Mmmm. Michael.
Nov. 11th, 2004 01:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swatkatI could've continued in that other post, but it's way too cluttered with other thoughts. I'm keeping this unlocked for the moment (unless you want me to lock...?). To make a fresh beginning here:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nell65 said: So when you mentioned politics - I thought you wanted to be talking about the way someone who evolved in radical left Parisian politics would view the world would never square with the way an American from the midwest would.
Yes, I did want to talk about something like that. It's not to suggest that someone from the American midwest would *not* have a view similar to that of Michael, but that Michael would not subscribe to the views of majority of that population. Authors automatically assume that their view of life *is* Character X's view of life, without considering their background, their inclinations - thereby producing a character who looks like X, sound slike X, but is not X. It's common to all fandoms; the bad guys in Potterverse often bear startling similarities with our RL woman-hating, wife-beating baddies, despite the very different gender equations in the WW. It's the same in LFN - with every character, more or less. But the one most loved, and therefore abused in this manner, is definitely Michael.
Canon does not tell us anything about Michael's family or upbringing, except that he is French, has a little sister, had parents who died when he was quite young. Fanon tends to give him a set of strict parents and a very traditional Catholic upbringing; although that's debatable - for all we know, his parents could've been staunch atheists, and that might have influenced Michael - I'll not argue about it for the time being. But we do know that in college, Michael gets involved in student politics of the extreme left kind, an involvement that ultimately shapes his life and the man that he becomes (there is of course, the Section experience; but that comes later - the initial moulding process occured here). And it is because of this that I have problems with the religious *and* political views (politics rarely appears in fanfic, but when it does) that authors give Michael in their fanfic, because as for as I'm concerned, that's not the way Michael would think. At all.
From my knowledge of student politics, there are mostly two types of students who get drawn to the extreme forms (left or right): the first kind are sort of drifters, ones with no particular aim or ideology. Often from poor families. Education is important only because it will get them the vital degree. Armed with the knowledge that they *have* to stand on their own feet in one way or the other, but not quite sure about achieving it. Obviously dissatisfied with the world around them - it does not give them anything. Radical politics gives them a means to express their anger, a motto when they don't have one, hope that it will make some difference in their lives. Such people are not drawn to radical politics for the ideology, but for the sake of the experience of it. The other kind is very different - for them, ideology is the only thing that matters. They believe in it with a fierce passion and conviction, a kind of passion that is not always possible for an average person. It is this belief that will set them apart - whether that belief is right or wrong is something we'll not go into - and drive them to radical politics, because they believe that they can make a difference in the world around them (not to imply that there aren't selfish motives - there are. everyone wants self-improvement whether they admit it or not). Often these are excellent students, or at least have the potential to be so.
Now, if we go by this, Michael could belong to either categories, because again, we don't really know anything about him at that time. But the Michael in my head would belong to the latter group, becauseI love him so I believe him to be capable of the passion and conviction that is necessary to believe so whole-heartedly in a certain kind of ideology. He is also intelligent, capable of thinking over things. For some reason or the other, he was drawn to Marxist intellectual thought, and it is quite natural that it - with its idealistic goals - bowled him over. With the kind of situation that existed in France at that time - early 80s, when the earlier socialist-leaning government was slowly shifting towards a more capitalist one, with all the necessary steps like less protectionism, shutting down troubled nationalised companies - it is also very natural that someone like Michael would be disturbed and angered by it. Militant left politics involves bringing about a change in the existing social order through revolution - bloodshed and *armed* revolution, including sacrifice of innocent life for the greater good; I have no doubt that this is what Michael and Rene and their angry young friends were aiming for. A "change" in the existing order, which was quickly proving unsatisfactory. Of course, it got him to prison, and then, even worse, to Section.
The Section Michael is something of a post-Marxist; a man who has believed in something and has also seen the belief crumble. He is constantly in touch world politics, and has outgrown the simplistic black and white distinction that was a part of his ideology. He has also adapted brilliantly in Section; has, in fact, thrived in that environment and risen quite high up in the ladder.
Michael in fanfic rarely opines about politics, mostly because LFN fanfic tends to avoid opening that can of worms. But when he does, he talks in terms of right and wrong - terrorist/criminal X. is WRONG; Section, for all its ills, is RIGHT - and therefore he must support Section. My problem with this is: how can a man who has seen so much, been through so much, ever think in such simplistic terms? He did believe in right and wrong in his youth; but then he also learnt that his right was as wrong as what he thought was wrong. He sees regimes fall, alliances shift, every day - he's often a part of that process; how can that man treat these issues in a manner similar to us ordinary people? Why would he even approach them that way?
