Okay ::whimper:: deep breath. Mounties In Pain, aka. Victoria's Secret, continues and goes into the second, and really altogether worse part
( Read more... )
2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)spikedluvApril 22 2007, 20:02:21 UTC
~Did she *really* kill someone in the restaurant owner's family just so he wouldn't be around for folks to talk to? I bet she killed the guy who saw her. What an *evil* bitch. But there's still the cabbie, right?
Oh, wow, I did not even consider that! But she does tell Fraser that she’s tying up loose ends. Cree-py.
I actually haven't seen the slightest bit of love from her. Not the tiniest little touch of it.
This is the kind of love that causes someone to kill you, because if they can’t have you, no one else will. Obsessive and destructive and possessive. Men who isolate their girlfriends or wives, insisting they have no friends and must rely upon/be dependant solely on the man, just like Victoria is trying to isolate Fraser, taking away his friends and his support structure and his belief in the law.
And after I wrote this I read your next point, about cults and brain-washers. Yes, good point.
~Oh, I just *adore* that Fraser's not going to go with her!! ::hugs Fraser:: But I can't believe that she still thinks he going to
( ... )
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)charashiApril 23 2007, 01:03:32 UTC
The entirety of these two eps was a horribly written study of a completely OOC Fraser.
Wow, sorry, I have to butt in here, because I couldn't possibly disagree more. These are the episodes that turn Fraser from what is essentially a caricature into a person, with wants and desires and incredibly deep flaws, possibly even psychoses. Before this episode, Fraser is basically a Mountie doll -- perfect, unemotional, sexless and sympathetic. And then, with this episode, that caricature gets completely turned on its head and he becomes a human being who can be just as easily fucked up as anyone else. That's absolutely critical to his character... Otherwise what on earth is the point
( ... )
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)sara_merry99April 23 2007, 02:52:13 UTC
These are the episodes that turn Fraser from what is essentially a caricature into a person, with wants and desires and incredibly deep flaws, possibly even psychoses.
I get that. Though they could have done that in other ways that were less horrible. I adore Ray and no one ever pretends that he's perfect, right? I don't need my heroes to be perfect caricatures, but the way they did this to Fraser has essentially broken him in my mind. Because he went from being a good, decent man with a strong sense of justice to being a fuck-drunk pussy-whipped bail-jumper who'd leave his best friend to take the fall for something that he didn't do. And *that* is not a constellation of flaws I can deal with in a hero.
Talking to his dead father in public, embarrassing but manageable, running out on Ray like that. Unforgiveable.
With Victoria, for the first time, he actually questions his life -- he questions turning her in, and that leads to a spiral of guilt and shame and questioning that ultimately makes him question everything up to and
( ... )
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)charashiApril 23 2007, 05:20:27 UTC
But the point of this whole arc is the subversion. Fraser is perfect before this -- it's that characterization which sets up the dichotomy of the show. Fraser is perfect and alone and has to deal with the imperfect-ness and crowdedness of Chicago, just like he has to deal with having a real friend and having his father in his life for the first time and all these things... but he is still essentially untouchable. He takes Ray in stride and he takes his father in stride and he's still pretty much perfect.
To have him fall, it can't just be a little thing. It has to be huge. But, more than that, it has to be something that really does make him into a different person for a while. A lot of the best Due South fic (I particularly recommend cesperanza) explores the issues behind Fraser's becoming a Mountie -- the way he worships his father and his duty, the fact that he probably didn't really decide to become a Mountie, the fact that his life has really left him no chance for real interpersonal relationships before... In a way, Fraser is still kind
( ... )
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)sara_merry99April 23 2007, 15:50:15 UTC
Fraser is perfect before this -- it's that characterization which sets up the dichotomy of the show.
Maybe that's where you and I are running into disagreement, because I don't think Fraser was ever perfect. He was always naive, morally unbending at the most inconvenient times, bitchy sometimes (though that mostly with Dief), demanding, more than a little holier-than-thou, etc. There's a reason why the other Mounties at his post in the Yukon didn't like him, even before the series started.
He put all of these character flaws to good ends (helping folks) but he still *had* them.
So I guess I didn't feel the need for them to have added a bunch of *worse* character flaws to balance him out. Some maybe, but abandoning a loyal friend for a woman he *knows* is a murderous, scheming bitch seems a bit over the top.
