Pirate!Recs, and ooooh! Meta on Elizabeth and Norrington

[dwgm]

Recs:

woolymonkey has written a hilarious pair of post-Locker fics, First Nut Out of the Locker (from Jack's pov) and Second Nut Out of the Locker: Like Nuts for Bananas (from Barbossa's pov). They are slashy, yes, but sooooo much more than that.

bravenewcentury wrote, per my request on her "Give me a topic..." meme, of Pirates and Pietists, about religion in the era of PotC -- very interesting post, as are artaxastra's comments.

And then, fabu posted some meta on female characters yesterday, calling into question fans who label female fanfic characters "sluts" or "whores" for sexual behaviors, anything from mere flirting onward, that would be given a pass, or even be applauded, in a male character. Post and comments (which are well past 250 now) are really interesting.

Her post isn't specific to PotC, but there is a great deal of discussion of Elizabeth's flirtatious behavior with Jack in Dead Man's Chest, and whether Elizabeth then has the high moral ground and any right to call Norrington on working for Beckett as she does in AWE.

Elizabeth's flirting with Jack in DMC is, yes, Elizabeth using her feminine wiles to get Jack to answer her challenge to be the good man she trusts he is. He starts it, in both the "Persuade me" scene and in the "Curiosity" scene, and she gives him tit for tat, playful - in a way she never is with either Will or Norrington -- with a serious undertone. In their final encounter, she initiates the seduction as time is of the essence and her reasons involve life and death: he must act the good man or they are all doomed.

There are some vocal critics of Elizabeth's behavior in DMC, seeing her flirtation as immoral since she's engaged to Will, and her actions in kissing Jack and chaining him to the mast as betrayal and murder.

Now, as I understand it, flirtation was practically an artform in the society in which Elizabeth Swann moved. It's likely she was coached in the rules pertaining to same as she prepared to make her debut as a young woman of marriageable age. A woman had very few weapons at her disposal in those times, but that was one of them. It's true that she's engaged to Will, but on the other hand it's no random male she was flirting with, it was Jack, a man who saved her life at least twice, a man with whom she was marooned on an island alone, a man she feels she can trust, when it comes down to brass tacks. He's also a man who knows the rules as well as she does. I find their verbal sparring completely in character, and not inconsistent with behaviors condoned at that time.

As for her chaining him up as Kraken bait, I can't see that she had much alternative if she wanted to give the rest of them a reasonable chance at escaping death. She was right: the thing was after Jack, and his plan to use the heart to control Jones and the Kraken had failed, thanks to Norrington. Due to Jack lying to her about having nothing to do with Will's sojourn on the Flying Dutchman, and Jack's efforts to abscond while his crew and friends fought the monster for him, Elizabeth decided she couldn't trust him to do the right thing in this instance and took action. That this action caused her great personal grief, and might even be seen as morally reprehensible in some quarters (including her own), was beside the point. She did what was necessary. What a (wo)man can do. Pirate! And that's what she's "not sorry" about.


Speaking of Norrington, there is a tendency among some fans to consider his descent into scruffiness in DMC as OOC. I love Norrington as much as anyone (and was quite upset that they chose to "off" him in AWE), but I must say (and have said before in various debates) that he was no White Knight in CotBP. From his first lines he is of the snark, seeing pirates and the law in stark black and white. He treats with utter scorn and instantly condemns the man who's just rescued his prospective betrothed from otherwise certain death, ignores Will's suggestion that Jack be questioned about the Black Pearl's whereabouts either out of jealousy or contempt of Will, would have sunk one of his own ships rather than be bested by a pirate, and ignores Jack's advice to return to the Dauntless to fight Barbossa's men, resulting in additional deaths. He does have many good qualities, and it's a great concession to give Jack that one day's head start. But to say that he's incapable of ruthless and even obsessive behavior in carrying out what he conceives to be his duty is to dismiss much of what made him interesting as a character in CotBP. Like all the others, Norrington is a mixture of good and bad. I personally didn't care for him much until a) we got the deleted scenes on the DVD, inclusion of which would have made him a much more sympathetic character (which may have been part of the reason they were cut) and b) I started reading Sparrington fanfic in February of '04, after which I could definitely see that there was more to him than had met my eye. But Sparrington in those early days, as someone noted in fabu's post, often showed Norrington in a harsher light, which was true to CotBP canon. The very best Sparrington fic took the time to justify his gradual acceptance of Jack as a good man.

One more point: much is made of that "hurricane off Tripoli", some holding to the opinion that Norrington would never try to sail through a storm of that magnitude to catch Jack Sparrow. But it occurs to me that weather prediction was far from the (more or less) exact science that it is today, and even today there are ships that get caught in terrible storms for one reason or another. What with determination, Sparrow possibly taunting him for months, and his willingness to take a risk, Norrington may have lost that game through sheer bad luck, and then (of course) blamed himself for the loss of his ship and the men on her. Thinking his life in ruins, I can see him falling apart, at least temporarily, and I can certainly see him trying to rebuild his life and his honor by siding with Beckett, who had been given authority by the crown. By the beginning of AWE he realizes he may have erred, and when Elizabeth tells him of her father's death he knows he did.

Comments

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I was going to try to wedge this in among the 270 or so replies to yours, but I was afraid it would get too long, and I was right. *G*

Now back to reading your last post!

[dharma-slut.livejournal.com]

Thank you for taking the time to think all of this out!

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

LOL! It's stuff I've said before, here and there, but I felt the need to reiterate. It does take some time to type it all out, though. *G*

[shrieking-ell.livejournal.com]

WORD! to all of this!

(And especially to the hurricane bit. I've posted about that before but to sum up - 1) Tripoli (either one) = Mediterranean = Generally no hurricanes. So why would he even expect one? 2) weather prediction = voodoo even up until, well now. 3) people, ships, the entire Pacific fleet,etc. still get caught in hurricanes and no one accuses them of bad judgement...

/ranty

(sorry, that hurricane is one of my biggest pet peeves. it could have happened to anyone.)

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

it could have happened to anyone.

Exactly. And yes, no hurricanes in the Med, but I'm sure they have some pretty hefty storms anyway. He gambled and lost. It's that simple.

[the-dala.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much exactly why all of that plot and characterization works for me through three films. Thank you.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

You're welcome! I can't help but think that ignoring Norrington's faults makes him a far less interesting character.

[dharma-slut.livejournal.com]

oh, the typing, the typinnnng! LOL!

[torn-eledhwen.livejournal.com]

Yup, yes, aye and "word". :) I'd have missed this if you'd stuck it to fabu's post, so thanks!

[rexluscus.livejournal.com]

I loved Elizabeth's moral ambiguity in DMC - her willingness to do whatever's necessary, even if that means murder. I'm not going to excuse what she does to Jack. It's hard to justify killing someone, no matter what the reasons. But we don't like these characters because they're good candidates for the supreme court, do we? Some people thought she was out of character in DMC, but she does some pretty ruthless stuff in the first film too, just not on quite that level. There is the potential there, which frankly keeps her from becoming that boring spunky faultless heroine you always see.

And I totally agree with you about the flirting-with-Jack thing. I had a similar thought about her the other day with respect to the first film. In her DVD commentary, Keira Knightly says that the deleted scene in which Elizabeth tells Norrington her acceptance of his proposal was not conditional was cut because it made Elizabeth "too horrible". This surprised me, because I'd had the opposite impression. Without the scene, Elizabeth is coldly using Norrington. With the scene, she is treating him like a human being. What the hell?

Then I realized: if she treats Norrington like a person with feelings, she's being unfaithful to Will. If her acceptance of the proposal isn't cold-bloodedly manipulative, she is hurting the chaste fairy-tale true love bond with Will upon which our sympathy for her supposedly rests. The heroine must love the hero and not even look at anyone else or else she's a whore, and to do so is a far greater sin than manipulating somebody into doing what you want by using their feelings for you against them.

Then the rest of it started falling into place. I'd wondered before why they'd taken pains to make Norrington less sympathetic. Now it was clear: if we hate Norrington, we'll excuse Elizabeth's bad treatment of him. If the audience actually likes the guy Elizabeth is rejecting, she'll look like a faithless whore for breaking it off with him, too. The more humane and non-abusive Elizabeth's relationship with Norrington becomes, the more whorish she supposedly looks. It's kind of an awful irony, isn't it?

I really wish they'd kept those scenes in. That "peas in a pod" scene is great too, and they clearly took it out because it draws attention to the manipulativeness of what Elizabeth's doing and makes Norrington look more like a victim. Again, we have to hate him in order to accept what she does. At any rate, I've decided to live in a world in which those scenes *are* part of the story. :)

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

I was amazed at the number of responses to fabu's post. People feel very strongly about this stuff. But it follows from writing fanfic, I suppose -- we spend hours and hours thinking about these characters in such detail that it's painful when someone comes to vastly different conclusions about them.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Now it was clear: if we hate Norrington, we'll excuse Elizabeth's bad treatment of him. If the audience actually likes the guy Elizabeth is rejecting, she'll look like a faithless whore for breaking it off with him, too. The more humane and non-abusive Elizabeth's relationship with Norrington becomes, the more whorish she supposedly looks. It's kind of an awful irony, isn't it?

It is! But I think they didn't give the audience enough credit, really. The relationships and the situations are so complicated, nothing is cut and dry, and that's why we love that movie, and the sequels, too. I think most of us who write fanfic view most of the deleted scenes as canon, yet retain our regard for all the characters.

[venusinchains.livejournal.com]

Most of your argument I don't have a heartfelt problem with. I thought Liz had a tendency to preen in CotBP, something that made her flirtation with Jack unsurprising (something that would have been a part of the baggage of Class Structure and Her Place In It that you mention in other ways here). But...

"There are some vocal critics of Elizabeth's behavior in DMC, seeing her [...] chaining [Jack] to the mast as betrayal and murder."

Actually, making sure someone is helpless to escape, when you know that a deadly animal is approaching, probably would be deemed murder in court - now or then. So, calling her a murderer is reasonable. And she did have a choice. You always have a choice. The trick is finding the one you can live with (to steal an idea from Capt. T. in AWE). Even she felt she chose badly, as evidenced by her miserable state in Tia's shack at the end of DMC and her need to be "forgiven" for it in AWE. Everyone makes mistakes - so long as you learn from it, it's not a waste, or even necessarily a bad thing. But, denying it doesn't make it go away.

[rexluscus.livejournal.com]

Yes - Norrington's little glimmer of humanity was one of the things that made me like that movie. Another movie would just have made him a secondary bad guy, but this one bothered to treat him as a real character. And my estimation of the movie only increased the more I thought about how ruthless Elizabeth was. Emphasizing that could only have helped. Clearly the filmmakers abandoned their belief that moral ambiguity would hurt the audience's sympathies when they made the sequels, though. :)

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

I thought Liz had a tendency to preen in CotBP, something that made her flirtation with Jack unsurprising

Strangely, I never noticed her preening at all -- maybe for Will a little bit, in the beginning, but no more than any other young girl with a pretty new dress would -- and I remember sort of gaping in disbelief as my J/E writer fantasies were (more or less) made canon in DMC. I had seen little hint that Elizabeth more than tolerated Jack through most of CotBP, though it eventually dawned on me that her attitude had changed somewhat post-Battle of Isla de Muerta, and probably much more between that and the hanging. When she tells her father and Norrington "This is wrong!" it sounds like an old argument, as though she's been pleading for Jack's life for some time. In the year that passed between the hanging and DMC, absence obviously made the heart grow fonder, which is probably why Will's not quite as enthused about Jack as she is.

And she did have a choice. You always have a choice.

Certainly she could have risked trusting Jack to do the right thing. Whether he would have or not, even TnT don't know.

As for calling her a murderer, I still can't quite see it, any more than you'd call a soldier a murderer in time of war. It was a battle, and a matter of life and death for all of them.

Even she felt she chose badly, as evidenced by her miserable state in Tia's shack at the end of DMC and her need to be "forgiven" for it in AWE.

We know she was miserable that she'd felt she'd had to do it, miserable that Jack was gone. But we don't know that she regretted the choice she'd made, and she didn't ask forgiveness.

Everyone makes mistakes - so long as you learn from it, it's not a waste, or even necessarily a bad thing. But, denying it doesn't make it go away.

Again, was it a mistake? Would Jack have stayed (and I, for one, thought he would have -- I think that's why he went back), or would they all have died with him? If even the writers of the script don't agree on that point, I think we can each choose whatever version of the story suits us.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Clearly the filmmakers abandoned their belief that moral ambiguity would hurt the audience's sympathies when they made the sequels, though. :)

They really did!

I think Jack Davenport's performance in CotBP made a huge difference in how Norrington was perceived, too. He could have been very unlikeable, but there was always something about him that appealed -- that "glimmer of humanity", as you say.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

The fact is, the term "murderess" is canon to describe her, and by no less than her target himself. So I'm not sure that's even worth arguing about any longer.

[venusinchains.livejournal.com]

"I never noticed her preening at all"

Preening might be the wrong word. She often carries herself like someone who's used to being deferred to and expects a certain kind of treatment: a princess. (And, as the daughter or the most powerful man in Port Royal, that's basically what she is.) Princess types are always flirty, regardless of whether they expect, or want, anything out of the flirtation or not.

"any more than you'd call a soldier a murderer in time of war"

But this isn't a war. And, battle-wise, Jack is on their side (as much as he's on anyones side). In fact, he just reappeared on the ship and made a grand show of saving their bacon. She killed Jack during a break in the attack, so "in the heat of battle" arguments don't apply (especially when you add the sex-me-up way she did it). It was a Cold Blooded killing. (And, again, I think the cold bloodedness of it is what earned her the Pirate Kingship.)

"we don't know that she regretted the choice she'd made, and she didn't ask forgiveness"

We do know the writers wanted her to DO the worst thing she could be capable of, not just consider it. (It's in the DMC commentary.) I don't think missing Jack was enough wrench her conscience. I don't think just missing someone or being forced to make a tough decision is a "worst thing" scenario.

