NIMH soap opera

While I'm slowly working on my fanfiction, an idea sprang up from my mind. Alright, the idea more or less came up after reading Gibbs' Second in Command fanfiction.

There's no use denying it. The whole story is basically an entire season of a soap opera condensed into one story. Subplots such as: "She doesn't want to have the baby!" and "Teresa doesn't know what she wants to be when she grows up!" and lest we for get "Jonathan gets suspended from work!"

..And like a soap opera, it has a huge spin of irony that showers over the whole thing. The irony in question is the fact that Jonathan's absence caused much more good than harm.

Think about it, his absence allowed Elizabeth to save the rats twice. The first time was due to Timmy's illness and the second time was because of the stone Nicodemus gave to her as a gift. Which wouldn't have happened if Jonathan stayed with the family.

I feel really bad for Jonathan, as someone who goes through deep periods of depression from time to time, I know how it feels. He was also in a bad situation, he wanted to help his family, but had no idea how to begin doing so. What he did was stupid, sure, but what's worse is the fact that no one threatened to stop him and even worse was the fact that they lied to his family about his death instead of explaining the situation. He was someone who needed council, but didn't receive it. Instead his friends just let him go. To me, they are more guilty than he is.

...And that's the thing with soap operas; there's that one character that gets crapped on, yet is very sympathetic and deserving because he made everything possible and went through all of this pain to get there and it's his mate who gets all the fame and fortune.

The mate in this case is Elizabeth, who becomes the goddess of Thorn Valley at the cost of Jonathan's pain and loss of reputation. It's not fair at all and yet we're supposed to accept it.

So I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that I kinda want to make my own NIMH soap opera based around Dr. Schultz after the Rats of Thorn Valley. Thing is, I dunno if I can 'legally' do this because I'm using someone else's fanfiction as the basis for my own.

Thoughts?

Gezzus, I'm bored. I'm planning on writing a soap opera based of a character in a children's book.

Good thing school is starting up.

How about a sitcom set in a apartment? Whenever a character enters the apartment the studio audience will go nuts :D

I hate sitcoms. I like unintended humor better than really forced humor. Soap operas lean towards the former.

The overhanging irony in this situation is extremely funny to me. He left his family and is forced to feel guilty about it, but he ended up doing much more good than harm.

Brutus: Hello. This is Brutus your doorman. There's a lady on her way up and she looks suspicious.
Mrs. Brisby: Brutus if she looked suspicious then why did you let her in?
Brutus: Because everyone looks suspicious.

I guess I can't say that I hate all sitcoms, just 99% of them.

Family Matters and I Love Lucy rock. I'll also take the occasional Three Stooges short. Not a huge T.V. fan, these days I only ever occasionally watch South Park when it comes on. 99% of American T.V. sucks.

I guess I can't say that I hate all sitcoms, just 99% of them.

Family Matters and I Love Lucy rock. I'll also take the occasional Three Stooges short. Not a huge T.V. fan, these days I only ever occasionally watch South Park when it comes on. 99% of American T.V. sucks.

Nowadays yes.
In my opinion Seinfeld was the best sitcom every produced. I'll take sitcoms over soap operas.

Okay, how about something British? Doctor Who :D
Justin and Jonathan are arguing when Mrs. Brisby spots a image in the augur (Nicodemus' device).
Mrs. Brisby: Look! Both of you!
Justin and Jonathan have stopped their petty argument and look at the augur. A figure is there but out of focus. The image clears up revealing Nicodemus.
Justin: It can't be
Jonathan: Its impossible.
Nicodemus smiles at the two rodents.
Nicodemus: Ah! There you are. So I see you two are my replacement. A dandy and a clown.
Justin and Jonathan frown and look at each other.
Nicodemus: So have you done anything?
Jonathan: Well, we've assessed the situation.
Nicodemus shakes his head.
Nicodemus: Just as I thought... nothing.

