swatkat

In Section, a person could be cancelled merely for making a mistake that caused a mission to fail -- I can't think of any army that would do that.

Depends entirely on the army and the situation.

Third, a conscript army tends to have a cross-section of people in it, which makes it more stable.

No - it doesn't. The whole point of conscript armies most of the time is to pull into service those the leaders of a society/nation feel are most expendible. During WWI, in the US - Selective Service drafted overwhelmingly single, young, uneducated men from rural areas.

During Vietnam the draft again fell very heavily on young, single, less well educated men - yielding again a very unrepresentative sample when stacked against the population of the US as a whole.

That both armies were more mixed than that was due to heavy social pressure on better situated young men to volunteer to serve.

The current US all-volunteer force is equally unrepresentative, demographically speaking - just to make that clear.

Section was composed of (often violent) felons and people with a history of obedience/self-control problems. Fostering loyalty in a group like that isn't quite so simple.

Was it? I would guess that Section had to be very careful of the kinds of criminals it selected to recruit and train, and people with obedience and self-control problems would probably be far down on their list, barring other qualities they were interested in.

But even so, I don't think loyalty would be as big a problem as you do - I think people *want* to be loyal and to belong (those who don't actually get labeled as psychologically ill....), and one of the things that drove section operatives batty was that this desire was constantly stifled/rebuffed in Section as we saw it.

Finally, a lot of the loyalty and morale in military organizations comes from a sense of patriotism and the feeling that one is defending one's home and family --

Not really. Most of the post-operation studies, starting with WWII, suggest that overwhelmingly, men fight and die for the others in their unit - and not for patriotism or the defense of family. They are loyal to each other, they trust each other, and their morale depends on how they feel they, as a group, are being treated by their superiors. This turns out to be equally true of draftees and volunteers.

Army 'experts' eventually decided that one of the biggest morale sappers in Vietnam was the practice of rotating people out after a year, rather than units - so that units were a constantly revolving collection of individuals and so lost the cohesive 'brotherhood' bond, and that this is one of the things that broke the army's will.

who was an operative really defending? Not any particular country, and not even all civilians against all terrorists -- anyone who was an operative for very long (and bothered to think about it) would quickly suspect that they were working for the interests of a cabal of wealthy people. What's to be loyal to?

Each other, especially in their small units, or at least, they could have been if Section had been structured that way. Small group loyalty is the glue that holds armies together - huge to tiny. (It is also the foundation of many criminal gangs and terrorist cells - for the same reasons.) I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work in Section too.

I think Section could also have fostered an "elite of the elite badasses of the world attitude" - a "no one else is tough enough to risk death daily we the unsung heroes!" 'tude; plus a 'no one else will ever understand/value you the way we do' vibe.

It was the choice of Section's leaders to treat their operatives and their operatives' lives with contempt - and they got it returned in full measure.

From:

I agree with a lot of what Ms JayBee said, so if I ignore something that's probably why.

"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. I also didn't care much for their presumption that it was best to lie even to their own people most of the time. 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....."

Now, aside from ol' Nikita, there is no real evidence that the subordinates didn't trust them. While I freely admit that Cold Ops would have little reason to trust them, the very fact that they remained in power implies that if they didn't trust them, they did trust in the veracity of their mission.

On the whole issue of whether it was advisable to lie to their subordinates and Nikita in particular I would argue that it was. For the reasons Janet mentioned and one other; these people were sent on missions where there was a very real likelihood that they would be caught or killed - to me, it doesn't seem wise to give such people any more information than is absolutely necessary and if a lie will do - you should lie.

"Madeline was one of the strongest, most clearly drawn and most potentially interesting female characters on television, and she shows up in fanfic as an insane harpy on a regular basis - though lately the loving mother figure has made quite a showing on the boards. Gack. I'd *almost* rather see the insane harpy."

Huge fan of the insane harpy myself. Mother Madeline is entirely too pathetic for my taste.

"I would even suggest that some of the TR stuff that features a sympathetically drawn Madeline is still problematic from this perspective of how strong female characters are treated in fiction. A memorable portion of it shows her as a seriously screwed up woman - particularly emotionally and sexually."

I would actually agree that some TR authors characterization of Madeline is problematic. Some authors do tend to weaken the character in an attempt to make her more sympathetic - it's a great pity as such a characterization, such a degradation, often renders her uninteresting to me.

"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?"

I too am fine with this.

"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."

I would point out that in "Love," Michael implied that Bauer was likely to have had a back-up plan which would have caused more deaths and that is why they choose to allow them to die. I would argue that both the instances you mentioned are a case of the few for the many - incidentally, something Nikita never seemed to get.

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

As did Nikita, she appeared to have no problem being reckless with the lives of operatives, especially those in her own team, but had a huge problem with endangering the lives of bystanders. *wink*

From:

(Becaue I wrote this off line last night and then couldn't post it - so it kept getting longer and longer and longer...)

Now, aside from ol' Nikita, there is no real evidence that the subordinates didn't trust them.

Actually – there is plenty of evidence that other ops didn’t trust them. Take Roger, from S1 – Suba had his son and was blackmailing him, and Roger was betraying Section’s secrets as a result – damaging members of his own teams. But Roger did not go to Operations for help. Or S2. Terry – pregnant and worried about what would happen to her child, did not trust Operations and Madeline with her predicament – also dealing information that undermined missions with the badguys. And the young operative who shot Operations for Petrosian in exchange for aid to his family clearly believed that Operations and Madeline would have dismissed his concerns, and would not have rewarded him equally well for coming to them once Petrosian approached him. Or O’Brien in the final season - worried about his mother and trying to hide his care of her from Section, sending Nikita on a wasted trip to prove he wasn’t a mole. These operatives didn’t trust Operations and Madeline.