I think murder is.

And I know I saw a scene in which she said to Jack "Will you never forgive me?" Though I'd have to watch the film again to be sure that's where I saw it. (It may have been something else that was cut - like the Jack/Barbossa Wheel tug-of-war - something I saw in a preview that never made it into the film.)

"was it a mistake?"

To murder Jack? That depends. She thinks, apparently, the the Kraken can sniff him out. We know that it mistakenly followed his hat once. So, after attacking the Pearl repeatedly, would it be intelligent enough to follow the little boat with Jack in it?

It didn't when he was rowing away on his own - it merrily attacked the Pearl instead. So, I'm going to say it was a mistake.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Well, certainly he'd say that -- the ammunition is too good to pass up.

[bimo.livejournal.com]

(Original comment deleted and reposted to correct confusing mistake)

Speaking of Norrington, there is a tendency among some fans to consider his descent into scruffiness in DMC as OOC. I love Norrington as much as anyone (and was quite upset that they chose to "off" him in AWE), but I must say (and have said before in various debates) that he was no White Knight in CotBP

Hi there :-)

As we have never engaged in fannish discourse before, I only hope this doesn't come across as rude or aggressive, but can I just say that I find the above cited passage somewhat unfortunately phrased?

While my basic interpretation of CotBP Norrington doesn't seem to be all that different from yours as far as Norrington's flaws are concerned, I still believe the man's portrayal in DMC to be quite out of tune with the various character traits that were being established by CotBP.

From where I stand within fandom (borderline Navy girl, however with strong sympathies for Elizabeth, the old Governor and Will), it is not all that terribly far-fetched to read your paragraphs as implying the following generalisation:

Disapproval of DMC characterisation and Scruffington = Blind idolisation, glorification and white-washing

And this implication, accidental or not, strikes me just as plain wrong and a wee tad offensive.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Princess types are always flirty, regardless of whether they expect, or want, anything out of the flirtation or not.

Wow. That seems to completely dismiss any intelligence, leadership, or courage she displays. Just a princess.

I don't think just missing someone or being forced to make a tough decision is a "worst thing" scenario.

When the tough decision results in someone's death, I think it can certainly be a "worst thing" scenario.

And, battle-wise, Jack is on their side (as much as he's on anyones side). In fact, he just reappeared on the ship and made a grand show of saving their bacon.

I always wonder what all those dead and injured crewmembers of the three ships we see the Kraken take down think of Jack's part in their deaths. If Elizabeth has "murdered" one man through her actions, has Jack "murdered" dozens through his? Davy Jones probably got that 100 souls after all.

I know I saw a scene in which she said to Jack "Will you never forgive me?"

That was in one of the trailers, but was cut from the movie.

It didn't [attack] when he was rowing away on his own - it merrily attacked the Pearl instead. So, I'm going to say it was a mistake.

Now that is a viable argument, certainly. Could have gone either way, and Elizabeth wasn't willing to risk the few lives that remained.

[venusinchains.livejournal.com]

So, you think sidling up to Jack with her mouth hanging open displays Lizzie's "intelligence, leadership, [and] courage" while I just call it possibly pointless flirtation. To each her own. Or - wow - are you trying to deflect the real argument here?

The "worst case" resulted in someones murder, not death. To simply say it resulted in "a death" implies that it was accidental. It most certainly was not.

Yes. I'd say Jack is directly responsible for those 100 deaths. In fact, he has murdered before: Barbossa.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

Disapproval of DMC characterisation and Scruffington = Blind idolisation, glorification and white-washing

No, that's not what I said. You state that you see Norrington's faults as well as his strengths in CotBP, so we are very much on the same page. Obviously his character did not have to go in the DMC-Scruffington direction -- we know this from the many many great fanfics that say otherwise. But in the movie it did go in that direction as a result of a series of horrendous, off-camera events, and though it was surprising (and to some, distasteful), it was by no means an impossible scenario.

[venusinchains.livejournal.com]

Oops, skipped a point: "Elizabeth wasn't willing to risk the few lives that remained."

But she was willing to risk one life. And it was her choice to risk that life, not his. Her actions, not his, resulted in his death. That is what makes it murder. Her reasons for it are immaterial when considering the definition of what she did.

[geekmama.livejournal.com]

So, you think sidling up to Jack with her mouth hanging open displays Lizzie's "intelligence, leadership, [and] courage" while I just call it possibly pointless flirtation. To each her own. Or - wow - are you trying to deflect the real argument here?

What a very crude way of putting it! I'm assuming you're describing the "Curiosity" scene, which was hardly pointless -- she was challenging Jack to see that he was a "good man", he was challenging her to see that she was a pirate at heart. It was an argument that was fundamental to their relationship.

But yes, to each her own.