(no subject)

[swatkat]

Remember the Brutal Honesty meme? Well, go and click on page 19. There's some troll called 010101010101012 who's spammed the post, right from page 19 to page 24. I don't like the meme, but this is just wrong.

*

In which Michael Samuelle is compared to the Archangel Michael and Sir Lancelot, and Michael/Nikita to medieval courtly love, among other things

Michael represents, at the end of this second millennium, the perfect archetype of the legend. All his qualities including his environment are present. All the similarities are there. The fight against Evil. That's the cause Michael is serving because he believes that this is a just cause. He will kill in order to save the world, and like an archangel, he has only noble causes based on the principles of equality and justice, and in killing, he will show no emotions. Everything is justified and well planned. He does his executions efficiently with cold blood and accuracy.

Comments

[delle.livejournal.com]

Whose Michael site is that, do you know?

Michael as avenging angel? Good god, what show was she watching? Please to explain to me how using and betraying Lisa Fanning was an 'angelic' thing to do? Yes, he brought down David Fanning, but at what cost to Lisa? Michael is NOT angelic, he's a manipulative, pragmatic bastard. I love the man, but he's not a Good Guy, he's one severly fucked-up puppy.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

I don't know. And honestly, I don't *want* to know.

Michael is NOT angelic, he's a manipulative, pragmatic bastard. I love the man, but he's not a Good Guy, he's one severly fucked-up puppy.

How is it even possible to be a Good Guy in Section One? Wasn't the show all about Nikita's journey from the world of naive assumptions to the amoral realities that make up Section One? And Michael doesn't even pretend to be the Good Guy (unlike Walter. but that's a rant for another day) - Michael Samuelle may be many things, but he's not a hypocrite.

Swatkat

[delle.livejournal.com]

Michael Samuelle may be many things, but he's not a hypocrite.

Absolutely. Working by Michael's standards, he's a very honest guy. He never pretends to be what he isn't (save on missions, in which case it's, ya know, part of the job).

Being where you are, you're probably not familiar with American Amish. They're a small religious group, basically living by 18th C standards (no electricity or phones, etc). Looking from the outside, people are often confused - they don't drive? But they can be in a car? Aren't cars evil? But within the Amish standards, it's perfectly logical: cars aren't evil, it's the freedom from the community that cars allow that's unacceptable. It's perfectly fine to ride in a neighbor's car (or eat at McDonald's, or use credit cards), just not to own one. That's how I see Michael. From outside standards, he's a cruel, manipulative, emotionally remote assassin. But by his standards? He does what's necessary and does no more. My memory is flawed here - does he ever outright lie to Nikita? He implies, he lies-by-omission... but does he ever really lie to her? He does what he has to do, but he doesn't play mind games just for fun.

[delle.livejournal.com]

Here's an example (I'm chatty this morning!): Finding out Michael had a wife and child was a terrible shock to Nikita. But Michael never lied to her - she never asked (and in fairness to Nikita, why would she?) so he never answered. When she asked him directly about Adam's parentage, he answered her straight on.

Did he hurt her? Absolutely. Did he lie to her? No.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Working by Michael's standards, he's a very honest guy. He never pretends to be what he isn't (save on missions, in which case it's, ya know, part of the job).

That's a lovely way to desribe Michael.

Being where you are, you're probably not familiar with American Amish. They're a small religious group, basically living by 18th C standards (no electricity or phones, etc). Looking from the outside, people are often confused - they don't drive? But they can be in a car? Aren't cars evil? But within the Amish standards, it's perfectly logical: cars aren't evil, it's the freedom from the community that cars allow that's unacceptable. It's perfectly fine to ride in a neighbor's car (or eat at McDonald's, or use credit cards), just not to own one.

No, I haven't heard of the Amish at all (it sounds fascinating), but I've seen plenty of religious/commmunal practices that may sound weird to the outsiders, but appear perfectly normal in the context - so yeah, I get the analogy. And ITA, that's exactly how Michael behaves. All the lying and killing? Part of the job, nothing personal. In fact, the fact that he does it all so *impersonally*, without caring at all, is something that gets to Nikita - who can't stop caring, even when it's not her place to do so.

He does what he has to do, but he doesn't play mind games just for fun.

No, that's not his style.

I can't think of any outright lie right now - Escape, maybe? I think Michael *would* lie to Nikita outright if it was necessary, but he mostly found a way not to do so.

Swatkat

[sk56.livejournal.com]

It isn't just that it's goopy -- it's so badly written.

Ick.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Well, the author may not be native speaker, but that certainly doesn't excuse the goopyness.

Swatkat

LOL...

[catsma.livejournal.com]

You sure this isn't a Silk Angel site? It sounds just like the kind of goofy stuff she'd write.

Re: LOL...

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Nah, I don't think so. I've seen it mentioned quite a few times in MR.

Swatkat

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the whole thing (well, really...it was very long) - but it also reminds me of things off the old LHdM site - which has this kind of episode by epsode gushing praise of Michael/RD.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Oh, that site still around? You have the URL? I have difficulty believing anything could match this!

Swatkat

[nell65.livejournal.com]

No. The typo "has" should have read "had."

That site actually closed down even before S5 aired. The principle site maintainer no longer had the time or energy, but it was in many ways a very personal site (and *very* graphics heavy) - despite being quite popular - and she took it down rather than turn it over to anyone else.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Considering the content, it's probably just as well, lol!

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I meant to add - it was way more intense, overall, than this little bit - if only because there was so *much more* of the same.

It was one of the few places that I know of that also catered to RPF/RPS featuring RD - mostly Mary Sue/"you" met RD in an elevator (or whatever) and pretty soon after have hot and heavy sex.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

I meant to add - it was way more intense, overall, than this little bit - if only because there was so *much more* of the same.

Argh.

There's also some RPF over at the Royettes, isn't there?

Swatkat

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that if I actually click on the link, I may go into incurable seizures of laughter, so I'll just snicker at the snippet you quoted.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

that - or your face could end up freezing in that "oooo too much sugar!" pucker......(I haven't made it past page 1 myself.....)

[sk56.livejournal.com]

it can indeed be a dangerous read -- it's quite dim.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Or a work of genius, if you consider it that way. I mean, Michael and Sir Lancelot? *dies laughing*

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Oh, you're going to tempt me to look, aren't you? I could use a good laugh, actually.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

You know you want to. *g*

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

Do click on the link - it's a thing of beauty.