy. That does not mean they're less interesting characters, of course – they just don't fit into these archetypes.
I have high hopes for Nikita later in life. God knows she has her own inherent flaws to work with, and I can see them leading her to her doom eventually as the head of Section One. But Michael's a lost cause for tragedy, I think.
That may in part be why I have such difficulty rousing interest in Michael -- I can't fit him into *any* archetype that catches my imagination, not without it getting really messy.
Yes, exactly what I was thinking, really. Both Nikita and Michael stay *alive*, which almost automatically disqualifies them from being considered as tragic characters a la Shakespeare. A tragic character cannot survive, because the disturbance that they've created in the universe must be ended – one could say that this world cannot accommodate them, and they're better off dead.
This is why I didn't mind at all the fact that both Madeline and Paul died by the end of the series. I disliked the particular *circumstances* of their deaths because the plot didn't come together tightly enough in either instance to make their deaths a satisfying resolution of anything, but it wasn't the dying itself I objected to.
Dying is really one of the big tip offs.
Date: 2004-08-25 06:20 pm (UTC)I have high hopes for Nikita later in life. God knows she has her own inherent flaws to work with, and I can see them leading her to her doom eventually as the head of Section One.
Especially if you see life as unfolding failure. ;) I could see that path too, but I don't think it is pre-determined.
Like you, though for different reasons, I don't mind that Paul and Madeline died. Even that Birkoff died (and I would have strangled Jason at his creative birth had that been possible) didn't upset me - from a narrative POV that is, for I did miss him afterwards. But how and why Madeline and Paul died was very unsatisfying.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 06:43 pm (UTC)Why, maybe it is! And then you could ascribe all the hare-brained schemes they cooked up in S4 to their slow disintegration! Hmm. I think I really like this perspective. *g*
I have high hopes for Nikita later in life. God knows she has her own inherent flaws to work with, and I can see them leading her to her doom eventually as the head of Section One.
I too have a rather bleak vision of Nikita's future (although I *do* see her running Section quite well), and I like it that way, thankyouverymuch. *g*
You *could* call Nikita's tragedy during the run of the show the tragedy of Everyman – loss of innocence, disillusionment, knowledge about life in a very hard way. *sigh* It doesn't match with the definitions of classical tragedy, and doesn't therefore rise to those heights, but modern tragedy certainly has provisions for it.
But Michael's a lost cause for tragedy, I think.
That may in part be why I have such difficulty rousing interest in Michael -- I can't fit him into *any* archetype that catches my imagination, not without it getting really messy.
It's the S5 ending that ruins things, really. Michael is as flawed as it gets, and the Michael in my head is an ambitious man in his own way (many people wouldn't agree with me, but that's the way I see him). He may not have Paul's vision, which is the reason I wouldn't make him Operations, but he has certain ideals of right and wrong, and he believes in his job because he feels that what he does is very important (even if he's slightly cynical about the difference that it makes). Michael had potential throughout the run of the show – even the last one and a half seasons, when he was clearly being written keeping the sappy fangirls in mind – but the S5 ending is just… UGH! I *still* can't think of a satisfactory post-S5 Michael.
This is why I didn't mind at all the fact that both Madeline and Paul died by the end of the series. I disliked the particular *circumstances* of their deaths because the plot didn't come together tightly enough in either instance to make their deaths a satisfying resolution of anything, but it wasn't the dying itself I objected to.
Ah, I see. I'd forgotten all about those threads in the FFMB – things are coming back now. *g*
Swatkat
Hmmm.
From:(no subject)
From:You've said that before (r)
From:No kidding -
Date: 2004-08-24 06:19 pm (UTC)I'm certain that one of the things that has kept me intriged with the Michael/Nikita story is that it *isn't* tragic. Hard yes, painful at times, yes, tragic? No.
I'm not all that keen on tragedy really, as a genre, because it usually depends on someone (or two) behaving idiotically. If Macbeth didn't have the balls to committ murder, he shouldn't have tried to take the throne. Duh. If Othello choses to believe a third party over his wife, who defied her people to marry him, then again - my sypmathies have always been with her and not him. He was a fool - and not for loving his wife. For not bothering to ask her a straight forward question. As for Lear - had he really managed to go his whole parenting experience without having a clue who his children were? They didn't develop those personalities over night. Classic uninvolved father. Deserved what he got. And never get me started on Hamlet, the Holden Caufield of his generation. Whiney bugger.
I much prefer the comedies and the histories. Big surprise that, huh? LOL!
Nell
Does it surprise you
Date: 2004-08-24 07:09 pm (UTC)I am somewhat reassured to know you have the same negative reaction to classical tragic figures as you do to Paul and Madeline, though. ;-)
Re: Does it surprise you
Date: 2004-08-24 08:12 pm (UTC)Not so much now that I've thought about it, but yes, it does. Did?
I would have pegged you for the histories, all the way man. All the squabbling and the political infighting, the real-politic, the dynastic quarrels...
I truly feel as if scales have fallen from my eyes.
As for my reaction to the classical tragic figures, heh - I drove my acting teachers batty in Shakespeare class because I kept insisting that Othello and Macbeth and Hamlet were idiots who deserved what they got. I got rather fond of Lady Macbeth - mostly because I had to play her scenes (as assigned by my gleefully vindictive teacher) to complete the course. But the only way I could do it was to decide that she had been cracked all along, both when she urged MacBeth to do the deed and when she was sailing around crying about it afterward.
