?

Log in

No account? Create an account
My Journal Friends' Postings Calendar About Me Partners Forever Previous Previous Next Next
Nikki's Notations
A Slash Friendly Journal
nakeisha
nakeisha
Loyalties
There's been a discussion started today on an MFU list concerning where the loyalties of the partners rest. Are they first and foremost to one another, or first and foremost to U.N.C.L.E.

I was fascinated to see that a good friend of mine and I posted within minutes of one another, and actually had differing opinions - I was intrigued because we thus far have agreed pretty much over all aspects of things U.N.C.L.E.

However, that aside, it suddenly made me realise that the question of where loyalties rest is one of those hitherto-indefinable things that I 'have to have' in my partnerships in order to make them work for me.

Simply put for me their loyalties have to firstly and foremostly be with one another, i.e. they put each other before the organisation for whom they work.

Thus in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. I see both Napoleon's and Illya's loyalties being as follows:

Firstly - each other
Secondly - Mr. Waverly
Thirdly - U.N.C.L.E.

And in The Professionals I see both Bodie and Doyle's loyalties as being:

Firstly - each other
Secondly - George Cowley
Thirdly - CI5

In Due South the second and third loyalties aren't as clear cut, as far as Benny is concerned.

Again, there is no doubt that their first loyalties are with one another.
Ray's second loyalties rest with Lieutenant Welsh and his third with The Chicago PD.
However, I'm not sure whether Benny would Inspector Thatcher before the RCMP in general, or vice versa - or indeed whether for Benny the two are impossible to separate.

I do believe that you can separate the head of the organisation from the organisation itself, even if it isn't always easy. And I do believe that the men generally are of the kind who are more loyal to an individual than to an organisation. I think that if push came to shove and Alexander Waverly or George Cowley asked their respective top team to do something that might appear, on the face of it, to be counter to the norms of the organisation that the respective top team would indeed follow the wishes of their boss. I don't mean blindly or without thought, but if the rationale seemed right to the team and the team agreed, then they would indeed behave in a way that could be seen as disloyal to the organisation itself.

So I am incredibly chuffed (but there isn't an icon for that, it being a British word) to be able to add another definable to my list of 'what makes a pairing work for me'.

Tags: , , ,
Current Mood: pleased pleased

12 Notes or Leave A Note
Comments
caffyolay From: caffyolay Date: 27th May 2005 15:18 (UTC) (Link)
I'm with you on this one. In the case of shows like UNCLE and Pros I very definitely feel that the guys' first loyalties would be to each other. Without any shadow of a doubt. I think they know that, if push came to shove, the organisation would sacrifice the agent and that really the only thing they have to rely on completely and utterly is each other. I think this was proved several times in Pros (Ojuka etc.) and find it odd that anyone would think it would be otherwise. Oh well, each to his own. :-)
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 27th May 2005 15:49 (UTC) (Link)
I'm with you on this one.

This doesn't surprise me :-)

And yes, what you say about the organisation willing sacrificing one of them is indeed so true. Ultimately, as Illya said at the end of an episode We have each other And that's so true. And of course in Pros, it appeared in Operation Susie that they were both expendable! Although oddly enough despite Cowley's behaviour there, I think there's more evidence in Ojuka for the expendability - at least in OS, he did do his best to put things right.

crimson_37 From: crimson_37 Date: 27th May 2005 16:35 (UTC) (Link)
I agree whole-heartedly about the Pro's that is, as I have no clue when it comes to your other pairings.

The only difficulty I ever had with their loyalty to one another was in Wild Justice. When Ray decided it would be better to leave Bodie to it, instead of putting his own job at risk. But isn't that what turning a blind eye is all about? ;) But as soon as he realised what it was all about he was first to get in there to help him out.

Bodie's loyalty is solid and unshakeable as far as I can see. I can't think of a time he ever put himself before Ray. But if you can point it out to me, I would love to discuss it. :) And to Cowley, well, like you say, Ray, comes first.

As for expendable? Cowley cares for them as any dilligent Controller would and that extends to friendship outside of work also. But at the end of the day he has highered them to do a job and he knows they can take care of themselves and relies on them doing that to protect each other and themselves, so he won't lose them. He hurts when he loses one of them and will do all that is in his power to prevent it.
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 27th May 2005 17:01 (UTC) (Link)
Ah, Wild Justice, an ep that has so much going on around it, before it, during it - all the stuff we don't see. My reading of this is that Bodie pushed Ray away so much that Ray decided for the moment to let him be and let him work it out his own way. But he was always there, he hated what Cowley made him admit; after all it's okay for them to criticise one another, but heaven help anyone else.... And when it came down to it, there was Ray back on his feet fighting, after Bodie has bashed him with the branch of a tree. But did Ray think twice? No, becasue partners are there for one another, no matter what.

Oh, yes, Cowley will hurt if he loses one, because he does care (I know some folk think he doesn't). He cares deeply, but as you say they are there to do a job. They know the risks, they signed up - and yes, I'm sure he (and Alexander Waverley) know exactly where their 'boys' loyalties rest.
crimson_37 From: crimson_37 Date: 28th May 2005 11:30 (UTC) (Link)
True, very true. I just wanted to play devil's advocate, it's fun and you defended them so eloquently. He made Ray feel used and left out of everything once he really started to get onto guys he was after. And he had sniped at him, so yeah I can see why. But they were there for each other in the end. I would just like to know what Ray would have done if Cowley had pulled that trigger?
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 28th May 2005 12:24 (UTC) (Link)
I like playing devil's advocate myself. And it does help one to think and rationalise. And as you say they were there for one another at the end - and that's what counts.

I would just like to know what Ray would have done if Cowley had pulled that trigger?

I've considered this myself, many times. Ultimately Ray would be dead, but whether that was before or after he stood trial for Cowley's murder, I know not. And if before he stood trial, would it be at his own hand for another member of CI5's?

crimson_37 From: crimson_37 Date: 29th May 2005 22:32 (UTC) (Link)
I feel so depressed after reading that, I want to cry.
Alright, so let's assume that is correct. It would ultimately end with CI5 being disbanded. Which is basically what Cowley wanted to prevent by threatening to shoot Bodie in the first place, so it would have all been in vain and three good men would be dead. Cowley, wasn't using his triple think, when he pressed that gun to Bodie's temple was he?
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 30th May 2005 15:17 (UTC) (Link)
Oh, lor. I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to upset you. Maybe I was being over-dramatic. But one things for certain (in my mind at least) Ray wouldn't have remained in CI5, he'd have walked - either after giving Cowley a mouthful or before.

However, even if he didn't kill Cowley, I hate to say it but I don't see him remaining alive, and the reverse is true. It's the only way I can handle death stories, when they both die, either together or one afterwards by either being careless or at his own hand. I hate death stories where the survivor just goes on with his life and is happy and with someone else. Okay, so maybe that's more realistic, but.....

Back to your comment. No, Cowley certainly wasn't using his triple-think when he put the gun to Bodie's head. Although maybe he was; maybe he had reasoned that Bodie would know that he'd pull the trigger if Bodie completed the head-lock and Bodie knew what that'd do not only to him, but to Ray. Thus Bodie wouldn't complete the headlock, because whilst Bodie himself might be prepared to die in a fit of revenge, he wouldn't want to be responsible for Ray's death. But Cowley had to regain control over Bodie, and this was the best way of doing it. How's that for convoluted?
gilda_elise From: gilda_elise Date: 27th May 2005 18:22 (UTC) (Link)

Simply put for me their loyalties have to firstly and foremostly be with one another, i.e. they put each other before the organisation for whom they work.

Thus in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. I see both Napoleon's and Illya's loyalties being as follows:

Firstly - each other
Secondly - Mr. Waverly
Thirdly - U.N.C.L.E.


In my mind the organization often stands for what they're fighting for, so I tend to see them having more loyalty to UNCLE than you do. Under certain circumstances I could see them disobeying orders to save each other, just as I could see them sacrificing each other, or themselves, for the greater good.

And in The Professionals I see both Bodie and Doyle's loyalties as being:

Firstly - each other
Secondly - George Cowley
Thirdly - CI5


Now, here, I totally agree. Cowley has often shown his willingness to sacrifice either Bodie or Doyle, or both. And, oddly enough, politics seems to play a much bigger role in the workings of CI5 than it does in UNCLE so I don't think their sacrifice would automatically be worth it.

But for both Napoleon and Illya and Bodie and Ray I do see the same sort of loyalty to duty I see in Kirk and Spock. Yes, they would do whatever they could to save each other, including sacrificing their own careers or their lives. But sacrificing the world? No, not even for each other.
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 28th May 2005 10:06 (UTC) (Link)
Cowley has often shown his willingness to sacrifice either Bodie or Doyle, or both.

Mr. Waverly shows this willingness too, sometimes even more openly, IMO. But then, let's be pragmatic, if they weren't willing to sacrifice their men for the sake of the good, then quite frankly they shouldn't be in that position. It's one of the hardest things a leader has to do/be prepared to do.

As for sacrificing the world, I wasn't really thinking along those lines (which I should have been for U.N.C.L.E.), but loyalty to one another doesn't have to involve being willing to give up the world for the other. Loyalty could involve, in this case, being loyal to what you know your partner would want, so that way both aims are solved.

It's fascinating to see different people's takes.
solo From: solo Date: 27th May 2005 20:40 (UTC) (Link)
Definitely a 'definable' for me, too. And it's essential - it's not just 'one of the things that can make a pairing work for me', but 'one of the things whose absence means the pairing *won't* work for me'.

Which is why Hutchinson for Murder One is one of my top three favourite S&H eps.

And, thinking about it, I realize I'm willing to accept pairings which take this to an unhealthy extreme. Not that I like that, or look for it, but... yeah. I'll accept it much more readily than a pairing where the partners won't put each other first.
nakeisha From: nakeisha Date: 28th May 2005 10:09 (UTC) (Link)
Hi there :-)

Now that I've been able to define it, I can agree with you that I have to have it, without it the partnership doesn't work for me.

And you are right really, I guess that it is 'unhealthy', but it's essential.
12 Notes or Leave A Note