Angels of Death

[Lhbizness]

I don't recall any specific instance of Gambit having trouble trusting Steed. He walks into a gun on Steed's say so, despite not knowing that it's not loaded. He trusts that Steed himself isn't a double sending him on a wild goose chase. He's willing to follow tenuous leads to prove Steed's innocence when everything else points to him being guilty. They practice a good deal of "telepathy", as Purdey calls it, and come to the same conclusions at the same time. The only instance I can think of is Hostage, but Steed is lying to Gambit in that one, so he has reason to think there's something funny going on. And really, it was a bad call for Steed to not bring Gambit in on the situation. If the first thing the hostage people tell you is don't tell Gambit, then they must have a reason to worry about having Gambit involved. That means Steed should have been straight with him from the start.

I think what you might be perceiving as lack of trust is actually Gambit's straight-forwardness as opposed to Steed's tendency to sometimes manipulate rather than outright tell people what's going on to get them outside. I think if you're straight with Gambit, he appreciates that--he doesn't like being manipulated (does anyone?). I think Steed has learned that about him, and therefore doesn't try it much, but the few times he does, Gambit can sense it, and it annoys him because he'll quite literally do whatever's needed if you're honest with him about it. He's also not afraid to call Steed on it, while at the same time he's more than willing to express his admiration, loyalty, and concern for him as a friend, too.

And there's always a bit of good old-fashioned male rivalry in there, too. But for the most part I see them as good friends and partners. Aspects of their relationship aren't even duplicated between each of them and Purdey. Even she can sense that.

You give Gambit the benefit of the doubt a lot more than I do - and I tend to give Steed more leeway than you, it seems. Gambit's straightforwardness sometimes translates into a lack of tact, even failing to consider the consequences of his actions - Steed is regularly annoyed with either him or Purdey for killing an operative rather than succeeding in actually capturing them (The Midas Touch bears that out). Gambit seems to kick a door down first, rather than consider if maybe things might be more effective if he just knocked. Steed, meanwhile, is both sneakier and more contemplative - he tries to choose the path of least resistance, and seems to consider all the angles more. Without being too prejudiced against him, I think it can be safely stated that Gambit's just a bit hot-headed and quick on the trigger.

Given what we know about Gambit's mentality, then, it seems that Steed decides not to tell him about Purdey's capture because he's afraid that Gambit will try to take the direct approach, rather than reasoning it out. And when Steed does tell him, he's so far into the idea that his superior is a traitor that he won't believe it - and gets himself knocked out as a result. (He's also, in that episode, apparently convinced that he can take Steed without any difficulty - so much so that he lets Steed get too close to him.)

[Frankymole]

To be fair, The Midas Touch shows that Gambit learnt one thing from steed - come in through the window

[Timeless A-Peel]

You give Gambit the benefit of the doubt a lot more than I do - and I tend to give Steed more leeway than you, it seems. Gambit's straightforwardness sometimes translates into a lack of tact, even failing to consider the consequences of his actions - Steed is regularly annoyed with either him or Purdey for killing an operative rather than succeeding in actually capturing them (The Midas Touch bears that out). Gambit seems to kick a door down first, rather than consider if maybe things might be more effective if he just knocked. Steed, meanwhile, is both sneakier and more contemplative - he tries to choose the path of least resistance, and seems to consider all the angles more. Without being too prejudiced against him, I think it can be safely stated that Gambit's just a bit hot-headed and quick on the trigger.

Given what we know about Gambit's mentality, then, it seems that Steed decides not to tell him about Purdey's capture because he's afraid that Gambit will try to take the direct approach, rather than reasoning it out. And when Steed does tell him, he's so far into the idea that his superior is a traitor that he won't believe it - and gets himself knocked out as a result. (He's also, in that episode, apparently convinced that he can take Steed without any difficulty - so much so that he lets Steed get too close to him.)

