(no subject)

[swatkat]

First things first - anyone who reads Buffy should go and read this fic now:Amoral Boundaries by wisdomeagle (Dawn/Illyria). I'd read this back when it was first posted and was completely blown away by the *power* of it all, but forgot to save the link. And now that I've found the link again, the fic is equally awesome on a re-read. Dawn maybe just a girl, but she's also the Key.

*

I want to squee about shows. Bear with me? *g*


Buffy

I probably shouldn't call this a re-watch - this is my real Buffy watch, without the fast-forwarding or skipping eps altogether (yes, I know, I can't believe it either - would you believe that I only saw Band Candy for the first time a few days ago? *boggle*), and man, this show is awesome. I still love Angel more, of course, but still. And S3 is the best season ever. S2 was good (and I think I ship Buffy/Angel. not surprising, because favourite female character + favourite male character + theirloveissotragic = OTP!!!), but it had some weak eps. There's hardly a weak episode in this one.

I love Buffy. The character, that is. *LOVE* her. I knew that I did - I loved her when I met her first in S6, where she certainly wasn't at her best - but this time I know it for certain. (however, the fandom doesn't seem too keen on her. what is it with my girls and fandom? *sigh*)

S3 has Faith. Does it get any better than this? And we *are* allowed to have two favourite characters, right?

I heart Cordy. She should be slashed with Buffy. Often. And Faith too, of course, and Willow, but Buffy first.

GILES! I saw Helpless yesterday - dear, dear Giles! The scene at the library? With Giles and Buffy after Travers leaves? Kills me.

The Zeppo - Xander is such an idiot sometimes (*smacks him for being such an idiot with the girls*), but I love him anyway. This ep reminds me why.

Bad Girls is like slash on a platter with a cherry on top. With extra helpings. And chocolate sauce.


LFN


I'm afraid I'm nearly not as enthusiastic about LFN S3, because this season? Is boring. The writing is boring (albeit decent compared to what follows) in the first half, and incredibly bad afterwards. Which sucks, because S2 ended so *brilliantly*, with Nikita facing what is perhaps the most important crisis in her Section life, and what do we start S3 with? Michael's sekrit spyfamily which is really a deep cover mission to capture the Big Bad Vachek. *rolls eyes*

Am I the only person to find the boy who played Adam a bit wooden? Cute, yes, but so… wooden.

I have nothing against Elena, but really, if they *had* to marry Michael off, why couldn't it be someone interesting, like another operative? Or oooh, even a terrorist? Someone strong and intelligent and pretty who'd be an equal to Michael and Nikita and therefore ideal for slashing Nikita with?

Gates of Hell's weepy!suicidal!Michael? Really does not do it for me. Yes, it's very sad and all, and my heart breaks in the cello scene, but I'd rather have his anger, his quiet despair in Hard Landing (gah!).

Imitation of Death is boring.

I love Cat and Mouse. Not only is Dominic teh awesome, but we also get to see sullen!snarky!Nikita, which I love.

I may be the only person in fandom who doesn't hate Greg Hillinger.

Maybe it's just the pervy HP fan in me, but am I the only one to see creepy Karl Peruze/Simon Peruze vibes in the ep whose name I can't remember? It's all nell65's fault.This episode is also mediocre (as opposed to pathetic and bad) – the let's-programme-Nikita thing (made worse by the over the top Michael/Nikita. I love the ship, but can we have some focus, please?) doesn't work the way it did in Brainwash, but the slap is worth everything. *Of course* Michael knew what was going on! I do love the Paul/Madeline/George bits in this ep, though. Paul's face when he sees the screen – there's that quiet despair again, which works way more than suicidal!Michael. Madeline's expression when she asks Paul what's wrong, and he simply walks away. Madeline's nervousness in the meeting with George. Birkoff's concern for Paul.

I hate to say this, but Paul and Madeline are, as my sister says, way cooler than Michael and Nikita. I *love* them when they're plotting and planning and being mysterious and sinister.


Alias

I'm not exactly attached to this show, and I watch it only intermittently, but yes, it's certainly not as bad as I thought the first time round. In fact, it's *good* (even though the plotlines often make as much sense as the Sex Police). The show's strength, I think, lies in the characters, who, despite the plotlines, somehow manage to capture your imagination with their complexity.

I like Sydney. I am so predictable. I also love that they allow her to laugh and cry and *emote*.

Irina Derevko? Words cannot express the fabulousness of Irina, and Jack/Irina.

Comments

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Which sucks, because S2 ended so *brilliantly*, with Nikita facing what is perhaps the most important crisis in her Section life, and what do we start S3 with? Michael's sekrit spyfamily which is really a deep cover mission to capture the Big Bad Vachek.

Yes! My reaction exactly. I LOVED the ending of S2 and thought it had so much promise for so many potentially fun plotlines, but what did we get? Soap opera city.

If they were going to do the MMWK thing, though, I actually agree with their choice of Elena -- I think the point there was to set it up so that Nikia would feel oh-so-conflicted, because it was *impossible* to dislike this poor woman, who was, after all, the epitome of one of the "innocents" Nikita feels so strongly about. (Although I agree with you about the lack of slash possibilities -- however, we still have Carla, no?)

I may be the only person in fandom who doesn't hate Greg Hillinger.

I love Greg Hillinger! I was even possessed by his voice a while back and had to write a ficlet for him to get him out of my head.

The Peruze episode you're thinking of is Under the Influence. I adore the O/M subplot -- I know that Nell might jump in here and point out that it shows how hypocritical Operations is, but that, actually, is part of why I adore it.

I hate to say this, but Paul and Madeline are, as my sister says, way cooler than Michael and Nikita. I *love* them when they're plotting and planning and being mysterious and sinister.

You won't get any argument from me. While S3 plots didn't make sense a lot of the time, and while the M&N angst really started turning me off that season, there were still many wonderful character moments for both O&M.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

I know that Nell might jump in here and point out that it shows how hypocritical Operations is, but that, actually, is part of why I adore it.

Yes, exactly. If he wasn't hypocritical and selfish (among many other things), he wouldn't be Operations. Nikita too can be extremely hypocritical and selfish, BTW. It's a pity TPTB didn't do something more with the somewhat grudging respect - at times, even understanding - they seemed to be developing towards each other in S2. *sigh*

If they were going to do the MMWK thing, though, I actually agree with their choice of Elena -- I think the point there was to set it up so that Nikia would feel oh-so-conflicted, because it was *impossible* to dislike this poor woman, who was, after all, the epitome of one of the "innocents" Nikita feels so strongly about

Hmm, I suppose so. Okay, I just wanted another interesting female character to slash Nikita with, and heck, even to pair with Michael. What? I don't have to be reasonable about this, do I?

Although I agree with you about the lack of slash possibilities -- however, we still have Carla, no?

Yes, that we do. There can always be 'Carla didn't die' sequences. *g*

While S3 plots didn't make sense a lot of the time, and while the M&N angst really started turning me off that season, there were still many wonderful character moments for both O&M.

I have nothing against M/N angst, believe me, but it would have to make sense. The first half of S3 (except for MMWK) has very little Michael, and there is some interesting development for Nikita, so I don't mind that. And while the Sex Police plotline is absolutely pointless, I do like the WMS and the kissing in corridors and things like that. But apart from that, most of the M/N - Michael, expecially, annoys me. I heart Michael, but the developments in S3 are often illogical and soap-operaish. I'm sure the diehard fans love it, but it mostly leaves me cold.

I love Greg Hillinger!

Yay!

Swatkat

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

It's a pity TPTB didn't do something more with the somewhat grudging respect - at times, even understanding - they seemed to be developing towards each other in S2. *sigh*

Oh yes. There was a touch of it in I Remember Paris, though, when they went out into the field together. Those were fun scenes, and it's a shame there wasn't more of that.

I *know* we aren't the only Greg fans, though. Ms. Cyanide is fond of him, and I recall Lila saying she adored him as well. So we can form a club and write lots of Greg/Birky slash.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Right, I forgot about IRP! I intend to watch it soon - I do love the Paul in the field scenes. *g*

So we can form a club and write lots of Greg/Birky slash.

*sporfle* That should be good. I'm also suddenly overcome with the desire to read believable Nikita/Greg.

Swatkat

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

IRP had several plotholes an aircraft carrier could sail through, but it also had some fun moments.

Nikita/Greg? That could actually be sort of appealing, if you could find a way to make it work. (I have no doubt he would go for her given the chance, but the reverse?)

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Greg would jump at the chance. Nikita would not touch him with a ten-foot pole. It would be fun if someone could make it work, though. *g*

Swatkat

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Gelmanized Nikita, maybe? He'd moved to Oversight by then, but one could find a way to have them interact.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

I suppose it could work, but would Gelmanized Nikita *want* to have sex with *anybody*? Ordered, yes, but then there would be no snark, no horror of "OMGsexwithHillinger" kind.

Swatkat

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I um, haven't actually re-watched this one yet - still working my way slowly in order through the seasons (though I did just get S3 for my birthday! *g*) but, I can't actually recall the Madeline/Paul sub plot of this episode....so I can't jump in and call Paul anything at all! LOL!

I'm just about 3/4 of the way through S1 again (I know, I'm driving MrNell bonkers with my slow pace, but I don't get the TV all that often.....) and it isn't Paul's hypocrisy that bothers me, it's his capriciousness.

I just don't actually see that he's a particularly good leader for Section One and I don't think it is particularly well run by him..... which is a different sort of problem altogether.

N

[(Anonymous)]

This was the episode where he murdered the man who killed his son and got away without any punishment, thanks to Madeline covering up for him. You've mentioned this instance in the past in your criticisms of his character.

Myself, I think it reflects worse on Madeline than on Operations -- he was hardly in a rational mental state, but she had no such excuse. I think one could use it as a prime example of the hypocrisy of someone who was always going on about how Section couldn't make any exceptions in the rules for anyone -- except, apparently, when *she* decided it was OK.

But then the fact that she could be that hypocritical when it was in her own self-interest is part of what made her the delightfully flawed character I enjoy. *g*

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Oops. Forgot to sign in. That was me answering.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Oh yes - I fully remember those scenes - I had just managed to completely divorce them from the Peruze bros episode that holds them.

My view of Paul is still in flux.....it will be interesting to see what I think about him once I've finally worked my way through to the end of S3 again.

I think it reflects worse on Madeline than on Operations -- he was hardly in a rational mental state, but she had no such excuse. I think one could use it as a prime example of the hypocrisy of someone who was always going on about how Section couldn't make any exceptions in the rules for anyone -- except, apparently, when *she* decided it was OK.

Yes - it does. And yet it never irritated me. Her ability to act in her own self interest, whatever she percieved it to be, even when it violates a tenant she claims to hold dear is part of what draws me to her.

I think, ultimately, what flumoxes me so about Paul is that, as far as I can tell, he never does anything *except* out of self interest, and on top of that he has a fairly short attention span -- with the possible exception of extracting romantic revenge.

So I'm quite hostile, even still -- because I'm a fannish nut and my one true character loves do not die, ever, apparently -- to the idea that he is a brilliant leader for Section but Nikita will obviously suck. Which makes me hostile to him, in hindsight. Perhaps unfairly........because I liked him well enough before the series finished and the fannish wars over the end of S4/5 began.

N

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

So I'm quite hostile, even still -- because I'm a fannish nut and my one true character loves do not die, ever, apparently -- to the idea that he is a brilliant leader for Section but Nikita will obviously suck.

I would never set up such diametrically opposing poles in the first place. First, because (as I've said ad nauseam before) I don't think Section as an institution is very functional no matter who's placed in charge. But second, because I don't actually think that Paul was a "brilliant" leader. (Honestly, I don't know anyone, even among the TRs, who *does* believe that.) Rather, my defense of his leadership consists more of reacting against the very common -- and in my opinion false -- argument that because they are more "moral" than Paul, Michael and/or Nikita would obviously and indeed necessarily be superior to him as leaders. Because I don't buy that, either.

I think he was a mixed bag as a leader. Certainly not ideal, but also not as terrible as many people assert. (OK, most of them Michael worshippers, but still.)

Then again, my liking for/interest in him as a character has very little to do with whether I thought he was an effective leader. I liked him because he had balance of personal qualities that I found engaging: blatant and ruthless ambition tempered by a genuine sense of honor and purpose, cunning, competitiveness, and a kind of cynical sense of humor. I loved to see just how much *fun* he seemed to be having when he outwitted an opponent. I don't think any of the other main characters ever really enjoyed themselves the same way he often did, and I found it extremely refreshing. Charming, even, despite all his negative characteristics (and yes, there were many). Thus he could have been a total incompetent as a leader (which I don't think he was) and I still would have enjoyed his personality.

Similarly, I don't think that discovering that Nikita turned out to be a brilliant and marvelously successful leader would change my opinion of her for the better. I'm not really drawn to characters for their competence (or lack thereof), but for other things entirely. Mind you, when I feel their competence has been unfairly maligned, I'll jump to their defense, but that has nothing to do with why I come to like them in the first place.

Does that make any sense?

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Oh yes - it makes quite a lot of sense. I like Paul's enjoyment of what he does too. It's one of his very best qualities.

I would never set up such diametrically opposing poles in the first place.

I know you haven't. But others' have.... ;-) And my fanish knee jerks to them. *g* Fanon especially regularly sets up stupid incompetent weepy Nikita against clever powerful Paul/Madeline - all the time - and it drives me bonkers. Especially when Michael has to come save the day......blech.

I don't actually think that Paul was a "brilliant" leader. (Honestly, I don't know anyone, even among the TRs, who *does* believe that.)

You are the first TR I got to know - and the only one with whom I've exchanged acres of meta with! - so I don't really react against the TRs. They are, mostly, forgien to me. It's the Nikita-haters (and usually Michael fans) I'm still arguing with. (No, I don't know why. I wish I could stop. They are long gone and wouldn't change their minds anyway.....but one, true fannish loves are demanding and jealous beasts, I'm discovering...again...). And the Nikita-haters were, by the end of the run, sort of TRs by default. I mean, they didn't (usually) give a fig for Madeline or Paul as individuals, but they approved of Madeline and Paul's dislike of Nikita and so, as things came crashing down, began to hold up their era of power as Section's golden age against which Nikita's would necessarily and obviously fail to measure up. Which in turn, soured me, almost permanently it appears, sadly enough, on Paul and his crocodile grin.

Rather, my defense of his leadership consists more of reacting against the very common -- and in my opinion false -- argument that because they are more "moral" than Paul, Michael and/or Nikita would obviously and indeed necessarily be superior to him as leaders.

Yes - that is a sickly sort of argument. I don't think I've ever made it - but I know it's been made. Though I do lose track and I have been known to wander away from my original point into the swamps of overblown verbiage... *g*

My own opinion, that I think Nikita was more than a little green but will rally and do fine as Operations (by the standards of that admittedly not very healthy organization), has far more to do with her basic intelligence, her ability to think on her feet, and her finely honed survival skills, than her morality. Oh yes, and her stubbornness. I think that will have a lot to do with her survival.

[(Anonymous)]

Fanon especially regularly sets up stupid incompetent weepy Nikita against clever powerful Paul/Madeline - all the time - and it drives me bonkers. Especially when Michael has to come save the day......blech.

Except actually, they're never really presented as being all that clever. Just cleverer than *Nikita*, who is generally profoundly and absurdly helpless (or worse, willfully obtuse) and therefore not really all that much competition. They're *all* dumbed down for Michael, in the end.

And the Nikita-haters were, by the end of the run, sort of TRs by default. I mean, they didn't (usually) give a fig for Madeline or Paul as individuals, but they approved of Madeline and Paul's dislike of Nikita and so, as things came crashing down, began to hold up their era of power as Section's golden age against which Nikita's would necessarily and obviously fail to measure up.

I see what you're saying here, although I would definitely disagree with "TRs by default." Because most of them were not just indifferent to Paul and Madeline but actively hostile, especially when dealing with the question of Paul or Madeline might *ever* have had decent or noble intentions about anything, or might ever be worthy of the slightest morsel of sympathy as people. So I see them as *just as hostile* to Paul and Madeline as they are to Nikita -- the difference is the area they choose to attack (competence when it comes to Nikita; morality/humanity when it comes to Paul and Madeline). Being a DON, you see the one side and consider them TRs by default; being a TR, I see the other side and consider them DONs by default -- in reality, they're warping all three characters.

**Rather, my defense of his leadership consists more of reacting against the very common -- and in my opinion false -- argument that because they are more "moral" than Paul, Michael and/or Nikita would obviously and indeed necessarily be superior to him as leaders.**

Yes - that is a sickly sort of argument. I don't think I've ever made it - but I know it's been made.

Essentially, that argument forms the underlying assumption of about 99.99% of all LFN fan fiction. (And yet I keep reading it all! Call me a masochist.)

It's interesting -- before I found fandom, I was pretty much indifferent to Michael and hostile toward Nikita. But the sheer Michael-centrism of the fandom has caused my N versus M preferences to shift radically. It's now Nikita whom I'm more neutral about (OK, she still has qualities that drive me crazy, but I'm more open-minded about her good qualities, too) and Michael whom I can't stand. Or rather fanon-Michael.

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Oops! Forgot to sign in again above. LOL.

[(Anonymous)]

Except actually, they're never really presented as being all that clever. Just cleverer than *Nikita*, who is generally profoundly and absurdly helpless (or worse, willfully obtuse) and therefore not really all that much competition. They're *all* dumbed down for Michael, in the end.

Gah. Willfully! Obtuse! Nikita can drive me to fits of violence. And you're right - in this, very popular, sort of fic - everyone has to be stupid so that a not noticebly brilliant Michael comes off as smart by comparison.

Being a DON, you see the one side and consider them TRs by default; being a TR, I see the other side and consider them DONs by default -- in reality, they're warping all three characters.

You're right of course - most of the DOMs didn't really think all that much of Paul or Madeline either - so mostly Section just goes down in a blazing pile of crap under that silly cow Nikita. Why poor Paul has born the brunt of my hostility to this view is anyone's guess. Probably got a lot to do with my own current dim view of "bosses'. ;-)

I know some of my obsession with figuring out a way to get back to a more sympathetic view of Paul is vague uneasiness with the way I've let all this fanon get to me.

rather fanon-Michael

In some stories I've started to wish that canon Michael would show up to kick the crap out of his fanon-counterpart. Something I suspect he could do without unbuttoning his jacket. Or wasting any time on anything so stupid as remorse. *eg*

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Charming, even, despite all his negative characteristics

Oh yes, that's the word – charming. And maybe it's because of my general tendency to lean towards the more flamboyant characters, I liked Paul from the very first episode, whereas I didn't notice Madeline (or Michael, for that matter) till much later.

I loved to see just how much *fun* he seemed to be having when he outwitted an opponent. I don't think any of the other main characters ever really enjoyed themselves the same way he often did, and I found it extremely refreshing.

This makes me think about Nikita, and *her* career as Operations. Because Nikita does, at times – when she's not thinking about the moral questions involved, not thinking about injustice done to her, or to other people – display a similar enjoyment in outwitting opponents (one of the many parallels between them, as far as I'm concerned). But of course, Nikita's actions are seldom angstfree in the show, for obvious reasons. What I'm wondering is, what would it be for her when *she's* the one in charge? I don't think she'll ever be completely comfortable taking morally ambiguous decisions, but will she enjoy herself at the top? Will she let herself?

(This may not make sense. But then, I'm sleepy and you just have to translate it in any way you can.)

Swatkat

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

There *are* several parallels between the two of them, and I do agree that this is one. Although you're also correct that Nikita gets much more entangled in those other issues you mentioned. In some ways, Paul's smirky, "Yes, I'm a heartless bastard. So?" attitude was more freeing, even if problematic in other ways.

will she enjoy herself at the top? Will she let herself?

I don't know. In the immediate future after the end of S5, it's awfully hard to imagine. But who's to say what sort of person she might become over a lengthy period of time?

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

he never does anything *except* out of self interest

Hmm, could you elaborate a bit on this? *scratches head*

Swatkat

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I'll try - and try to be brief. ;-)

I'm almost done with my second complete viewing of my S1 DVDs - and I have not yet watched my S2 or S3. Yes, I'm a nut, but I want to watch them all in order with the previous ones clear in my head.

I say this just to make clear what I'm basing my view of Paul on - distant memories of the last four seasons with a clear hindsight view of S1 Paul. So - all this could shift around a bit over the next few months.

That being said - what I'm doing, partially on purpose, partially by instinct, as I watch is trying to supply consistent characterizations/motivations to the main six characters, and to section itself, so I can make use of all this while I write. So, especially with all our rambling conversations about Paul in my head, I'm trying to make sense of him.

What I see so far is a man who takes real delight in besting his enemies, the more deviously the better, but one who fights mostly because he likes to win. I see a man who is tied permanently to the fate of his somewhat understaffed and beleaguered semi-secret organization. I see a man who will do whatever he can to make sure he wins with the tools at hand. I see a man who is not as powerful or as omniscient as he would dearly love to be, and who is scrambling to achieve those things. I see a man who acts mostly to please himself, and to stay alive to get still more power whose purpose will be to keep pleasing himself.

I don't see a man with ideals or principles or grand plans beyond his own advancement.

This doesn't make him evil, or unsuccessful at what he is asked to do - he does often succeed at the impossible tasks he is given.

It doesn't even make him unlikable....because when he is happy he is clearly capable of great charm and humor.

What I'm struggling with, in terms of finding my peace with his character, is that he expresses such contempt for those on whom he depends for success, and those whose lives justify everything he is allowed to do in their name. I start to think he's okay and then he does something to remind me of this part of him.

This is the only way I can make sense of his impulsive decisions and his delusions of grandeur, along with the miserable way he treats most of the people who work for him, from the most talented to the least. In fact, the more talented, the more of an asshole he tends to be with regard to them - I can't help but suspect because he recognizes a threat to his position when he sees one, and yet his continued success depends on them - an intolerable situation he has to tolerate.

So - does that help?

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

I don't know if that helps Swati, but it does help me understand your reasoning a lot better.

I don't see a man with ideals or principles or grand plans beyond his own advancement.

Here's the crux of where the two of us disagree, I believe. While I think those ideals and plans were often warped by the gravitational force of his own ego and ambition, they did exist. That's what I think would set him apart from a Greg Hillinger, for example, who also had the ego and the ruthlessness and ambition and even the sense of humor.

The nature of his principles wasn't elaborated very well by TPTB, but they showed us enough of his behavior to convince me that he had them.

I can, however, understand how someone would reach a different conclusion, as you apparently have.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Yes, now I understand you a lot better, I think. However, like Jaybee, I don't quite see him the way you do. *g*

I don't see a man with ideals or principles or grand plans beyond his own advancement.

In fact, the way I see it, one of his many parallels with Nikita - perhaps the most important one - is this: vision.

Swatkat

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Hypocritical? I suppose so. But we all understand why she does what she does - the fact that she would allow Paul (and therefore, herself) this actually makes me love her more. It makes her human.

Swatkat

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Exactly. *g*