To be completely honest I think I was half-asleep when I posted that, and I can't remember exactly what I meant by it Warning: do not allow yourself to enter into any form of discussion whilst lying in bed at 4am!

I think I meant that it's interesting how Lucas tries to focus his attention onto the person who he currently has an interest in acquiring something from... with Harry, he wanted his trust. With Elizabeta, he seems to want some sort of redemption - perhaps he sees her as a path back towards his old life. The fact that in the first instance, he tells Harry "Katchimov was my only company", and then in the second tells Elizabeta "All I thought about was you" seemed significant to me. I do concede your point that it was probably a form of self-realisation for his character, and I wasn't trying to suggest that he was consciously lying (...I don't think!), but more that he seems to almost guilt-trip people into giving him what he wants? We see it a lot in his close relationships with certain characters, as he repeatedly uses his past experiences to try and convince people to trust him, or to give him information. Whether he's using this technique consciously or not is unclear, because he obviously feels rather bereft of sympathy throughout S7.

Hopefully that makes sense...? xD I haven't been getting much sleep over the past week, so apologies if my coherency levels are ridiculously low.

Totally agree with your analysis binkie, but of course in series 9 we learn that Lucas has been trying to forget Maya for 15 years. He could not have only thought of Elizabeta if Maya was such a prominent memory. This is another aspect of series 9 clashing dramatically with the earlier series.

Back to tattoos, before the Mods have to step in, why do you think Elizabeta was so concerned by them?

I think maybe Elizabeta knew about the culture in Russian prisons? Maybe she was fearing that Lucas had given up or something horrible had happened?

I think it was just a reminder for her of the photos Kachimov had shown her. She says "your skin" with a sense of shock, because it's such a physical reminder of how much the man she once loved has changed. She will presumably have some knowledge of Russian prison systems, and of course... she didn't know why Lucas had been locked up until Katchimov decided to tell her. It would have been a horrible shock for her, to discover that not only had Lucas changed in both personality and physical appearance, but that he had lied to her for all those years.

(16-12-2010 12:06 PM)HellsBells Wrote:  ... but of course in series 9 we learn that Lucas has been trying to forget Maya for 15 years. He could not have only thought of Elizabeta if Maya was such a prominent memory. This is another aspect of series 9 clashing dramatically with the earlier series.

Mmmm... The total failure of season 9 to create an internally coherent rhetorical mechanism by which to explain what it was doing, or trying to do, with Lucas’ memory or objectification of his past or whatever the **** it was supposed to be, makes it incredibly difficult to run a 3-season assessment of the character. In fact, it isn’t even clear if season 9 thinks John-pretending-to-be-Lucas has been trying to forget Maya, or if season 9 thinks Lucas-who-doesn’t-know-he-is-John is oblivious to Maya because he has never met her, or if season 9 thinks John-pretending-to-be-Lucas has forgotten Maya because he has not inhabited his own consciousness for so long. Better just to pretend season 9 does not exist as far as seasons 7/8 character analysis is concerned. If the writers of the show cannot be bothered to work out how their own narrative functions, I really don’t see why I should make the effort to do it for them. Apart from anything else, because neither John or Maya existed at all in the awareness of the script or the actors at the time of the 7.2, I have no difficulty in excluding them and their (alleged) history from any commentary.

(16-12-2010 12:06 PM)HellsBells Wrote:  Back to tattoos, before the Mods have to step in, why do you think Elizabeta was so concerned by them?

I would think it would be very difficult for Elisabeta to find the tattoos anything other than disturbing. They are a violation of Lucas’ guiding will and an assault on his person and his sense of self. They also speak to everything that has been lost in the ruination of the relationship between these two people, and everything Elisabeta has lost in making for herself a new life without Lucas. I think Elisabeta is, in the final analysis, very aware that the tattoos are something that was done to Lucas. In acknowledging this, she is accepting also that they are only a single example of what was done to him. Skin is just a barrier between safety and suffering, and between life and death. Marking Lucas’ skin in this way renders him visible and vulnerable: a target and an object.