And in the histories, though I always cry for Hotspur, my favorite character is Prince Hal - because he grows up so badly and still emerges to do what he must. When I was younger I didn't like him so much, but now - now I really, really do.
Re: Does it surprise you
Date: 2004-08-24 10:34 pm (UTC)How funny -- it's the characters in the comedies who annoy me enormously. I just want to slap the lot of them.
Very interesting to finally figure out what prisms we watched LFN through, eh?
(no subject)
From:LOL!
From:(no subject)
From:Ahhh, yes
From:Comedy is so tricky
From:I admit...
From:Oh boy -
From:But...
From:Heh - to quote you back to yourself -
From:Because I just can't stop...
From:I can't either
From:Heh
From:Fascinating isn't it -
From:Absolutely!
From:Well, I read that backwards too. Goodness -
From:Re: Well, I read that backwards too. Goodness -
From:(no subject)
From:Oh sure
From:I've been giving this some more thought
From:Ah. Must be the calvinist in you
From:Oh, indeed
From:Well - I'm probably about to take that pratfall right now -
From:Aaaccckkkk!
From:Re: Well - I'm probably about to take that pratfall right now -
From:Of course not...
From:(no subject)
From:Yep
From:Sorry -
From:I'm familiar with the general concept
From:Did it again. Damn.
From:Re: Oh, indeed
From:*vbg*
From:(no subject)
From:This is a marvelous explanation
From:no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 04:56 am (UTC)BLASPHEMY!!!!!1111!1
*ahem*
But the only way I could do it was to decide that she had been cracked all along, both when she urged MacBeth to do the deed and when she was sailing around crying about it afterward.
You *played* her? Wow. That must've been one tough role.
Actually, she wasn't crying about the deed as such - it was the emotional separation with Macbeth and subsequent identity crisis that finally got her. *sigh*
Swatkat
Well - I'm not above exaggerating to make a point, you know.
From:LOLOLOLOL
From:No - we couldn't! LOL!
From:Can I just say
From:*Snort*
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:By the way -
From:Oh go on!
From:no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 04:45 am (UTC)Word. *g*
If Macbeth didn't have the balls to committ murder, he shouldn't have tried to take the throne. Duh.
Well, he didn't really know how *much* it'd affect him until he committed that murder (although he'd got some inklings), and then it was too late. He *wanted* the throne, very much (as a matter of fact, he had even some valid reasons for hating Duncan - one of his many tragedies is that he always did things for the wrong reasons). He thought he'd manage - and throughout the play he goes on trying to manage, hoping that maybe *this* act will finally relieve him of the pain, knowing that it won't, nothing will. *sigh*
If Othello choses to believe a third party over his wife, who defied her people to marry him, then again - my sypmathies have always been with her and not him. He was a fool - and not for loving his wife. For not bothering to ask her a straight forward question. As for Lear - had he really managed to go his whole parenting experience without having a clue who his children were? They didn't develop those personalities over night. Classic uninvolved father. Deserved what he got. And never get me started on Hamlet, the Holden Caufield of his generation. Whiney bugger.
I could defend them too, but that would take ages. All I can say is - Othello *was* an idiot, Lear *was* at fault for thinking the kingdom was his personal property, Hamlet *was* a whiney bugger, and they still rock. *g* And *no* one deserved what they got.
I much prefer the comedies and the histories. Big surprise that, huh? LOL!
Tell me, do you like Viola? You know, Nikita has always seemed to me to be a romantic heroine (definitions slightly modified) in the league of these Shakespearean heroines.
Swatkat
Yes - I do like Viola.
Date: 2004-08-25 06:36 pm (UTC)Of course - that girl power roxxx essay could be applied to most of them too....*eg*
I hadn't ever really thought of Nikita as part of that tradition, but my gut reaction is that yes, you could put her there....
As for the tragedies - I admitt that deserved might be a little strong, perhaps 'earned' what they got instead?
no subject
Date: 2004-08-26 07:52 am (UTC)Oh yes, but as I said – I have *no* problem with Girl Power. Growing up in the age of the Spice Girls definitely has it's advantages. *wink*
I hadn't ever really thought of Nikita as part of that tradition, but my gut reaction is that yes, you could put her there....
Nikita, the way I see her, at least, does possess some of the most important traits that characterise the romantic heroines.
As for the tragedies - I admit that deserved might be a little strong, perhaps 'earned' what they got instead?
And with that we launch into the infamous debate that really has no answer – how far is the character responsible for his destiny? Could we say that it was all Macbeth's fault and the Witches (the representatives of the Supernatural) had nothing to do with it? Nope. Could we say that it was all the Witches' fault and Macbeth was absolutely innocent? Nope.
The way I see it – it is a part of the tragic design of the Inevitable. While the character – Man – has the freedom of choice, it is inevitable that he will make an error in judgement sooner or later, because Man is essentially imperfect. Tragedy shows what happens when we are too far gone with our choices. Comedy shows what happens when there is still a way out, although it never says that you won't make a wrong choice ever again, and that tragedy won’t happen. (That's a popular misconception about comedy, really. To me it seems that every comedy contains the seeds of a potential tragedy, and there are enough hints to suggest that what seems like a Happily Ever After ending is only the beginning of a disaster.)
Swatkat
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-08-24 04:18 pm (UTC)And I suppose that's due to the Puritan ancestors? IIRC, the Puritans in England were vocal supporters of the Calvinist theories.
Swatkat
Yes, exactly
Date: 2004-08-24 05:47 pm (UTC)