They have different approaches, definitely, and Gambit can be a little reckless. But Steed can be too "sneaky"--not with the enemy, but with people that he should trust. I guess I appreciate Gambit because there's never any games with him--he's actually very open in the way he conducts himself. I love Steed, but sometimes he's too under-the-radar. There are times he could save himself some grief if he just was frank with people. Do you honestly believe that if Steed had gone to Gambit and told him Purdey was kidnapped, he would have run straight out the door and blown the whole thing right off the top, especially given how he feels about Purdey? All Steed would have to say is, "I have a plan," and Gambit's response would have been, "What do you need me to do?" They have that kind of relationship.

And I'm sorry, but I'm really not getting your reading of Hostage where Gambit immediately believes Steed's a traitor. None of the dialogue or the actions bear that out as far as I can tell. Gambit resists the idea all the way through the episode. He asks to be put on the assignment because he wants someone sympathetic to Steed to investigate. He only goes into arrest him because McKay orders him to, and when he does, his whole face falls. He doesn't want to arrest Steed, and I think that's why he lets his guard down and gets too close to him. Maybe Steed would have found a way around him regardless, but it's clear his heart's not in it. Besides, if he was so convinced that Steed was a traitor, why does he check on his story about Purdey? Wouldn't he just assume that being attacked proved Steed was guilty and treat it like a lie? This isn't just my Gambit bias showing--it just doesn't make logical sense to me based on what we see onscreen.

[Lhbizness]

They have different approaches, definitely, and Gambit can be a little reckless. But Steed can be too "sneaky"--not with the enemy, but with people that he should trust. I guess I appreciate Gambit because there's never any games with him--he's actually very open in the way he conducts himself. I love Steed, but sometimes he's too under-the-radar. There are times he could save himself some grief if he just was frank with people. Do you honestly believe that if Steed had gone to Gambit and told him Purdey was kidnapped, he would have run straight out the door and blown the whole thing right off the top, especially given how he feels about Purdey? All Steed would have to say is, "I have a plan," and Gambit's response would have been, "What do you need me to do?" They have that kind of relationship.

And I'm sorry, but I'm really not getting your reading of Hostage where Gambit immediately believes Steed's a traitor. None of the dialogue or the actions bear that out as far as I can tell. Gambit resists the idea all the way through the episode. He asks to be put on the assignment because he wants someone sympathetic to Steed to investigate. He only goes into arrest him because McKay orders him to, and when he does, his whole face falls. He doesn't want to arrest Steed, and I think that's why he lets his guard down and gets too close to him. Maybe Steed would have found a way around him regardless, but it's clear his heart's not in it. Besides, if he was so convinced that Steed was a traitor, why does he check on his story about Purdey? Wouldn't he just assume that being attacked proved Steed was guilty and treat it like a lie? This isn't just my Gambit bias showing--it just doesn't make logical sense to me based on what we see onscreen.

Yes, I think that if Steed went to Gambit and said that someone has kidnapped Purdey, his immediate response would be "who can I punch?" Which is sweet in its way, but not effective. I think that what Steed feared was that Gambit's affection for her would cloud his judgment and he'd give in to his basic nature - which is to break the door down. Again, given what we see of Gambit throughout the series, that's not a stretch to assume. Gambit's concern for Purdey is both his most endearing feature, and one of his most grating. The scene in Target where he tells Steed that he's going to go after the people responsible for poisoning her is lovely - yet at the same time he has no realization that her life means something to people besides himself. His concern for her has a selfish tinge to it.

Gambit is very straight-forward, sometimes to his detriment. He does not seem to think around a problem - the idea of actually giving up the papers in order to save Purdey would be unlikely to occur to him (and is one of the instances where Steed proves he values people over everything else). That's what I mean when I say that he's not a contemplative character - he's made for action, but he does not seem to consider whether or not action is actually best.

I didn't mean to imply that Gambit immediately accepts that Steed is a traitor - rather that after a period he seems to believe it, and approaches the arrest as though he is. I don't think that he wants to arrest Steed, but I also don't think that at that point he believes what Steed tells him. Earlier we have a scene with Gambit saying that he and Steed have never faced each other - which is a direct challenge, it seems to me. He appears to want to prove himself against the older man, and that happens a few times over the course of the show. Now whether we want to take that as good-natured rivalry or a sense of inferiority is entirely up to us.

I think that Steed likes Gambit - I also think that Gambit does not really believe that he has anything more to learn.

[dissolute]

LHb, I agree with all that except the last sentence, Gambit seems to me to be in awe of Steed and, in his own way, a willing pupil.

[Frankymole]

I didn't mean to imply that Gambit immediately accepts that Steed is a traitor - rather that after a period he seems to believe it, and approaches the arrest as though he is. I don't think that he wants to arrest Steed, but I also don't think that at that point he believes what Steed tells him. Earlier we have a scene with Gambit saying that he and Steed have never faced each other - which is a direct challenge, it seems to me. He appears to want to prove himself against the older man, and that happens a few times over the course of the show. Now whether we want to take that as good-natured rivalry or a sense of inferiority is entirely up to us.

More like he has to do his duty, and gives fair warning.

If all their superiors are saying Steed is a traitor, ultimately you can't just give benefit of the doubt - you really do have to bring him in. That's the job.

[Lhbizness]

I didn't mean to imply that Gambit immediately accepts that Steed is a traitor - rather that after a period he seems to believe it, and approaches the arrest as though he is. I don't think that he wants to arrest Steed, but I also don't think that at that point he believes what Steed tells him. Earlier we have a scene with Gambit saying that he and Steed have never faced each other - which is a direct challenge, it seems to me. He appears to want to prove himself against the older man, and that happens a few times over the course of the show. Now whether we want to take that as good-natured rivalry or a sense of inferiority is entirely up to us.

More like he has to do his duty, and gives fair warning.

If all their superiors are saying Steed is a traitor, ultimately you can't just give benefit of the doubt - you really do have to bring him in. That's the job.

But he does not say, "Steed, tell me what's going on." He even mistrusts Steed as far as claiming that Steed would use Purdey against him, which seems to indicate just how far he actually respects and understands the man supposed to be his friend. Quite honestly I'm amazed that he hasn't noticed that Purdey has been nowhere to be seen.

Anyways, I don't mean to totally rip on Gambit, and there are some things I like about his character. They're just often outweighed by a narrow-mindedness and self-involvement that grates on me.

[Frankymole]

Fair enough, I must say he's never come across that way to me. He goes out of his way to help/save people which doesn't seem selfish or narrow-minded.

[Timeless A-Peel]

I didn't mean to imply that Gambit immediately accepts that Steed is a traitor - rather that after a period he seems to believe it, and approaches the arrest as though he is. I don't think that he wants to arrest Steed, but I also don't think that at that point he believes what Steed tells him. Earlier we have a scene with Gambit saying that he and Steed have never faced each other - which is a direct challenge, it seems to me. He appears to want to prove himself against the older man, and that happens a few times over the course of the show. Now whether we want to take that as good-natured rivalry or a sense of inferiority is entirely up to us.

More like he has to do his duty, and gives fair warning.

If all their superiors are saying Steed is a traitor, ultimately you can't just give benefit of the doubt - you really do have to bring him in. That's the job.

But he does not say, "Steed, tell me what's going on." He even mistrusts Steed as far as claiming that Steed would use Purdey against him, which seems to indicate just how far he actually respects and understands the man supposed to be his friend. Quite honestly I'm amazed that he hasn't noticed that Purdey has been nowhere to be seen.

Anyways, I don't mean to totally rip on Gambit, and there are some things I like about his character. They're just often outweighed by a narrow-mindedness and self-involvement that grates on me.

Well, he's there to do a job by that point. He's been asked to bring Steed in. It's a hard thing for him to do. Being neutral/professional about it probably helps him cope. And really, I've never blamed him for getting annoyed when Steed brings up Purdey. At that point in time, it just sounds like a desperate attempt by Steed to get out of the arrest, and like he's using Gambit's affection for Purdey for his own ends. If someone tried to use someone I cared about as a way to get out of something, I'd be annoyed, too.

(Purdey's supposed to be on vacation at her mother's, btw, which is why it doesn't strike Gambit as odd that she's not around--she's not supposed to be in town. The last time he sees her she's just about to leave. That's why he checks with her mother to confirm Steed's story).