Kachimov showed Elisabeta pictures of Lucas in prison a year before the events of 7.2. He told her Lucas would be released if she agreed to do work for the FSB. We don’t know how long, within that year, it was before she agreed to Kachimov’s proposal, but in any case, she has known for all that time where Lucas was, and what were at least some of the physical effects of his treatment. She would presumably not have been able to prevent herself from imagining also the likely psychological effects of captivity on someone with whom she has had what was once a passionate and intimate relationship. A year is a long time for Elisabeta to feel implicated somehow in Lucas’ continued captivity. Kachimov, by making her wait for the end of Lucas’ captivity, has suggested that she must bear some responsibility for that captivity. When she indicates to Lucas her disquiet at the tattooed manifestation of his experience, she is apologising for what she believes – thanks to Kachimov - to have been her part in that experience.

Thanks everybody for explaining for to me, I knew I could rely on you good people.

I am writing this with the assistance of Hedex and a hot water bottle, so don’t hold your breath for insight .

This is one of those very rare occasions when it might actually have been useful to consider the character of Lucas across seasons 7/8/9. However, because season 9 failed to supply a mechanism by which this would be possible, I have had to ignore season 9, as usual. On the other hand, a discussion about the often chaotic relationship between remembering and forgetting, or oblivion, might be useful in itself, if only to highlight the extent to which season 9 could have taken better advantage of this as a rhetorical device in exploring the vulnerability of Lucas’ own state of mind and self-perception, and the consequences for his actions and motives which might easily have arisen – or been manipulated – in relation to this. Creating a discrete person for Lucas to have forgotten to be is surely the least interesting investigation of the influence of memory in being and time. Yes, I think I did just invoke the, admittedly questionable, moral authority of Heidegger in criticising the current writing team of Spooks. That’ll teach them to make such anvil-icious use of Kierkegaard’s assessment of subjective truth and the proof of doubt in individual experience: 9.5, I’m looking at you! Anyway, on with the slightly light-headed show...

blackpearl asks:

(12-12-2010 07:49 PM)blackpearl23456 Wrote:  But one thing I do wonder about Lucas and his tattoos is why, upon his return to England, did he not have them removed? I would have thought that he would have wanted to. He seemed so keen to try and forget the past (although it proved difficult, as things kept bringing up memories), and, in my opinion at least, it would have made sense for him to get rid of one of the most major memories of his time in Russia: his tattoos.

This is a splinter question in that every element of an answer suggests another question and another possible answer. Before we even begin to consider what the tattoos represent in terms of what Lucas might, or might not, want, or need, to remember, we need to address in context the extraordinarily subtle question of what memory is, and what remembering means.

Memory is more than simple recall, and it is less definitive than neurological function. Memory is a concept and a perception and a defining principle within and of the human experience of what it means to be human (rather than, for example, a bat). Memory, and the shared consciousness of a conceptual entity that is memory, enables the human expression of both technical record and creative endeavour. We have, make use of, and recognise memory in our own experience of being and knowing, and we translate this readily to an assumed experience of what it is (like) to be an individual within a collective. We recognise and remember the collective, because the collective recognises and remembers us. Lucas must remind himself of the reality of an individual experience which has no basis in the collective experience of the culture to which he has been reintroduced following his release from prison. While he might still recognise and remember the collective, he cannot be certain that the collective recognises or remembers him.

The collective amnesia of the human condition erases time (memory, experience, conscious expression of consequence) as it goes, forgetting what it is that brings definition to the experience of being, and to encounters with actions in time. Activities of conspicuous record, attempts to overwrite time with experience, and to imbue that experience with significance in the act of recording it (presenting it for later recall and, crucially, reinterpretation), are in themselves facets of the construction of memory and its function in the sustenance of individual and collective culture. Without these things, and without the cultural construct of the concept of memory (what it is and what it is for), humanity fears its history for a tabula rasa. A gap in the record connotes an unreality of experience, or an absence of history. How does the human condition respond to a person whose seemingly anomalous existence both exemplifies and inhabits just such an absence? How does the culture of a collective experience of memory and reality accommodate an individual experience of memory and reality which, by its self-contained oblivion, seems to contradict the validity of that collective experience? How does the individual experience make for itself a place in a collective reality which recognises only its temporal absence?

Belle makes the point that:

(07-12-2010 12:56 PM)Belle Wrote:  ...sailors f.i. got tattood for reasons of recognition, if they would drown on sea and their bodies were found beyond recognition, one could tell who they were by looking at the tattoos they got. So they actually equalled who they were with their tattoos.

I think this has practical and conceptual importance for this discussion. The idea that identity might be communicated purely by visible signs of record gives way to a consideration of whether this applies also to identity in individual and collective memory. Lucas’ tattoos were an aspect of his definition and recognition in prison, both in terms of how he was catalogued and perceived within the system, and in terms of how he situated himself within that system. What are the tattoos to Lucas now that he is no longer in prison? While they might still function as a means by which his body could be identified, do they still attest to the identity of Lucas in his own memory of himself?

Byatil’s suggestion is another (typically!) tightly-packed piece of commentary:

(12-12-2010 08:01 PM)Byatil Wrote:  I think in a way he probably liked to remind people (as well as himself) of what he'd been through.

I like the expression of this point because it addresses the practical and moral implications of the difficult relationship between individual and collective memory. Lucas’ release from prison sees him faced with this complex dilemma of forgetting and – by moral implication - being forgotten; or of remembering and – by moral requirement - reminding. Whatever he chooses for himself becomes a cause in the consequence for collective memory. In either case, there is a strong case to be made that he is living the wrong life (see how season 9 could have developed its storyline for Lucas without the need for John?!). If he chooses to forget – to obliterate individual memory and conceal the Lucas he has become through his experience of prison – he also authorises the blindness of the collective: he can never be recalled or recognised by the collective if the individual experience he presents is nothing more than a response to an absence from collective memory. If he chooses to remember – to validate individual memory and reveal the Lucas he has become through his experience of prison – he necessitates the attention of the collective, which must now recognise his memory of himself, and this experience of being in time, as the remembered experience of the collective. In other words, whatever choice he makes, Lucas is what he has become, and collective memory must, by either ignorance or acceptance, accommodate this becoming. Lucas’ choice at this point is to continue or to cease. He chooses to continue.

Another interesting consideration raised by both Byatil and blackpearl is that of the cultural memory of something that is in the memory of an individual. Byatil‘s phrase “he liked to remind people...of what he’d been through” raises the question of how – or whether – subjective memory can describe experience in collective recall. Lucas is “reminding people” of something of which they have no knowledge. The tattoos act as a particular kind of authentication of an unknown value. The tattoos communicate, across a broad spectrum of cultural recognition, the fact that the bearer has been in prison. Additional sub-cultural filters can make this more or less specific to the experience as it was lived (though not, I suspect, as it was known by Lucas in living it). The reminder, then, is in fact a prompt to accept about this person a quality of hidden experience. Lucas doesn’t have to talk about his experience of prison because the tattoos are, in most cases and to most people, a sufficient expression of the fact of that experience. There is a sense in which Lucas uses the tattoos as a barrier to collective memory, rather than as an invitation: a ‘keep out’ sign. This might help to explain why it is that:

(12-12-2010 08:01 PM)Byatil Wrote:  He never appears self-conscious over his tattoos (except when Elizabeta comments on them and he covers the band on his arm), and indeed has a tendency to show them off somewhat.

I wonder if he is not so much “showing them off” as he is hiding behind them. If he can retreat far enough beyond the sign of what the tattoos are in the collective memory (a connotation of the fact of imprisonment), then he may possibly be able to let go of the subjective memory which gives them the individual and personal meaning born of experience in space and time. Even his statement to Harry in 7.1 that “they all mean something” could be read as a first step on the way to divesting them of meaning in a post-release reality. If he says that they mean something, then that is all they have to mean. The statement has a kind of logical determinism. The significance of the tattoos is that they have significance, nothing else about them matters now.

Lucas keeps the tattoos because they prove he is something other than a gap in the record, or a memory glitch. He remembers because he must. His memory of himself is the means by which he gives purpose to his absence from the collective memory, and by which he is able to validate the individual experience which could so easily be obscured by that absence. The tattoos, in their simple physical evidence, recognise and remember the illusion of absence, and require that same recognition of the collective memory which would otherwise preserve the illusion.

Another great post binkie. I think that you present the reasons for Lucas keeping the tattoos brilliantly.

(05-01-2011 12:43 PM)HellsBells Wrote:  Another great post binkie. I think that you present the reasons for Lucas keeping the tattoos brilliantly.

Ditto that! Your analysis is consistently fascinating and entirely believable; always a pleasure to read

I was thinking that perhaps Lucas' tattoos were such an integral part of him because of the fact that his life is built on lies. As you said, binkie, he has learned to keep his mouth shut and not to give too much away, because as soon as he is void of information he is worthless. I think that the tattoos are a way of implying meaning to those who realise the connotations and literal translations of them without him having to explain himself to anyone. A barrier, as I think you said? Whilst he has the tattoos, he has no reason to explain himself to anyone - because the tattoos culturally imply an explanation of himself simply through being there. A mask to hide behind, perhaps?

I think what I'm saying is that I entirely agree with this:

binkie Wrote:I wonder if he is not so much “showing them off” as he is hiding behind them. If he can retreat far enough beyond the sign of what the tattoos are in the collective memory (a connotation of the fact of imprisonment), then he may possibly be able to let go of the subjective memory which gives them the individual and personal meaning born of experience in space and time. Even his statement to Harry in 7.1 that “they all mean something” could be read as a first step on the way to divesting them of meaning in a post-release reality. If he says that they mean something, then that is all they have to mean. The statement has a kind of logical determinism. The significance of the tattoos is that they have significance, nothing else about them matters now.

Lucas keeps the tattoos because they prove he is something other than a gap in the record, or a memory glitch. He remembers because he must. His memory of himself is the means by which he gives purpose to his absence from the collective memory, and by which he is able to validate the individual experience which could so easily be obscured by that absence. The tattoos, in their simple physical evidence, recognise and remember the illusion of absence, and require that same recognition of the collective memory which would otherwise preserve the illusion.

Thanks! I'm just relieved anyone could make sense of it. By the time I read it back, it seemed pretty much like random word association. So I went to bed

(05-01-2011 01:39 PM)Byatil Wrote:  I was thinking that perhaps Lucas' tattoos were such an integral part of him because of the fact that his life is built on lies.

I'm going to say this, because I'm still too cross not to point it out AGAIN: I know this is what season 9 wants us to conclude. But the writing didn't give us (or the story) enough to go on to make this a logical conclusion within the narrative. If only there had been more effort put into demonstrating how the cognitive sustenance of Lucas-is-John actually functioned, we would be better able to establish a logic for the tattoos across seasons 7/8/9. As it is, we can't reasonably do this, because we haven't the necessary character information. I can't believe how annoyed I still (still!) am that the show is under the impression that "because we say so" is a good enough execution of rehtorical responsibility. It isn't. It just isn't

(05-01-2011 01:39 PM)Byatil Wrote:  ...he has learned to keep his mouth shut and not to give too much away, because as soon as he is void of information he is worthless.

Byatil, this is a brilliant turn of phrase. Can you expand on it? I'm really interested in your reading of this.