I shall not, however, rant about what happens when the author uses Michael to forward her own political biases and agenda, because then I'd descend to flaming.
Even a bigger problem is religion. Fanon Michael thinks in terms of sin, suffering, and redemption. He has lost his faith, and is quite agonised over the fact - if he could go back, he would, but he can't because that's what Section life his reduced his soul to. (And then Nikita comes and rescues his soul from the pit of darkness blah blah blah) I wouldn't have any problem with it, except that, you know - he doesn't actually believe in it all. His Marxist belief would have seen to that. While he certainly isn't that hard-core radical believer any more, canon gives us no indication that he has, for some reason, taken refuge in any form of religion. On the contrary, his experiences in Section and his way of dealing with them suggest a very existentialistic approach to life. I'm sure a lot of authors were influenced by the title 'Gates of Hell', but I'm more inclined to thinking that TPTB was aiming for a more metaphorical hell (besides, I'm very fond of metaphors). Does Michael believe that his actions were criminal? Yes. Sin? No. There's a difference. It makes perfect sense when Angel (BtVS/AtS) thinks of himself as a sinner (and some of our LFN writers have obviously been seeing too much Buffy; all the talk about Little Miss Sunshine rescuing the Brooding Hero from depths of darkness? that's Buffy/Angel) - not so with Michael.
I have no problem with Christian!Michael (note: I'm not talking about the Michael who sometimes finds peace/comfort in the belief of others), but there has to be a solid reason behind his shift in faith. No author has ever shown me *why*.
nell65 pointed this out earlier: Michael feels very guilty for taking innocent lives etc etc. I'll just quote myself here - militant left politics involves bringing about a change in the existing social order through revolution - bloodshed and *armed* revolution, including sacrifice of innocent life for the greater good. Michael has shown that he can believe in sacrifice of innocent life for a greater cause - I find no reason to believe that he would suddenly start believing otherwise after coming to Section; even more so when he actually doesn't seem to have any problem with Section's aims and policies. No matter how *much* Nikita influences him, Michael will *not* suddenly wake up in the morning and realise that he's killed innocent people and feel very guilty about it; it's Nikita who has to learn to feel otherwise.
It's also highly unlikely that Michael would think of political regimes/activities in terms of Good and Evil. Michael has seen evil a lot closer than most of us; his idea of it is quite likely to be a lot more complex than your average good and evil.
And then there is, of course, slash. Michael is a very attractive man (that is, of course, an understatement *fans self*); canon shows that he's approached by both men and women. He is also a very sexual being. Unlike early Nikita, he does not look for relationships. His life in Section brings him in contact with many other similarly attractive people, not to mention all that post-mission adrenaline... So the declaration that 'Michael is not gay' doesn't really work, not for me. And the assumption that he would have problems with homosexuality because of religion...well, I believe I've ranted enough already, so I'll just let it rest with a "I don't think so".
Whew! That was long! And that still leaves out marriage and pre-marital sex. And I'm sure I've missed plenty of points, but I think I've touched upon most of the important issues. Apologies for incoherence - it's late and I'm sleepy.
nell65 said: So when you mentioned politics - I thought you wanted to be talking about the way someone who evolved in radical left Parisian politics would view the world would never square with the way an American from the midwest would.Yes, I did want to talk about something like that. It's not to suggest that someone from the American midwest would *not* have a view similar to that of Michael, but that Michael would not subscribe to the views of majority of that population. Authors automatically assume that their view of life *is* Character X's view of life, without considering their background, their inclinations - thereby producing a character who looks like X, sound slike X, but is not X. It's common to all fandoms; the bad guys in Potterverse often bear startling similarities with our RL woman-hating, wife-beating baddies, despite the very different gender equations in the WW. It's the same in LFN - with every character, more or less. But the one most loved, and therefore abused in this manner, is definitely Michael.
