Entry tags:
Many thinky thoughts on Neal in season five
SO MANY THOUGHTS. So very many thoughts.
I don't really know how to talk about Neal in season five without talking about Neal in season four, and my problems with Neal in season four. And some of this is fairly negative. So, if you were fine with season four and don't want your squee harshed, you could skip the next four paragraphs and go straight to "and then season five came along", below.
My big problem with Neal in season four was that I had thought Neal learned and grew a lot more from El's kidnapping than he apparently did. Toward the end of season three it seemed like Neal was trying really hard to go straight. In season four, though, after everything that's happened -- after El being kidnapped and Peter almost losing his job multiple times by going to bat for Neal -- it seems like Neal's learned nothing; he's right back to stealing and conning. His attempted theft of the FBI item in 4x10 was what pushed me to the edge in particular, because he doesn't actually need it; at least in 4x05 he's really between a rock and a hard place, but in 4x10, as far as I can tell, his primary purpose in stealing it is mostly to prove a point (that he doesn't have to do what Peter wants).
In general the Peter-Neal dynamic felt uncomfortably tilted toward Neal in season four, especially early season four. It seemed like it was mostly Peter sacrificing and Neal taking, Neal acting out and Peter forgiving. Their relationship had started out with the power dynamic tilted heavily in Peter's direction, but the closer Peter got to Neal, the more easily he was led by Neal, until it did start to feel a bit more like he was Neal's mark rather than his friend.
Basically, what happened to me in season four is that I stopped believing in the possibility of a Neal "redemption". If what happened to El (and then Peter being willing to sacrifice his career for him) didn't do it, then I couldn't see how anything ever would.
But the interesting thing is that I started thinking then about what that means, and what it means for the characters. I spent the first 3 seasons believing the show's endgame was Neal being reformed (in the Peter sense of the word: Neal realizes the error of his ways, stops committing crimes and settles down); I spent the first 3 seasons wanting it. And then in season four I began to question that, and eventually realized that -- for me, anyway -- it's actually a lot more intereresting and believable and narratively satisfying if Peter is actually, up to a point, wrong about Neal: if he's wrong that Neal can change (at least to the extent that Peter used to believe he could); if he's wrong that Neal would be happy and content as a law-abiding citizen; if he's in fact showing a lot of hubris by trying to push Neal in this direction. (With the added wrinkle that Peter IS legally responsible for him, so has more than just moral reasons for wanting Neal not to break the law ... but still. I think it's pretty clear in season four that he's started taking it personally.) Maybe Neal needs Peter a lot less than Peter thinks he does ...
And then season five came along!
Season five has been delighting me to no end.
I feel as if the Peter-Neal dynamic has been set on a more equal footing (and set up much better for the future) with Peter finally starting tocatch a clue get a more balanced and healthy perspective on Neal. For the last four seasons, Peter has spent a lot of time and effort trying to get Neal to not be a criminal. I get the impression that Peter believes that Neal either commits crimes because he's broken (and needs to be fixed), or because he doesn't know any better (and needs to be taught). In either case, Peter has (had?) this very fundamental belief that if he just worked hard enough, and if Neal worked hard enough, Peter could turn Neal into a happy, productive, law-abiding citizen, in the process setting himself up as the moral high ground. And over the years, Peter's hung a lot of his own (and Neal's) happiness and even staked his own career on this belief.
In fairness to Peter, it isn't just Peter trying to force Neal to change. To a large extent, Neal believes this as well, not because Peter has talked him into it, but because Peter threw him a lifeline and Neal grabbed onto it with all his might. Neal wants a happy suburban life. Neal wants to be like Peter. As soon as the possibility presented itself, he jumped on it. And over the last few years, Peter and Neal have both gone deeper and deeper into this particular dynamic where Neal aspires towards Peter as a mentor and a role model, and Peter tries to be that for him.
But now the cracks are starting to show, because it's not realistic. Neal is a sweet, caring person, but the problem is not that he doesn't know better and not that he's broken (at least not in a fixable sort of way; see the next paragraph). There are limits to how far Neal can change. At this point, I think a lot of the changes are going to have to come from Peter -- he's going to have to learn to see Neal in a more realistic way. The problem isn't that Peter doesn't have enough faith in Neal; it's that he has too much, or possibly the wrong kind, and he has to back off and stop investing so much of himself in Neal and in Neal's decisions, because all that's going to happen is that they'll both get their hearts broken. I believe that Peter finally admitting, out loud, that Neal is a criminal (which is true, and is obvious to everyone except Peter, I think) is a good step towards that -- a heartbreaking step for both of them, but a necessary one if they're ever going to be able to deal with each other as equals. Neal has to lose a lot of his hero-worship for Peter and start dealing with him on more equal footing; Peter has to stop trying quite so hard to mentor Neal and give him more room to be himself.
One of the things that has become very interesting to me over the last season or so is that I've come to see a lot of Neal's characterization as a set of coping mechanisms for dealing with emotional damage, and it is fascinating. The thing is, Neal is not "broken" in the sense that he can be fixed (as Peter seems to think). Neal's damage is part of him; it drives him; he owns it (and in some ways it owns him). You can't take it away without taking away some fundamental aspects of what it means to be Neal.
Which brings us to 5x04.