I have read cesperanza's fic, Eight Sessions in particular is a brilliant examination of this
( ... )
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)charashiApril 23 2007, 16:27:40 UTC
I suppose the point I'm making is that it's not that version that's necessarily appealing to him -- it's that there's any other possibility. He doesn't really have the time or the capacity to examine just what that means during the course of the episode, because he's completely blinded by Victoria at that point.
And eh, I'm really unconvinced by the "Fraser totally has flaws in season one" argument. No offense, not meaning you in particular, just that attitude in general. His flaws are really small at that point and in my memory aren't really explored or examined in any serious way until these episodes. And that's the way the show was written, really. In season two they actually start dealing with his flaws, but I won't spoil you for all that.
The one thing they really do show in s1 is that he's fairly unpersonable, but even then-- it's never really clear why the other Mounties don't like him. I mean, look how many people in Chicago do like him; not at first, but once they get to know him. IDK, the other things I don't think really
( ... )
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)sara_merry99April 23 2007, 18:04:31 UTC
I suppose the point I'm making is that it's not that version that's necessarily appealing to him -- it's that there's any other possibility.
This I can totally see and totally agree with. And also that he didn't have time to extrapolate from this, because he was just blinded and caught up in the whole Victoria thing, and wobbling from so tangled up in her that he was defending her in the face of *all* the evidence to seeing her clearly (and yet still wanting her), etc.
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)charashiApril 23 2007, 19:12:42 UTC
IDK if you're at all interested, but I'm actually working on a big fat fic right now that goes very deeply into all these issues. The "frame" story is F/K, but the main plot is Fraser/Victoria and is pretty much entirely about all the different things that Victoria means to Fraser.
Granted, it's not going to be finished for, like... months, so it's probably not worth my telling you about it. *g* But that's why I'm so interested in this issue, anyway.
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)charashiApril 23 2007, 05:26:36 UTC
I do also agree with melodyunity's intepretation below, and that's part of the thing I'm trying to convey: Fraser's life is incredibly lonely and, like I said, I see him very much as a kid in certain ways, trying desperately to connect with someone. And with Victoria, he thinks he has that, and that's what leads him into this questioning process I'm talking about; like, if the only way I can avoid loneliness is to not be myself (i.e., by not turning Victoria in), then why should I be this person I don't even like most of the time (i.e., his father)?
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)sara_merry99April 23 2007, 15:51:48 UTC
Fraser's life is incredibly lonely and, like I said, I see him very much as a kid in certain ways, trying desperately to connect with someone. And with Victoria, he thinks he has that
This is something I can *totally* see and that does explain a lot, though not all, of what he does here. I can see that feeling of connection being a *powerful* drug to someone who hasn't had the most basic human connections since he was a small child.
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)spikedluvApril 23 2007, 18:24:03 UTC
Before this episode, Fraser is basically a Mountie doll -- perfect, unemotional, sexless and sympathetic.
I disagree. I think Fraser was far from perfect and emotionless, though it was very subtly done. For example, we often saw him manipulate Ray into helping him, we saw him show emotion in his father's cabin and when he was going to be forced to kill Dief.
I think most writers realize that you can't have a perfect hero because there has to be something for people to relate to. He can't be a complete mess, but he has to have flaws, and I believe that Fraser has them, even if they're not readily apparent at first glance.
it's because most of what he is before that is a constructIf you're suggesting that what he is when he's with Victoria (forgetting his friends and being late for work being just two of the least changes that occur in him), is who Fraser really is, then I'd have to say he's not someone I'd like very much
( ... )
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)sara_merry99April 23 2007, 18:54:45 UTC
Fraser’s guilt in turning Victoria in and questioning his own actions in upholding the law, that is what I see as Fraser’s underlying OOC behavior, and because of that, everything that follows from it and builds upon it is OOC as well. At least, imo. *g*
::nods nods:: I agree with you totally. And yet this is what so much of the episode hinges on, this feeling of guilt and that he couldn't trust his actions then. ::nods nods::
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)charashiApril 23 2007, 19:10:38 UTC
If you read my later comments, I address this point. I think he knows deep down that he did the right thing -- but in doing so, he also blocked any chance of this possible other life, and that's part of the thing that's torturing him so much about it. Like, if he had just let her go, couldn't he have wound up happier?
There's also the fact that it seems to be the first (and maybe only) time he really is questioning the ethics of his actions vis a vis her role in the robbery. It seems like he manages to convince himself that she might have been unfairly harshly punished because she was "forced" into it by Jolly.
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)sara_merry99April 23 2007, 02:45:47 UTC
This is the kind of love that causes someone to kill you, because if they can’t have you, no one else will.
Maybe I'm the one with an impoverished view of love because I can't make my definition of the term include this concept at all. Love just *isn't* that to me.
I think she believes with each thing Fraser does for her, she’s drawing the noose tighter and tighter and he’ll have no choice but to go with her. She makes a point of saying that he’s got nothing left, which makes me want to laugh and choke her, because she’s done her best to make sure that he has nothing left there.
Yeah, that's been her whole plan--to *ensure* that Fraser has nothing left in Chicago. Nothing left tying him to his old life at all. Nothing of his life or his personality or his job or *anything*. Nothing at all to cling to except her.
Hateful bitch!!
I don’t know how Fraser could have done that, or how Ray can forgive him.I'm glad it's not just me thinking that. I'm really just *pained* by this episode and how the producers and writers treated the
( ... )
Re: 2 of 2 (aka, Oops, someone got talky again *g*)spikedluvApril 23 2007, 18:41:44 UTC
Maybe I'm the one with an impoverished view of love because I can't make my definition of the term include this concept at all. Love just *isn't* that to me.
Oh, certainly not! I should have said "love". I mean, clearly the person who kills his wife because she was going to leave him thinks he did it out of love, but he's crazy. *g*
This is a good question. And you know, surely they could have written it in there. That there really *was* coercion or she was going to turn in the money and it was those years in prison that cemented her evil horrible plan. You know? Something.And even if there had been coersion, that fact would have been used to either lessen the charge against her, make the jury see her as more sympathetic and perhaps get her off at trial, or get her sentence reduced. Seeing how she manipulates Fraser, she'd have had a jury eating out of her hand. Cleary she deserved those 10 years in prison. The only people to not think so are Victoria, of course, and Fraser, whose only reason that I can see is based on a day
( ... )
Oh, wow, I did not even consider that! But she does tell Fraser that she’s tying up loose ends. Cree-py.
I actually haven't seen the slightest bit of love from her. Not the tiniest little touch of it.
This is the kind of love that causes someone to kill you, because if they can’t have you, no one else will. Obsessive and destructive and possessive. Men who isolate their girlfriends or wives, insisting they have no friends and must rely upon/be dependant solely on the man, just like Victoria is trying to isolate Fraser, taking away his friends and his support structure and his belief in the law.
And after I wrote this I read your next point, about cults and brain-washers. Yes, good point.
~Oh, I just *adore* that Fraser's not going to go with her!! ::hugs Fraser:: But I can't believe that she still thinks he going to ( ... )
Reply
Wow, sorry, I have to butt in here, because I couldn't possibly disagree more. These are the episodes that turn Fraser from what is essentially a caricature into a person, with wants and desires and incredibly deep flaws, possibly even psychoses. Before this episode, Fraser is basically a Mountie doll -- perfect, unemotional, sexless and sympathetic. And then, with this episode, that caricature gets completely turned on its head and he becomes a human being who can be just as easily fucked up as anyone else. That's absolutely critical to his character... Otherwise what on earth is the point ( ... )
Reply
I get that. Though they could have done that in other ways that were less horrible. I adore Ray and no one ever pretends that he's perfect, right? I don't need my heroes to be perfect caricatures, but the way they did this to Fraser has essentially broken him in my mind. Because he went from being a good, decent man with a strong sense of justice to being a fuck-drunk pussy-whipped bail-jumper who'd leave his best friend to take the fall for something that he didn't do. And *that* is not a constellation of flaws I can deal with in a hero.
Talking to his dead father in public, embarrassing but manageable, running out on Ray like that. Unforgiveable.
With Victoria, for the first time, he actually questions his life -- he questions turning her in, and that leads to a spiral of guilt and shame and questioning that ultimately makes him question everything up to and ( ... )
Reply
To have him fall, it can't just be a little thing. It has to be huge. But, more than that, it has to be something that really does make him into a different person for a while. A lot of the best Due South fic (I particularly recommend cesperanza) explores the issues behind Fraser's becoming a Mountie -- the way he worships his father and his duty, the fact that he probably didn't really decide to become a Mountie, the fact that his life has really left him no chance for real interpersonal relationships before... In a way, Fraser is still kind ( ... )
Reply
Maybe that's where you and I are running into disagreement, because I don't think Fraser was ever perfect. He was always naive, morally unbending at the most inconvenient times, bitchy sometimes (though that mostly with Dief), demanding, more than a little holier-than-thou, etc. There's a reason why the other Mounties at his post in the Yukon didn't like him, even before the series started.