Anyway, I agree that Gambit is more "shoot first, ask questions later" in action stakes, but I think he's willing to listen to Steed when he's got a different approach. And he is more contemplative in the non-action things. Lots of his conversations with Purdey touch on all sorts of esoteric topics, and he always engages with her and gives her (often quite tangential) musings thought, rather than dismiss or ignore her. He's happy to learn new things from Steed. So I don't see him as narrow-minded. And he's always willing to help a friend out of a tight spot, often at great cost to himself, which I don't see as selfish. I'm struggling to see how his reaction to Purdey dying is selfish. He cares so much for her that he's willing to do anything to save/avenge her. If Gambit's sentiment is selfish, why isn't Steed's statement that he'd do the same? If Steed had voiced it first, and Gambit had said that he'd help him, would that make Steed selfish? It seems more selfish to me to automatically assume that Steed feels the as passionately about something/someone as he does, or would want to deal with it the same way (especially since what he'd plan to do would likely get him kicked out of his job or arrested or some such in the process).

Anyway, we're never going to agree on this, but heigh ho (as Emma would say). I think Gambit's a very selfless character, and reflective in his own way. Other than when he's kicking down doors.

[Lhbizness]

Well, he's there to do a job by that point. He's been asked to bring Steed in. It's a hard thing for him to do. Being neutral/professional about it probably helps him cope. And really, I've never blamed him for getting annoyed when Steed brings up Purdey. At that point in time, it just sounds like a desperate attempt by Steed to get out of the arrest, and like he's using Gambit's affection for Purdey for his own ends. If someone tried to use someone I cared about as a way to get out of something, I'd be annoyed, too.

(Purdey's supposed to be on vacation at her mother's, btw, which is why it doesn't strike Gambit as odd that she's not around--she's not supposed to be in town. The last time he sees her she's just about to leave. That's why he checks with her mother to confirm Steed's story).

Anyway, I agree that Gambit is more "shoot first, ask questions later" in action stakes, but I think he's willing to listen to Steed when he's got a different approach. And he is more contemplative in the non-action things. Lots of his conversations with Purdey touch on all sorts of esoteric topics, and he always engages with her and gives her (often quite tangential) musings thought, rather than dismiss or ignore her. He's happy to learn new things from Steed. So I don't see him as narrow-minded. And he's always willing to help a friend out of a tight spot, often at great cost to himself, which I don't see as selfish. I'm struggling to see how his reaction to Purdey dying is selfish. He cares so much for her that he's willing to do anything to save/avenge her. If Gambit's sentiment is selfish, why isn't Steed's statement that he'd do the same? If Steed had voiced it first, and Gambit had said that he'd help him, would that make Steed selfish? It seems more selfish to me to automatically assume that Steed feels the as passionately about something/someone as he does, or would want to deal with it the same way (especially since what he'd plan to do would likely get him kicked out of his job or arrested or some such in the process).

Anyway, we're never going to agree on this, but heigh ho (as Emma would say). I think Gambit's a very selfless character, and reflective in his own way. Other than when he's kicking down doors.

Again, I don't find him particularly sympathetic in Hostage (or in Obsession, which is a similar story in terms of the leads' dynamics). Granted that he's largely kept out of the loop, he still behaves in what's basically a self-assured manner in attempting to arrest Steed and declining to give the man the benefit of the doubt - again, a man meant to be his friend and colleague. It's the fact that he automatically assumes that Steed is lying about Purdey, which shows that Gambit has a poor understanding of Steed's character, or at least rates Steed far lower as a human being.

His reaction to Purdey's possible death is self-involved in the sense that his first reaction is to consider what it means to him. He does not think about her, about Steed, about anyone except himself. He does not consider other people's emotions. In most of his interactions with Purdey, in fact, he seems to think more about himself and what she thinks of him than he does about anything else - she is important only insofar as she is important to him. So perhaps selfish is the wrong word - self-involved.

Gambit seems be constantly attempting to prove his masculinity, his capabilities, and his intellect against others - usually Steed, sometimes younger male agents. I don't really see much evidence of him being contemplative, nor helping a friend out of a tight spot at cost to himself.

Yeah, of course we're not going to agree, but I do enjoy the conversation.