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.

Current Mood: awake
Current Music: Crappy comedy film on tv

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

jaybee65.livejournal.com

**But was it in P&M's power to alter that policy?**

Honestly? I haven't a frigging clue. I suspect Jaybee would say not much...

Me? I'm still feeling my way on the relationships between Section/Center/Oversight/The Agency - I suspect I may be crediting Paul and Madeline with more power than they had only because we met so few of the other people above them - and George ended up seeming mildly ineffectual and Daddy was a nutter, so it's hard for me to credit them with having much to say about the day to day functioning of Section.

This comes pretty close to what I've been trying to get across as my definition of “being too harsh” on P&M. *Not* the idea of criticizing them per se, because that’s entirely fair. Rather, “too harsh” is the habit of automatically assigning blame to them in every single instance where the evidence is actually ambiguous -- and without even acknowledging that the assignment is based on an *assumption* and not proven fact. I see that kind of “default automatic presumption of guilt” employed all the time (I'm not trying to pick on you Nell, because you at least concede the potential existence of alternatives) -- and yes, it does annoy me at times, LOL.

From:

nell65.livejournal.com

This comes pretty close to what I've been trying to get across as my definition of “being too harsh” on P&M. *Not* the idea of criticizing them per se, because that’s entirely fair.

Good. Glad to know it. ;)

Cause sometimes it has seemed like my major criticisms are countered with 'it was Center/the system's fault.'

Rather, “too harsh” is the habit of automatically assigning blame to them in every single instance where the evidence is actually ambiguous -- and without even acknowledging that the assignment is based on an *assumption* and not proven fact.

It's all assumptions - including the assumption that their hands were tied with regard to how they treated their people. But one of the things that makes me think they had a range of options was that they weren't consistent over time - sometimes seeming to offer rewards, other times demanding them back, sometimes seeming to invivte input from operatives, other times absolutley refusing it, sometimes looking the other way over petty infractions, other times coming down like a ton of bricks, etc....

I see that kind of “default automatic presumption of guilt” employed all the time (I'm not trying to pick on you Nell, because you at least concede the potential existence of alternatives) -- and yes, it does annoy me at times, LOL.

I don't actually think Madeline and Paul did poorly as leaders of Section - I think they accomplished a great deal. I happen to believe that they could have accomplished even more if they had worked to find a way to have their operatives work with them instead of against them whenever they were in trouble.

What annoys me is the notion that they represent some sort of pinacle of unflawed success and set a standard for successful leadership that no-one else - namely Niktia and/or Michael - could possibly meet.

They made decisions I question, I don't think - given the evidence we had to work with - that they *had* to treat their operatives with as much callousness as they did, and I think that the steady level of betrayal they faced - which undermined their mission success - was an indicator that they were not doing as well as they could.

From:

jaybee65.livejournal.com

sometimes it has seemed like my major criticisms are countered with 'it was Center/the system's fault.'

I *have* made that counter to some of your criticisms, and I hate to tell you this, but I probably will continue to do so. *eg* It happens to be my opinion, based on assumptions *I* choose to make and my best reading of canon. But I’ve always tried to make it very clear that I am aware that I am engaging in assumptions and interpretation -- which is a sense I don’t get from some HRs, who can sometimes seem serenely and rather smugly convinced of their absolute rightness at all times. I’m not lumping you in with them Nell, because you actually don’t fit this category, but because you’re the only one here really taking the HR side of things, you get to bear the brunt of my complaint. LOL.

I don't actually think Madeline and Paul did poorly as leaders of Section - I think they accomplished a great deal.

I am actually very surprised to read this. Seriously. It’s not at *all* close to what I thought your opinion was.

I happen to believe that they could have accomplished even more if they had worked to find a way to have their operatives work with them instead of against them whenever they were in trouble.

Maybe. But I’m somewhat skeptical.

What annoys me is the notion that they represent some sort of pinacle of unflawed success and set a standard for successful leadership that no-one else - namely Niktia and/or Michael - could possibly meet.

I’ve certainly never posited that notion. Rather, my whole point is countering what I think is the almost universal position taken by HRs: that not only will Michael and/or Nikita meet that standard, they will *necessarily* exceed it, because they are inherently superior people (morally, intellectually, etc., take your pick). *I* think the jury is out on that one.

They made decisions I question, I don't think - given the evidence we had to work with - that they *had* to treat their operatives with as much callousness as they did, and I think that the steady level of betrayal they faced - which undermined their mission success - was an indicator that they were not doing as well as they could.

Anyone’s performance can always be improved upon. Maybe a different strategy in that regard would have worked, maybe not. I *don’t* think it would have assisted in their survival in the end, but that’s clearly a matter of opinion.

From:

nell65.livejournal.com

I *have* made that counter to some of your criticisms, and I hate to tell you this, but I probably will continue to do so. *eg*

That's cool - now I'm much clearer about your position.

I'm currently quite in the dark about section/center etc... - and so I don't have a clear vision AT ALL about how they opperated; so blaming a system I don't understand frustrates me no end - it is easier for me to concentrate on the individuals within the structure.

It happens to be my opinion, based on assumptions *I* choose to make and my best reading of canon. But I’ve always tried to make it very clear that I am aware that I am engaging in assumptions and interpretation -- which is a sense I don’t get from some HRs, who can sometimes seem serenely and rather smugly convinced of their absolute rightness at all times. I’m not lumping you in with them Nell, because you actually don’t fit this category, but because you’re the only one here really taking the HR side of things, you get to bear the brunt of my complaint. LOL.

Eh. I can take it. The whole "god like" Michael crowd makes me gag too. Though I have to say, I haven't read all that many Post S5 stories - even from HRs - which posit a Nikita fully capable of runing section independently. Most suggest she is in over her head and needs lover boy back in the saddle to survive. Feh.

I am actually very surprised to read this. Seriously. It’s not at *all* close to what I thought your opinion was.

Well the thread *did* start as one dealing with criticism of Madeline and Paul! LOL!

Actually - I haven't replied to your comments from yesterday yet because I was (am?) thinking of starting again - perhaps in my own lj (*g* sorry for being such space hogs, Swatkat) - listing what I thought was good about Madeline and Paul so that my criticisms of them would have a context, and why I thought they had the capicity to make different choices at some crucial moments and why it frustrated me that they made the ones they did.

I’ve certainly never posited that notion.

No, you haven't. *g*

But others have, and I have probably been guilty of using you as a proxy for them.

Rather, my whole point is countering what I think is the almost universal position taken by HRs: that not only will Michael and/or Nikita meet that standard, they will *necessarily* exceed it, because they are inherently superior people (morally, intellectually, etc., take your pick). *I* think the jury is out on that one.

Actually, the dominate HR position is that *Michael* will necessarily exceed Madeline and Paul (where they don't turn out to be closet 'good guys' all along). Most HRs are really DOMs who've learned not to insult the fandom with Marysues. Most HRs who will talk about it appear to be as dismissive as Cyanide of Nikita's abilities.

So I suppose I've also been using you as a proxy for them too... sorry 'bout that.

I do think that, being flawed human beings, Michael and Nikita, together or alone, would make mistakes runing section - perhaps fatal (to them anyway) ones, just as Madeline and Paul did (or, the system will crush them or they will run up against a new Mr Jones figure...) in any case, their success isn't guarunteed by any means.

From:

jaybee65.livejournal.com

I do think that, being flawed human beings, Michael and Nikita, together or alone, would make mistakes runing section - perhaps fatal (to them anyway) ones, just as Madeline and Paul did (or, the system will crush them or they will run up against a new Mr Jones figure...) in any case, their success isn't guarunteed by any means.

That's really all I've ever been trying to say, LOL.

Hey...listen! That thudding sound is the entire fandom fainting away at the thought of us finally reaching the same conclusion. *g*