Re: Specifics re Paul (r) -- La Femme Nikita Fan Fiction Message Board

[ 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: Saturday, February 11, 09:10:54am
Author: Nell
Subject: Re: Specifics re Paul (r)
In reply to: JayBee 's message, "Specifics re Paul (r)" on Wednesday, February 01, 10:29:39pm

Madeline, too, may have been a victim of this mentality. Don't forget, his abandoning her at the Red Cell facility came pretty shortly after *she* abandoned *him* -- where not only did she leave Section for the sake of another man, she nearly killed Paul in the process. We, the viewers, can chalk it up to whatever bizarre neurosurgery she'd had, but how much of her behavior came from genuine feelings unleashed by the medical treatment? (She was described as being completely "off-profile" by Paul himself.) One can't be sure, and perhaps Paul felt he couldn't be sure, either. So, whereas he had once seen her as the loyal and reliable right-hand person, for whom he *would* set aside his ambition not once but several times in earlier seasons, he now felt doubts.

I'd forgotten that comment about being "off profile" - interesting.

I think the gender of the people involved does matter to Paul, myself.... but, on that we may just have to disagree.

So this sort of pathological need for loyalty is what I think drives Paul, and I believe he applies the same (unreasonable) standard irrespective of gender. Furthermore, it does indeed serve as a good symbol of his behavior in the larger scheme of things. Just as he demanded an absurd level of "loyalty" in his personal relationships, he demanded the same from Section operatives..

That is really an interesting take on Paul, and so suggestive too because he was never loyal in that way himself....perhaps a case of projecting his own failings onto everyone else, eh?

This is, in fact, exactly my thinking on this issue, except that I don't see how you can use "adultery" as a metaphor here. In fact, it's perfectly plausible that she may even have committed adultery while married to Charles, for all we know, but *still* remained faithful to him in this more important (to me) sense.

Of course - if Charles did not wish to die, and had inteligence he believed would make bargining for his survival possible, then her act was hardly a loyal one. /devils advocate

I think my posts got all cross wired because I was thinking about two things at once, and not being very clear in my own head about the intmate nature of sexual betrayal and how htat plays out for operatives individually - and the operational issue of personal fidelity in the Section!verse.

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

Replies:

I might come back and elaborate on this (r) -- JayBee, Saturday, February 11, 03:07:54pm