Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Beatriz · 25-11-2009, 06:43 PM

Heroes only exist in fairy tales and Disney's films.
I don't have anything to add to all you've said, everybody has his dark side, and the Russian wasn't precisely a saint!

lwhite53 · (This post was last modified: 25-11-2009 07:04 PM by lwhite53.)

(25-11-2009 06:37 PM)Silktie Wrote: Good points made by all. I wanted to mention something to the effect that he might have handled it differently had Ruth been around, because I tend to think that might have been the case. However, I absolutely love that Harry is not just a one-dimensional hero, but that there is a dark side to him. It makes me appreciate the fact that he usually sticks to his guns ito his values all the more, as we know that he does have the potential to take the amoral approach. Also, if I had a job where I risked my life everyday to save everyone else, but know that they will never know that, I would like to have a boss that would ensure that my ultimate sacrifice, should I die, had not been in vain, and that he would ensure that justice was done. Maybe if the Russian had shown some remorse and been a little less smug about the whole thing, I would have been more troubled by what Harry did.

Yes, I agree with you in spades Silktie. Harry is a flawed hero, which is what makes him so interesting as a character. Had Kachimov not thrown in the last comment about Adam, Harry would probably have walked away, maintaining his self-control. But that final straw was just one step too far and the professional spook gave way to the angry human being. I like that he doesn't ask his people to do things he's not willing to do himself (like the "desk" spooks they all complain about) and that he's honest enough to name his crime, murder. For me, this didn't diminish him, just gave me more insight into him.

(25-11-2009 06:17 PM)JHyde Wrote: I suppose though that it's fair to say that he's *too* ruthless when he's Ruth-less.

And as much as we'd like it to be otherwise, this may be exactly why they can't be together as long as H's in his present job. He needs "ruthless" -- it's part of the brief. Sad

**JHyde** · 25-11-2009, 08:12 PM

Exactly on both points, especially the first about why Harry is a hero. That was what I was trying to get across, I hope coherently.

I love this thread! I so enjoy talking about one of my favourite fictional characters here.

**Silktie** · 26-11-2009, 06:04 AM

(25-11-2009 06:55 PM)lwhite53 Wrote:
(25-11-2009 06:17 PM)JHyde Wrote: I suppose though that it's fair to say that he's *too* ruthless when he's Ruth-less.
And as much as we'd like it to be otherwise, this may be exactly why they can't be together as long as H's in his present job. He needs "ruthless" -- it's part of the brief.

Hmm, I don't agree with this. Harry has proven that he will be ruthless when required to save the country, even with Ruth there to temper his actions. But I do think she would prevent him from losing his humanity by doing ruthless things for purely personal reasons. The greater threat for Harry is that she will be his weakness - his enemies can use threats against Ruth to try and manipulate Harry. Although, she is already his weakness even though they are not in a relationship...

almh · 26-11-2009, 06:43 AM

Perhaps she is even more his weakness because they aren't in a relationship - she's currently far enough away from Harry to make her an easy target.

I agree - Harry has to be ruthless when lives are at stake, but when he's Ruth-less he gets more ruthless which isn't good.

**JHyde** · (This post was last modified: 26-11-2009 08:31 AM by JHyde.)

I don't mean that Harry isn't ruthless in Ruth's absence. Rather that his sense of proportion is off, his perspective skewed. That, I think, is fair.

It's interesting that you point out about Ruth being his weakness. Until I heard about 8.1's summary, I'd often thought the way they might keep them separated was by exploiting that weakness, and their fears about what might happen to the other if they got involved. Which in a sense was what they did. She is his real weak spot. Along with Northern Ireland. Although I think the former is rather a preferable weakness.

Anyway, I'm drifting off topic a little. But ultimately, it's hard to talk about this side of Harry without talking a little about the woman we know he loves.

lwhite53 · 26-11-2009, 05:19 PM

I meant ruthless in a general sense. Anyone in H's position would be required to do distasteful things all the time, like send a teenager to steal a laptop with no exit strategy or use a sleeper scientist's family as bait for terrorists. It's about doing what's necessary and that does take some level of ruthlessness.

But I do agree with you all -- Ruth tempers Harry's decisions to some extent. She forces him to think more about what is really necessary. As JHyde said, she reorients his sense of proportion and perspective.

lwhite53 · 28-11-2009, 08:07 PM

Just did a little etymological excavation re the "Ruth-less/ruthless" wordplay and, as it turns out, it's more than justified. The name "Ruth" comes from the Hebrew for "compassion." "Ruthless" is defined as "without pity or compassion." Right on both counts! Some spooks writer knew his stuff!

almh · 28-11-2009, 08:35 PM

That is actually a pretty apt name for Ruth then! (But returning back to Harry...)

lwhite53 · (This post was last modified: 28-11-2009 10:05 PM by lwhite53.)

(28-11-2009 08:35 PM)almh Wrote: That is actually a pretty apt name for Ruth then! (But returning back to Harry...)

. . . so Harry's being more ruthless when he's Ruth-less is accurate in more ways than one! Tongue