Episode 5x04
Neal says while he's drugged that he enjoys working against the FBI as much as working for them, and doesn't feel guilt or remorse for stealing or for working against the interests of the FBI. I think this is basically accurate, in light of past canon. (There is, however, a large "... but" coming.)
Neal doesn't feel bad for stealing or for conning the FBI. Neal thinks stealing is fun, exciting, and often useful. But what he feels bad about -- what causes Neal to feel guilt and remorse -- is when he hurts or disappoints someone he cares about. And there is, again, ample evidence in canon for this.
I think that particular dichotomy explains Neal better than anything else in canon ever has, and fits perfectly with his past characterization. Stealing and lying, to Neal, are morally neutral actions; he doesn't feel any guilt at all (or at least, very little) for stealing per se. What's bad is stealing and hurting someone. What's bad is lying when it gets him or someone he loves in trouble. The actions themselves are not (necessarily) good or bad; what matters is the reason why you do them.
And this is basically why Neal didn't stop stealing or conning people after season three -- he can believe wholeheartedly that Peter thinks it's wrong, and he wants to please Peter, but when it comes right down to it, the justification "someone else thinks this is bad" is a pretty weak (and extremely troubling) foundation to base one's morality upon. And obviously it doesn't work, because when he's pushed to it, even knowing he'll hurt and upset Peter, Neal goes ahead and does these things because he doesn't believe he's doing anything wrong.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
veleda_k pointed out when we were talking about this episode that the simple fact this bothers him is an indication that Neal is, at heart, a good, caring person. People like Keller and Hagen don't worry about this; they don't feel the need to invent justifications to explain their actions. Neal does. Neal is so tremendously worried by the whole idea that, upon being forced to conciously deal with the fact that stealing per se doesn't bother him (much), then he goes running off to the Burkes' to be reassured that it doesn't make him a bad person. Unfortunately he's so confused that he can't actually explain why he's there; he just ends up babbling a bunch of confessions....
This whole aspect of Neal's character brings up a really interesting question about what morality actually is -- what makes us do things, or not do things. I think most people believe stealing and lying are wrong, but most people would also steal and lie under certain circumstances -- and most people probably have done both at some point in their lives. (Dude, I'm in fandom; I'm sure there must be a few of us who have never submitted to the temptation to download something we didn't actually buy, but I bet there aren't very many.)
I'm certainly not saying this means all theft is created equal -- but everyone has to make these sorts of decisions in their lives, sometimes falling on one side of the line, sometimes on the other side. It's not like there is a fine bright line with "MORALLY GOOD" on one side and "MORALLY BAD" on the other. The thing is, I don't think Neal actually has the perspective to realize this. On some level, he seems to believe that everyone else possesses a moral sense that makes these decisions easy for them, which he doesn't have. And the thing is, he's semi-right up to a point (most people do have a clearer sense of "stealing is wrong" than he does), but completely wrong thereafter.
Like I said when I was talking about this toveleda_k -- Neal, a person who we know doesn't have a very strong self-image and tends to look up to role models, has very few good role models in this area. Neal has spent most of his life around people who are morally extreme. Nearly all his friends and close associates, even going back to his childhood, have been either cops or criminals -- two opposite poles on a very complex spectrum. His current primary mentor/role model is Peter, who is actually a terrible role model for Neal because Peter's entire way of relating to the world is going to be very, very hard for Neal to emulate. Neal's a moral relativist, which doesn't make him a bad person but does mean that setting up someone with a far more absolute moral scale as his role model is basically setting himself up for failure.
On top of that, Neal is a very all-or-nothing sort of person. I don't think Neal has a middle gear. I find it ironic that Neal, despite being a moral relativist at heart, seems to crave absolute answers to moral questions! He wants to categorize things. He doesn't seem to be able to conceive of himself, for example, as "good in some ways, bad in others" -- he's got to be, in his own opinion, fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but there's no in-between.
So the overall effect of all of this is that Neal doesn't feel guilty for stealing, as such, but he believes other people do -- about which he's sort of right and sort of wrong. And he believes that not having this mysterious "something" makes him a bad person. In 5x04, unable to convince himself that he's a good person according to his own definitions, he decides that the opposite must be true and he must be bad through and through.
.... but he's still the same person he ever was: conflicted and brilliant and kind and loyal, very fond of stealing shiny things if he thinks he can get away with it, but quick to apologize and feel bad about it if he hurts someone along the way.
I don't think this means an eventual reformation, of sorts, is out of the question for Neal, but it's going to have to be mostly driven by practicality rather than by fundamental moral principles. (Which makes Peter the worst person in the world to try to explain it to him, because Peter doesn't even understand the nature of the problem.) I don't think it helps to try to convince Neal that stealing is wrong, which is the Peter approach. But if Neal gets, really gets, that stealing often hurts people and can get him thrown back in prison, I think that's what's going to eventually get him to go as close to straight as he can get and still be Neal.
And this is one reason why Peter being overly close to Neal is actively counterproductive if the eventual goal is for Neal to stay out of prison, because if Peter shields Neal from the consequences of his actions and keeps softening the blows for him, there's a distinct possibility that Neal never is going to manage to internalize this. All he's going to manage to pick up is "If I do this, Peter will be disappointed in me", which is a terribly unhealthy basis for making moral decisions -- it puts unfair pressure on Peter to be Neal's moral guide and conscience (is it really fair to expect Peter to be responsible for both Neal's decisions and his own? to walk on eggshells for fear of accidentally causing Neal to break the law?), and puts pressure on Neal to follow what are, to him, an arbitrary and sometimes morally unsound set of guidelines.
Which doesn't mean they have nothing at all to learn from each other! I do think Peter and Neal have had a positive influence on each other's lives. They may be bad for each other in certain ways, but they are very good for each other in some ways too. I believe that Neal is a better, more confident, emotionally healthier person for having known Peter, and Peter is a better, more flexible person for having known Neal. They truly enjoy each other's company and like working together. And I think they both can grow and evolve toward a healthier, more equal relationship in the end. Peter can still have a somewhat mentor-like relationship with Neal -- he's older, he has a different perspective on things. It's not that it's unhealthy for Neal to look up to him at all. But in the end, I think both of them are going to need to untangle themselves a bit and find a more equal footing -- not Neal being remade in Peter's image, or Peter being taken advantage of by Neal, but both of them finding a way to relate to each other as emotionally healthy and more-or-less equal adults.
(Or at least the closest they're capable of. *g*)
So many thoughts! What do you guys think?
I do want to mention (IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS PART) that I'm not interested in hosting a general discussion on season five at the moment -- I specifically want to discuss the above ideas. You can agree or disagree, but if you comment purely to vent about season five rather than to talk about the points I've raised here, I'll delete it.
ETA: Also, I'm still working out a lot of this in my own head. Seasons 4 and 5 have given me a lot of food for thought on Neal's characterization. I am certainly interested in counterarguments if you have an alternate take on some of this!
I don't really know how to talk about Neal in season five without talking about Neal in season four, and my problems with Neal in season four. And some of this is fairly negative. So, if you were fine with season four and don't want your squee harshed, you could skip the next four paragraphs and go straight to "and then season five came along", below.
My big problem with Neal in season four was that I had thought Neal learned and grew a lot more from El's kidnapping than he apparently did. Toward the end of season three it seemed like Neal was trying really hard to go straight. In season four, though, after everything that's happened -- after El being kidnapped and Peter almost losing his job multiple times by going to bat for Neal -- it seems like Neal's learned nothing; he's right back to stealing and conning. His attempted theft of the FBI item in 4x10 was what pushed me to the edge in particular, because he doesn't actually need it; at least in 4x05 he's really between a rock and a hard place, but in 4x10, as far as I can tell, his primary purpose in stealing it is mostly to prove a point (that he doesn't have to do what Peter wants).
In general the Peter-Neal dynamic felt uncomfortably tilted toward Neal in season four, especially early season four. It seemed like it was mostly Peter sacrificing and Neal taking, Neal acting out and Peter forgiving. Their relationship had started out with the power dynamic tilted heavily in Peter's direction, but the closer Peter got to Neal, the more easily he was led by Neal, until it did start to feel a bit more like he was Neal's mark rather than his friend.
Basically, what happened to me in season four is that I stopped believing in the possibility of a Neal "redemption". If what happened to El (and then Peter being willing to sacrifice his career for him) didn't do it, then I couldn't see how anything ever would.
But the interesting thing is that I started thinking then about what that means, and what it means for the characters. I spent the first 3 seasons believing the show's endgame was Neal being reformed (in the Peter sense of the word: Neal realizes the error of his ways, stops committing crimes and settles down); I spent the first 3 seasons wanting it. And then in season four I began to question that, and eventually realized that -- for me, anyway -- it's actually a lot more intereresting and believable and narratively satisfying if Peter is actually, up to a point, wrong about Neal: if he's wrong that Neal can change (at least to the extent that Peter used to believe he could); if he's wrong that Neal would be happy and content as a law-abiding citizen; if he's in fact showing a lot of hubris by trying to push Neal in this direction. (With the added wrinkle that Peter IS legally responsible for him, so has more than just moral reasons for wanting Neal not to break the law ... but still. I think it's pretty clear in season four that he's started taking it personally.) Maybe Neal needs Peter a lot less than Peter thinks he does ...
And then season five came along!
Season five has been delighting me to no end.
I feel as if the Peter-Neal dynamic has been set on a more equal footing (and set up much better for the future) with Peter finally starting to
In fairness to Peter, it isn't just Peter trying to force Neal to change. To a large extent, Neal believes this as well, not because Peter has talked him into it, but because Peter threw him a lifeline and Neal grabbed onto it with all his might. Neal wants a happy suburban life. Neal wants to be like Peter. As soon as the possibility presented itself, he jumped on it. And over the last few years, Peter and Neal have both gone deeper and deeper into this particular dynamic where Neal aspires towards Peter as a mentor and a role model, and Peter tries to be that for him.
But now the cracks are starting to show, because it's not realistic. Neal is a sweet, caring person, but the problem is not that he doesn't know better and not that he's broken (at least not in a fixable sort of way; see the next paragraph). There are limits to how far Neal can change. At this point, I think a lot of the changes are going to have to come from Peter -- he's going to have to learn to see Neal in a more realistic way. The problem isn't that Peter doesn't have enough faith in Neal; it's that he has too much, or possibly the wrong kind, and he has to back off and stop investing so much of himself in Neal and in Neal's decisions, because all that's going to happen is that they'll both get their hearts broken. I believe that Peter finally admitting, out loud, that Neal is a criminal (which is true, and is obvious to everyone except Peter, I think) is a good step towards that -- a heartbreaking step for both of them, but a necessary one if they're ever going to be able to deal with each other as equals. Neal has to lose a lot of his hero-worship for Peter and start dealing with him on more equal footing; Peter has to stop trying quite so hard to mentor Neal and give him more room to be himself.