Canon does not tell us anything about Michael's family or upbringing, except that he is French, has a little sister, had parents who died when he was quite young. Fanon tends to give him a set of strict parents and a very traditional Catholic upbringing; although that's debatable - for all we know, his parents could've been staunch atheists, and that might have influenced Michael - I'll not argue about it for the time being. But we do know that in college, Michael gets involved in student politics of the extreme left kind, an involvement that ultimately shapes his life and the man that he becomes (there is of course, the Section experience; but that comes later - the initial moulding process occured here). And it is because of this that I have problems with the religious *and* political views (politics rarely appears in fanfic, but when it does) that authors give Michael in their fanfic, because as for as I'm concerned, that's not the way Michael would think. At all.
From my knowledge of student politics, there are mostly two types of students who get drawn to the extreme forms (left or right): the first kind are sort of drifters, ones with no particular aim or ideology. Often from poor families. Education is important only because it will get them the vital degree. Armed with the knowledge that they *have* to stand on their own feet in one way or the other, but not quite sure about achieving it. Obviously dissatisfied with the world around them - it does not give them anything. Radical politics gives them a means to express their anger, a motto when they don't have one, hope that it will make some difference in their lives. Such people are not drawn to radical politics for the ideology, but for the sake of the experience of it. The other kind is very different - for them, ideology is the only thing that matters. They believe in it with a fierce passion and conviction, a kind of passion that is not always possible for an average person. It is this belief that will set them apart - whether that belief is right or wrong is something we'll not go into - and drive them to radical politics, because they believe that they can make a difference in the world around them (not to imply that there aren't selfish motives - there are. everyone wants self-improvement whether they admit it or not). Often these are excellent students, or at least have the potential to be so.
Now, if we go by this, Michael could belong to either categories, because again, we don't really know anything about him at that time. But the Michael in my head would belong to the latter group, because
The Section Michael is something of a post-Marxist; a man who has believed in something and has also seen the belief crumble. He is constantly in touch world politics, and has outgrown the simplistic black and white distinction that was a part of his ideology. He has also adapted brilliantly in Section; has, in fact, thrived in that environment and risen quite high up in the ladder.
Michael in fanfic rarely opines about politics, mostly because LFN fanfic tends to avoid opening that can of worms. But when he does, he talks in terms of right and wrong - terrorist/criminal X. is WRONG; Section, for all its ills, is RIGHT - and therefore he must support Section. My problem with this is: how can a man who has seen so much, been through so much, ever think in such simplistic terms? He did believe in right and wrong in his youth; but then he also learnt that his right was as wrong as what he thought was wrong. He sees regimes fall, alliances shift, every day - he's often a part of that process; how can that man treat these issues in a manner similar to us ordinary people? Why would he even approach them that way?
I shall not, however, rant about what happens when the author uses Michael to forward her own political biases and agenda, because then I'd descend to flaming.
Even a bigger problem is religion. Fanon Michael thinks in terms of sin, suffering, and redemption. He has lost his faith, and is quite agonised over the fact - if he could go back, he would, but he can't because that's what Section life his reduced his soul to. (And then Nikita comes and rescues his soul from the pit of darkness blah blah blah) I wouldn't have any problem with it, except that, you know - he doesn't actually believe in it all. His Marxist belief would have seen to that. While he certainly isn't that hard-core radical believer any more, canon gives us no indication that he has, for some reason, taken refuge in any form of religion. On the contrary, his experiences in Section and his way of dealing with them suggest a very existentialistic approach to life. I'm sure a lot of authors were influenced by the title 'Gates of Hell', but I'm more inclined to thinking that TPTB was aiming for a more metaphorical hell (besides, I'm very fond of metaphors). Does Michael believe that his actions were criminal? Yes. Sin? No. There's a difference. It makes perfect sense when Angel (BtVS/AtS) thinks of himself as a sinner (and some of our LFN writers have obviously been seeing too much Buffy; all the talk about Little Miss Sunshine rescuing the Brooding Hero from depths of darkness? that's Buffy/Angel) - not so with Michael.
I have no problem with Christian!Michael (note: I'm not talking about the Michael who sometimes finds peace/comfort in the belief of others), but there has to be a solid reason behind his shift in faith. No author has ever shown me *why*.
nell65 pointed this out earlier: Michael feels very guilty for taking innocent lives etc etc. I'll just quote myself here - militant left politics involves bringing about a change in the existing social order through revolution - bloodshed and *armed* revolution, including sacrifice of innocent life for the greater good. Michael has shown that he can believe in sacrifice of innocent life for a greater cause - I find no reason to believe that he would suddenly start believing otherwise after coming to Section; even more so when he actually doesn't seem to have any problem with Section's aims and policies. No matter how *much* Nikita influences him, Michael will *not* suddenly wake up in the morning and realise that he's killed innocent people and feel very guilty about it; it's Nikita who has to learn to feel otherwise. It's also highly unlikely that Michael would think of political regimes/activities in terms of Good and Evil. Michael has seen evil a lot closer than most of us; his idea of it is quite likely to be a lot more complex than your average good and evil.
And then there is, of course, slash. Michael is a very attractive man (that is, of course, an understatement *fans self*); canon shows that he's approached by both men and women. He is also a very sexual being. Unlike early Nikita, he does not look for relationships. His life in Section brings him in contact with many other similarly attractive people, not to mention all that post-mission adrenaline... So the declaration that 'Michael is not gay' doesn't really work, not for me. And the assumption that he would have problems with homosexuality because of religion...well, I believe I've ranted enough already, so I'll just let it rest with a "I don't think so".
Whew! That was long! And that still leaves out marriage and pre-marital sex. And I'm sure I've missed plenty of points, but I think I've touched upon most of the important issues. Apologies for incoherence - it's late and I'm sleepy.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
There is some very solid stuff here
Date: 2004-11-11 05:26 am (UTC)I don't know that I think M considers himself a sinner, but I think that there is a dose of guilt in the mix somewhere, despite the Marxist expediency. Maybe it's because I live with a lapsed Catholic/lapsed Marxist, but that particular combination does offer the chance for guilt -- it's just personally applied rather than coming from an exterior source (and in its own special way, that makes it more difficult, since an exterior judge has the capacity to forgive you in a way that you yourself do not).
But that certainly does not lead to the traditional Protestant view that faith will lead to forgiveness or the hair shirt penitent that we sometimes get in different versions of M.
And (this is me speaking) I really wish that the writers had not had M refer to N's "soul" in that episode -- it seems to have lead directly to more gushy writing that I am able to read without squirming.
I think, without being a true believer, that M believes that Section does a kind of service in helping maintain order -- a kind of rough justice that might appeal to whatever motivated his political beliefs before. I do think he was speaking truthfully when he betrayed that Red Cell 'exchange student' (can't remember her name) -- he did what he thought was right at that time. It may have been a lesser of evils equation, but he made a value judgment.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 08:49 am (UTC)Yes, definitely - but the guilt isn't in terms of 'sin' and 'sinning'; the moment you use the word 'sin' it conjures up a religious context that I don't think quite works for Michael. I mentioned BtVS's Angel - now he would be a prime candidate for the sin/sinner thing. Michael? Definitely not.
Maybe it's because I live with a lapsed Catholic/lapsed Marxist, but that particular combination does offer the chance for guilt -- it's just personally applied rather than coming from an exterior source (and in its own special way, that makes it more difficult, since an exterior judge has the capacity to forgive you in a way that you yourself do not)
Oh, that's very interesting way to see Michael. Could you please expand a little more on this specific view? How would one reconcile Catholic and Marxist tendencies, which are about as conflicting as they get?
And (this is me speaking) I really wish that the writers had not had M refer to N's "soul" in that episode -- it seems to have lead directly to more gushy writing that I am able to read without squirming.
I have no problem with souls on a metaphorical level, but yes, it does get horribly gushy, doesn't it? *gag*
It may have been a lesser of evils equation, but he made a value judgment.
For a man in Michael's position, value judgements are necessary. And this is what annoys me about the simplistic Good vs. Evil.
Swatkat
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 01:57 pm (UTC)I've known lots of craddle Catholic Marxists - perhaps it is just university circles - but I don't think these tendencies are confliciting in the least. Both systems are about rules for living. Just because you didn't care for the first set you were offered, doesnt mean that you rejected the idea of living by rules.
And now I really have to run....
Re: There is some very solid stuff here
Date: 2004-11-11 01:54 pm (UTC)I think Michael felt guilt in the sense of accepting responsibility for the consequences of his actions. Because of his choices, the things he did, people he did not intend to hurt died, and he did not help those he intended to help. Because of his choices his sister grew up dependent on the charity of strangers. Because of his choices, to keep her alive at all costs, Nikita was dragged into situation after situation not of her own chosing, situations that often hurt her terribly.
I think Michael accepted responsibility for the pain he caused. Which is a kind of guilt. But I don't think he viewed this guilt through a Christian lense.