Or rather, each of them trusted that Operations would kill them and discard their children/families, so they made choices that demonstrably undermined Section’s performance in ultimately futile efforts to protect themselves/defend their loved ones. Which is why I think failing to earn at least some trust on the part of their people was, in fact, an operational mistake on Madeline and Paul’s part.

Also, as I saw it, Walter clearly didn’t trust them from the beginning and urged Nikita not to either, implicitly and explicitly, and if Birkoff did trust them in the beginning – he didn’t by the end.

While I freely admit that Cold Ops would have little reason to trust them, the very fact that they remained in power implies that if they didn't trust them, they did trust in the veracity of their mission.

I do believe that when it came to missions, b/c Operations and Madeline’s lives also were at risk, the operatives felt they could trust them – if not individually, then for the mission to be as well designed as Operations and Madeline could make it.

On the whole issue of whether it was advisable to lie to their subordinates and Nikita in particular I would argue that it was. For the reasons Janet mentioned and one other; these people were sent on missions where there was a very real likelihood that they would be caught or killed - to me, it doesn't seem wise to give such people any more information than is absolutely necessary and if a lie will do - you should lie.

I agree that they had every reason to want to control the information sent out with operatives for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It was the stupid lies that couldn’t be sustained even mid-mission that irritated me – like not telling Nikita at the beginning who and what Chandler was. That one was so early in the series that even if the exact situation wasn’t repeated very often, it made everything else Madeline and Paul ever said a about a target suspect for me – though lying about the rapist/president was certainly a clincher on that one.

I would point out that in "Love," Michael implied that Bauer was likely to have had a back-up plan which would have caused more deaths and that is why they choose to allow them to die.

I always thought Michael tossed that off on the spur of the moment just to appease Nikita. Besides – my point was I think Madeline and Paul could have worked out a deception. Bauer’s only ‘proof’ that his gassing worked was a few hands feebly trying to break some windows, and presumably the sight of the rescue workers and later press reports… If Section could work up a major traffic accident for Van Vector on practically the spur of the moment, I would like to have heard a reason they couldn’t work up an equally convincing scenario in this case. Certainly, when Nikita rushed out to let him know the plan, the expression on Walter’s face suggested his conviction that Operations wouldn’t even try.

From:

I would argue that both the instances you mentioned are a case of the few for the many - incidentally, something Nikita never seemed to get.

First, I think Nikita ‘got it’ – it isn’t that difficult to ‘get’ – but she neither agreed with it nor accepted it. After all, it isn’t as though it is a universally accepted moral, ethical or philosophical position – rather it remains an intensely debated one, and a good deal of the New Testament as well as various Buddhist theologies – to mention just two examples I’m familiar with -- reject that proposition altogether. Personally, I'm on the fence still on that one.

Second, the most famous western examples all follow the story of Christ – where the few or the one CHOOSES to sacrifice themselves/him or herself for the many, not are chosen by someone else – or at least, not another human being. And in specific case of "Love" in particular, "the many" strike me as entirely theoretical – Paul and Madeline didn’t appear to raise a hand to stop the later second public gas attack and then they ‘green listed’ Bauer. Which "many," exactly, were saved as a result of the actual lives lost in the office building?

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

As did Nikita, she appeared to have no problem being reckless with the lives of operatives, especially those in her own team, but had a huge problem with endangering the lives of bystanders. *wink*

Well – like I said, this is something I’m more comfortable with – though I don’t remember that she ever recklessly endangered the lives ‘of her own team’ in her efforts to protect bystanders. If you mean the operatives she killed to prevent the bombing of The Hague? Whatever that was, it wasn’t a result of ‘recklessness’ on her part.

From:

"Actually – there is plenty of evidence that other ops didn’t trust them. Take Roger, from S1 – Suba had his son and was blackmailing him, and Roger was betraying Section’s secrets as a result – damaging members of his own teams. But Roger did not go to Operations for help. Or S2. Terry – pregnant and worried about what would happen to her child, did not trust Operations and Madeline with her predicament – also dealing information that undermined missions with the badguys. And the young operative who shot Operations for Petrosian in exchange for aid to his family clearly believed that Operations and Madeline would have dismissed his concerns, and would not have rewarded him equally well for coming to them once Petrosian approached him. Or O’Brien in the final season - worried about his mother and trying to hide his care of her from Section, sending Nikita on a wasted trip to prove he wasn’t a mole. These operatives didn’t trust Operations and Madeline."

See now I see these people as exceptions rather than the norm. Each one of those problems was personal rather than professional and each one of those people knowingly broke the rules and then, when things turned sour, attempted to cover their asses. They didn't play by the rules and didn't want to face the consequences.

I'm rather of the opinion that Roger, Terry and Kronen should have been identified as potential problems in training and cancelled on the spot - each one of them was inherently weak. As for O'Brien - he never should have been recruited.

"Also, as I saw it, Walter clearly didn’t trust them from the beginning and urged Nikita not to either, implicitly and explicitly, and if Birkoff did trust them in the beginning – he didn’t by the end."

Walter was a special case and while he didn't trust them neither did he move against them. Now, Birkoff...well, he actually did appear to be loyal even though he may not have trusted them.

"I do believe that when it came to missions, b/c Operations and Madeline’s lives also were at risk, the operatives felt they could trust them – if not individually, then for the mission to be as well designed as Operations and Madeline could make it."

That is the very reason I believe a large number of operatives did trust Paul and Madeline and were loyal to them.

"I agree that they had every reason to want to control the information sent out with operatives for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It was the stupid lies that couldn’t be sustained even mid-mission that irritated me – like not telling Nikita at the beginning who and what Chandler was."

I can understand why they choose to lie about that, what I don't understand is why they didn't cancel her after that mission. *g*

"That one was so early in the series that even if the exact situation wasn’t repeated very often, it made everything else Madeline and Paul ever said a about a target suspect for me – though lying about the rapist/president was certainly a clincher on that one."

I happen to be of the opinion that there are some people in this world who are vile, but perform an important function and must be tolerated. For me it didn't matter when/if they lied about a target because I had faith in Paul and Madeline and believed that their intentions were good. I really couldn't care less what they told Nikita or how betrayed she felt, she was there to do a job and they had to make her do it - lying happened to work a lot of the time.

C:"I would point out that in "Love," Michael implied that Bauer was likely to have had a back-up plan which would have caused more deaths and that is why they choose to allow them to die."

N:"I always thought Michael tossed that off on the spur of the moment just to appease Nikita."

You made an assumption which reflected your bias and I made another which reflected my own. *bg*

From:

"Besides – my point was I think Madeline and Paul could have worked out a deception. Bauer’s only ‘proof’ that his gassing worked was a few hands feebly trying to break some windows, and presumably the sight of the rescue workers and later press reports…"

A lot of assuming. We don't know what kind of sources Bauer had access to, so we don't know if a Section deception would have worked. I prefer to assume that there was a chance such a deception would not have worked and Section decided not to take such a risk.

"Certainly, when Nikita rushed out to let him know the plan, the expression on Walter’s face suggested his conviction that Operations wouldn’t even try."

Perhaps because Walter knew it wasn't possible?

"Paul and Madeline didn’t appear to raise a hand to stop the later second public gas attack and then they ‘green listed’ Bauer. Which "many," exactly, were saved as a result of the actual lives lost in the office building?"

This highlights our differing POV's of Madeline, Paul and Section itself. Perhaps - I can't believe I'm going to say this - I'm more of an optimist than you are and more am therefore more inclined - in regards to Madeline, Paul and Section - to give them the benefit of the doubt.

"First, I think Nikita ‘got it’ – it isn’t that difficult to ‘get’ – but she neither agreed with it nor accepted it. After all, it isn’t as though it is a universally accepted moral, ethical or philosophical position – rather it remains an intensely debated one, and a good deal of the New Testament as well as various Buddhist theologies – to mention just two examples I’m familiar with -- reject that proposition altogether. Personally, I'm on the fence still on that one."

I'll avoid the religious references. I'm not on the fence on this issue. The most common 'test' question asked is this: "if you could cure cancer, but had to kill one innocent child in order to do it, would you?" I would, but if possible I would rather exchange my life for their's.

Then you have the whole if a terrorist is using someone as a shield would you shoot the hostage to prevent them from escaping situation. Again, I would, and if I was the hostage I would expect to be shot - I would prefer to be shot.

"I don’t remember that she ever recklessly endangered the lives ‘of her own team’ in her efforts to protect bystanders. If you mean the operatives she killed to prevent the bombing of The Hague? Whatever that was, it wasn’t a result of ‘recklessness’ on her part."

Every time she broke posistion she endangered the lives of her own team, and how many times did she do that?

From:

The most common 'test' question asked is this: "if you could cure cancer, but had to kill one innocent child in order to do it, would you?" I would, but if possible I would rather exchange my life for their's.

This one is easy for me. I would not murder a child or an adult to cure cancer. Nor do I have the right, in my view, to saddle every person ever to be saved by that particular 'cure' with the responsiblity and guilt of that murder - which in my view they would indeed participate in. Some it wouldn't bother, others it would quite literally destroy - compounding the original murder exponentially.

Then you have the whole if a terrorist is using someone as a shield would you shoot the hostage to prevent them from escaping situation. Again, I would, and if I was the hostage I would expect to be shot - I would prefer to be shot.

No. I would not shoot the hostage - assuming the hostage is truly an otherwise uninvolved bystander - if the hostage were a cop or soldier or a spy, yes, I would.

When I said I was on the fence I was thinking of, for me, more difficult questions: like - you have a rapidly mutating infectious disease spreading rapidly through a population. You must throw up quarintine cordon to protect the rest of the population - but the area is large enough that you will trap many who do not yet have the disease - condeming them to catching it. Should you take the extra effort to let out those not yet infected? How do you weigh that against the time factor? Is there a difference to be split?

Or: There are three too many people for the life boat. How do you decide which three will die to save the rest? Should you, or should they all die? I think you should save the rest, and I could propose a rubric with which to make the choice...but what if they are all of the same age, gender and equally healthy? How do you choose, and choose quickly? Who gets to choose? Why?

In both these cases I do think the few do have to suffer and or die to save the many.

So - I am still on the fence, I think.

From:

"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."

I think the fact that Paul was insane at that point had more to do with Michael's ability to stage a mutiny than operatives loosing their lives for reasons beyond their understanding. After all, if that is all it took there would have been a mutiny before then as how many operatives actually knew what they were actually dying for?

"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."

