> Addressing Gayle's concerns: if you don't believe in situational ethics,
> then you can only come to the conclusion that Neil Burnside was evil,
> evil, evil and should have been burnt at a stake, as I gather Gayle
> would wish on him. Problem is, I've met very few people (I think I can
> count them on my thumbs) who didn't believe in situational ethics to
Er....While I admit I've been making derrogatory remarks about
Neil's character, I don't feel you are addressing my concerns, merely
restating your own. There are a number of things that you've said with
which I am in agreement. I do, basically, believe in situation ethics -
while I did not comment on that part of your post I never actively
disagreed with it except in the particular instances I was talking about.
I do, however, often disagree with Neil's and therefore do NOT think that
the price he was willing to pay, nor the methods he imployed where worth
the cost.
Is Your Journey Really Necessary is a prime example of this. I
think Neil is being anything but "idealistic" in this episode.
Pragmatically, it will be difficult for him to replace another Sandbagger.
He's determined to hold on to Alan, despite the rather blatantly obvious
fact he is in over his head as a Sandbagger, and should quit. As a result
of his irresponsible conniving, he is indirectly responsible for both his
death and his girl friend's. And while Utara would no doubt be better out
of the way, I don't know how "idealistic" Neil's desire to assassinate him
was. It's openly acknowledged as a ploy to advance his career, as much as
to protect British interests and to avenge his lost Sandbagger. Would you
care to choose the adjective which best describes Neil trying to achieve
his objective by bribing Wellingham with the bracelet?
I have said, more than once, that I think Neil is a fascinating
character - as I've said more than once that I think he's a slimey
bastard. Slimey bastards can be fascinating and complex. I am not
without sympathy for Neil. I do think he suffers (mostly deservedly). I
do think he is selling his soul. I do think he believes in what he is
doing and has the good of his country in mind (but good as defined by Neil
Burnside). I also think he's loves deceit and cunning for its own sake
(in ways that are far less forgivable than the same penchant in Avon - if
far more forgivable than in a meglomanic like Servalan, though in all
three cases the quality makes them all the more fascinating). I do view
him as the protagonist of the show...but one who often crosses the line
to what my view of a villain would be (a good villain is also complex and
human. I adore Sonny Steelgrave in Wiseguy, but as much as I love the
character - infinitely more lovable than Neil - I don't think that he's a
good guy). We don't differ on viewing Neil as complex, we seriously
differ in our view of how justified his actions are. If you want to
address my concerns, you might comment on the two episodes I mentioned.
Gayle