Angels of Death

[Frankymole]

That's the thing about The New Avengers. Loads of Steed's oldest friends turned out to be traitors, sleeper agents, or imposters (doubles). Even his girlfriend in "House of Cards". If Steed or Gambit had given more benefit of the doubt to their bosses, colleagues, karate training partners, wives and girlfriends etc - they'd be dead. The Enemy uses subterfuge and subversion of our nearest and dearest to catch and kill us! Arguably Gambit gave Steed too much benefit of the doubt. He could've been killed if this was another Prator-style substitution.

[Lhbizness]

That's the thing about The New Avengers. Loads of Steed's oldest friends turned out to be traitors, sleeper agents, or imposters (doubles). Even his girlfriend in "House of Cards". If Steed or Gambit had given more benefit of the doubt to their bosses, colleagues, karate training partners, wives and girlfriends etc - they'd be dead. The Enemy uses subterfuge and subversion of our nearest and dearest to catch and kill us! Arguably Gambit gave Steed too much benefit of the doubt. He could've been killed if this was another Prator-style substitution.

It is one of the things I really do not like about TNA - but again, how many times can you accuse Steed of being a traitor and be proved totally wrong before you accept that he's not a traitor?

(And having re-watched the scene in Target, Gambit doesn't say that he's going to hunt anyone down until AFTER Steed says that he "feels the same." Gambit says, "I'll hunt them down." Steed says, "We'll hunt them down. She means as much to me as she does to you.")

[Timeless A-Peel]

That's the thing about The New Avengers. Loads of Steed's oldest friends turned out to be traitors, sleeper agents, or imposters (doubles). Even his girlfriend in "House of Cards". If Steed or Gambit had given more benefit of the doubt to their bosses, colleagues, karate training partners, wives and girlfriends etc - they'd be dead. The Enemy uses subterfuge and subversion of our nearest and dearest to catch and kill us! Arguably Gambit gave Steed too much benefit of the doubt. He could've been killed if this was another Prator-style substitution.

It is one of the things I really do not like about TNA - but again, how many times can you accuse Steed of being a traitor and be proved totally wrong before you accept that he's not a traitor?

(And having re-watched the scene in Target, Gambit doesn't say that he's going to hunt anyone down until AFTER Steed says that he "feels the same." Gambit says, "I'll hunt them down." Steed says, "We'll hunt them down. She means as much to me as she does to you.")

Yes, but just because Steed feels strongly about Purdey doesn't mean he'd necessarily react in the same way if she died. Gambit puts forward how he'll deal with it. Steed chips in that he'll do the same. It'd be wrong for Gambit to expect Steed to process his grief the same way. But I don't see him and Steed "competing" over their grief for Purdey. They're voicing how they feel without judging one another for it. They're united in the fact that they care about her, but neither would ever presume to speak for the other about it.

But I really don't see that Gambit's putting Purdey's life below his need for vengeance. He wants her to live. He wants to save her, but he knows she might not make it and that there's only so much he can do for her. If she doesn't, avenging her is the next best thing he can do for her. If that's selfish, doesn't Steed volunteering to do the same make him just as bad? If Purdey did the same for either of them (and she would, unquestionably), would she be selfish? Is Emma being selfish when she pummels--and nearly kills--one of the villagers in Murdersville because she's so upset about Paul Beresford's murder? To a certain extent all grief is selfish--we usually grieve for people because they mean something to us. But I don't sense that Steed and Gambit are putting their own needs above Purdey's life.

Anyways, I fully admit that I'm more critical of Gambit, and that there are things that irk me when Gambit does them but I'm more willing to forgive in Steed. But I'm not trying to be unfair to him, just questioning some of his behaviors and attitudes.

I think therein lies the problem. The reason I keep bringing up counterpoints where Steed's acted less-than-admirably is not because I'm trying to run down the character or because I don't like Steed, but because you can accuse Steed of a lot of the same things that you accuse Gambit of. But when Steed does them he's a wonderful guy and is totally within his rights, and when Gambit does them he's an awful human being, and logically reconciling that is difficult. I get that you don't like Gambit. Fair enough. I like both Gambit and Steed, and they both deserve to be held to the same standard. I don't see Gambit's actions as any more selfish than Steed lighting Piggy Warren's moustache on fire to extract information on Emma whereabouts. Maybe Gambit could have given Steed one more chance, but Steed also made the wrong call by not confiding in him in the first place. Neither one of them is perfect, but neither of them is a complete jerk, either.