What does this have to do with soap operas? Absolutely nothing. :D

Nevermind about the soap opera. NIMH the stoner road trip comedy sounds better. They could've ran across some Mary Jane during the Wondering Days. Or maybe NIMH the torture porn movie. Maybe "The Rat Centipede." Taking place during their capture at NIMH.

I can't believe I didn't mention Twin Peaks. I absolutely adore that show. In fact, my fanfiction is going to be full of Twin Peaks references. Hopefully people can appreciate my origin story for the stone as well as an explanation for "Flying Dreams."

Still toying with the idea of a soap opera though.

I can't believe I didn't mention Twin Peaks. I absolutely adore that show. In fact, my fanfiction is going to be full of Twin Peaks references. Hopefully people can appreciate my origin story for the stone as well as an explanation for "Flying Dreams."

Still toying with the idea of a soap opera though.

"Diane, 11:30 A.M...."
I've seen a number of David Lynch's work so I need watch Twin Peaks sometime.

Damn good coffee!

I can't believe I didn't mention Twin Peaks. I absolutely adore that show. In fact, my fanfiction is going to be full of Twin Peaks references. Hopefully people can appreciate my origin story for the stone as well as an explanation for "Flying Dreams."

Still toying with the idea of a soap opera though.

"Diane, 11:30 A.M...."
I've seen a number of David Lynch's work so I need watch Twin Peaks sometime.

Damn good coffee!

Cherry pie and coffee! I want 16 cups of black coffee!

A soap opera, eh? Not a bad idea - I would go so far as to say that Second in Command is even soap-opera-ish, and I really enjoyed it, so I'd probably enjoy this as well. But what is the setting? Is it based in Thorn Valley then, or are you making an AU? You mentioned that it was based on The Rats of Thorn Valley, but how so?

I suppose the overlying question here is what are your plans for this? It is a good concept, and previous instances have been successful, but what do you plan to bring to this that is new?

A soap opera, eh? Not a bad idea - I would go so far as to say that Second in Command is even soap-opera-ish, and I really enjoyed it, so I'd probably enjoy this as well. But what is the setting? Is it based in Thorn Valley then, or are you making an AU? You mentioned that it was based on The Rats of Thorn Valley, but how so?

I suppose the overlying question here is what are your plans for this? It is a good concept, and previous instances have been successful, but what do you plan to bring to this that is new?

Second in Command is a soap opera, there's no getting around it. It turned the action, suspense, and mystery of NIMH into: "she doesn't want to have the baby!" I think the Gibbs sequels are slightly overrated due to the fact that he didn't even try to fill in the inconsistencies and the absurdity of the whole situation. Don't get me wrong, it's about as close to novel quality as fanfiction is going to get, it's just that, even as fanfiction, I have a hard time buying the story. I just think the story could've been told better.

There's also that overhanging irony I mentioned, that his absence from his family and friends caused much more good than harm, yet he's forced to feel guilty about it. There's also the fact that his friends are just as guilty for playing along with him, perhaps even more so, because he needed counseling and reassurance, which his friends failed to provide. A good friend doesn't let their friend do stupid things and definitely doesn't play along with it.

I was thinking about doing a soap opera based around Schultz after Rats of Thorn Valley. I always wondered what happened to him afterwords. His life would probably be full of drama and would present many opportunities for ironic comedy.

There's also that overhanging irony I mentioned, that his absence from his family and friends caused much more good than harm, yet he's forced to feel guilty about it. There's also the fact that his friends are just as guilty for playing along with him, perhaps even more so, because he needed counseling and reassurance, which his friends failed to provide. A good friend doesn't let their friend do stupid things and definitely doesn't play along with it.

Mm... I can agree with the soap opera point, but I would have to say that this doesn't exactly ring true to me. People are very emotional creatures that don't necessarily follow the rules of logic. Yes, things went well for the Brisby family and the Rats despite or even because of Jonathan's absence, but that still doesn't mean that his being there would have necessarily made things worse. Beyond that, it doesn't erase the heartache his absence would have caused, and the fact that he hid or lied about such a large part of his life; I believe he totally deserves the guilt portrayed there.

As for friends, a good friend is supportive. If Jonathan was dead-set on going back to NIMH (as Gibbs portrayed), there's nothing anyone could've done to prevent him beyond locking him up. Better instead to be supportive, give advice, but in the end, even a friend has to let their friends make their own mistakes.

They still played along with his game and even still if my best friend was an alcoholic who is cheating on his wife and I was given the option to swear an oath not to tell anyone, I wouldn't. All along they could've stopped the situation or prevented it from becoming worse. If locking him up is the best/only option, so be it, best to prevent a big mistake than to play along with it and let it grow.

Funnily enough, a theme of Second in Command is preventing mistakes before they get worse, by refusing to let a mistake grow. As Elizabeth said, there are sometimes were loyalty and friendship do not apply, and this is one of those situations. Nice little spin on things.

Then there's of course the absurdity of the situation and the fact that it's pretty much implausible in relation to the NIMH canon, but it's fanfiction, so I guess I can't complain.

I still feel bad for the character, regardless.

...and like I said, I go through deep periods of depression, to the point of being suicidal, so I know what it feels like. I used to get at least 2 panic attacks a day if I was lucky. I did stupid slilit too, believe me. You think it, I probably did it. My friends didn't just stand there and let the situation grow and explode, they actually did something about it and trust me I wanted my friends not to help me, but they refused. Id probably be in a pysch ward if it weren't for them.

I would never like to have Nicodemus, Justin, or Mr. Ages as my friend. There's nothing that can't be talked out of, and trust me, I know this. They should've forced him to tell his family the truth about himself, move his family into the rosebush, and send the others out to get the treatment. If I was going to outlive my wife by forever, Id be depressed too. Your reaction to this is to do anything possible to stop it, even if it means leaving your family for a period. I can totally sympathize with him. What they did is the equivalent of letting their best friend jump off a bridge and die. He might've made the choice, but at the end, they didn't do their best to prevent it. They deserve to feel guilty too.

At the very least if they failed to convince him, which I doubt would've happened, they should've told his family the truth about him, which would then motivate him to get his ass back to the farm. He and his family would shed a few tears and things would be okay.

So I've stated my point, you can disagree with me, but I will always stand by it.

True, true... But then we wouldn't have Secret of NIMH, now, would we? 8)

...and to make a third rebuttal to your comment, I don't believe in guilt. It's completely and utterly useless; all it does is make you live a life of misery and do more stupid self destructive things. Someone as loving and caring as Jonathan (Second in Command certainly portrays him as such) doesn't deserve to live a life filled with guilt.

This is my Buddhist instinct speaking, of course, but it's true. The best thing to do is to learn from your mistakes and try and live a happy life. He may have done a terrible thing to his family, but they should be understanding of his problem and try and comfort him. After all, it was him that brought this all together in the first place.

They still played along with his game and even still if my best friend was an alcoholic who is cheating on his wife and I was given the option to swear an oath not to tell anyone, I wouldn't. All along they could've stopped the situation or prevented it from becoming worse. If locking him up is the best/only option, so be it, best to prevent a big mistake than to play along with it and let it grow.

I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking really bothers me. I don't like the idea that one should remove someone's free will just so that they don't make some potential mistake in the future (within some limits--suicidal or criminal behavior might be an exception I'd potentially allow, depending on the situation). Look at it from Jonathan's perspective: he's seeing an opportunity to both escape a difficult situation and potentially "fix" his wife, so that she won't die so soon. He's absolutely convinced this is the only way to do it. If you were his friend, would you lireallyli lock him up, just because he couldn't see the problems with his idea? Hindsight is 20/20, sure, but who's to say beforehand that it couldn't work? And do you really think Jonathan told his friends lieverythingli? It's very possible that they were acting out of an ignorance of the depth of his issues. And, as far as I can recall from my reading of the story, they lididli try to talk him out of it several times; maybe if they knew everything, they would've pushed harder. His resolve to carry through with his plan was stronger in the end, though--and in the end, there's only so much they can do while still remaining friends and not becoming enemies. Locking Jonathan up would only make him an enemy--I could see some alternate timeline where if that happened, he would seek the rats' destruction in vengeance. In the end, while I agree that his friends share some guilt, the fact is all of these choices made have consequences, and changing one choice can lead to unpredictable places.

I can accept that there are implausibilities in his plan, and a logical person would know it's got a lot of shortcomings. But I'd hesitate to call it an unrealistic course of action for a fallible person who is blinded by his emotions and/or state of being. Belief in guilt doesn't make it any less real of an emotion for anyone. Yes, I can agree that his decisions and attitudes are/were unhealthy and self-destructive--a fact which I think Gibbs acknowledges in his fic--but it doesn't make them unrealistic. There are people that think the way Jonathan does. The way his friends react is, in my book, totally within the realm of possibility. Disagreeing with Jonathan's thinking in the fic and the reaction of his friends doesn't make it unrealistic or implausible. I can understand not lilikingli a particular thread that was followed in the story, but I'd be careful getting that mixed up with arguments of realism.

Oh I agree that his behavior certainly is plausible. I said in relation to the NIMH canon, it's not. Truth is, during my "down" period, my friends were my enemies, sometimes that's what it takes. In the end, I learned to respect what they did for me, same applys to the Jonathan situation. If you have to be his enemy to make him make the right choice, so be it. In the end he will be thankful for it, like I have. They had to almost lock me up for me to stop and God help me, I was thankful for what they did.

...Also I might add that his behavior was technically suicidal. He could've very easily died doing this. He was willing to risk his life to do something that he didn't necessarily need to be a part of. In his mind, he was trapped in a corner and it forced him to act, even if it means killing oneself.

Holy fudge monkeys I missed stuff D:

Second in Command is a soap opera, there's no getting around it. It turned the action, suspense, and mystery of NIMH into: "she doesn't want to have the baby!" I think the Gibbs sequels are slightly overrated due to the fact that he didn't even try to fill in the inconsistencies and the absurdity of the whole situation. Don't get me wrong, it's about as close to novel quality as fanfiction is going to get, it's just that, even as fanfiction, I have a hard time buying the story. I just think the story could've been told better.

Yeah, it is, but there are some people out there who feel guilty about liking something that's a soap opera when they generally hate soap operas. As for novel quality (and I think I may have said this somewhere else, but I'm not sure), I think that Procyon's story is much better in terms of its construction. But a lot of really good stories are often based on something that seems entirely improbable, or even impossible. What matters isn't necessarily the plausibility of the plot device(s), but the execution and construction of the plot that eases the reader into a world where they may have to suspend their disbelief. But you are right: Second in Command is very much a soap opera. Its predecessor, however, I'm less inclined to admit as a soap opera; it has more of the charm that the original movie had, at least for me.

There's also that overhanging irony I mentioned, that his absence from his family and friends caused much more good than harm, yet he's forced to feel guilty about it. There's also the fact that his friends are just as guilty for playing along with him, perhaps even more so, because he needed counseling and reassurance, which his friends failed to provide. A good friend doesn't let their friend do stupid things and definitely doesn't play along with it.

I'm inclined to agree with what Simon said here, but with a few provisos. While I agree that somebody with their heart dead-set on a matter should be supported and not have their free will confiscated - a poor friend is that which is arrogant enough to believe that their view of the world is more fitting or correct than their friends' - I also want to point out that this is effectively a "what-if" story. What if Jonathan hadn't actually been killed? What reason could there be for his absence? We're effectively beating the strawman here; your potential success has nothing to do with the success or lack thereof in regards to Paul Gibbs' work, so I don't see why it's really being discussed herein.

