(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

[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*

[nell65.livejournal.com]

and that was me. the not-signing-in thing is catching.....

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

It's because I keep replying by email and forgetting. But I replied to your anon comment below.

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

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'. ;-)

Quite possibly. *g* But perhaps also because the complication of the Nikita/Michael relationship makes it hard for you to take out your frustration on Michael, the way I do. So...Paul's easier to be annoyed with.

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*

This sounds like the premise of a wonderful parody fic to me: all of the characters confronting and assassinating their fanon counterparts. I can see it now:

Adrian (with a dainty but disgusted sneer): I am the ruthless genius who founded the most covert antiterrorism organization on the planet. I am not, nor shall I ever be, anyone's doddering sweet grandmother!"

She signals with a nod, and out of nowhere a helicopter rises over the horizon to splatter Fanon!Adrian with a barrage of gold bullets....

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Bwahahaha! More?

Swatkat

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

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.

Heh. We're all on the same side, then. *g*

Or rather fanon-Michael.

Fanon!Michael makes *me* hate Michael at times. And I'm a Michael fan. *sigh*

Swatkat

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

morality/humanity when it comes to Paul and Madeline

Do you think the DOMs would come out to play if we talked about this on the FFMB?

Swatkat

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Honestly? No. We've tried in the past, and the few DOMs who dipped a toe in usually wound up running away very quickly.

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Although if you want to try, go for it!

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Yep - they did. The few who showed up, anyway.

Partially, I think, we don't hear from them because some of the most vocally meta-nature aren't around anymore. The DOMs I can remember from the discussion boards (Susan's mainly, of course, as that's where I usually hung out, but I also can remember the LODM board from it's heyday) were only partially into fanfic, and so most of them have long since moved along to other fandoms or out of online fandom altogether.

Partially, the DOM label covers up that there are actually several different positions on Michael in the DOM camp. Some of the most passionate Niktia-haters, say Quinn for example, liked to imagine Michael as fairly close to Ian Fleming's Bond - suave, ruthless, clever, witty, and, essentially, a loner committed to no one but himself and Section's ends. They tended to view Nikita (and Elena and most other females) as barnacles on his otherwise shapely hull. I suspect, from where I sit now, that they would have been devoted slashers had there been a second pretty man on the show who captured their fancy - and they largely produced what little Michael slash there is.

Other DOMs held the angsty, guilt ridden, seeking redemption view of Michael - some of these don't even dislike Niktia - she, after all, is the angel in whose light he is traveling toward salvation - or the perch. Not always clear which.

Then there is the Knight in Tarnished Armor version of Michael - sort of a very romantic version of Bond, and one who is most definitely in quest of a soul-mate. Some who held this view like Nikita well enough, others can't stand her.

But - really, I'm not sure you can generally much about the DOMs other than to say that Michael is their favorite character and their view of all the other characters depends on their view of Michael.....

N

[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.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Well - remember - I'm only 19 episodes in - out of however many there are - trying to figure Paul out. And in S1, almost though not quite, entirely from Nikita's POV.

As more hints show up, I'm sure my views of him will continue to evolve.

I know you believe that he had principles.......so I am looking for them.

My problem - thus far along hte erratic story arcs provided us by TPTB (and really, bless them. I'm definitely of hte fanfic to fix problems camp....for stuff I love as it is, I'm not even all that keen on reading the stuff, much less writing it), is that as soon as I think I've found one of Paul's principles, he goes and acts against it. Not in the way that Madeline does, by piting her principles against her emotional reactions and sometimes, when the emotion is very strong, violating her principles and giving some appearence of struggling with that, before and after, but rather as if he's forgotten them.

So I can't help but develop this cynical view that he makes up his principles as he goes along, when it seems prudent to espouse some. He may even believe what he says when he says it - but they are tissue thin and easily ignored whenever his own ambitions/survival rear up.

It's not so much that I want to see him racked with doubt, but that I'd at least like to occasionally get a peak at him aware of and troubled by this tendency of his to forget entirely about what he claims to believe in whenever the going gets rough or the threats too personal.

Check in again when I'm at the end of S2 - we'll see what I'm thinking then? Hmm? *g*

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Check in again when I'm at the end of S2 - we'll see what I'm thinking then? Hmm? *g*

OK. *g*

I will say, though, that you may not find quite what you're looking for. I don't believe he's especially introspective or even "self-aware" in any meaningfully reflective way -- he's completely outwardly focused. While I don't believe, the way you might, that he makes up his principles as he goes along, I think his lack of interest in introspection (or even patience with it as something worthwhile to engage in) often makes him appear less principled than he is.

There isn't an angstful molecule in his body. Engaging in any kind of self-assessment would be, to him, a profound waste of time and energy that could be more usefully spent *doing* something.

[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

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Heh.

So far, I see a man utterly devoid of 'vision' and who would dismiss such a thing as frivilous. Which may be fine, in its own way - but it makes him very reactive, rather than pro-active.

(Yes - I know gemstone is out there in the future.....but I haven't got there yet.)

There certainly are similarities between him and Nikita - but I don't know that they are any more profound than his similarities with Madeline, or Michael, or even Walter. Their business really demands that they all be versions of a similar template if they are going to survive.

N

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

So far, I see a man utterly devoid of 'vision' and who would dismiss such a thing as frivilous.

Oh, no romantic visions of an ideal world, no - that would be pre-canon!Michael. This is something Paul would consider idiotic, and would probably be highly tempted to literally knock some sense into the idiot's mind. But I do believe Paul has a certain vision of his own, a desire to tackle terrorism rather than just terrorists, which makes him a good leader for Section One.

but it makes him very reactive, rather than pro-active.

That would be Michael too. We're talking different shows here again, aren't we? ;)

There certainly are similarities between him and Nikita - but I don't know that they are any more profound than his similarities with Madeline, or Michael, or even Walter. Their business really demands that they all be versions of a similar template if they are going to survive.

You *have* to watch S2 again. *g* And when you do, will you try watching by keeping the parallels thing in mind? I do think the two of them have very similar (and very, very different) personalities in a way, and nowhere is it clearer than in S2 (for me, of course), where they have some awesome scenes together. There's also a more grown-up Nikita, and a Paul with a lot more screentime than in S1, which makes things a lot more interesting.

Swatkat