One of the things that has become very interesting to me over the last season or so is that I've come to see a lot of Neal's characterization as a set of coping mechanisms for dealing with emotional damage, and it is fascinating. The thing is, Neal is not "broken" in the sense that he can be fixed (as Peter seems to think). Neal's damage is part of him; it drives him; he owns it (and in some ways it owns him). You can't take it away without taking away some fundamental aspects of what it means to be Neal.
Which brings us to 5x04.
Episode 5x04
Neal says while he's drugged that he enjoys working against the FBI as much as working for them, and doesn't feel guilt or remorse for stealing or for working against the interests of the FBI. I think this is basically accurate, in light of past canon. (There is, however, a large "... but" coming.)
Neal doesn't feel bad for stealing or for conning the FBI. Neal thinks stealing is fun, exciting, and often useful. But what he feels bad about -- what causes Neal to feel guilt and remorse -- is when he hurts or disappoints someone he cares about. And there is, again, ample evidence in canon for this.
I think that particular dichotomy explains Neal better than anything else in canon ever has, and fits perfectly with his past characterization. Stealing and lying, to Neal, are morally neutral actions; he doesn't feel any guilt at all (or at least, very little) for stealing per se. What's bad is stealing and hurting someone. What's bad is lying when it gets him or someone he loves in trouble. The actions themselves are not (necessarily) good or bad; what matters is the reason why you do them.
And this is basically why Neal didn't stop stealing or conning people after season three -- he can believe wholeheartedly that Peter thinks it's wrong, and he wants to please Peter, but when it comes right down to it, the justification "someone else thinks this is bad" is a pretty weak (and extremely troubling) foundation to base one's morality upon. And obviously it doesn't work, because when he's pushed to it, even knowing he'll hurt and upset Peter, Neal goes ahead and does these things because he doesn't believe he's doing anything wrong.
veleda_k pointed out when we were talking about this episode that the simple fact this bothers him is an indication that Neal is, at heart, a good, caring person. People like Keller and Hagen don't worry about this; they don't feel the need to invent justifications to explain their actions. Neal does. Neal is so tremendously worried by the whole idea that, upon being forced to conciously deal with the fact that stealing per se doesn't bother him (much), then he goes running off to the Burkes' to be reassured that it doesn't make him a bad person. Unfortunately he's so confused that he can't actually explain why he's there; he just ends up babbling a bunch of confessions....This whole aspect of Neal's character brings up a really interesting question about what morality actually is -- what makes us do things, or not do things. I think most people believe stealing and lying are wrong, but most people would also steal and lie under certain circumstances -- and most people probably have done both at some point in their lives. (Dude, I'm in fandom; I'm sure there must be a few of us who have never submitted to the temptation to download something we didn't actually buy, but I bet there aren't very many.)
I'm certainly not saying this means all theft is created equal -- but everyone has to make these sorts of decisions in their lives, sometimes falling on one side of the line, sometimes on the other side. It's not like there is a fine bright line with "MORALLY GOOD" on one side and "MORALLY BAD" on the other. The thing is, I don't think Neal actually has the perspective to realize this. On some level, he seems to believe that everyone else possesses a moral sense that makes these decisions easy for them, which he doesn't have. And the thing is, he's semi-right up to a point (most people do have a clearer sense of "stealing is wrong" than he does), but completely wrong thereafter.
Like I said when I was talking about this to
veleda_k -- Neal, a person who we know doesn't have a very strong self-image and tends to look up to role models, has very few good role models in this area. Neal has spent most of his life around people who are morally extreme. Nearly all his friends and close associates, even going back to his childhood, have been either cops or criminals -- two opposite poles on a very complex spectrum. His current primary mentor/role model is Peter, who is actually a terrible role model for Neal because Peter's entire way of relating to the world is going to be very, very hard for Neal to emulate. Neal's a moral relativist, which doesn't make him a bad person but does mean that setting up someone with a far more absolute moral scale as his role model is basically setting himself up for failure. On top of that, Neal is a very all-or-nothing sort of person. I don't think Neal has a middle gear. I find it ironic that Neal, despite being a moral relativist at heart, seems to crave absolute answers to moral questions! He wants to categorize things. He doesn't seem to be able to conceive of himself, for example, as "good in some ways, bad in others" -- he's got to be, in his own opinion, fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but there's no in-between.
So the overall effect of all of this is that Neal doesn't feel guilty for stealing, as such, but he believes other people do -- about which he's sort of right and sort of wrong. And he believes that not having this mysterious "something" makes him a bad person. In 5x04, unable to convince himself that he's a good person according to his own definitions, he decides that the opposite must be true and he must be bad through and through.
.... but he's still the same person he ever was: conflicted and brilliant and kind and loyal, very fond of stealing shiny things if he thinks he can get away with it, but quick to apologize and feel bad about it if he hurts someone along the way.
I don't think this means an eventual reformation, of sorts, is out of the question for Neal, but it's going to have to be mostly driven by practicality rather than by fundamental moral principles. (Which makes Peter the worst person in the world to try to explain it to him, because Peter doesn't even understand the nature of the problem.) I don't think it helps to try to convince Neal that stealing is wrong, which is the Peter approach. But if Neal gets, really gets, that stealing often hurts people and can get him thrown back in prison, I think that's what's going to eventually get him to go as close to straight as he can get and still be Neal.