[Lhbizness]

I don't see Gambit's impulse for vengeance as selfish, but rather the way he states it - the way he talks shows both a disregard that there's another person in the car who has just professed to feel the same way he does, and an emphasis on his desire for vengeance vs. an independent valuation of Purdey's life. She becomes his motive. It seems an example of his self-involvement. Other dynamics in The Avengers can't work the same way because there is no third partner.

I don't think Gambit's an awful human being - I think he's self-involved, more so than most other characters on the show. He's an action character trope, but he does not act badly most of the time - I do feel that his self-involvement is grating and makes me unsympathetic towards him. I think I'm harder on him than on Steed because we have seen the development and progression of Steed's character across the span of many years - so it's easier to understand where his character is coming from. But by the same token, you seem as ready to put the blame on Steed as I am to put the blame on Gambit.

[mousemeat]

I don't see Gambit's impulse for vengeance as selfish, but rather the way he states it - the way he talks shows both a disregard that there's another person in the car who has just professed to feel the same way he does, and an emphasis on his desire for vengeance vs. an independent valuation of Purdey's life. She becomes his motive. It seems an example of his self-involvement. Other dynamics in The Avengers can't work the same way because there is no third partner.

I don't think Gambit's an awful human being - I think he's self-involved, more so than most other characters on the show. He's an action character trope, but he does not act badly most of the time - I do feel that his self-involvement is grating and makes me unsympathetic towards him. I think I'm harder on him than on Steed because we have seen the development and progression of Steed's character across the span of many years - so it's easier to understand where his character is coming from. But by the same token, you seem as ready to put the blame on Steed as I am to put the blame on Gambit.

always like em..he was a counterpoint to steed. after all, the show didn't need a younger version of steed..

[Timeless A-Peel]

I don't see Gambit's impulse for vengeance as selfish, but rather the way he states it - the way he talks shows both a disregard that there's another person in the car who has just professed to feel the same way he does, and an emphasis on his desire for vengeance vs. an independent valuation of Purdey's life. She becomes his motive. It seems an example of his self-involvement. Other dynamics in The Avengers can't work the same way because there is no third partner.

I don't think Gambit's an awful human being - I think he's self-involved, more so than most other characters on the show. He's an action character trope, but he does not act badly most of the time - I do feel that his self-involvement is grating and makes me unsympathetic towards him. I think I'm harder on him than on Steed because we have seen the development and progression of Steed's character across the span of many years - so it's easier to understand where his character is coming from. But by the same token, you seem as ready to put the blame on Steed as I am to put the blame on Gambit.

In the instances we've discussed I am, yes. But I'm not "harder" on Steed all the way around. Most of the time he's got the right idea--by TNA he's downright philosophical. But he also does things I disagree with on occasion, not really in the Emma/Tara eras, but frequently in the Keel/Gale eras, and also sometimes in TNA, and I find it difficult to let them pass "because he's Steed." The development span of his character makes his missteps seem more egregious, I think, particularly by TNA, because I know he knows better. But even putting that aside, I have trouble reconciling arguments when two characters behave the same way in the same circumstances, and only one is condemned for it. It bemuses me.

But it's all down to perception in the end. Gambit always seems selfless to me, particularly in the way he treats his partners. I don't see him as being self-involved. But I think we've established that on both fronts.

[Lhbizness]

In the instances we've discussed I am, yes. But I'm not "harder" on Steed all the way around. Most of the time he's got the right idea--by TNA he's downright philosophical. But he also does things I disagree with on occasion, not really in the Emma/Tara eras, but frequently in the Keel/Gale eras, and also sometimes in TNA, and I find it difficult to let them pass "because he's Steed." The development span of his character makes his missteps seem more egregious, I think, particularly by TNA, because I know he knows better. But even putting that aside, I have trouble reconciling arguments when two characters behave the same way in the same circumstances, and only one is condemned for it. It bemuses me.

