swatkat

First, I don't think LFN authors *always* shy away from the issue. Because, among other things, angsty Michael has periodically been very popular and *all* he does is contemplate good vs. evil. Usually in a sophomoric sort of way, I grant you, but still - the topic *does* get broached. See KG's entire oeuvre for example.

Second, I think it has something to do with what readers/writers are looking for in fanfic. Nikita grappled with good vs. evil and shades of grey right there in prime time. It isn't subtext - it's text. We all know where she stood at various points (or, well, we did before we were undercut by the misogynist PTB at the end of S4, but I digress). Paul and Madeline made it abundantly clear where they stood, and so did almost everyone else in Section. Right there in the text.

But I think most fanfic fans are drawn to subtext - filling out what didn't get said or articulated or done. The good vs. evil thing - you could just cut and paste actual dialog for that. So, it isn't all that interesting for the fans.

HP is different, in this way I think, because the characters don't spend much time contemplating good and evil, or where their actions might or might not fall on some sort of continuum - and they very rarely contemplate - IN THE TEXT - balancing lesser evils against greater evils. I couldn't say anything about Buffy b/c I don't know the show or the fandom.

I would love to read a good fic exploring how Dumbledore could bring himself to allow Dolores Umbridge to physically abuse his students, Harry as well as others .... because the text doesn't show us that.

In LFN I don't need to read a fic (though I might like too!) exploring how Nikita angsted over working with a serial killer who tortured his prostitute victims before killing them because they needed him for access to a group of bad guys. I saw it. I know what she did and what she said and what choices she made. It isn't that I - or other fans - shy away from the moral complexities - more that canon already worked that angle pretty hard.

while we're asking questions - canon tells us nothing about Red Cell, except that they're the Big Bad, and we're mostly free to do whatever we want with them. I'm thinking more along the lines of the RL Big Bads (think Jenna Vogler - suicide bomber). How inaccurate would that be?

I think that fans don't do more with this for the same reasons TPTB didn't. Real life terrorists have actual causes and actual fights over real power and real land that have RL consequences. To write a story that featured Section taking on Hamas means taking a position on Hamas and the entire issue of Palestine and Israel. Or set in Kashmir - who does Section take out and why? Lots of moral complexity here. Also Hello flame war to end all flame wars.

Other RL big bads present different sorts of narrative problems. Take a South American Drug lord - (me? I'll take Robert Davi thanks...) - where is the moral complexity here? They are almost too easy to stereotype as almost a caricature of evil. Or the Russian Mafia....same thing. Or on a smaller level, the criminal gangs that operate in places like Mexico or China (and lots of others I'm sure that just don't make the news coverage I read most often) and survive by kidnapping and ransom? These groups are undeniably bad - and some innocents may have to suffer in the course of taking them out.

But, we already *know* that, assigned to take them out - Section will give it their best shot. Nikita - assuming she's in the story - will fret over minimizing all possible civilian casualties, but in the end, after doing all she can toward that end, she will do her job too - even if it means sassing Operations when she gets back as a way of dealing with her regrets and grief. Not a bad story, perhaps - maybe even a really good one - but, I don't know - not one that grabs my imagination as a writer. Because it doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know about the characters or their environment.

From:

Oh, this is a most interesting answer, and I can't say I'd ever thought of it that way.

Let me ask you, though: if moral questions are text, what is the subtext? I don't think it's the M/N relationship, because that was pretty well explored in canon, too. And yet that's what people seem to write about -- replaying that canonical romance over and over again. Given that, I'm not sure it's a question of people not caring to explore what the text already did, so much as preferring one aspect of the text over another (that is, thinking romance is more compelling, storywise, than the moral struggle).

From:

Well - for me anyway - the M/N stories I've written and that continue to haunt my immagintion *are* the ones we didn't get to see.

How would they make a relationship worK? Could it work? Would their differences - in morality, in ruthlessnes, in world view - make them stronger together, or tear them apart? Was there anything more there than lust? If so, what was it exactly that made them kill over and over for each other? And how and when did they actually figure that all out? Where I have grappled with morality, it is actually in this context - of Michael and Nikita's efforts to find common ground where they each weigh moral variables differently.

I also think that as there are millions of small variations on these questions about how a relationship works (as well as the meet cute/face down challenges named for no discernible reason Paul and Madeline/get married - which has the handy plot developments all ready laid down by genre conventions) it can keep being interesting - at least to someone like me who is already interested in the theme/questions in the first place.

As for the moral struggle - Nikita is really the only character who appeared to have any serious moral struggle with what she was asked to do. And she capitulated to Section's world of grey, albeit without grace and with lots of sour looks, in episode one. So, from a story telling point of view, how many ways can Nikita fret/pout/whine/complain over civilian deaths?

