VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Monday, January 17, 02:32:14pm
Author: JayBee
Subject: Re: So - why not?
In reply to: Nell 's message, "So - why not?" on Monday, January 17, 01:39:56pm

Granting that the above is a form of personal ambition - was she more interested in preserving Section as it was, or in pursuing Section's overall mission (the vague one from the opening montage being the closest statement I ever heard of that)?

I'm not sure it's an either-or proposition. While I'd say the latter was her fundamental objective, she also seems to have thought Section as it was constituted worked pretty well in achieving that larger goal -- although I believe that she would be willing to try different methods *if* she could be convinced they were improvements. (However, you're not going to find her agreeing with Nikita about what needed to be improved.)

Also - perhaps unintentionally - the picture of Madeline that the above gives is of a person who has become quite rigid. Seems to me that this is a weakness that she would have exploited in another....do you see it as a weakness in her? (If I'm right in reading into your short sentences a rigidity of opinion and thought...)

I think the operative characteristic was actually more arrogance than rigidity -- I don't think she resisted change per se, but she did tend to be dismissive when others (especially others whom she had decided weren't as skilled/knowledgeable as she was) challenged her way of doing things. She also had fairly obvious control issues, with respect to both her environment (and the people in it) and herself. Combined, I think these characteristics gave her the appearance of rigidity at times.

Does all of this amount to a weakness? Sure. And we saw where it led her, didn't we?

As for what a woman 'ought' to do? Well - in my world, a woman in Madeline's position would very definitely be looking to elbow Paul aside or out or dead and take all the glory she deserved directly onto her own shoulders....I'm not sure if she 'ought' to or not, but in the dog eat dog world of Section - it suddenly seems strange to me that Madeline didn't appear to be playing that game. Or to want anything else either.

I can think of definite tactical advantages to the game-plan she chose instead -- "glory" can also make one more of a target, after all. I think she preserved a greater range of long-term options while maximizing her influence by doing things the way she did.

Also, there was fairly clearly a personal component to her decision, as well -- while you may not like Operations much or understand what she saw in him, it's pretty clear she see *something* worthy of being loyal to. In a hypothetical Section where there was a transfer of command from Operations to Michael, for example, would you argue that Nikita "ought to" be considering elbowing Michael aside and taking command herself, assuming (as I believe you do) that she's capable of running Section herself? And if not, why not?

But, what did Madeline want?

Primarily, she wanted to serve her organization. While I believe she also had other wishes and desires, they all paled beside that one, and she was willing to give them up if necessary.

I never saw her pursuing a private agenda, personal or professional - and so, I wondered why not?

But one could equally ask, why? Why should one have a private agenda? What does one gain by pursuing it?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.