I've always thought of Michael as a crutch kind of guy - needing something or someone to believe in and not too particular. When the issue of loyalty comes up in regards to Michael I am always reminded of Rene's speech in "Half Life" - "You (Michael) once said a man defines themselves by what they are willing to die for. I will die for a belief, and you will die because you have none."

"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?"

I doubt very many others had the access that Nikita did and so wouldn't have had the opportunity to even ask their questions.

J:"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...."

I happen to think that a number of operatives did feel that way - there is evidence that a great many were loyal to Section and its leaders. Nikita, Michael and co. weren't the be all and end all of Section.

"Of course it was. The problem was that they ultimately failed to guaruntee their own survival, and (unlike Cyanide I'm sure!) I think it was *because* of they way the ran Section. The one incredibly important thing they didn't have, and if they ever saught it weren't seeking it by the time canon really gets going, was the loyalty and/or backing of their people."

I do disagree and would argue that TPTB disagreed with you too. lol. By making Mr. Jones Nikita's insane daddy they made it all too clear that Madeline and Paul never stood a chance - it didn't matter what they did or how they did it, they would have been replaced anyhow.

"I think the Gellman process was the single biggest sign of their failures as leaders; they were apparently utterly unable to instill in their subordinates any sense of loyalty or shared purpose or trust or faith in the mission. Instead they had to resort to mind wipes to do what leaders throughout the last several millenia have been able to do through charisma and training. It was that failure, of course, that lead fairly directly to their deaths."

Personally, I think the Gellman process is the greatest failing of TPTB. They wrote themselves into a corner in season three and I think they knew that. Instead of having Nikita evolve and make a place for herself in Section they had her stubbornly clinging to, what I view, as unrealistic ideals. It was the beginning of the end, for in all honestly Nikita should have been cancelled, but wait, wasn't she the title character? Sh*t! Let's Gellmanize her.

From:

I think the fact that Paul was insane at that point had more to do with Michael's ability to stage a mutiny than operatives loosing their lives for reasons beyond their understanding. After all, if that is all it took there would have been a mutiny before then as how many operatives actually knew what they were actually dying for?

I always read Paul's insanity as a ‘last straw’ sort of thing – that had operatives been more loyal to him in the first place, they would have backed him over Michael despite the madness.

I've always thought of Michael as a crutch kind of guy - needing something or someone to believe in and not too particular. When the issue of loyalty comes up in regards to Michael I am always reminded of Rene's speech in "Half Life" - "You (Michael) once said a man defines themselves by what they are willing to die for. I will die for a belief, and you will die because you have none."

Rene was a child-murdering shit who said the most hurtful thing he could think of, regardless of how true it was. Once he recognized he was going to die – he choose to die spitefully. I would check for myself if Rene Dion told me it was raining in the middle of a thunderstorm.

I doubt very many others had the access that Nikita did and so wouldn't have had the opportunity to even ask their questions.

Why? Because their brains fell out somewhere during training? All you have to do to ask a question is open your mouth and ask. Presumably they had access to their own trainers, and through them Michael and Madeline and Operations. And unless you are proposing that Paul and Madeline were treating Nikita as a special case from day one, I’ve always assumed that her access wasn’t especially unique – that Operations and Madeline were that involved with the training of all their operatives.

I happen to think that a number of operatives did feel that way - there is evidence that a great many were loyal to Section and its leaders.

I’m willing to believe that some were grateful for what they had, but I’d love to know who you have in mind as I can’t think of any off hand.

I do disagree and would argue that TPTB disagreed with you too. lol. By making Mr. Jones Nikita's insane daddy they made it all too clear that Madeline and Paul never stood a chance - it didn't matter what they did or how they did it, they would have been replaced anyhow.

But insane daddy (and boy do I agree with you on that) didn’t replace Paul – as you point out below – or permanently bar him from Center. He also didn’t mandate Madeline’s death. Paul, lost in his own depression ran out wily-nily on a live mission with almost no back up, and apparently, no Kevlar. Madeline chose to end her own life. Daddy had no direct control over either of those events. I have always assumed, in both cases, that Paul and Madeline gave up their lives because they each felt utterly bereft of support and rejected by those they expected to impress – and without any support or power base from below they felt unacceptably helpless in the face of their apparent reversal of fortune.

Personally, I think the Gellman process is the greatest failing of TPTB. They wrote themselves into a corner in season three and I think they knew that.

But it still has to accounted for in canon characterization.

Instead of having Nikita evolve and make a place for herself in Section they had her stubbornly clinging to, what I view, as unrealistic ideals.

You said that in your fic too. What ‘unrealistic ideals’ do you think Nikita was still clinging too? I’ve always seen her arc as one of loss of ideals.

From:

swatkat24.livejournal.com

Cyanide:I've always thought of Michael as a crutch kind of guy - needing something or someone to believe in and not too particular. When the issue of loyalty comes up in regards to Michael I am always reminded of Rene's speech in "Half Life" - "You (Michael) once said a man defines themselves by what they are willing to die for. I will die for a belief, and you will die because you have none."

Nell: Rene was a child-murdering shit who said the most hurtful thing he could think of, regardless of how true it was. Once he recognized he was going to die – he choose to die spitefully. I would check for myself if Rene Dion told me it was raining in the middle of a thunderstorm.

This exchanged cracked me up. *g*

Cyanide has a good point here. I've always believed that Michael really and truly believes in Section's goals, therefore he toes Section's lines. Whether he believes in stopping the problem of 'terrorism' or just the terrorists is of course entirely another question. But for a man who had once wanted to overhaul the system and create a new society (in their own misguided way), Michael's submission to Section's faulty system seems rather tame. You'd think he'd actually think more about changing the system, much more than Nikita at least. And that leaves me a with whole new set of questions. Yes, I'm fickle. *g*

Swatkat

From:

And unless you are proposing that Paul and Madeline were treating Nikita as a special case from day one, I’ve always assumed that her access wasn’t especially unique – that Operations and Madeline were that involved with the training of all their operatives.

Actually, Nikita *was* treated as a special case from day one, and Madeline cited that fact in NOLF as a major piece of evidence in her attempt to persuade Nikita that Operations was her father.

But insane daddy (and boy do I agree with you on that) didn’t replace Paul – as you point out below – or permanently bar him from Center. He also didn’t mandate Madeline’s death. Paul, lost in his own depression ran out wily-nily on a live mission with almost no back up, and apparently, no Kevlar. Madeline chose to end her own life. Daddy had no direct control over either of those events. I have always assumed, in both cases, that Paul and Madeline gave up their lives because they each felt utterly bereft of support and rejected by those they expected to impress – and without any support or power base from below they felt unacceptably helpless in the face of their apparent reversal of fortune.

That's an assumption I definitely don't share -- but I'll spare us all another tangent. LOL.

From:

Actually, Nikita *was* treated as a special case from day one, and Madeline cited that fact in NOLF as a major piece of evidence in her attempt to persuade Nikita that Operations was her father.

Madeline was lying to her in NOLF.

And Nikita was used as a lab rat (the phasing shell) and then sentenced to abeyence in her first year. What was 'special' about those things? Beyond the fact that they indicated that Madeline and Paul were perfectly happy to lose her services?

That's an assumption I definitely don't share -- but I'll spare us all another tangent. LOL.

I know. I have read, and at the time, found incredibly convincing your version of what was going on for Madeline - and, though I'm less clear on this one, for Paul as well. But your views haven't sunk in yet, or at least not enough to erase my original impressions...so that's what I'm going with for now. :)

From:

Madeline was lying to her in NOLF.

About Paul being Nikita's father! But pointing out that Nikita had had unusual treatment and access to the higher-ups was what she used to make the lie potentially convincing -- it thus had to be an obvious truth.

And Nikita was used as a lab rat (the phasing shell) and then sentenced to abeyence in her first year. What was 'special' about those things? Beyond the fact that they indicated that Madeline and Paul were perfectly happy to lose her services?

The specialness was in the level of contact and exposure she had to the upper-level command.

ITA

From:

mscyanide.livejournal.com - Date: 2004-03-17 10:53 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

"I always read Paul's insanity as a ‘last straw’ sort of thing – that had operatives been more loyal to him in the first place, they would have backed him over Michael despite the madness."

Naturally, I didn't see it that way. I think the madness was the deciding factor and that people backed Michael not because they felt any sense of loyality to him but because they felt Ops was just mad enough to get them all killed. It was a matter of survival, simple as that.

"Rene was a child-murdering shit who said the most hurtful thing he could think of, regardless of how true it was. Once he recognized he was going to die – he choose to die spitefully. I would check for myself if Rene Dion told me it was raining in the middle of a thunderstorm."

Perhaps, but I felt his words described Michael's attitude rather well.

"I’m willing to believe that some were grateful for what they had, but I’d love to know who you have in mind as I can’t think of any off hand."

How about Mintz, Henry and Elizabeth? The majority of section operatives weren't Cold Ops, as far as I can tell.

C:"Personally, I think the Gellman process is the greatest failing of TPTB. They wrote themselves into a corner in season three and I think they knew that."

N:"But it still has to accounted for in canon characterization."

I point to Ms JayBee's story - that which explains everything. *g*

C:"Instead of having Nikita evolve and make a place for herself in Section they had her stubbornly clinging to, what I view, as unrealistic ideals."

N:"You said that in your fic too. What ‘unrealistic ideals’ do you think Nikita was still clinging too? I’ve always seen her arc as one of loss of ideals."

Few for the many? Section operatives should be allowed more freedom? There is life outside Section? *wink*

Finding it difficult to remember I'm not the N in this conversation, so if there's the odd N on my own quote's don't be surprised.

From:

Few for the many?

Just because Nikita holds a different view of an undecided ethical question than you do doesn't make her 'unrealistically idealistic.' It just means you don't agree.

Section operatives should be allowed more freedom?

When did she say that? The only thing I could find, where she gave an explicit statement about what she wanted to do to improve section, in S5 was this:

Nikita to O'Brien: "Such as doing away with some of the worst features in this place. The constant surveillance, the use of abeyance operatives, that sort of thing."

Easing up on the constant surveillance I can get behind - it was invasive (and undoubtely expensive) and didn't seem to do a whole hell of a lotta good anyway.

Eliminating abeyance operatives? I think she was wrong about that - and would discover quickly as she gained more authority that you have to have some way to make sure expected losses are least damaging to your resources. But she must have had some kind of theory about how the Sections would operate without it, and I'd love to hear it....and even though I suspect it wouldn't work, you never know until you try.

There is life outside Section?

For who? For herself? She said several times from S2 on that she *didn't* think there was any life outside Section for her, and ultimately accepted her own life tenure in Section as a given.

I know this thread was about Madeline and Paul - but I've been curious about what exactly you meant for a while. Thanks for taking the time to answer me - I suspected I wouldn't see whatever it was in the same way as you do, of course, but it's good to know the specifics. *g*

From:

"One HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference between Nikita and Paul was their view of authority and hierarchy. Paul, good solider that he was, valued, respected and trusted authority and hierarchy. He wanted the promotion, for example, because promotion is what drives the ranks of officers in militaries around the world. Up or out baby. He also couldn't understand and didn't respect people who didn't respect or value authority and hierarchy.

Nikita didn't respect or trust either authority or hierarchy, not suprising given that both had done nothing but screw her over her entire life, and she thought people who did were the stupid/naive ones.

I think whatever traps Nikita falls into, they won't be the same ones that snagged Paul."

I think you are wrong and I'll tell you why.

Paul proved time and again that he didn't trust the authority or hierarchy, he spent some time amassing power and trying to overthrow it. I think Paul's respect for the authority/hierarchy was limited by how well he thought they were doing their jobs and as the series progress his respect for Oversight and Center lessened, perhaps to the point where he disliked them as much as Nikita did him.

Both Nikita and Paul were highly egotistical characters and the trouble with people who think they are right is that they tend to be entirely too reactive. They really weren't that different and I doubt Nikita would have had any more success avoiding the snag of her own ego than Paul did.

"I think you can't run a successful organization with only the stick and no carrots, only fear and no admiration/trust/loyalty - which is ultimately what Madeline and Paul were trying to do, and it failed dismally."

Again, I disagree. Of all motivators fear is the most powerful and let's face it, most people who are feared are admired, at least a little. I also disagree with your assumption that there were no carrots - Section educated their personnel, they provided them with a great many material comforts and, for a number, Section provided a degree of freedom which would have been denied them.

J:"I think it was capricious in the sense of being used against people who had committed all sorts of minor errors -- but that seems to have been built into the system."

"Perhaps - but that also passes the buck from Madeline and Paul, which I'm not keen to do. Paul made a big deal about how much power he had more than once, so he can take the rap too, however much he didn't like that part. Paul was free to use and interpret the cancellation option however he wanted, and unless we posit that Center had a 'cancellation' quota he had to meet, he could choose how frequently he turned to that tool - and he choose to use it often (though I'm not sure I think he used it as often as once a week! But then, I think Section was a lot smaller than you do, I think.....)."

In regards to this I'd like to make one comment. Paul and Madeline had been running Section for quite a while, they had experience and by the time Nikita entered the picture I would imagine they were quite adept at identifying problems and eliminating them, (of course one could then argue that they should have killed Nikita after the first episode, but I've never disputed that.) While the immediate infraction leading to cancellation might not seem like enough of a reason they might just have learnt from previous incidents and better comprehend how such operatives would act in the future.

From:

Paul proved time and again that he didn't trust the authority or hierarchy, he spent some time amassing power and trying to overthrow it. I think Paul's respect for the authority/hierarchy was limited by how well he thought they were doing their jobs and as the series progress his respect for Oversight and Center lessened, perhaps to the point where he disliked them as much as Nikita did him.

Hmm. Nope. I still hold my position. Slippery terminology here – but I’ll try. I think Paul cordially disliked the *people* in the positions above him – and thought they were at best idiots and that he would do much better – when *he* had their jobs – which he obviously wanted very, very much. He wanted not just their power, but their actual jobs, within the current organizational structure. He never sought to overthrow Center; he sought to join it. I think he did very much respect the *idea* of rank and hierarchy. His desire to use a tyrant to ‘save’ the world is also emblematic of that – order, rank, hierarchy was to him clearly better than anarchy or messy democracy.

Both Nikita and Paul were highly egotistical characters and the trouble with people who think they are right is that they tend to be entirely too reactive. They really weren't that different and I doubt Nikita would have had any more success avoiding the snag of her own ego than Paul did.

In that sense, I completely agree. I just happen to think that her ego and her attitudes will lead her into a different set of snags.

Again, I disagree. Of all motivators fear is the most powerful and let's face it, most people who are feared are admired, at least a little.

I don’t want to get caught up in a ‘bar facts’ fight – but I don’t think that fear is the best motivator in the world, and people who are feared aren’t admired because they are feared. *If* they are admired it is because they have some other admirable or charismatic quality. Most who are feared have no such qualities and are simply hated.

I also disagree with your assumption that there were no carrots - Section educated their personnel, they provided them with a great many material comforts and, for a number, Section provided a degree of freedom which would have been denied them.

They did have carrots – I listed some in a different reply – but they were so randomly doled out, and often in the context of a ‘favor’ or a somewhat illicit ‘pay off’ and not as a reward for positive behavior (in their context of course) or as something you could predictably ‘earn.’ Which made them nearly useless as a motivator.

It is also important to remember that with the sole exception of Michael – none of the core six appear to have committed any crimes, and of the other operatives that we met whose stories we learned – Roger, Ben, Karen, Greg, the jr. operative kids, Sarah, Marco O’Brien, Jason, Jamie, David Fanning, Mick/Martin/Jones -- only Karen, Roger and Jamie had actually committed a conventional crime and been convicted to prison. For the rest of these people a basic apartment and high limit credit cards was never really going to be a ‘carrot’ or a substitute for their freedom.

Section obviously recruited many operatives from prison – but appeared to get a significant minority from other sources; and devising their personnel policies as though *all* of their people were thugs was, in my view, counterproductive.

In regards to this I'd like to make one comment. Paul and Madeline had been running Section for quite a while, they had experience and by the time Nikita entered the picture I would imagine they were quite adept at identifying problems and eliminating them, (of course one could then argue that they should have killed Nikita after the first episode, but I've never disputed that.) While the immediate infraction leading to cancellation might not seem like enough of a reason they might just have learnt from previous incidents and better comprehend how such operatives would act in the future.

Well – except – they weren’t all that brilliant at identifying problems and eliminating them. Section was infiltrated or breached or betrayed how many times in Season One alone? Three? Four?

From:

It is also important to remember that with the sole exception of Michael – none of the core six appear to have committed any crimes,

You're jumping to a conclusion there. We know that Nikita, Birkoff and Paul didn't, and that Michael did. We know absolutely nothing one way or the other about Madeline or Walter, so I think it's pushing things to say they "don't appear to have committed any crimes," because that phraseology suggests that they most likely did not.

and of the other operatives that we met whose stories we learned – Roger, Ben, Karen, Greg, the jr. operative kids, Sarah, Marco O’Brien, Jason, Jamie, David Fanning, Mick/Martin/Jones -- only Karen, Roger and Jamie had actually committed a conventional crime and been convicted to prison. For the rest of these people a basic apartment and high limit credit cards was never really going to be a ‘carrot’ or a substitute for their freedom.

I'm pretty sure the junior operative kids *had* committed crimes -- securities fraud for the computer whiz guy, and I can't remember the details of the others. Mick/Martin/Jones was Center, not Section One, so I don't think he's a good example. And David Fanning may not have gone through the formality of being convicted in court, but please! I think the fact that he was allowed to live at all would be a substitute for freedom, LOL. That leaves Jason, Ben, Greg, O'Brien and Sarah -- Jason isn't exactly representative, Greg brought his recruitment on himself, Sarah volunteered, and O'Brien was Nikita's idea! (Remember, Section was going to kill him.) In the ep where Ben was recruited, Nikita expressed a great deal of shock and dismay that a non-criminal was being recruited without any of the special circumstances that applied to the other cases mentioned above -- which to me is evidence that she had never come across any other operative without a criminal background. This means to me that Ben's style of recruitment was pretty unusual indeed.

Section obviously recruited many operatives from prison – but appeared to get a significant minority from other sources; and devising their personnel policies as though *all* of their people were thugs was, in my view, counterproductive.

For the reasons mentioned above, I don't think it was a significant minority, but rather a mere handful.

From:

True - the securities fraud kid *had* committed a crime, but that was hardly a life sentence kind of crime, and he could realistically have expected to be free again someday. Lolipop girl and the big quiet boy were mission collalteral - younger siblings/relations of badguys who were swept up by housekeeping. Jasmine was a political prisoner - again, not a common criminal and not necessarily expecting life in prison given the shifts of fate that come in that context. I can't remember what the obnoixous boy did - but still 4 out 5 had done nothing to warrant a life in prison and had no reason to feel that an appearence of false freedom was a satisfactory substitute for what they might have had if Section had not interviened in their lives.

And while you and I might think living was more reward than David Fanning deserved - *he* didn't think so and accordingly planned his own escape - rather well, all things considered.

Jason, Ben, Greg, Sarah, O'Brien (and he was offered life in prison for a murder he didn't committ - not death) - it doesn't really matter that each recruiting situation was unique - my point is that there were a significant minority of other operatives in section who would have no reasonable cause to think that an apartment alone was reward enough for being alive - which was Cyanide's arguement.

As for Nikita being surprised about Ben - I always got the feeling that it wasn't kosher to just ask people how they got to Section...so honestly, none of us know.

But of the stories we *do* know - a large number were not your basic ill-educated criminal type who might very well be grateful for the education and life-style Section offered, they were already well educated and had lives and expectations that Section foiled, and an apartment isn't necessarily going to be enough to buy their support. Sarah - the happiest with her lot - got a lot more, for example. She got to do something exciting that she was convinced had value with the end of her life.

I'm also not sure that just because someone was in prison - even for a life term - makes them ill-educated or renders them without a desire to be truly free of supervision...again, I'm just arguing against the idea that there would be a large cadre of folks in section who might feel grateful for what Section did offer in exchange for their lives.

From:

at the transcript, because it was making my brain itch...

Lolipop girl and the big quiet boy were mission collalteral - younger siblings/relations of badguys who were swept up by housekeeping.

All I could find in the transcript (unless my eyes glazed over looking for it, which is certainly possible) was a reference in the beginning to the fact that those two were already in Section custody. No reference to how or why they were picked up.

Jasmine was a political prisoner - again, not a common criminal and not necessarily expecting life in prison given the shifts of fate that come in that context.

While the statement was unclear, the description of her activities certainly suggested that the nature of her political activities might have been terrorist in nature. But she's an ambiguous one, I'll give you that.

I can't remember what the obnoixous boy did

Made a bomb.

Jason, Ben, Greg, Sarah, O'Brien (and he was offered life in prison for a murder he didn't committ - not death) - it doesn't really matter that each recruiting situation was unique - my point is that there were a significant minority of other operatives in section who would have no reasonable cause to think that an apartment alone was reward enough for being alive - which was Cyanide's arguement.

Thanks for the correction on O'Brien. But I don't believe non-criminals constituted a significant minority. There's no way to prove this one way or the other, but I think the bulk of the evidence suggests otherwise.

I'm also not sure that just because someone was in prison - even for a life term - makes them ill-educated or renders them without a desire to be truly free of supervision...again, I'm just arguing against the idea that there would be a large cadre of folks in section who might feel grateful for what Section did offer in exchange for their lives.

I don't really agree with the idea that a criminal would feel grateful, either. Actually, I'm going back to my earlier argument, which is the opposite -- since so many of Section's operatives were criminals, I think their psychological profile, on average, would make them less likely to become reliably loyal even if you treated them better than P&M did.

To quote Michael, I believe that the field ops, at least, would more often than not be "animals with guns".

Again agree with a lot that Ms J has said..

From:

mscyanide.livejournal.com - Date: 2004-03-17 11:27 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

From:

"But even so, I don't think loyalty would be as big a problem as you do - I think people *want* to be loyal and to belong (those who don't actually get labeled as psychologically ill....), and one of the things that drove section operatives batty was that this desire was constantly stifled/rebuffed in Section as we saw it."

I actually think you've rebutted yourself here.

I don’t. My point is that one motivational tool that Madeline and Paul used inconsistently or not at all was to harness that desire to belong on the part of their operatives to Section’s goals. And when operatives, even Nikita, insisted on trying to attach themselves to Section, Operations and Madeline seemed to actively discourage it – to the point that when the loyalty of their troops might have helped them to survive, they didn’t have it.

But it did work in Section. Operatives were loyal to their teams, they covered for each other and I think it is likely that the leadership ignored most of it.

Yep – ignored it is the word. Also ‘punished’ if covering actually involved covering up breaking rules, and ‘trashed’ when it got in the way of some other perceived goal. Think of the way they publicly treated Michael – their highest ranking subordinate and the person on whom a great deal of their field success apparently depended. They shamed him, they scolded him, they abandoned him in dangerous places, they took away his son, they threw a complete and utter hissy fit when he started boffing Nikita and then demoted him in the most publicly humiliating way they could devise, they re-programmed his lover, they abandoned him – again – with the jr. operatives, they left his wife behind for dead with Glass Curtain, they left his lover behind for ?? in Toys in the Basement, they set him up as a traitor at least twice, sent him to the white room for torture once, they tried to kill him in the middle of Section….

Now all of this did in fact drive Michael into open rebellion, but as a message to the rest of their people it was an insidiously destructive lesson.

Ok, the major problem I have with your argument here, is that you assume the operatives under Madeline and Paul had any say in what happened when it was clear that they didn't. The determination had already been made. What's more, Paul remained in power after the review and Michael was supposed to be cancelled.

I don’t assume that the average operative had a ‘say’ in the sense of being individually consulted in anything about Madeline or Paul’s future. I do assume that Madeline and Paul’s success figures – on which they were judged - were a result of how well their people worked for them, and by the end, their people, especially after a string of deaths and defections, didn’t seem to be working at all well for them.

I know you mean to imply that had they treated their operatives better they never would have had to endure a review, but canon disagrees. Mr. Jones computer decided the outcome years before.

If you can dismiss the Gellman arc as bad writing I get to ignore Veytos ….

More seriously - *if* Daddy (and his stupid computer) had seen Madeline and Paul as successful leaders whom he wished Nikita to learn from and emulate, I think the review would have had a different outcome.

From:

swatkat24.livejournal.com

Grrr, I hate Daddy.

More seriously - *if* Daddy (and his stupid computer) had seen Madeline and Paul as successful leaders whom he wished Nikita to learn from and emulate, I think the review would have had a different outcome.

I also think the incidents occuring in FLYF (Maddy committing suicide) and S5 (Michael helping the collective) forced his hand. He'd probably realised that he wasn't going to last much longer, and after his death, who knows what would've happened to Nikita? And then, what would've happened to his lifelong obsession about having his daughter take over the family business? So, let's put her in power, never mind doesn't want it and she's not even ready for it. At least I get to see my dream fulfilled before I die. Stupid, selfish idiot!

Swatkat

From:

My point is that one motivational tool that Madeline and Paul used inconsistently or not at all was to harness that desire to belong on the part of their operatives to Section’s goals. And when operatives, even Nikita, insisted on trying to attach themselves to Section, Operations and Madeline seemed to actively discourage it – to the point that when the loyalty of their troops might have helped them to survive, they didn’t have it.

And the point I've been trying to make is that (1) there's no way they could have secured the loyalty of their troops even if they had tried, and (2) even if such loyalty had existed it wouldn't have saved them.

They left his wife behind for dead with Glass Curtain

Uh, no, given that Michael was the ranking operative on site during that mission, *he* left his wife behind for dead with Glass Curtain. There is nothing at all in the ep that suggests P&M had any reason at all to believe she was alive. If the team leader believed she was dead, why shouldn't they believe him?

they set him up as a traitor at least twice

You're going to have to give a little more detail here, because I'm not sure which incidents you're talking about.

sent him to the white room for torture once

If you're talking about Zalman, that was a volunteer gig.

they tried to kill him in the middle of Section

Which they had the right to do under the circumstances. It's not as if it just came out of nowhere, and Paul woke up one morning and took a random potshot at Michael just for the hell of it, LOL.

I do assume that Madeline and Paul’s success figures – on which they were judged - were a result of how well their people worked for them, and by the end, their people, especially after a string of deaths and defections, didn’t seem to be working at all well for them.

The basis for their being judged was never explained very well, and struck me as pretty random, really.

More seriously - *if* Daddy (and his stupid computer) had seen Madeline and Paul as successful leaders whom he wished Nikita to learn from and emulate, I think the review would have had a different outcome.

I don't think so. They were in the way, and that was that. In fact, if they had been allowed to be successful, it would have been very difficult to persuade Jones' colleagues to allow Nikita to take over at all, at least for many many years. Seems just as likely to me Jones deliberately sabotaged Section to create the outcome he wanted.

From: