Originally Posted by Top41:
There's venting, and there's venting at someone. You can complain and gripe, or you can attack/accuse someone. The first is okay, but the second is not--no matter who is doing it. Danny bitches all the time about stuff, but he rarely lays into people the way Lindsay does--like when she chewed him out for calling her Montana in "Manhattan Manhunt" or griped that he gives her all the crappy jobs in "Oedipus Hex."
True. I can see the difference between venting just to vent and venting-on-the-attack, and can see how one would be okay and justifiable while the other wouldn't be. I just think that standard shouldn't really change: whether the person venting-on-the-attack is traumatized, crippled, on the verge of death, all of the above or whatever.
Maybe we just have different views on this. I guess I do think the physicality of it is a big deal. Danny's body is directly affected by what happened (the rape metaphor was a really loose one, obviously, not meant to be direct in any way). He's changed by it physically. What happened to Lindsay was horrible, terrible and tragic, but at the end of the day, she's a survivor. She did walk away. Her friends' parents lost their children. Lindsay lost her friends and I don't mean to trivialize that in any way, but she didn't lose her life. And it happened ten years ago. What's happened to Danny is fresh, and immediate and has the potential to have life-long physical ramifications. Even if he can walk again, he might be in pain for the rest of his life. Ten years down the road, I'd expect him to be able to deal (although pain is something that's pretty immediate when you're experiencing it). But for now, I'd expect him to be a wreck, in the same way I expect Lindsay was ten years ago.
I might view things differently, yeah, about the importance of physical vs. emotional trauma. Even looking at it from the physical side of Danny's trauma, if he were permanently crippled, still feeling pain and still dealing badly with it ten years down the road: I wouldn't find it any more okay for him to behave badly then, than I would now. At the same time, I can't see feeling less sympathy for his plight ten years later, just because he should've learned to deal better and get over it after ten years. Not being the one in a wheelchair, I can't see how I would judge that. After at least thirty years of using his legs I'd totally get why he wouldn't get over losing them only ten years later. Wouldn't make it acceptable for him to ditch responsibilities/lash out/etc, but I think it'd be sympathetic. And I don't think that standard changes for emotional trauma, just because it's not physical pain. Pain is pain, and if Lindsay was a wreck in S3, it's safe to assume she was one ten years ago, too. I was sympathetic, yeah, but if I wasn't in S3, I doubt seeing her go through the trauma a decade earlier would change that. It wouldn't change the way she was behaving.
But society assigns levels to trauma. Why is the punishment for burglary not as severe as it is for rape? If some guy was going on and on about how he got beat up in a bar to a woman who had been raped, wouldn't we find that a bit distasteful? And then there are people who use something bad that happened to them as an excuse for bad behavior---something I think Lindsay did a bit in season three.
Yeah, society does assign levels to trauma; and those levels are usually in direct correlation to the long-term effects of that trauma. That's why the charges for burglary are less than the ones for assault, which are less than the ones for rape, etc. That why, imo, I think it's impossible to say ten years is more than enough time to get over emotional trauma. These crimes are usually rated in terms of how deep their emotional impact might run. Murder is obviously one of the highest charges, because of the emotional impact on others that murder causes. Societally, the concept of justice for the murdered is far more about justice and peace of mind for the loved-ones-of-the-murdered; not to be brutal, but that concept dodesn't really matter anymore to the people who've been killed. But that's the emotional side of the argument. If you're more about the physicality, then it's completely fair to say that attempted murder and temporary paralysis is about as traumatic as it can get for someone without actually dying. It's impossible to decide which is worse because obviously, actual murder is rated higher than attempted murder; Lindsay could've walked away from that diner in Montana without a scratch but still suffered more deeply than Danny will. Or he's the one going through excruciating pain/paralysis/fear-of-mortality, but is apparently up and walking again by episode 6.06 and at the end of it he didn't lose anyone. I find both of them sympathetic, and I could totally see both of them "using" those traumas to excuse bad behaviour. But I think we'll literally be here forever if we try to decide which is worse, because there'll always be someone who's gone through either one or the other of those traumas who naturally feels their side of things is worse. Either way, both are
horrible things to go through. And no, how long ago they went through those things doesn't change that for me.
Danny retreating into himself might literally be a defense mechanism. It's really hard to say at this point whether he'll do that or whether he'll bleed emotionally all over the place. I kinda suspect the latter.
Fine, but pushing people away is also a defense mechanism. In light of her work-responsibilities and what she may/may not have promised Danny, it wasn't okay for Lindsay because she'd already "signed up" for both, so to speak. Same difference. Of course it depends on how Danny uses this defense mechanism, and I'm hoping to see the emotional-bleeding too.
A lot of people interpret that "Marry me" and being jokingly serious--like he was actually thinking she was the one for him in that moment. I think it's out there, but hey, it's an interpretation. As for her searching for reassurance, just because she didn't get it doesn't mean she wasn't looking for it.
LOL, okay :lol: I guess I can see how any interpretation can fly, even if it's so not supported. With Lindsay's lines, though, it defeats the purpose of "searching" for reassurance if you don't get that reassurance and
don't keep pressing until you do. As it stood, if she was searching for reassurance, all she got was the message that Danny blamed her. (At least, I think that's how I think she would've interpreted his silence, especially if she was looking for him to say "no, it's okay".) IMO, it washes out. Particularly because she didn't deserve
that blame. If he'd done as he promised to do (wake her up), his involvement would've been avoided.
Never came up once?
Flack called for EMS, and Lindsay ignored him and dragged Danny away. If Lindsay felt guilty, she didn't feel that guilty... she kind of smiled as she said it.
I meant that if Flack had a problem with Lindsay dragging Danny away, he certainly didn't voice it or even move to object/stop her; and neither did Danny. They never once indicated that they thought Lindsay should stay put. Unless she was meant to be picking up some kind of silent code from them that definitely wasn't coming across visually, I'm not seeing how she should've gotten the message that moving Danny to the ambulance wasn't the best idea. How do you feel guilty for something you're apparently
not doing wrong? [Additionally, please; they're both around six-feet, and she's I think 5'3 in heels. Injured or not, if neither Danny or Flack felt that he should be moving, Lindsay wouldn't have been able to drag him anywhere.]
Also, she didn't smile; sorry, but just saw this episode on DVD, and I don't remember that. Her lips moved when she started talking, if that's what you mean, but there was no smile.
