Paul and Madeline

[swatkat]

Since we were talking about harshness - are we, the Michael/Nikita fans, too harsh when it comes to Paul and Madeline? Even those of us who actually like and admire them (including myself)? We're always going on about their cruelty and how Michael or Nikita (Nikita for me *g*) would've done a better job as Operations - why is that so? Now that we know all about Oversight and Centre, wasn't what Paul and Madeline did for their own survival, just like the way Michael and Nikita fought to survive in Section? And what is the guarantee that Michael and Nikita wouldn't do the exact same things when they got the power? Your thoughts here. *g*

Nell, tell me why Nikita wouldn't fall in the same trap as Paul in order to survive.

Comments

Re: Good question:

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I read that TR PWP fic Jaybee rec'ed, and while it is a strong vision - I don't see that it was all that different from that humiliating movie scene (and it wasn't Eddie Murphy or his character who was humiliated when he performed as she demanded, grimacing dramatically for the camera all the while - it was Ertha Kitt and hers).

Oo - tough woman executive = she must be a pain seeking wack job/dominatrix when it comes to sex. WTF??? (Frigid would only the flip side of the same coin).

How about 'she likes sex just fine thank you very much, but really - with the fate of the world resting on her shoulders it isn't the most important thing on her radar just now?'

Or happily taking the favors of the young valentine operatives in fairly conventional scenarios to work off a little tension, then getting back to the important stuff - a la Bill Clinton et al?

Now - to be fair - I do know that there are many TR stories that paint her in both the ways I just mentioned; but still - I have to wonder a bit about the ones that don't, if it is canon that shaped their views or an underlying suspicion about the ability of 'normal' women to succeed in difficult enviornments.

Whew - I've typed a lot without ever getting to your question for me! LOL! - I will come back to it, I promise.

Re: Good question:

[delle.livejournal.com]

And I'm just going to sit here on the sidelines and enjoy your fascinating discussion. Whoa! Nell! I *do* hope you continue because this is wonderful!

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Thanks - don't mind me when I get rolling on negative views/images of women!

I have to deal with relatively privileged 18 year old girls at the peak of their culturally approved sexual desirability who - despite having all manner of difficulties thanks to good old fashioned sexism and their own lack of confidence in their abilities and their utter inability to formulate a personal ambition - are certain that they don't need that old nasty feminisim cause no one is going to get in their way just cause they're a girl.

Come back and talk to me in ten years baby.

(Do I think getting Martha Stewart on a relatively penny-ante trade violation when there is soooo much worse happening has anything to do with her being an arrogant female exec.? Yes - I do think it is related. Not the only reason, not by a long shot, but a part of it - especially the jury's apparent hostility to her personally.)

On the other hand, rereading my long posts above - I realize I may have made it sound like I want only angst-free/pain-free leading ladies in my fic. Or charaters without sexual kinks. I don't, because that would be boring, and un-natural in its own way. I'm just reflexively suspicious of angst/pain that ends up tying down - literally or figuratively - otherwise powerful women.

Nell

Bombarding you with more questions...

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

because I can. *g* And if I sound a little dense, that's because I'm trying to think in a very different perspective than I'm used to.

I don't think I'm especially hard on them, personally. I bonded immediately with Nikita, and so I tended to judge them from her perspective - but then, I bonded with her because I share the perspective, so I'm not really sure which came first.

Me too, and that's what my question is about. When we think of Paul and Madeline, we judge them from Nikita's perspective or Michael's perspective – because we care about them much more than we care about Paul and Madeline. But wouldn't Nikita's perspective be somewhat biased against Madeline? (You said: though I'm sure Nikita thought them cruel more than once
) And therefore, when we're judging Madeline from that biased perspective, are we not being rather harsh?

I know I found/find Madeline and Operation's sense of when recklessness with other people's lives is/was called for and when it wasn't more than a little callously idiosyncratic and often hugely premature - even from the beginning.

Recklessness with other people's lives, yes, but doing their job well and protecting their own in the process? Michael is at times equally reckless with other people's lives (AGT). I suppose putting Michael in the same category could raise some cries of "OMG he's not selfish", but I don't see this behaviour being selfish. It's more of a survival instinct.

Not as an ethical thing especially, but one that strikes me as counterproductive - if your subordinates know they can't trust you, why should they believe anything you say/do exactly what you tell them? Which then creates the horrid circle of omnipresent bigbrothering to make sure their people did/which made their people distrust/dislike them more, etc.....

This argument certainly works with Nikita, whose greatest problem with Section seemed to be the being kept out of the loop. Nikita prefers to trust people, and the fact that she can't trust her own people drives her nuts. So, for operatives like her, more information – at least to a certain point is definitely a better option. But on the flip side, there are also operatives like Michael with whom trust is not always an issue and who seem to be able to function under this existing pattern quite well. So their approach is not always counterproductive, especially when majority of the operatives in Section seem to be different from Nikita. And dislike them… well, I'd think the operatives would dislike them under any circumstances, given the nature of their jobs and the nature of Section One.

I couldn't even hate them really because they were such silly carictures during those eps (mostly I stared at the screen and asked 'why did they just to *that*??'); and as flashes of what I did like about them kept showing up, my sense of them was mostly one of lost story-telling and characterization potential - and then they mostly fell off my radar altogether.

Now that's a different situation altogether, because you're not judging them anymore, but simply dismissing them.

A memorable portion of it shows her as a seriously screwed up woman - particularly emotionally and sexually.

