Shit. I've had to split my comment into three parts because of the character limit! I got really, really excited by your meta, apparently.
Oh my God, yay! I've been waiting for somebody to do a Klaus/Hayley parallels post. There's so much going on there... and here. Yes. Perfect.
from what we can tell, it’s like what a lay person like myself would think of as a dominant trait
Trololololol. I'm sure you come across odd clerical type with a rudimentary grasp of biology, actually. ;D
(Responsible, in the ‘verse’s logic, is not the same thing as culpable. Accidents, clear-cut self-defense, and accidents occurring in the course of self-defensive actions have caused activation.)
Yikes. I'm not sure about this?
I mean, I obviously agree with you to the extent that, of course 'responsibility' is not the same as 'culpability' and there is a clear in-'verse distinction between the two; a distinction that I'm happy with. However, I do think people are culpable for committing manslaughter, particularly in this case, given that you've
( ... )
Trololololol. I'm sure you come across odd clerical type with a rudimentary grasp of biology, actually. ;D
COLLOQUIALLY, OKAY.
Hayley is, for calmly orchestrating a premeditated massacre that was predicated on gaining people's trust over a long period of time and then selling them out to find information.Sure, but that's not what triggered her curse. Unless she was lying to Tyler, which in retrospect she might well have been, it really was an accident. She was taking a dangerous risk going boating for which she is culpable, but no more of a risk than, say, Richard was being violent with a little kid
( ... )
Hahaha. Okay, okay. My bad. The way you put it just made me trolololol.
She was taking a dangerous risk going boating for which she is culpable, but no more of a risk than, say, Richard was being violent with a little kid.
Shit. Sorry, I expressed myself really badly. I didn't mean that Hayley was culpable for the events that led to her turning. In fact, we don't even know for sure that she had access to any information about the werewolf gene, so we don't even know that she was culpable for taking a risk by going boating. (It goes without saying that going boating in itself, whatever the risk, bears little similarity to being violent with a little kid, which is manifestly a bad, bad thing.)
I only meant to use Hayley's execution of the massacre to illustrate that there are things that characters do that are far, far worse than manslaughter.
Like, if Tyler had ASKED Mason to snap Matt's and Sarah's necks but he didn't actually kill them with his own two hands, I don't think that would have triggered the curse
( ... )
I don't think we can extrapolate from that that all werewolves had beginnings as ~innocent as Mason's or Tyler's.
I wouldn't say that either. I just wanted to point out that this is possible, because I think the usual inclination at hearing this mythology would be to assume the curse had something to do with intent, which it clearly doesn't. I love that the TVD 'verse isn't fair, obviously.
The fact that they allowed her to go so far off the rails and then abandoned her as soon as she did suggests that she experienced very poor parenting at the hands of her (presumably) “normal” non-carrier family.
I've been wondering about this recently! Like, when Hayley was on TVD, I shared the same interpretation with you, 100%. Now I'm not so sure and I'd really, reaaaaally like to know more. Like, okay, it's Klaus' show so he gets protagonists' privilege blah blah blah, but we saw flashbacks about him in, like, the first episode of the season! Where are Hayley's flashbacks?! WHERE ARE THEY?! Ugh.
Hayley's been so good at controlling the narrative since the beginning. SO GOOD. And the more episodes she's in, the better she gets. It makes me wonder whether her 'I've never had any good parents :(' isn't a misdirect, or at the very least an oversimplification. Hayley's proven herself to be an expert manipulator, easily surpassing Katherine and perhaps, getting to Elena-levels? (I'm not so sure about Elena-levels, maybe, though I
( ... )
I love that Hayley is a mystery though! I think we're getting there, now that we've gotten some clues about her family.
Like, I don't think there's any set of experiences on earth, or any environmental factors, that would inevitably cause somebody to behave the way that Hayley does?Not inevitably, for sure, any more than someone who gets vamped will INEVITABLY feed, or INEVITABLY kill one of their victims. I'm not talking morally. But it's a relatively predictable outcome of a certain pattern of environment and events
( ... )
I love that Hayley is a mystery though! I think we're getting there, now that we've gotten some clues about her family.
Ahahaha SAME. I'm just oober curious and impatient.
Not inevitably, for sure, any more than someone who gets vamped will INEVITABLY feed, or INEVITABLY kill one of their victims.
Okay, sure. Let me put it this way, then: I think that many people (not necessarily a majority but at the very least, a sizeable percentage), when faced with the same environmental factors as Hayley was, still would not have been capable of the ruthlessness and selfishness that Hayley displayed whilst on The Vampire Diaries? Like, no way capable. No way.
And I don't know where individual fault starts in each case, but I do know it shouldn't go down this way, and it doesn't have to.I agree it's difficult, although I'd probably be more clear cut about it than you were. Like, I would never blame Tyler for his actions on TVD, I would for his actions during the crossover ep, but then it's clear that they weren't the result of the Lockwood
( ... )
I really do not believe Klaus is lying or even rationalizing when he says that he acts out of amoral self-preservation.
You don't think Klaus is rationalising? It's what I would call rationalising, I think. Like, I certainly don't think he's lying. And I agree with you in so far as I think Elijah's assessment that Klaus behaviour is determined by 'ego', ego, is way out, waaaaaaaaaaay out. If anything, it's the fragility of Klaus' ego that's responsible. I don't think he's onto much with 'paranoia' either. As far as I can surmise, Mikael hunting Klaus constituted a very real, very genuine threat to Klaus' life. So I didn't think Klaus' evil plan to build a massive hybrid army so that Mikael wouldn't be able to touch him was necessarily a paranoid overreaction. I think he might be onto sibling with 'anger' though, I don't know.
The reason I that I think Klaus is rationalising though, is because you can't really objectively say that his actions are amoral. Like, he is a sadist, through and through. He is utterly gleeful when he
( ... )
Elijah's assessment that Klaus behaviour is determined by 'ego', ego, is way out, waaaaaaaaaaay out.
lol, yeah, that is Elijah projecting.
I would argue, though, that what Klaus has learned is that showing his ability to be violent is the most reliable indicator of personal safety. I think that glee is about feeling some hit of relief in the world. Like, I don't get the idea he gets up and dressed at the beginning of his day in order to do mayhem; he doesn't "love to set things on fire" in the way Rebekah does. I don't think he's motivated by enjoyment of destruction, I think destruction is a means he readily associates with desirable ends.
I don't think that everyone who faces a certain set of circumstances, including circumstances of discrimination and adversity, reacts in the same way?Discrimination and adversity generally, sure. But the specifics I think one would learn in his shoes, growing up being The Enemy both within and without your intimate group, would teach anyone who's relatively sane and paying sufficient attention
( ... )
Okay. I lied. It's actually four parts. (Sorrrrrry!!!)
:)
Whatever Rosemary’s Vampire Jesus-Puppy is, it’s not going to be other to them in the way they were to their families.
Do you think so, though? This is purely speculative, but I actually think the opposite would be the case, even though neither Klaus or Hayley would treat the child as 'other', the family set up would encourage the child to see Klaus as other as she grew up. Hayley is a much better manipulator than Klaus and she isn't encumbered by the same kind of ~emotional ~shackles that Klaus is when operating around Elijah and Rebekah, so no way will the baby ever grow up to see Hayley as 'other', she will incorporate herself into that family with ease. Whereas Klaus is a very different case. He cannot operate around them at peak manipulativeness (and he isn't as good as Hayley anyway). I think that his baby, as he correctly articulated last episode, could easily grow up to see Klaus as the 'other', if she (the baby) grew up in a ~family consisting of Klaus, Hayley,
( ... )
even though neither Klaus or Hayley would treat the child as 'other', the family set up would encourage the child to see Klaus as other as she grew up
Oh, I can totally see that happening. I just tend to doubt that the kid will feel the same alienation that Hayley and Klaus both seem to have felt in their childhoods. Things could go wrong in any number of other ways, particularly given that they are both such dangerous wolves, I just don't think it'll be the repetition of a specific pattern in the way we saw with the Lockwoods.
But the key to getting Klaus is to understand that as a general rule, he is rationally applying the lessons that anyone in his shoes would learn.
I would like to marry this sentence and have its wee little hybrid babies.
This explains a great deal about Elijah as well: he clings tightly to his dreamy, untenable, special-snowflakey views on morality and interpersonal interactions because people work very, very hard to believe that they have some control in such situations, that they are escaping the abuse they see someone else suffer because they are doing something morally and strategically right, and not just because it’s the luck of the draw.
And this one, too.
Either character could have taken Richard III's line, and claimed he was determined to prove a villain.
Awesome. Tyler is not my favourite, but you make him more interesting.
It’s a neat mirror to Rebekah’s desire to connect with Marcel conflicting with her unwillingness to leave her brothers. I can't believe I didn't see this before! Of course you are
( ... )
Comments 17
Oh my God, yay! I've been waiting for somebody to do a Klaus/Hayley parallels post. There's so much going on there... and here. Yes. Perfect.
from what we can tell, it’s like what a lay person like myself would think of as a dominant trait
Trololololol. I'm sure you come across odd clerical type with a rudimentary grasp of biology, actually. ;D
(Responsible, in the ‘verse’s logic, is not the same thing as culpable. Accidents, clear-cut self-defense, and accidents occurring in the course of self-defensive actions have caused activation.)
Yikes. I'm not sure about this?
I mean, I obviously agree with you to the extent that, of course 'responsibility' is not the same as 'culpability' and there is a clear in-'verse distinction between the two; a distinction that I'm happy with. However, I do think people are culpable for committing manslaughter, particularly in this case, given that you've ( ... )
Reply
COLLOQUIALLY, OKAY.
Hayley is, for calmly orchestrating a premeditated massacre that was predicated on gaining people's trust over a long period of time and then selling them out to find information.Sure, but that's not what triggered her curse. Unless she was lying to Tyler, which in retrospect she might well have been, it really was an accident. She was taking a dangerous risk going boating for which she is culpable, but no more of a risk than, say, Richard was being violent with a little kid ( ... )
Reply
Hahaha. Okay, okay. My bad. The way you put it just made me trolololol.
She was taking a dangerous risk going boating for which she is culpable, but no more of a risk than, say, Richard was being violent with a little kid.
Shit. Sorry, I expressed myself really badly. I didn't mean that Hayley was culpable for the events that led to her turning. In fact, we don't even know for sure that she had access to any information about the werewolf gene, so we don't even know that she was culpable for taking a risk by going boating. (It goes without saying that going boating in itself, whatever the risk, bears little similarity to being violent with a little kid, which is manifestly a bad, bad thing.)
I only meant to use Hayley's execution of the massacre to illustrate that there are things that characters do that are far, far worse than manslaughter.
Like, if Tyler had ASKED Mason to snap Matt's and Sarah's necks but he didn't actually kill them with his own two hands, I don't think that would have triggered the curse ( ... )
Reply
I wouldn't say that either. I just wanted to point out that this is possible, because I think the usual inclination at hearing this mythology would be to assume the curse had something to do with intent, which it clearly doesn't. I love that the TVD 'verse isn't fair, obviously.
Reply
I've been wondering about this recently! Like, when Hayley was on TVD, I shared the same interpretation with you, 100%. Now I'm not so sure and I'd really, reaaaaally like to know more. Like, okay, it's Klaus' show so he gets protagonists' privilege blah blah blah, but we saw flashbacks about him in, like, the first episode of the season! Where are Hayley's flashbacks?! WHERE ARE THEY?! Ugh.
Hayley's been so good at controlling the narrative since the beginning. SO GOOD. And the more episodes she's in, the better she gets. It makes me wonder whether her 'I've never had any good parents :(' isn't a misdirect, or at the very least an oversimplification. Hayley's proven herself to be an expert manipulator, easily surpassing Katherine and perhaps, getting to Elena-levels? (I'm not so sure about Elena-levels, maybe, though I ( ... )
Reply
Like, I don't think there's any set of experiences on earth, or any environmental factors, that would inevitably cause somebody to behave the way that Hayley does?Not inevitably, for sure, any more than someone who gets vamped will INEVITABLY feed, or INEVITABLY kill one of their victims. I'm not talking morally. But it's a relatively predictable outcome of a certain pattern of environment and events ( ... )
Reply
Ahahaha SAME. I'm just oober curious and impatient.
Not inevitably, for sure, any more than someone who gets vamped will INEVITABLY feed, or INEVITABLY kill one of their victims.
Okay, sure. Let me put it this way, then: I think that many people (not necessarily a majority but at the very least, a sizeable percentage), when faced with the same environmental factors as Hayley was, still would not have been capable of the ruthlessness and selfishness that Hayley displayed whilst on The Vampire Diaries? Like, no way capable. No way.
And I don't know where individual fault starts in each case, but I do know it shouldn't go down this way, and it doesn't have to.I agree it's difficult, although I'd probably be more clear cut about it than you were. Like, I would never blame Tyler for his actions on TVD, I would for his actions during the crossover ep, but then it's clear that they weren't the result of the Lockwood ( ... )
Reply
You don't think Klaus is rationalising? It's what I would call rationalising, I think. Like, I certainly don't think he's lying. And I agree with you in so far as I think Elijah's assessment that Klaus behaviour is determined by 'ego', ego, is way out, waaaaaaaaaaay out. If anything, it's the fragility of Klaus' ego that's responsible. I don't think he's onto much with 'paranoia' either. As far as I can surmise, Mikael hunting Klaus constituted a very real, very genuine threat to Klaus' life. So I didn't think Klaus' evil plan to build a massive hybrid army so that Mikael wouldn't be able to touch him was necessarily a paranoid overreaction. I think he might be onto sibling with 'anger' though, I don't know.
The reason I that I think Klaus is rationalising though, is because you can't really objectively say that his actions are amoral. Like, he is a sadist, through and through. He is utterly gleeful when he ( ... )
Reply
lol, yeah, that is Elijah projecting.
I would argue, though, that what Klaus has learned is that showing his ability to be violent is the most reliable indicator of personal safety. I think that glee is about feeling some hit of relief in the world. Like, I don't get the idea he gets up and dressed at the beginning of his day in order to do mayhem; he doesn't "love to set things on fire" in the way Rebekah does. I don't think he's motivated by enjoyment of destruction, I think destruction is a means he readily associates with desirable ends.
I don't think that everyone who faces a certain set of circumstances, including circumstances of discrimination and adversity, reacts in the same way?Discrimination and adversity generally, sure. But the specifics I think one would learn in his shoes, growing up being The Enemy both within and without your intimate group, would teach anyone who's relatively sane and paying sufficient attention ( ... )
Reply
:)
Whatever Rosemary’s Vampire Jesus-Puppy is, it’s not going to be other to them in the way they were to their families.
Do you think so, though? This is purely speculative, but I actually think the opposite would be the case, even though neither Klaus or Hayley would treat the child as 'other', the family set up would encourage the child to see Klaus as other as she grew up. Hayley is a much better manipulator than Klaus and she isn't encumbered by the same kind of ~emotional ~shackles that Klaus is when operating around Elijah and Rebekah, so no way will the baby ever grow up to see Hayley as 'other', she will incorporate herself into that family with ease. Whereas Klaus is a very different case. He cannot operate around them at peak manipulativeness (and he isn't as good as Hayley anyway). I think that his baby, as he correctly articulated last episode, could easily grow up to see Klaus as the 'other', if she (the baby) grew up in a ~family consisting of Klaus, Hayley, ( ... )
Reply
Oh, I can totally see that happening. I just tend to doubt that the kid will feel the same alienation that Hayley and Klaus both seem to have felt in their childhoods. Things could go wrong in any number of other ways, particularly given that they are both such dangerous wolves, I just don't think it'll be the repetition of a specific pattern in the way we saw with the Lockwoods.
Reply
I would like to marry this sentence and have its wee little hybrid babies.
This explains a great deal about Elijah as well: he clings tightly to his dreamy, untenable, special-snowflakey views on morality and interpersonal interactions because people work very, very hard to believe that they have some control in such situations, that they are escaping the abuse they see someone else suffer because they are doing something morally and strategically right, and not just because it’s the luck of the draw.
And this one, too.
Either character could have taken Richard III's line, and claimed he was determined to prove a villain.
Awesome. Tyler is not my favourite, but you make him more interesting.
It’s a neat mirror to Rebekah’s desire to connect with Marcel conflicting with her unwillingness to leave her brothers. I can't believe I didn't see this before! Of course you are ( ... )
Reply
I'm glad I can share my Tyler-love!
Reply
Leave a comment