(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]

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]

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.

Yes, that can be a very refreshing change after Michael. I'm not surprised he finds Michael annoying at times. *g*

Swatkat

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I realize I'm not very articulate about how I see Michael - but I don't think Michael angsts over his *own* decisions all that much either.

I think his annoyance with Michael comes from a different place....

N

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Depends on which decisions we're talking about, I guess. His own decisions regarding terrorists and operatives? No - he's a professional. His own decisions regarding the people he loves? Yes. His own decisions in his past? Yes, very much.

Swatkat

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I don't think angst and regret are the same thing at all.....besides, the most attractive to me Paul ever is is when he too is expressing some regret/emotion over his treatment of a few, very specfic individuals in his past.

In this I actually think Paul and Michael are pretty similar......

Where they differ, to me, is that Michael actively changes his behavior towards those he loves - ie Nikita - in light of how things have gone in the past. Operations seems content with a little regret. This makes me want to poke him. In the eye. ;-)

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I realize that he isn't especially introspective.

I guess that think that is a problem in a man who puts other people in mortal danger on a daily basis. I think it also contributes to the mistakes he makes along the way with regard to his own personnel.

Ultimately, I may be making my way back to my original assessment of Paul as fine but mildly uninteresting - to me - because I find his lack of introspection makes him boring, to me, to consider, as a character. He moves plot rathter than creates it, if that makes any sense?

Remember also, part of what I'm looking at is, "Can Niktia do this guy's job, when her time comes?"

So far the answer, is a resounding "yes." *g*

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Ultimately, I may be making my way back to my original assessment of Paul as fine but mildly uninteresting - to me - because I find his lack of introspection makes him boring, to me, to consider, as a character. He moves plot rathter than creates it, if that makes any sense?

You don't have to like Paul, but you can't ignore him, mainly because he plays such an important part in the process of Nikita's growing-up. And because he will be the shadow she will never quite be rid of, the person she always has to match up to. Sort of like the Faith fans with Buffy - love her or hate her, you can't ignore her. *g*

Swatkat

[(Anonymous)]

You don't have to like Paul, but you can't ignore him, mainly because he plays such an important part in the process of Nikita's growing-up.

Actually, you know, in my fic I have been ignoring Paul for years. And it isn't really an insurmountable problem at all.... ;-)

I've been doing it on the theory that if I could not write him well, I'd rather not butcher him. But yes - he does have a role to play in Nikita's canon development - and this is another reason I'm still working at coming to some sort of feel for Paul and who he is. So I can put him back into the stories where he belongs......otherwise I do just ignore him.

Which doesn't sit well with me.... and so I keep at it. *g*

[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

vision?

[sk56.livejournal.com]

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.

I do think that Operations has a vision, and although I agree he's more outwardly than inwardly focussed (doing rather than thinking) I think this vision does moderate as time passes and situations change, but for me, his Achilles Heel is that his moral code/principles were formed pretty early in his life, are intimately connected to his military life and (this is a big thing for me) predicated on a world where people agreed to serve -- for all that he was an officer in an army full of conscripts, I think his point of view only really works if you've made a choice to join. And though I know Section recruits could conceiveably "choose" to die rather than participate, that doesn't quite seem like consent to me.