That's a great summary, Ignatz (and Bravo). It's certainly a "different" end for one of the characters NOT to go out with some sort of redemption.

But the bit that still doesn't make sense (apart from a heap of others) is why would Lucas choose to make that old life come back just because Vaughan turned up? Why didn't he say "Bugger off" and walk away, or better, shoot him and say "That life's over." I know there'd be no series story arc, but why wouldn't he choose his better MI5-life? In other words: AAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

I've finally come to the conclusion that I just plain hate what they did to the character of Lucas. There, I said (wrote) it.

(29-12-2010 08:24 AM)BoHenley Wrote:  But the bit that still doesn't make sense (apart from a heap of others) is why would Lucas choose to make that old life come back just because Vaughan turned up? Why didn't he say "Bugger off" and walk away, or better, shoot him and say "That life's over." I know there'd be no series story arc, but why wouldn't he choose his better MI5-life? In other words: AAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

First off, thank you for your kind words. Getting back to the above. I think that this really was the breaking point for someone who was still rather fragile deep inside and as it became clear (to someone spiralling into panic) that Vaughan was not going to just "go away," Lucas felt trapped. He didn't want to leave MI5 but the lengths he needed to go to avoid that happening just kept digging him in deeper. I think he knew he should go to Harry but the fear of a) completely losing Harry's respect/faith/trust was horrifying to him, b) the terror of returning to jail without the cloak of nobility or concern by the team was just too much. I agree, he should have just shot Vaughan but going back to his mental state I think Vaughan's hold on him as an authority figure made that difficult. I think his greatest fear -- losing MI5 -- had him not thinking clearly.

(29-12-2010 08:24 AM)BoHenley Wrote:  I've finally come to the conclusion that I just plain hate what they did to the character of Lucas. There, I said (wrote) it.

Oh, I one hundred percent agree because in my opinion there was absolutely no reason or justification for going down this road in the first place. I'm just trying to devise some explanation for what the intent might have been, no matter how unnecessary (in the eyes of fans) & incomprehensible. Meh Trust me, I cried. I'm not a "Lucasa above all other characters" person, but I thought he was oh so fascinating. There had to be a better way to spin the breakdown and poor choices without going to these lengths. And I do think that Harry "I wish you had met me first" could have handled things differently, though I imagine his disappointment had him behaving equally out of character.

---

(29-12-2010 04:30 AM)BravoNine Wrote:  I don't have an issue that this show kills off characters, it has been the way of Spooks for a long time. But what the writers did with Adam, Zaf, or Danny is not the same as Lucas. The other three died doing their jobs, they died loyal to their teammates, loyal to their country, and all of them knew the risks and consequences of the choices they made and understood that they could die in the line of duty.

To play devil's advocate -- and that's all I'm doing, as I'm pretty firmly in line with much of what you've written (and I've read a lot of it) -- I think the fact that the "line of duty" thing has been done many times with all the other characters, the thought was to break that trend. I can imagine the writer's room discussion, "who is the person least likely to go down this road? Lucas! Let's do it different." Not fair, but changing up expectations is typical. However it was clumsily done and an insult in the eyes of anyone really invested in the character. Not saying i appreciate it -- at all -- but can kind of see some of the storyline motivation.

RA definitely needs a change of pace/tone and I think the Hobbit (provided they don't totally f' up that story line -- honestly, RA is way too good looking to be a dwarf but we'll have to wait and see.) He's said himself that he needs a role with some levity, because Lucas was a very dark and emotional locked-up character. John Porter wasn't much different & neither was Thornton in North & South.

It was the briefcase.... It was all the briefcase's fault!

Who knew a briefcase full of old pictures would send a good, caring, compassionate, and loyal man into loony-land!

Geesh, I'm sure the Russians could have gotten some use out of a technique like that instead of wasting 8 years for nothing...

For me, I don't doubt the emotionality and psychological side of this storyline, I have seen enough in my life to know that people can do strange things when feeling cornered and threaten, and to be honest, people even sometimes do things that they know are wrong because they are afraid. So how Lucas's mind got to this stage of messed-up-ness is not the issue I have at all. Considering what he had already gone through, I'd be surprised if he wasn't messed-up.

But like I said, it's not the emotional story that makes me angry, it's how this storyline was constructed, the foundations, and the explanations that left me incredibly disappointed and angry. I expected more out of these writers whom have written great intelligent plots. There never was a clear explanation of what was really going on with Lucas, for one second he was portrayed as if he was suffering split personality or some other mental disorder, and then another second he's acting like as if this is all his brilliant master-plan, and this confusion lies in the writing NOT RA's acting. We have dialogs as if saying that he had been lying all along, that he knew who he was and he had been so carefully hiding all these years, this just doesn't flow with Lucas supposedly having buried his dark side, if he did, if he knew who he was during those 8 years in Russia, that evil John would have told the Russians everything. And again, if he was hiding it so well, then how did it take Beth, a newbie, about 5 minutes to find the real Lucas North? Or for Alec to discover John Bateman going to University with Maya?

And then there's the issue of mental issues as well, I mean, which normal person in their right mind decides that just because you got stranded on a foreign continent, that to get home, blowing up your own country's embassy and then killing your friend for his passport is a good way to go home? I mean, seriously, someone should check John Bateman for mental issues because a normal person does not do that! I am personally abnormal and strange enough, and the craziest thing I could think of was stealing a row boat and row myself back home!

So which one is he? A good lying actor or a guy with mental issues? Or is it both? They never really explain, and that's a pet peeve of mine, a good writer should always be clear in their explanations to their audience, even if you are trying to explain in a clever way. Your audience shouldn't be jumping around confused.

And let's just talk about the explanations we were given by Harry's talk with the Home Sec in the last episode. Notice that the explanation for how Lucas got into MI5 was quickly glossed over, all Harry said was that the real Lucas was already vetted and that our Lucas just went in for the interview and lied his butt off and got the job. Wow, AMAZING, so what is MI5 run by? Fourth graders? Actually, that would be an insult to fourth graders everywhere. Am I to believe that a "security" service doesn't even check photos or recognize faces when vetting their recruits? Am I to believe that NO ONE SAW the real Lucas North's face and maybe said something when our Lucas came for the interview? I get that it's in 1995 and protocols were different, but really?

I know many people have tried to come up with explanations as to how Lucas got into MI5, so why did the writers not even bother to put an effort into explaining this issue? I mean, this issue is only the whole foundation of how Lucas ended up MI5, pretty important I would think?

So apparently to the writers, not only is MI5 as an agency a big huge idiot, so are the Russians, the Chinese, and god knows how many other agencies that was fooled by our Lucas, yet somehow brilliant young Beth discovers it all so easily! Oh yes, he hid it SO WELL!

Maybe Series 10 we can have Lucas brought back to life by aliens? I mean, I would love for that storyline to happen! I love aliens!

I’m going to begin with an apology to Byatil, as I do not believe what follows was the intended purpose of this thread.

Discussion here and elsewhere regarding the question of redemption for the character / memory of Lucas has made me very conscious of the potential for considerations of the meaning of identity. I have mentioned before that the writers of season 9 were, in their choice of backstory for this character, presumably keen for viewers to consider existential questions about identity and self-awareness. I think it is interesting, to say the least, that so much of the reaction to the Lucas-is-John development has, instead, tended to focus on the extent to which the story was badly and inconsistently told. This says something about the significance of identity – and the significance of the identity of this character in particular – to an audience. We wanted a better story, or a better version of the story we got, because we felt this is what the character deserved. It is too easy to criticise negative reaction to the Lucas-is-John development as misplaced anguish about the loss of a (cipher) hero. To follow this line of criticism, though, is to miss what is, I think, one of the most urgent trends underlying the reaction: why does it matter so much that it was the identity of this character in particular that was undone? We still refer to him as Lucas. Are we, in doing so, referring also to John and his increasingly desperate and doomed efforts to retain this identity for himself? Are we, in doing so, referring also to the man whose life and career path were taken up by the deception? Are we, in doing so, referring to the idea of Lucas as we understood it from outside the narrative?

I am not interested in a version of the Darwin’s dog argument*. I think the writers of season 9 would like to motivate this discussion, but I also think this is a discussion that has been had many times before within the structure of this show, and the Lucas-is-John development brings little to it that is new. I am interested, though, in the extent to which betrayal and identity converge in the recent treatment of this character. BravoNine ponts out that:

(29-12-2010 04:30 AM)BravoNine Wrote:  ...the unfair part comes from the fact that everyone else who died, even Connie, died for something good. Lucas is the one tossed to the curb. Not that it isn't interesting to watch, but the glaring plot-holes did not help this story any better than making people confused and angry.

Connie’s betrayal was also bound up in notions of identity. Ros makes the point in 7.7 that, while Harry came back from Moscow the same after the Renaissance operation, Connie did not. This is just as much an observation about the relationship between motives and self-awareness as anything suggested by the Lucas-is-John strand. The vital difference between the two is that Connie’s name was Connie. Lucas’ name was, apparently, John. This seems to be a major factor in the failure of season 9 to translate into coherent, emotionally competent, storytelling, and I wonder why this small (huge) thing plays such a significant part in the acceptance of the conclusion. A discussion about the naming of names seems suitably Blake-ist for a Lucas thread.

*In order to raise debate about the nature of morality and the determination of conscious choice, Darwin used the example of a dog diving into a canal to retrieve a drowning man. If the life of the man is saved, Darwin asked, is the moral consequence sufficient to define the action as moral also? He asked the same question in the context of one man diving into a canal to retrieve another who was drowning, and of a man diving into a canal to retrieve a drowning man who owed him money.

It's quite alright binkie, I think the discussion of Lucas/John's character is relevant to speculation of what may have happened to him, and indeed, speculation on his character may as well be part of the discussion (especially seeing as everyone is so keen to discuss it!).

The problem with Lucas' downfall, in my opinion, was the entire Vaughn/Maya link. If Lucas had been a sleeper spy for the Russians, a double-agent, or indeed manipulated by the Russians into stealing Albany for their Chinese allies, then that would have made a lot more sense. It's a bit predictable from a writers point of view, but for the viewers, it still creates that 'shock-factor' of "Oh... he wasn't who he said he was." The betrayal factor could still have been included. Lucas could still have been John Bateman, or even a man of Russian nationality who had been placed in the UK to infiltrate MI5 (Sugarhorse style?). The plot would still have worked. Heck, we could even have had some "topless Armitage" screentime if desired; simply have Lucas seduce a woman for information. The Vaughn/Maya story is the part that really didn't add up for me. There were a thousand other ways to create the same "traitor" plot-line, yet they chose to use the one that makes the least viable sense? A story where Lucas had been manipulated by the FSB into forcing Harry to hand over Albany would have worked wonders - Lucas would have had his revenge on Harry, Lucas would be a traitor, Lucas may well still have killed himself.

I think binkie makes an interesting point in that we all still refer to his character as 'Lucas'. To me that suggests that we, as an audience, simply do not accept the story that we've been told. Which is a rather large failing on the writers part, as to me, it suggests their plot is utterly unbelievable. With Connie, we may not have wanted to believe she was a traitor, but it was written and acted in a way that made it believable. So we accepted it.

It just frustrates me to no end that I can sit down and think up a few ways in which the plot could have been executed, and yet the writers seemed to sit down and pick the most 'shocking' story they could dream up. I realise they were obviously trying to go against the grain with Lucas' death (having him die dishonourably, attack his own team members, have a false-identity, etc) but I think the problem lies in the fact that it was poorly executed.

(29-12-2010 12:36 PM)ignatz Wrote:  To play devil's advocate -- and that's all I'm doing, as I'm pretty firmly in line with much of what you've written (and I've read a lot of it) -- I think the fact that the "line of duty" thing has been done many times with all the other characters, the thought was to break that trend. I can imagine the writer's room discussion, "who is the person least likely to go down this road? Lucas! Let's do it different." Not fair, but changing up expectations is typical. However it was clumsily done and an insult in the eyes of anyone really invested in the character. Not saying i appreciate it -- at all -- but can kind of see some of the storyline motivation.

You presented a well-thought out summary, Ignatz. That's not "devil's advocate." You (and others) have helped to explain some of what the writer's couldn't (to my poor brain, anyway).

(29-12-2010 12:36 PM)ignatz Wrote:  RA definitely needs a change of pace/tone and I think the Hobbit (provided they don't totally f' up that story line -- honestly, RA is way too good looking to be a dwarf but we'll have to wait and see.) He's said himself that he needs a role with some levity, because Lucas was a very dark and emotional locked-up character. John Porter wasn't much different & neither was Thornton in North & South.

DEFINITELY too handsome to be a dwarf , but such a high-profile film, I hope he does well. And I hope they don't disguise him as much as they did with John Rhys-Davies. With Sir Peter Jackson at the helm, I rather think the film should be fairly true to the book.

I'll just add this, and I apologise if it's not quite in the right area. The following is point 6 from author Steve Berry's "8 rules of writing (fiction)":

"6. Don't lie to the reader. It's OK to mislead, but don't lie. If you say the character's motivation is A and it turns out to be B (and you haven't foreshadowed it at all), the reader will feel cheated."

The problem is I feel cheated. The Lucas=John storyline was NOT foreshadowed until Vaughan turned up with the suitcase, and then it was poorly developed as so many of us have said. I don't think of the L/J character as "John" at all because my brain won't accept that part of the story. If it was a dark past for LUCAS, I would.

(29-12-2010 09:43 PM)BoHenley Wrote:  I'll just add this, and I apologise if it's not quite in the right area. The following is point 6 from author Steve Berry's "8 rules of writing (fiction)":

"6. Don't lie to the reader. It's OK to mislead, but don't lie. If you say the character's motivation is A and it turns out to be B (and you haven't foreshadowed it at all), the reader will feel cheated."

The problem is I feel cheated. The Lucas=John storyline was NOT foreshadowed until Vaughan turned up with the suitcase, and then it was poorly developed as so many of us have said. I don't think of the L/J character as "John" at all because my brain won't accept that part of the story. If it was a dark past for LUCAS, I would.

This is such a big part of the problem. I appreciate that it is tiresome for people to keep seeing the same thing in different threads littered across this forum, but the fact of the matter is that season 9 did not succeed on this most fundamental structural level. The story of the-man-who-was-John is not a facet of the Lucas narrative. It is a projection onto that narrative of a story which played no structural part in it. I do not think it is either pedantic or immature to keep pointing this out, or to articulate the range of difficulties arising from this. Rather, I think it is indicative of the tensions between an intelligent audience and a production displaying an attitude of rhetorical indifference to that audience. Our dissatisfaction would be churlish if we had been lied to by the character, and yet continued to assert the need for an alternative conclusion. However, in this case, we were lied to by a poorly executed, inconsistent and emotionally unsatisfying secondary narrative which sought to maintain an insistence that we had been lied to by the character. The difference between the two is more than semantic, and is absolutely worth highlighting.

That's brilliant, Binkie. Now I know I'm not completely mad (just mostly mad, haha!)

(30-12-2010 05:35 AM)BoHenley Wrote:  Now I know I'm not completely mad (just mostly mad, haha!)

Not mad, just observant

(29-12-2010 10:39 PM)binkie Wrote:  

(29-12-2010 09:43 PM)BoHenley Wrote:  I'll just add this, and I apologise if it's not quite in the right area. The following is point 6 from author Steve Berry's "8 rules of writing (fiction)":

"6. Don't lie to the reader. It's OK to mislead, but don't lie. If you say the character's motivation is A and it turns out to be B (and you haven't foreshadowed it at all), the reader will feel cheated."

The problem is I feel cheated. The Lucas=John storyline was NOT foreshadowed until Vaughan turned up with the suitcase, and then it was poorly developed as so many of us have said. I don't think of the L/J character as "John" at all because my brain won't accept that part of the story. If it was a dark past for LUCAS, I would.

This is such a big part of the problem. I appreciate that it is tiresome for people to keep seeing the same thing in different threads littered across this forum, but the fact of the matter is that season 9 did not succeed on this most fundamental structural level. The story of the-man-who-was-John is not a facet of the Lucas narrative. It is a projection onto that narrative of a story which played no structural part in it. I do not think it is either pedantic or immature to keep pointing this out, or to articulate the range of difficulties arising from this. Rather, I think it is indicative of the tensions between an intelligent audience and a production displaying an attitude of rhetorical indifference to that audience. Our dissatisfaction would be churlish if we had been lied to by the character, and yet continued to assert the need for an alternative conclusion. However, in this case, we were lied to by a poorly executed, inconsistent and emotionally unsatisfying secondary narrative which sought to maintain an insistence that we had been lied to by the character. The difference between the two is more than semantic, and is absolutely worth highlighting.

My feelings about this matter all summed up in a couple of paragraphs! Thanks for saving me typing the exact same thing out!