But it's all down to perception in the end. Gambit always seems selfless to me, particularly in the way he treats his partners. I don't see him as being self-involved. But I think we've established that on both fronts.

I don't really see any instances in TNA where Steed behaves badly - some of the things that you've identified as missteps or mistakes seem natural to me (and I think that you're completely wrong on his behavior in Obsession, based on what you've said). Nor do I see instances of Steed and Gambit behaving the same way in the same circumstances, given the nature of the dynamics of the different eras.

I'll give you Steed's bad behavior in the Gale era (I'm not going to comment on Keel, because we don't see it) - Steed often manipulates Cathy and especially Venus and while I don't find that fully condemns his character, it certainly does complicate the audience's feelings towards him. But neither do I think that Steed and Gambit ever behave the same way in TNA - so I'm not giving Gambit hell for doing the same thing that Steed does, during the same period. When you come down to it, I think Gambit thinks more about himself than anyone else.

But it seems like your arguments about Gambit's behavior in Target, Hostage, and Obsession are pretty much the same as my arguments about Steed's behavior in Hostage and Obsession - and you think Gambit is justified in what he does, while Steed should know better. I actually kind of despise Gambit in Obsession - and both men are completely off-course in their understanding of the situation. At least Steed tries to understand her, even if he gets it wrong.

[Frankymole]

But I really don't see that Gambit's putting Purdey's life below his need for vengeance. He wants her to live. He wants to save her, but he knows she might not make it and that there's only so much he can do for her. If she doesn't, avenging her is the next best thing he can do for her.

They are "The [New] Avengers", after all Vengeance comes with the territory...

[Timeless A-Peel]

I don't really see any instances in TNA where Steed behaves badly - some of the things that you've identified as missteps or mistakes seem natural to me (and I think that you're completely wrong on his behavior in Obsession, based on what you've said). Nor do I see instances of Steed and Gambit behaving the same way in the same circumstances, given the nature of the dynamics of the different eras.

I'll give you Steed's bad behavior in the Gale era (I'm not going to comment on Keel, because we don't see it) - Steed often manipulates Cathy and especially Venus and while I don't find that fully condemns his character, it certainly does complicate the audience's feelings towards him. But neither do I think that Steed and Gambit ever behave the same way in TNA - so I'm not giving Gambit hell for doing the same thing that Steed does, during the same period. When you come down to it, I think Gambit thinks more about himself than anyone else.

But it seems like your arguments about Gambit's behavior in Target, Hostage, and Obsession are pretty much the same as my arguments about Steed's behavior in Hostage and Obsession - and you think Gambit is justified in what he does, while Steed should know better. I actually kind of despise Gambit in Obsession - and both men are completely off-course in their understanding of the situation. At least Steed tries to understand her, even if he gets it wrong.

Well, we're just rehashing the same arguments, so I'm not going to go into it all over again. But bottom line, I don't think Gambit's selfish. I do think he often acts more for the sake of others, rather than himself. I don't think Steed's inherently selfish, either, but he's more dedicated to the job, and isn't above using people or misdirecting them if needed. It's part of the reason he's such a good agent, but it bleeds into his personal relationships occasionally, and he doesn't treat people the way he should sometimes as result. It's most pronounced in the Gale era, but it surfaces on occasion in TNA as well.

(And I'm sorry, but I think you're completely wrong regarding Obsession. Steed presumes too much, and acts on those presumptions without consulting Purdey. He had no right to invite Doomer to the party, nor to tell her how to deal with the issue when he didn't have all the facts. He didn't intentionally misread it, but he could have consulted her first, or at least got a better grip on the facts. Gambit, in contrast, goes straight to the source and gently engages Purdey on the issue. They both have good intentions, but Gambit doesn't go over Purdey's head on it.)

[Timeless A-Peel]

But I really don't see that Gambit's putting Purdey's life below his need for vengeance. He wants her to live. He wants to save her, but he knows she might not make it and that there's only so much he can do for her. If she doesn't, avenging her is the next best thing he can do for her.

They are "The [New] Avengers", after all Vengeance comes with the territory...

This is true. Does "new" vengeance differ from the original brand, I wonder?