swatkat

"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:

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:

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.

1. This is as much an assumption based on opinion as those who hold Madeline and Paul responsible for everything bad in Section. You could believe it would be very difficult given the way you see section et al being structured, and the kind of operatives they had to work with - but I'm much less convinced than you are that Paul and Madeline were powerless to improve their relationships with their operatives, and operationally I think they really needed to.

2. Again - that's assuming a lot more about what Daddy was up to than canon actually gives us. Also - all that does is shift the mantle of evil power holder from Madeline and Paul to Daddy dearest.

If the team leader believed she was dead, why shouldn't they believe him?

Well, perhaps they didn't have those nifty internal 'clocks' yet - but during canon Birkoff at least did seem to know when an operative was dead based on his computer reading.

And, perhaps I'm over-reading, but when Nikita started to tell Michael, as he was flying in, that she'd found someone - it seemed to me that Paul immediately guessed who she had to be talking about and rushed to order Michael to pay no attention. It seemed to me that was an awfully quick jump for someone who was 'certain' that Simone was dead. So - yes, I have always operated on the belief that if they didn't know, they at least knew they didn't know, but found it more convienent to assume she died.

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

Over Zalman, and later the red cell guy in the private jet whose name escapes me, and actually - a third time - when they allowed the red cell chickie to believe that he would help her escape, oh, yes, and a forth time when they announced to Section that Michael had "escaped" with Rene Dion...all of these did later turn out to be fakes, but how long can you fake something like that without all kinds of people starting to wonder how much it was based on the truth?

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

Are you actually saying you think Micheal got to 'volunteer' for jobs?

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.

True - but again, the message to everyone else was - see what obedience and talent buy you - your lover mentally murdered and a death sentence when you fight back. Of course, that the death sentence was - sort of - revoked later only made them look even more inconsistent. Whoops - maybe dis-obedience and talent *do* buy your life and your lover's life. ????

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

At least in S1, Paul mentioned their 'numbers' more than once as the measure against which 'the agency' was judging them.

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.

Well - we don't know squat about Jones, really, so anything we guess about him and his motivations is just that - a guess.

You can guess he hated Paul and Madeline and was out to get them no matter what, or you can guess that he was interested in Nikita's survival and blossoming as a potential leader for section one, and so if Madeline and Paul had appeared to be furthering - rather than hindering - that process, he would have approved of them. We don't know either way.

From:

Heh. I think we’ve finally reached common ground farther down in this thread, so I’ll just add a few bits on minor things.

So - yes, I have always operated on the belief that if they didn't know, they at least knew they didn't know, but found it more convienent to assume she died.

I think even Michael knew he didn’t know -- after all, they obviously never recovered a body or had any other clear physical proof of her death. So, *everyone* assumed she was dead, Michael included.

all of these did later turn out to be fakes,

Yeah, that’s what confused me about your earlier comment. When you said “set up” I thought you meant it in the sense that they framed him as a traitor, and I definitely didn’t remember anything like that.

but how long can you fake something like that without all kinds of people starting to wonder how much it was based on the truth?

Then again, it could get to be like the boy who cries wolf, with no one willing to follow Michael if he really rebelled because they would suspect it was yet another mission, LOL.

Are you actually saying you think Micheal got to 'volunteer' for jobs?

Meaning, he knew what he was getting into and that it was for a good cause.

I know you hate to bring in non-canon things, but I saw a cut scene from that ep that was quite fascinating: Zalman exits the White Room, the TT’s walk in, and as soon as the door closes behind Zalman the TT’s give Michael a drink of water and spray his face with mist to make it look like he was sweating from torture. TPTB cut the scene because it gave away the twist too soon, LOL.

From:

mscyanide.livejournal.com

Saving me the trouble of rambling on for another 4,300 characters. *g*

Just to sum up - everyone's judgement of a character and a situation is based upon their perspective and is biased. I'm harsh on Nikita, Michael and Mr. Jones and you Nell are equally harsh on Madeline and Paul.

We each attempt to make the faults of our favorites less glaring and demonize others in order to do it. We will never actually agree which is just fabulous, because disagreeing is just sooooo much fun. *bg*

From:

Just to sum up - everyone's judgement of a character and a situation is based upon their perspective and is biased.

Of course - but that doesn't mean that different judgements are equally well supported or articulated.

Sorry - just as a teacher I get this whine all the time:

Student who failed test: "But it's my opinion!!!"

Me: "Your opinion was based on your notion there were still slaves in the American South *after* the Civil War. There were not. You still get no credit for the answer."

In this case I'm in much to deep to try to decide who did a 'better' job with that - if anyone, this time around. *g*

I'm harsh on Nikita, Michael and Mr. Jones and you Nell are equally harsh on Madeline and Paul.

Actually I don't think I'm anywhere near as harsh on Madeline and Paul as you are about Nikita and Michael. You've repeatedly made it clear that you think Nikita does little more than take up more than her fair share of oxygen and that Michael is a dolt.

I admire Madeline - I think she was extremely smart and talented, intensely focused, and hugely professional about her work, and ultimately very, very badly used by Paul and Center, both. While she could be cruel and cold, she could also be warm and kind. She also seemed very tired, and sometimes very lonely - and I wished better for her than she got, from the other characters and especially from the writers.

I'm more ambivilent about Paul - I respect his courage and his committment and his ambition to make the world a safer place. I like his coniving mind and his alligator grin. But he acted like a jerk too often for me to warm to him very much.

We each attempt to make the faults of our favorites less glaring and demonize others in order to do it.

I don't think I've ever denied Nikita or Michael's faults, or tried to demonize Madeline and Paul.

My major criticism of Madeline and Paul was that I thought they mishandled the interpersonal dynamics of Section, which damaged the very outcomes they otherwise sought with all the talent and passion at their command. That they were generally quite successful, and for what we were led to believe was quite a long time, made it that much harder for me to watch them foster an environment which positively encouraged their operatives to betray them, and on a regular basis.

This thread began by Swatkat asking if HRs - like me - were 'too harsh' on Madeline and Paul. For my part, I answered no. I don't think I demonize them, or turn them into raving lunatics, or dismiss them as stupid or incompetent, or attempt to belittle them in order to build up Nikita or Michael.

We will never actually agree which is just fabulous, because disagreeing is just sooooo much fun. *bg*

That is undoubtedly true - how very, very boring if we did!

From:

mscyanide.livejournal.com

"Actually I don't think I'm anywhere near as harsh on Madeline and Paul as you are about Nikita and Michael. You've repeatedly made it clear that you think Nikita does little more than take up more than her fair share of oxygen and that Michael is a dolt.....This thread began by Swatkat asking if HRs - like me - were 'too harsh' on Madeline and Paul. For my part, I answered no. I don't think I demonize them, or turn them into raving lunatics, or dismiss them as stupid or incompetent, or attempt to belittle them in order to build up Nikita or Michael."

LOL, you do have a point. I am perhaps harsher on Nikita and Michael than you are on Paul and Madeline, or at least, harsher on Nikita than you are on Paul or Madeline.

However, I happen to be of the opinion that you are too harsh on Paul and Madeline - Paul in particular. You do, to a certain degree, demonize them and have demonstrated this tendency throughout this discussion.

You have been quick to condemn them for policies which it is entirely possible they were not responsible for implementing and had to enforce. Now, while JayBee and myself have displayed a tendency to 'pass the buck' to Mr. Jones or George you have been reluctant to acknowledge that anyone but Madeline or Paul could have been responsible. Perhaps you don't dislike them, but you are harsh on them. *bg*

From:

msgenevieve.livejournal.com

Nell, you've done the rest of we Nonmyopic!HRs proud. Here, have some pretend cheesecake.

Jaybee, as elequent as always. I'd pay you to defend me any day.

Cyanide, what can I say? I completely and utterly disagree with almost everything you've said. (And yet I still like you. Go figure.) If you think Nell is too harsh on Paul and Madeline, then God knows what you think about the people who *are* actually too harsh on Paul and Madeline. *lol*

Swati, I think you get the gold star for the number of comments this thread, lol!

From:

mscyanide.livejournal.com

"Cyanide, what can I say? I completely and utterly disagree with almost everything you've said. (And yet I still like you. Go figure.)"

There's no accounting for taste. *wink*

"If you think Nell is too harsh on Paul and Madeline, then God knows what you think about the people who *are* actually too harsh on Paul and Madeline. *lol*"

But you already know what I think of *those* people Jen. They are idiots. *eg*

From:

Why thank you, ma'am. *preens*

Don't you just love it when they go off like that? *vbeg* Too bad I couldn't participate that much because it all happened while I was sleeping, lol!

Swatkat

From:

If giving Paul (and by extension Madeline) credit for having a hand in his own fate, and thinking well enough of him to want to argue with him about his specific choices, is 'demonizing' Paul, then I think I'll just take him out of the sandbox and head for home now.

Nell

(huggles her little horned Paul snugly to her chest and wanders away....)

From:

little horned Paul

That so needs an icon. *veg*

Swatkat

From:

And if someone makes one (I'm too graphics-impaired to do it myself), I want it! Willing to trade any favors (within reason, LOL). *g*

From:

Willing to trade any favors (within reason, LOL). *g*

I'll keep that in mind.*vbeg*

Any specific Paul picture (grinning, yelling, glaring, etc) you have in mind?

Swatkat

From:

Any specific Paul picture (grinning, yelling, glaring, etc) you have in mind?

Anything will work. Glaring would be lovely, but I'm not picky. *g*

From:

*notes*

In case glaring isn't available (Shame on you TRs! How come there's not a single good quality screencap of Paul?), will an evil grin do? And what should the icon say? Should I leave it blank? Or do I ask

msgenevieve to come up with something insanely funny? *eg*

Swatkat

From:

Glaring, evil grin...it's all good! LOL.

We TRs *are* a bit lazy about screencaps -- I guess we aren't as obsessed as our HR cohorts? *vbg* But I trust you to find something appropriate.

As for what the icon should say...I don't know! Ask Gen and surprise me.....LOL.

From:

I'm rather particular about this stuff, you know. *eg*

We TRs *are* a bit lazy about screencaps -- I guess we aren't as obsessed as our HR cohorts? *vbg*

Shame on you! ;) Well, there's always geneglazer.com - too bad about the qualities. *sigh*

Swatkat

From:

don't take stuff from that site, please. I would want to get permission from the owner, and that's too much trouble. If you can't get a pic that is generally available, don't worry about it.

From:

msgenevieve.livejournal.com

I have lots of nice Paul shots at home, many of them borrowed a long time ago from the owner of geneglazer.com with her generous permission. *g* I'll send you some tonight.

I also have lots of Evil Icon Quotes in my head. Heh.

From:

Knew I could count on you! *eg*

I did one screencap myself (one of Paul, and one of Michael and Nikita in HL) - and the qualities are equally bad.

Swatkat

From: