One jump ahead of the slowpokes, One skip ahead of my doom ...

[swatkat]

HP recs for msgenevieve (and anyone else who wants to read *g*)


by parkergray
Pairing: Harry/Hermione
Rating: NC-17

That's right. It's H/Hr, it's smut (or a 'smutlet', as the author calls it *g*), and it's good. What I enjoyed about the writing is the intensity, and the author's brilliant use of repetitions. Go read.

This is how it happens.

They’ve been sleeping together for years, off and on, ever since the war. More off than on, he thinks, and sometimes tries to figure out why. But most of the time he doesn’t.

Wane by lupercali
Pairing: Remus/Sirius
Rating: R
Summary: Of gaining and giving and gone, a fairytale for Remus. (OotP spoilers)

Yes, the pairing is Sirius/Remus, but the story isn't about Sirius and Remus at all, and the relationship is only touched upon. This is Remus' story – beautiful, beautiful story that makes me feel all sad and warm (why yes, I do love Remus). The writing is beautiful, especially the lovely fairytale-like way in which she tells the story:

It was due to his upbringing that Remus remained a constant -- people needed anchors, Remus thought, and his was made of many volumes.

Even the First Night, there was only gain, the gore and blood and silvered-white teeth of the wolf as Remus ran through the dense woods behind his grandmother's cottage. How quaint, he'd reflect later, sipping willowbark tea and listening to Sirius' prattle; how very much the twisted fairytale.

And even in his worst moments his mind refused to court "loss" to the moon.

So is the characterisation – just in these three short paragraphs she manages to explain what Remus is.



~

I've been enjoying the slash discussion on the FFMB. It was nice to see opinions from other sides. There was a time I wouldn't read anything but Michael/Nikita – I had no idea what I was missing. *g* And I might as well confess, I don't agree with 'Michael would never do that' or 'would never want to do that'. There's more than one way of characterisation.

~

And now, for the thought of the day – I've been reading some of the stories in the archives lately, and a large number of them touch upon Michael's early days in Section. The general fannish opinion about Michael's training and early period in Section is that he was treated brutally by Operations and Madeline (and Jurgen, at times) and that's the reason why he is the 'broken' man he is today.

I don't buy this theory well.


I don't agree that Operations and Madeline personally insisted on treating Michael 'brutally' because they wanted to break him and mould him into a machine. He himself became one, because it was a survival mechanism for him (he would have been that way even if he were a lesser operative). That, and his ability to handle the pressure in Section made him advance so fast. He may have hated his killer persona. But IMHO a part of him also enjoyed accepting the challenges and was proud of the fact that he was capable of achieving this. Section put him through hoops, because he was capable of going through them, and also because he stood up to the challenges that they threw at him. Not everyone who has potential lives up to it. Michael didn't need special treatment from Madeline to become the perfect operative – it was there in him.

I don't see Michael being abused in Section as well, sexually or otherwise. Michael is not a harmless sheep – he takes his own decisions and knows how to hit back. Whatever he did, he did it out of his own choice (I'm not talking missions here).

Just thinking.

Comments

Being the devil's advocate here

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

Um, Paul *did* fraternize with a direct subordinate. *vbg* So I'm not sure he has quite the problem with the concept that everyone is suggesting.

But what I do think is this: he was very much a traditional, American male of his generation, and I think he probably held some rather non-PC views about both women and homosexuality. I don't think he would have sex with a *male* subordinate, unless it was a way of establishing dominance over the person. No way would he engage in any sex act with a male of lesser rank that suggested any sort of submission or even mere vulnerability. Sex with a female subordinate wouldn't be so much of a problem, because I don't think he would ever think of a female as a competitor in quite the same way.

As for a male sex partner of equal or higher rank, it might be more likely, but as an ambitious type I think he would still find it a humiliation unless he were being dominant. I believe the only male he could plausibly be slashed with in a way that didn't involve a power trip would be someone completely outside the organization's hierarchy altogether -- a Willie Kane or someone similar.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

True. LOL!

I was thinking about boy subordinates, because I agree - for all that he more than respected Madeline and Adriene's undoubted abilities, I'm quite certain that he also NEVER stoped seeing them as *women* first and foremost, and so never quite a full part of the same organizational tree as himself.

Also, having sex with a woman would never confuse the issue of who the 'man' was, but having sex with a man would, or could, and so would be much more fraught.

Nell

[nell65.livejournal.com]

adding on a bit - which makes his passing over Madeline to make Michael his replacement when he went to Center all the more telling a move. That he really didn't see Madeline as 'in' the chain of promotion - despite arranging for her to move up to level what was it? 9? 14? some odd number like that, and she was certainly a figure with a great deal of power in his Section.

Nell

You know, I'm getting more and more interested in Paul all the time... ;)

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

I agree: I don't think Paul saw Madeline as in quite the same food chain as he. In part that was because she was female, and while I think he actually was more capable of respecting women's intelligence than many other men of his background and generation, there were still some sexist underpinnings there. But it wasn't *just* that -- he had also come, through habit, to see her, individually, as his right-hand person -- as, in a way, an appendage of him, and thus *not* a potential replacement. This was partly in recognition of how much he depended on her, but it also had the effect of him taking her for granted and underestimating what she was capable of.

I always thought it would be a fun plotline to promote her to Oversight to replace George instead of him. First of all, I think she would have been more suited for the job in the first place, which would have involved a lot of delegating tasks to the various Sections and then assessing their performance, rather than the action-oriented work I think Paul excelled at. Second of all, it would be a lot of fun to turn their relationship upside-down by reversing the hierarchy, and seeing how they coped with it. And third, I think it would have been good for both of them, both as operatives and as people, to be forced to break out of some of their habits and do things a new way.

I also have my pet theory about AGT: I believe Paul set it up as a deliberate test of whether Michael had the "balls" to take over leadership of Section One. He dangled that order *not* to go after whatshisname soooo blatantly in Michael's face, it struck me as a very calculated challenge. I think if Michael hadn't defied those orders, Paul would have lost all respect for him. I also believe that Michael recognized that this was a test and behaved accordingly.

I also believe that Paul did *not* tell Madeline what he was really doing: (1) because it wouldn't really be much of a test of Michael's ability to stand on his own unless he had "real" opposition; and (2) because in a way this was an "alpha male" thing between Paul and Michael, and so the women -- both of them -- were left out of it. By both Paul *and* Michael, btw.