Emotionally screwed up? Yes, at least to a point. This becomes really, really clear in S2 (I just love Paul and Madeline in S2, and that is how I will always view them) – you'll be able to see it pretty soon on DVD, if the rumours are right. *g* But sexually screwed up? I don't think so. While I enjoyed that story, that isn't how I view Madeline. Rather, she always came across to me as an extremely passionate person – her life is what it is because of that passion (rejected by her mother, guilt about Sarah, etc etc) – and she's somehow managed to restrain it through iron control (hence the emotionally screwed up part). But it's there, somewhere underneath.

Swatkat

Because this is more fun than what I'm supposed to be doing...

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Me too, and that's what my question is about. When we think of Paul and Madeline, we judge them from Nikita's perspective or Michael's perspective – because we care about them much more than we care about Paul and Madeline.

No, I judge them from mine - or at least, I think I do. I recognize that Nikita's judgement of them, or Michael's, is different than mine. Often because Michael, Nikita and I all had different information to work with. As a veiwer, I was privy to things about Madeline than neither of them were - and those things definitely made my view of Madeline and Paul my own, and not Nikita's or Michael's.

But wouldn't Nikita's perspective be somewhat biased against Madeline? (You said: though I'm sure Nikita thought them cruel more than once) And therefore, when we're judging Madeline from that biased perspective, are we not being rather harsh?

If you're going to judge (and we all do) you have to judge from your own perspective. That doesn't necessarily make it harsh, or at least, any harsher than anyone else's.

Some of the things Nikita found particularly cruel on the part of Operations and Madeline I had a different perspective on. Not that it made the outcome any less cruel, but I saw a different context for the decision and I don't think of the cruelty as the purpose of the decision - so I don't see Ma/Ops as cruel in the same way that I think Nikita did on occasion. But again, I often had different information than she did.

Recklessness with other people's lives, yes, but doing their job well and protecting their own in the process?

But what was their job? It seemed to vary depending on circumstance.

When Operations and Madeline let those innocents die in that office building in Love, after a 12 hour notice to get up a good deception, when in the first ep they produced a massive traffic accident at nearly the drop of a hat to catch Van Vector, it put my back up and I've never gotten over it. I also didn't see Madeline and Paul sweating the location of Perry Bauer's public gasing-test - that was primarily Nikita and Michael.

Also, Paul's rush to kill people involved in missions *before the mission is even over!!!* Why did he have to kill Rudy before they got back to Section with the end game secure and the bomb deactivated? Why did he start to kill Birkoff before Michael and Nikita got back to debrief on what they found when they went looking for the cardinal of red cell? What the hell was his big fat rush?

And of course - leaving people behind. Like Simone. I think the US Marine's "take home every last body thing" can be a little (a lot?) on the dangerously obsessive side, but simply leaving people in the hands of madmen - and then lying about it? Did he and Madeline never watch a daytime soap opera? Lies always get out and bite you in the ass.

But he also left Michael and Nikita behind, more than once...which always struck me as a bizzare act for someone who was worried his top ops would run away. How many lower level ops just limped away from missions after being left behind? I've always wondered about that.

Michael is at times equally reckless with other people's lives (AGT).

I think there is a difference between being reckless with the lives of operatives and the lives of bystanders.

I suppose putting Michael in the same category could raise some cries of "OMG he's not selfish", but I don't see this behaviour being selfish. It's more of a survival instinct.

I don't think Paul's capriciousness with the lives of innocents was selfish - I think it met his highly personal sense of expediencey.

(I over did my answer - again. LOL!)

Part II -

[nell65.livejournal.com]

This argument certainly works with Nikita, whose greatest problem with Section seemed to be the being kept out of the loop. Nikita prefers to trust people, and the fact that she can't trust her own people drives her nuts. So, for operatives like her, more information – at least to a certain point is definitely a better option.

I'm not sure it is as simple a matter as more or less information, rather it is a sense that when information is withheld, it ought to be to a shared purpose. It was the lack of clear purpose, and the sense that operatives could loose their lives not in pursuit of an understood goal, but simply because it was expedient to one of Paul's fits of fancy, that made it easy for Michael to stage a mutiny.

But on the flip side, there are also operatives like Michael with whom trust is not always an issue and who seem to be able to function under this existing pattern quite well.

Well - except when he didn't. Michael flipped them the metaphorical finger more than once even early on, and by S4 was in semi-open rebellion - so open that they could even capitalize on it tactically to bring down opponents. And I always believed that Michael did believe, sincerely, that Section had a positive function to serve in the world. He *agreed* with them on their end game, and he still wasn't loyal to them.

So their approach is not always counterproductive, especially when majority of the operatives in Section seem to be different from Nikita.

I've always wondered if that was true - were they all really that different from Nikita?

And dislike them… well, I'd think the operatives would dislike them under any circumstances, given the nature of their jobs and the nature of Section One.

I don't think that's mandated. If the operatives felt rescued from a dead end, offered a purpose, and valued by their leaders for their frequently mortal sacrifices....Section could be a really, really different place. It might even be more self-policing, oddly, because instead of operatives closing their eyes to disloyal colleagues, or actively covering up for them just to spite the perch, they might even discipline their own far more effectively than all the big-brother monitoring in the world. Which was ineffective anyway - Section leaked like a sieve.

Now that's a different situation altogether, because you're not judging them anymore, but simply dismissing them.

It was more like they slipped away - I couldn't find any crack to hold onto and they just drifted further and further from any posibility that I could understand their motivations, until one day the spot they had occupied in my fanfic imagination was empty - pfft, like that. Blown away by TPTB and their inconsistencies. ;)

Nell