We all know she did - and then carried out her missions anyway. It doesn't actually have any plot implications/guidance - it isn't remotely useful from the POV of crafting a story in the same way that the romance "meet/trouble/ending" convention does supply plot. You may not like this plot, I certainly get tired of it, but it is a plot.

"Moral struggle" by itself - doesn't have a ready made plot line.

Paul and Madeline didn't seem to have these sorts of moral struggles, and neither did Michael - so, they aren't particularly useful starting points either for this kind of explore moral struggle story, they only serve as foils to Nikita's angsting. And still - no actual plot in view - just a bunch of attitudes.

I could develop a plot, certainly, that would allow Nikita to fully display her frustration with the choices she was forced to make, with the way those choices pitted moral principles against each other with no easy resolution - but what would it reveal that I - and most other LFN fans - don't already know? And how would I stop it from becoming an entirely internal monologue (or alternatively bratting off to Michael and/or Walter) that consisted of lots of wangsting towards a conclusion we all know is coming? That she will somehow, holding her nose and possibly crying, split the difference and hurl herself into action?

I don't know - just doesn't offer much mystery and instead only the hard (and not especially rewarding for me personally) work of thinking up some sufficiently complex criminal/terrorist circumstances with sympathetic villians and irritating OC civilians - all to illustrate what I - anyway - already know.

For the other sort of plot - setting Section down in the RL of terrorism or crime - lots of research there and, well, I'm not a huge crime novel fan, and with RL terrorism - touchy, touchy, touchy subject. Not something I want to play with on the story boards - and if I can't, eventually, play there, I'm not interested in writing it. Besides - I'm not sure it would reveal anything that wasn't already obvious. At least to me.

From:

Well, to me, the "moral struggle" issue presents plenty of subtext possibilities.

First, the question that would drive these stories wouldn't be "How many ways can Nikita angst?" but rather, "Who's right?" The story's spark would come from the exploration of those gray areas, and the push and pull among the vastly different but equally valid (in different ways) points of view represented by the various characters. And the answer to "Who's right?" can take as many forms as there are authors.

Another area for subtext lies in exploring the characters you dismiss as showing no moral struggle -- I would assert that they do engage in their own moral struggle, internally, and that would provide all sorts of fodder for stories. These might be more Michael-centric on the whole than Nikita-centric, but it doesn't make them uninteresting, or even non-subtextual.

It seems to me that both the "moral struggle" theme and the "relationship" theme provide equal opportunities for subtext -- the choice of writers to focus on the second one is a matter of thematic preference rather than an absence of sufficient subtextual opportunities in one or the other. You see subtext in the relationship theme because that's what you like to think about; I see subtext in the moral struggle theme because that's what *I* like to think about.

From:

"Who's right?"

What an interesting way to look at it the issue - that honestly never dawned on me. Mostly because I don't think there is a single answer - it is all 'it depends...." for me.

But my main point isn't really subtext vs. text, though that is part of it, it is easy plot vs. no easy plot. Romance genre stories have a ready plot. Maybe a stupid one, but a plot.

Moral struggle stories? I see the first two steps of a basic three part plot - identify problem/weigh issues. But - what is the third, resolution step? How, assuming you've done justice to all the players and the situation, can you really show that one of them was 'right' - at least, not without a last minute deus ex machina that reveals that somebody had bad information.....

You could easily trasmute it to a straight up action story with a little moral qualm stuff on the side, of course, and the third step is resolve problem. Which is actually not all that uncommon a story line, though more often it is bent to serve romance themes.

And, if you decide to go with action to show moral struggle - how do you situate such a story so as to up the moral struggle element? With RL terroists as Swati suggests? Then you have to put actual political positions and actual power realities into your story. And that way lies danger.....There is no way in hell, for example, I would want to put up a story set in the middle east - or really anywhere - where I seriously tried to present my understanding of the actual issues. No matter what position I actually have - some one is going to be pissed off.

(As for Paul and Madeline, if they had moral struggles - they never put them up where I could see them well enough to write about them. It is actually one of the things I dislike most about Paul - that he never showed a single moment of regret for any command of his for which other people suffered. Which, rightly or wrongly, implied to me that he had no deep moral/intellectual/spiritual struggle over the choices he made.

Madeline and Michael are more elusive....)

From:

OK, I had thought that the point of your original comment was subtext versus text. I'll agree with you about "simple plot versus tricky plot," as a good explanation, though. The moral struggle plot doesn't lend itself to neat endings, but to me that's precisely what makes it fascinating.

I wouldn't use RL issues though -- people's preconceptions would get in the way of their grasping the more fundamental concepts that are at issue in the story. (Although I am about to break that rule in my own WIP by bringing in RL events -- we'll see if I fall on my face doing so.)

From:

Well - I did bring up subtext/text too - but only because, from my perspective of being interested in Nikita - canon pretty much answers the question of how she will respond to the moral quagmire of Section, where it didn't - to me - supply the answer the question of whether or not she and Michael ever really had a chance at a functional relationship (which is also a simple/easy plot. The answer to this quesiton is either "yes" or "no" or, my favorite - "well, maybe, if the situation is right....") As far as morality went - Nikita compromised, she wieghed the few against the many and - railing into the night - protected the few whenever she could, but always ultimately went for the many.

By implication, and some text, canon also implied to me that everyone around her had already reached the same messy point, ie weighing issues against their own personal measure of right/wrong, good/bad(or even evil), and that this slippery measure came into play for each fresh story arc - but that they all had reached the point of being willing to accept the harming/death of innocent people to achieve their greater goal. So, while the exact details of each event weren't especially well fleshed out - and the personal measures of most characters *were* utterly unexplored which does leave plenty of room for fanfic exploration of subtext - the answer to the question of what will they do is - as far as I see it - always going to be the same, no matter how the situation is set up. Some innocent bystanders will be harmed/killed to achieve the mission outcome. I can't quickly think of any situation in which this outcome to the moral problem *won't* be achieved. So - in that sense - the writing/exploration of the story doesn't hold much intereset for me. I would read it, happily, but I can't imagine writing it.

So, for me, the only open question left is the one about goals - that is, is the price in harm justified by the outcome? Well - each one of them is going to have a different answer, and I don't think that there is a 'right' answer because it is always situational (which brings us back to our trailing discussion of tragedy and my rejection of universals.....). I personally don't have much interest in writing an open ended story like this - mostly because by the time I had done everyone justice by my own wordy standards I could quite possibly set a new record for longest LFN story ever.....LOL! (Or more likely still - add another to my great stack of WIP).

So - based on my own experience - I'm guessing that 's why moral struggle isn't such a popular issue, except on the side in the course of telling another story with a more straight forward plot.

I look forward to you tackling the RL issues.... just because i'm a coward doesn't mean everyone else has to be!

From:

I look forward to you tackling the RL issues.... just because i'm a coward doesn't mean everyone else has to be!

LOL. I am at least dealing with RL *historical* issues (circa 1989) as opposed to contemporary hot button issues. That makes it somewhat safer. (I hope.)

From:

and I don't think that there is a 'right' answer because it is always situational

That alone makes it doubly interesting for me. Bring on the multiple perspectives, baby! *g*

Swatkat

From:

Answering many things at once…

and not being very coherent about it (sorry) – I understand the pull of the M/N relationship (because all said and done, it’s still my OTP), and the desire to see what went on behind the scenes. But is a relationship, any relationship, based on external factors (in this case – Section, Paul and Madeline, Elena and Adam, and so on) alone? Is it also not defined by who we are, as a person? And if it is, then isn’t this constant conflict between good and evil, this constant awareness of new aspects of it, and the recognition of evil within an important factor in the lives of Michael and Nikita, and deciding who they are? So, unless we do consider this, are we not ignoring an important aspect of their world in our treatment of their relationship? The danger of indulging in long, pointless internal monologues is always there, but that’s up to the author to recognise the error and correct it. I also understand the problem of a good plot, but I don’t see why it cannot be integrated within a good relationship-oriented plot, without giving undue emphasis on any aspect (I’ll refrain from using the term ‘romance’, because a romance plot almost always falls back on using the conventional romance tropes and ends up flattening the characters and their universe; I’m not saying there aren’t exceptions – your Mrs. Sam or Gen’s BOP are excellent examples, but they are exceptions rather than the rule). Neglecting something so important about their world sometimes gives a very claustrophobic feel to the stories.

Your point about Nikita – I agree that canon gave us a lot of Nikita’s dealing with good/evil, but I don’t agree that’s all that is there to it. We know that she struggled and ultimately reached a compromise, but how? What exactly did she think? How did she manage to deal with it? How does she live with it everyday? How does she accommodate every new thing within her vision of the world? I want to hear her thoughts – just like I want to hear her thoughts on her encounter with Michael on the boat.

Fanfic certainly deals with Michael’s thoughts on good and evil, but it’s usually along the lines of “I’m evil, Nikita is good, I don’t deserve her, WOE!” I refuse to accept that that’s all to Michael’s vision of evil - Michael, who has seen evil closer than most of us, has learnt about it through bitter personal experience.

While I agree that most Section operatives (including Paul and Madeline) seem to have reached a certain compromise about these issues within themselves that allows them to live with themselves, I can’t see this as something static – nothing is static; we all change with every new experience, and our vision of life is modified according to it.

Dealing with RL issues, is, of course, a *huge* problem, one that I find very daunting – I have *seen* how a story falls flat when author decides to deal with it (I will not name as this is unlocked, but you should be able to guess). A lot of it depends on the lack of objectivity on the author’s part – easier said than done, I know; would *I* be able to be objective if you asked me to deal with Kashmir (because that hits right home), even though I pride myself on my objectivity and perspective on the issue? (no, really) I honestly don’t know. Another problem is again oversimplification and refusal to deal with the ‘shades of grey’, for all the lip-service paid to it. But again, the lack of treatment of these issues gives the fiction a very claustrophobic feel at places. I don’t know – there has to be a middle way, right? Right? *clutches at straws* And the specific reason why I asked this question, what on earth are we supposed to when we’re writing from the perspective of the terrorist?

Swatkat

From:

I was thinking about this last night as I was falling asleep - I think the challenge is the environment and direction of a particular story as much as it is subtext/text in canon.

"Moral Struggle" isn't a plot - it is what happens on the way to a plot, and so the environment in which a plot is set has to create a situation in which the main characters have a reason to struggle with what to do in a way that is interesting and actually has some dramatic tension, as in - the outcome will be different based on what they do or don't do as a result of their struggle.

"Romance" is, in the genre sense, a plot and the dramatic tension comes from how well the writer creates the sense of possibility that the romance won't work out (even though everyone involved knows perfectly well that, unless it turns into a tragedy, the couple will work it out in the end), or raises the question of *how* it all worked out despite the problems, sort of like a mystery story in this sense, and answers it in an interesting way.

Moral struggle in the abstract doesn't - at least to me - in the LFN context - *by itself* give me much of a sense of dramatic tension, because I know what the characters will do in the end, which is pursue the mission objective. Because what is the plot line alternative? Refuse the mission and die? I suppose there is no reason this couldn't be made into the dramatic tension of a story, but well, it would be an emotionally exhausting story to concieve of and write. I think, anyway.

Where as in a romance story, there is always the narrative option of one party or the other walking away for good (even when you know that won't actually happen) and this give the plot its tension (however contrived).

I know Jaybee is interested in the process of how they "get there," and in her hands it could be a compelling subject. Did Madeline struggle with herself over her right to remove another human being's free will before she decided to use the Gellman process on Nikita? I didn't get the sense that she did - but, the episode doesn't really give us much to go on either way so maybe it would be an interesting story, to show via plot and action what Nikita did, Michael did, Madeline did, OCs we don't know about did, to push Madeline to make the decision that we know she made. Interesting yes, but it still requires way more effort at plotting than romance met/trouble/pair plug and play stories.

I'm off to lunch - so I'll tackle RL environments later.... *g*

From:

When I'm talking about moral struggle, I mean it as an essential element of conflict present in the story to achieve some dramatic effects. Even a story with a romance plot uses conflicts - otherwise there wouldn't be any drama at all. As far as I'm concerned, mere external conflicts (i.e Michael/Nikita vs Paul/Madeline) doesn't do much for me - I need more than that. One reason I find the Shakespearian plays so fascinating is because of the psychological dimension of the conflicts - be it a comedy or a tragedy, the protagonist is also fighting with his own demons along with everything else. In Section, one obvious source of conflict - to me - is this constant struggle with themselves, and that's what I want to read.

Moral struggle in the abstract doesn't - at least to me - in the LFN context - *by itself* give me much of a sense of dramatic tension, because I know what the characters will do in the end, which is pursue the mission objective. Because what is the plot line alternative? Refuse the mission and die?

It's not about the choice - there is no choice - it's about how they deal with the hand they're given, that's what I'm interested in. I want psychological probing.

Interesting yes, but it still requires way more effort at plotting than romance met/trouble/pair plug and play stories.

Isn't that the point of it all? It requires much more effort on the author's part, yes, but it also makes much more interesting reading, because only external conflict essentially reduces the scope of the story. To give an example from your own writing - in Mrs.Sam you've given Michael and Nikita a set of their own demons to fight with, and to discover the their own selves. We *know* they love each other, we *know* they'll be together, but it's the journey that counts, right? Isn't this an essential part of the plot? So why shouldn't the struggle with their own demons (albeit a different set of demons) be a part of a canon-based story as well?

Swatkat

From:

msgenevieve.livejournal.com

Fanfic certainly deals with Michael’s thoughts on good and evil, but it’s usually along the lines of “I’m evil, Nikita is good, I don’t deserve her, WOE!” I refuse to accept that that’s all to Michael’s vision of evil - Michael, who has seen evil closer than most of us, has learnt about it through bitter personal experience.

*sigh*

We know that she struggled and ultimately reached a compromise, but how? What exactly did she think? How did she manage to deal with it? How does she live with it everyday? How does she accommodate every new thing within her vision of the world? I want to hear her thoughts – just like I want to hear her thoughts on her encounter with Michael on the boat.

This fascinates me too, but I've only ever scratched the surface. I have woven the Centre Mole storyline into several stories, but I haven't explored it to my own satisfaction, let alone anyone else's. Maybe one day.

From: