![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
A few more thoughts on White Collar 4x12
... which hopefully will be helpful to people who are struggling with some of Elizabeth's actions in the episode? (Or possibly is just me rationalizing things, I'm not sure. *g*)
Obviously it's a really big deal to the fandom -- and to Peter and Neal themselves -- that Neal lied directly to Peter's face for the first time ever.
But I really don't think it's a big deal to Elizabeth. In fact, I don't think she recognizes in the slightest that this is a Big Thing for them. From her perspective, she's simply asking Neal to do a relatively easy thing he does all the time -- very much akin to asking Neal to steal the incriminating video tape for Peter back in the first season.
I think it's pretty well established canon for Elizabeth that she has no problem at all with lying and stealing, especially for a good reason. I don't think Elizabeth, personally, would lie or steal just for money (unless she really, really needed money) or to have something shiny that she wanted, but I also get the impression that she takes a "live and let live" approach to other people doing it -- she doesn't seem bothered in the slightest by Mozzie making his living that way, for example. She also didn't seem to have a problem with Neal and Mozzie taking the treasure in season three; obviously the kidnapping was an undesirable outcome, but in her discussions with Peter afterwards, she was arguing for leniency.
And when she feels there's adequate need, Elizabeth doesn't hesitate to lie, even to people close to her. This is the woman who conned her husband into taking her to a dinner party in "Neighborhood Watch" rather than asking him directly, after all. She happily joins in the conning in "Burke's Seven" and "Family Business". There's also that discussion between the three of them in 3x07 (the one where Neal and Sara steal a bunch of things to draw the bad guy out of hiding) -- Elizabeth points out that what Neal is doing isn't any different from what the Bureau does in a sting, and whereas to Peter, it matters a lot that they didn't have an official warrant and do it all legally, to Elizabeth it doesn't make any difference. Legal or not, it was still the exact same thing, stealing for a good cause. (Ditto for the bit in "Burke's Seven" where she's teasing Peter about his "con", which he insists on calling a "sting", because to him, it matters. To her, it doesn't.)
Something I've discussed with other people at certain points is that, whereas Peter's moral compass is fixed on absolutes (even though, in practice, it's a lot slipperier and more heart-driven than that) -- e.g. "lying is wrong", "breaking the law is wrong", etc -- Elizabeth is a lot closer to Neal. They both subscribe to a sort of situational morality, in which nothing is absolutely wrong; it depends on the situation. They're primarily focused on protecting specific people they care about, rather than big-picture ideas of good, bad, protecting the general public, etc.
So, getting back to the episode, Elizabeth doesn't see anything wrong, per se, with lying. And more importantly, I don't think she sees any difference between what she's asking Neal to do in this episode, and what he does all the time anyway. He has often lied to Peter, and he has often gone off and pursued his own (often quite dangerous!) tangents without telling Peter about it. It may be dumb and off-base for her to ask it of him when he and Peter are already as deep as they are, but from her perspective, she's just asking him to do something that he does on his own anyway. To her, Neal's obvious squeamishness about it must be kind of inexplicable, almost disingenuous -- as if he'd responded to her request to steal the videotape by protesting, "I can't steal; stealing is wrong!"
Another thing about Elizabeth is that she considers Neal fully capable of pursuing the key on his own. Peter views Neal in a sort of protective big-brother kind of way, which is sometimes very sweet and sometimes kind of condescending -- you occasionally get the impression that he thinks of Neal as a kid who can't do anything on his own. Elizabeth, on the other hand, has always treated Neal as a peer -- a fellow adult who is perfectly capable of handling his own life problems without intercession from her husband. From Elizabeth's point of view, this is Neal's responsibility, he's entirely capable of handling it on his own, and he has no business dragging her husband into it. (Disregarding the fact that Peter opted to get involved of his own free will. And Elizabeth is DEFINITELY disregarding Peter's free choice in all of this. On the other hand, she's giving Neal a lot more credit for being able to do things on his own than Peter normally does.)
Now, what Elizabeth doesn't seem to get is the fine balancing act between trust and mistrust that Peter and Neal are always walking, the balance of which she's just accidentally upset. In a way, she's being a little TOO rational about it. From her outsider's perspective, it looks like Neal lies to Peter all the time, and goes behind his back all the time, so she can't see anything wrong with asking him to do it for a cause as noble as saving his life. What she can't see, however, is that it's much more subjective and less straightforward than that. Neal lies to Peter in a certain way, and goes behind his back in certain ways, and over the years they've developed a kind of understanding about that. Elizabeth has accidentally pushed Neal into breaking an unspoken peace treaty that he and Peter have worked out between themselves. But on the flip side, she has no way of knowing that she's done that; from her point of view, even Peter's hurt and upset reaction to Neal lying to him is something that's happened before.
Like I said above, Neal's initial refusal to lie to Peter probably seems like a kind of weird and inexplicable squeamishness to Elizabeth. His distinction between lying directly and lying by omission probably also strikes her as pointless semantics, especially when Peter's life is at stake. And in a way, she's right, if you look at it from an outside POV. Rationally, it's a rather semantic distinction. But it's a distinction that matters very much not just to Neal, but to Peter as well, which is something I don't think Elizabeth understands (and still doesn't understand). To her, it's basically the same thing; to them, it's not. The mistake that she's made here is not so much asking Neal to do something unethical, as it is a failure to understand the intricacies of the delicately balanced relationship between Neal and her husband (which they probably wouldn't be able to articulate if asked, either).
... I don't know, what do you guys think?
Obviously it's a really big deal to the fandom -- and to Peter and Neal themselves -- that Neal lied directly to Peter's face for the first time ever.
But I really don't think it's a big deal to Elizabeth. In fact, I don't think she recognizes in the slightest that this is a Big Thing for them. From her perspective, she's simply asking Neal to do a relatively easy thing he does all the time -- very much akin to asking Neal to steal the incriminating video tape for Peter back in the first season.
I think it's pretty well established canon for Elizabeth that she has no problem at all with lying and stealing, especially for a good reason. I don't think Elizabeth, personally, would lie or steal just for money (unless she really, really needed money) or to have something shiny that she wanted, but I also get the impression that she takes a "live and let live" approach to other people doing it -- she doesn't seem bothered in the slightest by Mozzie making his living that way, for example. She also didn't seem to have a problem with Neal and Mozzie taking the treasure in season three; obviously the kidnapping was an undesirable outcome, but in her discussions with Peter afterwards, she was arguing for leniency.
And when she feels there's adequate need, Elizabeth doesn't hesitate to lie, even to people close to her. This is the woman who conned her husband into taking her to a dinner party in "Neighborhood Watch" rather than asking him directly, after all. She happily joins in the conning in "Burke's Seven" and "Family Business". There's also that discussion between the three of them in 3x07 (the one where Neal and Sara steal a bunch of things to draw the bad guy out of hiding) -- Elizabeth points out that what Neal is doing isn't any different from what the Bureau does in a sting, and whereas to Peter, it matters a lot that they didn't have an official warrant and do it all legally, to Elizabeth it doesn't make any difference. Legal or not, it was still the exact same thing, stealing for a good cause. (Ditto for the bit in "Burke's Seven" where she's teasing Peter about his "con", which he insists on calling a "sting", because to him, it matters. To her, it doesn't.)
Something I've discussed with other people at certain points is that, whereas Peter's moral compass is fixed on absolutes (even though, in practice, it's a lot slipperier and more heart-driven than that) -- e.g. "lying is wrong", "breaking the law is wrong", etc -- Elizabeth is a lot closer to Neal. They both subscribe to a sort of situational morality, in which nothing is absolutely wrong; it depends on the situation. They're primarily focused on protecting specific people they care about, rather than big-picture ideas of good, bad, protecting the general public, etc.
So, getting back to the episode, Elizabeth doesn't see anything wrong, per se, with lying. And more importantly, I don't think she sees any difference between what she's asking Neal to do in this episode, and what he does all the time anyway. He has often lied to Peter, and he has often gone off and pursued his own (often quite dangerous!) tangents without telling Peter about it. It may be dumb and off-base for her to ask it of him when he and Peter are already as deep as they are, but from her perspective, she's just asking him to do something that he does on his own anyway. To her, Neal's obvious squeamishness about it must be kind of inexplicable, almost disingenuous -- as if he'd responded to her request to steal the videotape by protesting, "I can't steal; stealing is wrong!"
Another thing about Elizabeth is that she considers Neal fully capable of pursuing the key on his own. Peter views Neal in a sort of protective big-brother kind of way, which is sometimes very sweet and sometimes kind of condescending -- you occasionally get the impression that he thinks of Neal as a kid who can't do anything on his own. Elizabeth, on the other hand, has always treated Neal as a peer -- a fellow adult who is perfectly capable of handling his own life problems without intercession from her husband. From Elizabeth's point of view, this is Neal's responsibility, he's entirely capable of handling it on his own, and he has no business dragging her husband into it. (Disregarding the fact that Peter opted to get involved of his own free will. And Elizabeth is DEFINITELY disregarding Peter's free choice in all of this. On the other hand, she's giving Neal a lot more credit for being able to do things on his own than Peter normally does.)
Now, what Elizabeth doesn't seem to get is the fine balancing act between trust and mistrust that Peter and Neal are always walking, the balance of which she's just accidentally upset. In a way, she's being a little TOO rational about it. From her outsider's perspective, it looks like Neal lies to Peter all the time, and goes behind his back all the time, so she can't see anything wrong with asking him to do it for a cause as noble as saving his life. What she can't see, however, is that it's much more subjective and less straightforward than that. Neal lies to Peter in a certain way, and goes behind his back in certain ways, and over the years they've developed a kind of understanding about that. Elizabeth has accidentally pushed Neal into breaking an unspoken peace treaty that he and Peter have worked out between themselves. But on the flip side, she has no way of knowing that she's done that; from her point of view, even Peter's hurt and upset reaction to Neal lying to him is something that's happened before.
Like I said above, Neal's initial refusal to lie to Peter probably seems like a kind of weird and inexplicable squeamishness to Elizabeth. His distinction between lying directly and lying by omission probably also strikes her as pointless semantics, especially when Peter's life is at stake. And in a way, she's right, if you look at it from an outside POV. Rationally, it's a rather semantic distinction. But it's a distinction that matters very much not just to Neal, but to Peter as well, which is something I don't think Elizabeth understands (and still doesn't understand). To her, it's basically the same thing; to them, it's not. The mistake that she's made here is not so much asking Neal to do something unethical, as it is a failure to understand the intricacies of the delicately balanced relationship between Neal and her husband (which they probably wouldn't be able to articulate if asked, either).
... I don't know, what do you guys think?