And this is one reason why Peter being overly close to Neal is actively counterproductive if the eventual goal is for Neal to stay out of prison, because if Peter shields Neal from the consequences of his actions and keeps softening the blows for him, there's a distinct possibility that Neal never is going to manage to internalize this. All he's going to manage to pick up is "If I do this, Peter will be disappointed in me", which is a terribly unhealthy basis for making moral decisions -- it puts unfair pressure on Peter to be Neal's moral guide and conscience (is it really fair to expect Peter to be responsible for both Neal's decisions and his own? to walk on eggshells for fear of accidentally causing Neal to break the law?), and puts pressure on Neal to follow what are, to him, an arbitrary and sometimes morally unsound set of guidelines.
Which doesn't mean they have nothing at all to learn from each other! I do think Peter and Neal have had a positive influence on each other's lives. They may be bad for each other in certain ways, but they are very good for each other in some ways too. I believe that Neal is a better, more confident, emotionally healthier person for having known Peter, and Peter is a better, more flexible person for having known Neal. They truly enjoy each other's company and like working together. And I think they both can grow and evolve toward a healthier, more equal relationship in the end. Peter can still have a somewhat mentor-like relationship with Neal -- he's older, he has a different perspective on things. It's not that it's unhealthy for Neal to look up to him at all. But in the end, I think both of them are going to need to untangle themselves a bit and find a more equal footing -- not Neal being remade in Peter's image, or Peter being taken advantage of by Neal, but both of them finding a way to relate to each other as emotionally healthy and more-or-less equal adults.
(Or at least the closest they're capable of. *g*)
So many thoughts! What do you guys think?
I do want to mention (IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS PART) that I'm not interested in hosting a general discussion on season five at the moment -- I specifically want to discuss the above ideas. You can agree or disagree, but if you comment purely to vent about season five rather than to talk about the points I've raised here, I'll delete it.
ETA: Also, I'm still working out a lot of this in my own head. Seasons 4 and 5 have given me a lot of food for thought on Neal's characterization. I am certainly interested in counterarguments if you have an alternate take on some of this!
I wrote an essay in response to your essay
Okay, thoughts, I have so many thoughts. And, sorry, this jumps around. (Also there are almsot definitely typos. I can never catch them all.)
You know, I actually had a very similar reaction to the second half of season 3 that you had to season 4. It was more of a niggling doubt than your strong reaction, but still. Because, during Checkmate, Neal is totally willing to do anything it takes to protect Peter and Elizabeth. Of course he'll give up the treasure, but he'll also go to prison, undoubtedly for a long, long time.
And then Keller takes the blame and the very next episode, Neal is trying to get on Peter's good side, so Peter will lie for him. And throughout that half of the season, Neal is angling for commutation, which he's only up for because of what happened with Keller, which was Neal's fault in the first place. (And, well, Mozzie's fault first and foremost, but Neal shares plenty of responsibility for how things went down.) It felt like, as you said, that Neal hadn't learned anything.
But season 5, as well as our discussions about such, have made me understand what's going on there. (Or so I think.) Neal was willing to sacrifice anything to protect and Peter and Elizabeth. They were in danger, it was his fault. That was something he needed to fix. But when Keller confessed and the danger was removed, Neal's motivation to face consequences is pretty much gone. Hurting Elizabeth is a wrong that must be addressed. Holding stolen property, plotting against the FBI, Neal gets that Peter's not happy about that, but hey, all he has to do is make Peter happy again. Peter's feeling a moral dilemma that Neal isn't seeing. (Neither is Elizabeth, for that matter. It's not she thought Neal was right to hold the treasure, but Keller kidnapped her of his own free will, and, as she sees it, he should suffer for that, not Neal.)
And that previous gets at something that I think has tripped Neal and Peter up from the start, which is they tend to talk past each other. Often, it seems they're having totally different conversations. Neal realizes that Peter thinks certain things are important, but he doesn't understand why, and I think Peter's morality can seem very arbitrary to Neal, even though of course it's not. And on the other side, I think Peter doesn't realize that Neal frequently makes decisions from a place of morality, it's just not Peter's morality. (And I'm going to need to make another comment about this later, because there's one very particular scene I think exemplifies this, but I'm at work, and I want to go home to be able to rewatch and comment.)
And Neal's damage, oh, this is a topic that's fascinating to me. I've said before that one of the things I love about White Collar is its understated, believable portrayal of emotionally damaged people, and Neal is a perfect example of that.
Part of what fascinates me about Neal is how he's become so damaged. There are some characters I love that you look at how the grew up and what's happened to them, and you think that they couldn't be anything other than the way they are. Neal's not like that. I find Neal to be this fascinating mix of nature and nurture.
Neal's childhood was far from ideal, but it wasn't horrific. If, say, Peter had grown up the way Neal had, I think he'd still be very much Peter. In fact, I think the main difference is he would be more rigid, even more determined to mold chaos into order. Neal, on the other hand, doesn't really do order. Season 4 never gave us the in depth look into child Neal that I so wanted, but I think it's fairly easy to conceive of the child Neal must have been. Highly intelligent, of course, as well as highly creative. And tons of energy. I think I remember a Time Dekay interview in which he said that he saw Peter as someone who hid his intelligence as a kid so as to not make the people around him (Dekay specifically mentioned Peter's father) uncomfortable. That would not have been Neal. I think Neal would have been very aware of his intelligence, and being the smartest one in the room would been mixed enjoyment and frustration. He wouldn't have respected authority just because it was authority, not when he considered himself smarter than most adults.
So, child Neal would have needed a lot of of adult attention and supervision. He would have needed adults willing to engage with him and support him. "Because I said so" is never going to work with Neal. But Neal didn't get that. His mother was neglectful and while Ellen was clearly a mother figure to him, she had her own life to live. And I really do think that a child who's forging bus passes to get to school is learning a certain pattern of behavior, is learning that the world works a certain way.
So, Neal is forging bus passes at eight, and hustling pool at nine, and snatching money out women's purses in seventh grade, and the whole while he's dreaming of his hero cop father. And then, at eighteen, he realizes that's a lie. (And man, the whole "everyone is his life is a cop or criminal thing" climaxes when it comes to James--hero cop or corrupt murderer.) And he had a choice there. He could have reacted maturely. Another person, a more mellow person, would have felt hurt, quite likely even betrayed, but they wouldn't have RUN AWAY FOREVER. But Neal, as you said, has no middle gear.
It may appear that I've gotten away from my point, but I wanted to explain that part of Neal's damage comes from those first eighteen years, but most of it is the result of his choices, a series of choices made so many times that he doesn't know how to make any other kind. I really don't think Neal was made to be what he is. He became it through his own decisions. And I think that's actually a pretty daring storytelling choice.
but it's going to have to be mostly driven by practicality rather than by fundamental moral principles.
Oh, definitely, and this is something I've been known to say. Neal wants security, stability, and a sense of home and family. And his old life wasn't capable of giving them that. He can't make a home if he's always looking over shoulder, possibly needing to flee at a moment's notice. He can't make a family if he can't be genuine with them. And you're right that Peter can't look at it from that perspective.
In my mind, the person Neal really needs to learn from is June. Because she's done it. She's gone from con to citizen, and she's done it without losing herself. She's certainly still willing to dip her toes back in if need be, but that's not really her life anymore. And it's extra useful, because June has no personal investment in Neal's choices.
Peter shields Neal from the consequences of his actions and keeps softening the blows for him, there's a distinct possibility that Neal never is going to manage to internalize this
You know, I don't know what I think about this. Because it makes sense as stated, but Neal went to prison, and it hasn't appeared to have any effect. I honestly don't think that Neal sees prison as a consequence for breaking the law, I think he sees it as the price for getting caught. I think the consequences have to be more, "you will not have the home and family you want" and "people are being hurt, people who are real to you."
Man, White Collar doesn't get near enough credit for its emotional complexity.
Re: I wrote an essay in response to your essay
And that previous gets at something that I think has tripped Neal and Peter up from the start, which is they tend to talk past each other. Often, it seems they're having totally different conversations. Neal realizes that Peter thinks certain things are important, but he doesn't understand why
This.
White Collar doesn't get near enough credit for its emotional complexity.
TBH, I don't know how much of the audience has thought about it deeply enough to see the complexity. *g* But that's alright, more for us to digest!
p.s. random: dreamwidth's captcha is hard first thing monday morning especially if you're ESL..."What is seventeen thousand two hundred and ninety eight as digits?" x.x
Re: I wrote an essay in response to your essay
Neal realizes that Peter thinks certain things are important, but he doesn't understand why, and I think Peter's morality can seem very arbitrary to Neal, even though of course it's not. And on the other side, I think Peter doesn't realize that Neal frequently makes decisions from a place of morality, it's just not Peter's morality.
Yes! I think this is actually something that it took me a while to really grasp, also. Or, rather, I guess that without really thinking about it, I was assuming that Neal would eventually come around to Peter's way of looking at things. But that's not, I think, where the show is going -- and probably not where it should go.
Peter has always understood that Neal is a good person, I think, but he's also assumed that because Neal is a good person, Neal will eventually see the error of his ways. Peter doesn't seem to fully recognize that Neal has a moral code already and it's a valid one. (Not without flaws, but then, neither is Peter's.) I think he's starting to skirt around the edges of recognizing and accepting the validity of Neal's moral code, though, with his comments about having faith and telling El that Neal generally steals for a reason.
I think you make some really good points about the general complexity of Neal's relationship with his childhood and the way it's influenced him. I really like that Neal's childhood wasn't blatantly, horrifically abusive. It was definitely abusive/neglectful, and you can see it's left marks on him, but in an everyday sort of way rather than a "Neal was locked in the cellar and starved" kind of way.
And like you said, the way he responds to it is a very Neal kind of response. Peter would have responded differently; so would Mozzie. You can see shades of Neal already in the way that he dealt with the various hardships of his childhood. And I think it's a very good point that Neal was doing all of this while idolizing his cop dad and wanting to grow up like him. "I was in seventh grade, I didn't know any better," he tells Peter and El when he's telling them about stealing money from the purse in 5x04, but a great many 7th-graders wouldn't have done that. (I can't imagine myself doing it at that age -- if not for moral qualms, than for sheer fear of being caught!) But you can also see the position he was in, as a very bright and curious kid without much respect for authority who was basically allowed to run wild, and had to learn some street survival skills to protect himself.
(Neal would have been an incredible handful even for a very involved parent with a strong support system, I suspect. There's so much de-aging fic in the fandom in which Neal is a perfect little angel, but I want someone to write the kidfic in which he's a sweet but hard-to-handle troublemaker who shoplifts, steals stuff from El's purse, and skips school to hang out in pool halls. BECAUSE HE TOTALLY WOULD BE.)
Because it makes sense as stated, but Neal went to prison, and it hasn't appeared to have any effect. I honestly don't think that Neal sees prison as a consequence for breaking the law, I think he sees it as the price for getting caught. I think the consequences have to be more, "you will not have the home and family you want" and "people are being hurt, people who are real to you."
Yeah, I felt a little discomfort writing that part of the essay. I feel that the way I stated it isn't quite right; it comes too close, again, to "Neal just needs to be shown the error of his ways and he'll make better decisions". Or to viewing Peter as a parent-figure punishing Neal so he'll know better. Which isn't, ideally, what their relationship ought to be, and doesn't seem to work anyhow.
And you're right that what Neal mostly learned from prison seems to be not to get caught. The aspect of it that had the most effect on him seems to have been the realization that he'd given Kate four years of weekly visits to the federal pen rather than a nice house and a happy life.
He's definitely been different since he got out of prison than he seems to have been before, though -- less carefree, more inclined to weigh the risks and consequences of his actions.
I like the point that was made over on LJ about Neal deciding to be a sociopath so he doesn't have to care or worry anymore. He has been under a lot of pressure, not just this season but all of the past years; he's lost a lot, and he's struggled a lot. To me, it makes a lot of sense that Neal would hit a low point where he decides to give up the struggle, throw everything out the window, and go back to the life he left behind. But I don't expect it'll be nearly as easy or fulfilling as he seems to think it's going to be.
Re: I wrote an essay in response to your essay
Oh, absolutely. 7th grade really is old enough to know better. By that age, kids should have learned it's wrong to take what doesn't belong to you. Now, admittedly, swiping money from someone's purse could be seen as one of those stupid, destructive things that some kids do when they're growing up, like swiping a lipstick from a department store. The problem is that Neal isn't testing his boundaries and limits. By 12-or-13, crime has already become normalized to Neal. It's not exactly that he truly doesn't know any better--he has free will and would have received messages from society that stealing is wrong--but his sense of morality has already been altered.
It makes me wonder if there are any good "teenage Neal meets the Burkes" fics. Because, done right, it could be really interesting.
You're right about Neal and prison. I shouldn't have said that it hasn't has any effect. I don't think post-prison Neal would walk up to the FBI agent chasing him and hand him a sucker. What would have been more accurate is that it hasn't had any effect on Neal's tendency to commit crimes. Prison is the price for getting caught, so he's learned to be more cautious, so as to not get caught again.
He has been under a lot of pressure, not just this season but all of the past years; he's lost a lot, and he's struggled a lot
Oh yeah. I honestly have difficulty figuring out just how capable Neal is of change, because he's constantly in crisis. (That what he gets for being the lead on a TV show.) His girlfriend has been abducted, his girlfriend has been murdered, his best friend has been shot, his former mentor is behind all three events, said mentor kidnaps him and tries to kill him, he has to keep both his closest friends without going to prison, his mother figure is murdered, his father is back, his father betrays him, his friend is falsely imprisoned, he's at the beck and call of a murdering blackmailer. *lets out deep breath*
And people in crisis fall back on familiar coping mechanisms. When everything is falling down around your ears won't seem to be the right time to reinvent your basic approach to life.
Morality Where does it come from.
(Anonymous) 2013-12-09 02:08 am (UTC)(link)Morality is not all the same for all people.
People do rebel against imposed morality . Like the prohibition against same sex relationships. That was imposed to maintain a high fertility rate. It is very practical.
Secularists believe that most people are born moral and religion or the threat of Hell is not needed. Religious people believe differently.
I think most people have morals. These moral laws allows people to live together and create civilization. Honesty is critical. Business and transactions can be done without honesty. Honesty is also needed between government and the governed. If the government is capricious and not following the rules then the govern see the contact broken and decide they do not need to follow the rules.
Mozzie is one of those that feels the government is unlawful so why should he be lawful. Neal does not. Neal just doesn't see stealing as hurtful when done against criminals, bad people or the rich. Even museums are covered by insurance so there is not personal damage being done.
Peter is a lapsed Catholic and presumably had strong Catholic education when he was a child. Neal probably did not attend a church. His morality is more practical. The first imperative is to survive.
Neal has strong sense of moral code. He does not hurt people and feels bad when he does. He does not use guns or force to steal.
In order to survive when he was young he had to be creative to get to school and enjoyed outsmarting people from an early age. Stealing may have been a necessity. He had been doing it a while before he stole that purse in 7th grade. Neal learned that society is very trusting and one can use that to easily slip between the cracks and make money.
Neal's morality is more practical. Peter is more a matter of rules that have to be followed whether they make sense or not.
Peter had a very strong sense of what pattern to follow to be a success. Neal found a very different path and can not understand why Peter thinks a harder path is better. That was shown in the Pilot.
I never thought that the goal was Neal's redemption. Neal would not be the asset if he was normal. It is because of his sideways thinking he is valuable.
Peter is often confused because Neal is a good man and a con. Peter's statement it was either/or was totally false to Neal.
Neal really did use Peter as role model and used Peter sense of rightness to guide him. But that sense of right contradicts Neal's sense of what is right. Neal feels his priority was Peter not the imaginary law.
Neal feels it is not wrong to steal from the FBI. That is not a real person. Neal's personal code is personal and relational.
Neal did want a family and I agree his best role model is June not Peter to gain his goal.
Neal has tried to follow Peter's lessons and they backfire every time for Neal.
I personally did not like the Neal who has Stockholm syndrome and was forced to all sorts of efforts to prevent Peter from finding out about the treasure. Neal going to all that effort was not just to save himself ,but also to save the friendship. He understands Peter's conflict between saving Neal and arresting Neal So Neal tries to maintain the plausible denialbility for Peter.
I often thought that though Neal admires and like Peter he does not have as strong emotional need to stay with Peter that Peter has with Neal.
Neal was free to leave under Mentor, but Peter shot an OPR agent to find Neal before he could leave. I often thought Peter shot Fowler not to save Diana but rather to get Fowler tell him where Neal was.
Peter had no idea that keeping Neal from that plane would save his life. Just Peter had a strong need to keep Neal with him rather let him leave with his love. If you switched the people, Neal would never try to stop Peter from leaving with Elizabeth to stay with him. Peter never gave Neal the same consideration that he would expect to be given him about his own love.
Peter consistently, despite strong evidence that Neal would move the world to find and stay with his love, did not understand that Neal's loyalty was part of Neal's personal code. To expect Neal to betray that code was for Neal to betray himself.
Peter in S3 felt personally betrayed by Neal when he thought Neal stole the treasure despite strong evidence to the contrary. Because that was personal, Peter then betrayed his friendship by targeting Neal with the goal to arrest him. He used Kramer for that. Neal in contrast never blamed Peter or was angry at Peter targeting him since he considered that was the rules. Lawmen hunts criminals and as the other player it was up to Neal to foil those attempts. It would be Neal's fault if he lost to Peter .
Then despite the theme Choose a Side It really ended with Peter choosing to save Neal rather than arresting him. Even to the point of telling Neal to leave and run.
This season had tried to address these obsessions. Peter to step back and Neal in his hurt to distance himself and to regain his own sense of self as a criminal when he needs to be. Neal is hurt and angry at Peter because Peter is blaming Neal for being Neal. Neal did a good thing, getting Peter released and then Peter calls him a bad person, a criminal. Peter was betraying Neal on a personal and not a professional level and that engenders resentment in Neal.
Neal tried to tell Peter that Peter gained his promotion ( really because of Neal getting those conviction rates so high) and yet Neal just gets another leash holder. Even Hagen gets free. Peter tries to say that being part of the team is Neal's reward. Neal really thinks that Peter doesn't care about his freedom, but how much Neal could help the FBI. Neal doesn't have any loyalty to the FBI, but rather to the people, Peter, Jones and Diana. Neal loyalty is not to an abstract that Peter has. Plus Neal is not getting any increase in pay , perks or privileges. That would be physically relevant. The being a valuable member of the team has less impact to Neal.
Even Neal's new handler thinks Neal also works for the FBI for the same reason he does. Neal tried to say it was because of the terms of his release, yet Siegel says that Neal could leave anytime he wanted. Neal really could not without being a fugitive and Neal does not want to be a fugitive. Neal wants freedom.
I often thought that Neal's new handler should have been Jones. Jones likes Neal and would treat him with respect yet he understands Neal better. Jones got closer to understanding Neal's dream than Peter ever has. Yet Jones always knows that Neal is a criminal by choice. Jones is not emotionally tied to Neal and would not have the conflicts that Peter has. Plus Jones would not try to make Neal into Jones or a Peter mold. Jones would let Neal be Neal just rein him in when needed.
I never wanted Neal to be redeemed probably, because I understand Neal's moral sense better than the rigid one that Peter has. More people share Neal's moral sense and would steal and take advantage to their own benefit if it was easier. Just most of us are risk adverse. We are afraid of prison. Neal is a major risk taker and is not as fearful as the rest of us. Plus he is very smart and got out think most obstacles. That is part of what makes him a master thief. I agree with Neal that prison is to be avoided and means he better not be caught.
Most of us got in to the habit of honesty and it is difficult when we break those habits .We feel bad. Neal is not in that habit so does not feel bad about dishonesty if it is needed.
I ran into a young woman who pathological lied. She lied when it was not needed so I could not understand why until I figure her emotional needs.
This dishonesty really pissed me off and I confronted her. That confrontation was so destructive to her self image that she ran and left everything she owned. She could not faced that I knew and made her face up to her lies. My own child was so much stronger I had no idea how much I was damaging her self image and made her run.
Neal is not pathological about lieing. He does when it is needed. He also uses words to keep his secrets. His secrets are needed for his own protection yet Peter constantly pries at these secrets and this is very destructive to Neal. Neal privacy is limited and Peter tries to destroy even that limited amount of privacy of Neal's mind.
Yet so far in S5 Peter has learned and he waiting to figure out the reason that Neal is stealing. He now has more faith and though he doesn't totally trust Neal to be honest , he more understands Neal's code.
I do not have a dreamwidth account so this is should go under Leonore 09 as my handle