He put all of these character flaws to good ends (helping folks) but he still *had* them.
So I guess I didn't feel the need for them to have added a bunch of *worse* character flaws to balance him out. Some maybe, but abandoning a loyal friend for a woman he *knows* is a murderous, scheming bitch seems a bit over the top.
I have read cesperanza's fic, Eight Sessions in particular is a brilliant examination of this ( ... )
Reply
And eh, I'm really unconvinced by the "Fraser totally has flaws in season one" argument. No offense, not meaning you in particular, just that attitude in general. His flaws are really small at that point and in my memory aren't really explored or examined in any serious way until these episodes. And that's the way the show was written, really. In season two they actually start dealing with his flaws, but I won't spoil you for all that.
The one thing they really do show in s1 is that he's fairly unpersonable, but even then-- it's never really clear why the other Mounties don't like him. I mean, look how many people in Chicago do like him; not at first, but once they get to know him. IDK, the other things I don't think really ( ... )
Reply
This I can totally see and totally agree with. And also that he didn't have time to extrapolate from this, because he was just blinded and caught up in the whole Victoria thing, and wobbling from so tangled up in her that he was defending her in the face of *all* the evidence to seeing her clearly (and yet still wanting her), etc.
Thanks!
Reply
Granted, it's not going to be finished for, like... months, so it's probably not worth my telling you about it. *g* But that's why I'm so interested in this issue, anyway.
Reply
I'll definitely be looking forward to it when it comes through. You'll announce it on ds_slash or somewhere, right?
Reply
Reply
This is something I can *totally* see and that does explain a lot, though not all, of what he does here. I can see that feeling of connection being a *powerful* drug to someone who hasn't had the most basic human connections since he was a small child.
Reply
I disagree. I think Fraser was far from perfect and emotionless, though it was very subtly done. For example, we often saw him manipulate Ray into helping him, we saw him show emotion in his father's cabin and when he was going to be forced to kill Dief.
I think most writers realize that you can't have a perfect hero because there has to be something for people to relate to. He can't be a complete mess, but he has to have flaws, and I believe that Fraser has them, even if they're not readily apparent at first glance.
it's because most of what he is before that is a constructIf you're suggesting that what he is when he's with Victoria (forgetting his friends and being late for work being just two of the least changes that occur in him), is who Fraser really is, then I'd have to say he's not someone I'd like very much ( ... )
Reply
::nods nods:: I agree with you totally. And yet this is what so much of the episode hinges on, this feeling of guilt and that he couldn't trust his actions then. ::nods nods::
Reply
There's also the fact that it seems to be the first (and maybe only) time he really is questioning the ethics of his actions vis a vis her role in the robbery. It seems like he manages to convince himself that she might have been unfairly harshly punished because she was "forced" into it by Jolly.
Reply
Maybe I'm the one with an impoverished view of love because I can't make my definition of the term include this concept at all. Love just *isn't* that to me.
I think she believes with each thing Fraser does for her, she’s drawing the noose tighter and tighter and he’ll have no choice but to go with her. She makes a point of saying that he’s got nothing left, which makes me want to laugh and choke her, because she’s done her best to make sure that he has nothing left there.
Yeah, that's been her whole plan--to *ensure* that Fraser has nothing left in Chicago. Nothing left tying him to his old life at all. Nothing of his life or his personality or his job or *anything*. Nothing at all to cling to except her.
Hateful bitch!!
I don’t know how Fraser could have done that, or how Ray can forgive him.I'm glad it's not just me thinking that. I'm really just *pained* by this episode and how the producers and writers treated the ( ... )
Reply
Oh, certainly not! I should have said "love". I mean, clearly the person who kills his wife because she was going to leave him thinks he did it out of love, but he's crazy. *g*
This is a good question. And you know, surely they could have written it in there. That there really *was* coercion or she was going to turn in the money and it was those years in prison that cemented her evil horrible plan. You know? Something.And even if there had been coersion, that fact would have been used to either lessen the charge against her, make the jury see her as more sympathetic and perhaps get her off at trial, or get her sentence reduced. Seeing how she manipulates Fraser, she'd have had a jury eating out of her hand. Cleary she deserved those 10 years in prison. The only people to not think so are Victoria, of course, and Fraser, whose only reason that I can see is based on a day ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment