Viewing Single Post From: NBC Weekly Preview 9/30/13
Sep 27 2013, 09:42 PM
- Elite Member
- October 29, 2011
I'm reminded of a story:
- Sep 27 2013, 07:28 PM
- Sep 27 2013, 05:50 PM
- Sep 27 2013, 04:46 PM
- Sep 27 2013, 04:43 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
The complaint would still be that it's all about Daniel even if Jack were there. Jack being there wouldn't affect that one little bit. It would affect other things, but not that. If they were misrepresenting the history, I could empathize with the outcry over this. But they're not. This is what happened and it's what happened
whether Jack is alive or dead. The drama comes not from Jack having to defend himself but from his son learning the truth. And that's what we're getting at this point.
But a lot of things happened back then. And many of those things were interconnected. I am concerned that if these writers only pull out part of the story for their own purposes, there will be a tendency for many to be misled by the new telling (or the inadequate telling).
Let's look at this way. We all know that Jack raped Kayla. Many of us actually saw that played out onscreen. It was wrenching and horrible. We saw the act (well, kind of), and we saw the aftermath as it affected both Jack and Kayla -- and others around them. It definitely "happened."
We also saw the events leading up to it, including when Kayla was shown to carry on an affair with Steve behind her husband's back, and lying to Jack for months. This also "happened."
Now, let's say that a few years from now, a new writing team decides to kill off Kayla and later tell a coming of age story about her son Joey. And let's say they decide he finds out that his mom was a lying, cheating woman who cuckolded her first husband -- perhaps because the writers want to diminish Kayla in the eyes of her son.
I would be incensed and enraged that a writing team would cynically take something that was so powerful and exploit it and twist it like that.
I am NOT excusing what Jack did. I am NOT saying that JJ shouldn't find out the truth. But what I am saying is that I don't want these writers to be the ones to bring it back up. They have given me no confidence whatsoever that they can handle the kind of complexity this warrants. Worse, I'm concerned that the "accepted canon" of what transpired will be altered by their mucking around in it.
This implies that the writers would misrepresent Kayla to further Joey's story. That's not what's happening with JJ. But as far as her kids finding out about that...I don't see why they'd care whether she was dead or alive. It's no where near the same as finding out your dad raped your aunt. You're not going to find many if any examples of me being against the show bringing up accurate parts of history, and what they're bringing up about Jack is accurate. Unless they keep it at just assault and don't use the word rape. That would bother me. Otherwise, it happened and I'd love for them to actually deal with the ramifications again now that involves more people.
"A ship's captain one day recorded in the ship’s log, 'First-mate drunk today.' It was a true statement, but was the first incident where the mate had been drunk while on duty. The mate pleaded with the captain to amend the statement, but the captain, a teetotaler, refused, saying it was a true statement. The next time the First-mate was in charge of the ship, he recorded in the log, 'Captain sober today.'"
Context matters. And just telling JJ "your father raped your aunt" is certainly a true statement. But it's a disservice to the story and all the players involved to leave it at that.