However the point brought up - that of the friend who may be in error, and whose friends are uncertain on whether to support him or prevent him from making this error - is a very good point that you can discuss in your soap opera, especially with Dr Schultz. Remember the two assistants, Julie and George; perhaps they are undertaking something like this with their friends and family over what their role was in the experiments wrought by Dr Schultz? What if Dr Schultz is being subjected to an investigation due to his failure, and he is at odds with himself and his family on the moral rightness of his actions? This is a good plot point which opens up many avenues for you to take.

I was thinking about doing a soap opera based around Schultz after Rats of Thorn Valley. I always wondered what happened to him afterwords. His life would probably be full of drama and would present many opportunities for ironic comedy.

You mean after Gibbs' short story, or after the rats escaped to Thorn Valley in Mrs Frisby and the Rats of NIMH? Both would work well, though I think that Paul's interpretation of Schultz - that being a character who is arrogant, corrupt, and a Determinator (see TV Tropes if you don't understand that particular term) - would actually be less interesting. Paul's Schultz is less human and more of a two-dimensional monster who everybody loves to hate. The Schultz in the original novel is a much more interesting and complex character - rather than be some greedy little monster who rather consciously thinks that the rats are inferior to him and could ever be a threat, he's a human who is keenly studying the mental capacities of other lifeforms, and the effect that medicinal treatment has on those capacities. I'm not telling you that one is better than the other, even though it may sound that way; I'm merely saying that you might find O'Brien's version to be easier to write off of, or more interesting to explore, in comparison to Gibbs' interpretation.

You don't need to elaborate on suspension of disbelief, I get it. I understand why Gibbs wrote the story the way he did. Still, I have some grudges against it, possibly due to the fact that my suspension of disbelief only goes so far. I dunno, I just think it could've been done without so much suspension of disbelief required. It would be funny to write a story about Mrs. Brisby finding a new mate.....and all of a sudden Jonathan returns with the treatment. That would be flililiing hilarious. I imagined that scenario shortly after reading Rats of Thorn Valley.


All of this new Star Wars talk has given me an idea for a what-if Jonathan story. What if he turned into a Darth Vader-like villain? What if Nicodemus believed him to be dead in a spiritual sense? Interesting thought.

As for the soap opera, I haven't even begun thinking up ideas, much less started writing it. I think the idea of having your memories altered and going back to face the real world offers more opportunities for ironic comedy, which I am looking for.

I wonder how the rats would find homosexuality. Would they accept it? I have a gay character in my fanfiction and I made it so that the rats dislike homosexuality because they still find that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman because the only reason to get married is to make babies. I'm thinking in terms of an animal's point of view.

What's your perspective? Should I change it?

I wonder how the rats would find homosexuality. Would they accept it? I have a gay character in my fanfiction and I made it so that the rats dislike homosexuality because they still find that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman because the only reason to get married is to make babies. I'm thinking in terms of an animal's point of view.

What's your perspective? Should I change it?

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!! ;)

Steven

You can do what ever you want of course, but I don't think all the rats would be against it. I imagine some would be okay with it while others wouldn't (kind of like humans).

Well if Justin and Mrs. Brisby can have romantic chemistry, I guess having a homosexual couple is alright.

I read a study a few years ago that said that 10% of animals exhibit some sort of homosexual tendency's. About the same as humans. So, yeah whatever.

Since I'm going through drug withdraw (legal drugs mind you) and feeling really depressed and lightheaded today, why not liven up my spirits by beating a dead horse and resurrecting this argument relating to my depression? I'm gonna try and put myself in Jonathan's shoes because Jonathan and I have a lot in common (well the depression thing at least and the fact that we've hurt people by our actions).

Imagine being alone in a cage for a good part of your life and being experimented on based on Paul's other unfinished works it seems he had a poor family life and spent most of his life in misery. He likely didn't have well developed social skills and might've thought that leaving his family was an okay option at the time he left them if it meant saving his wife and keeping the family together because once someone who's been in misery so long finds happiness, they want it to last as long as possible and you'll likely do stupid things to make sure it does last, whether it hurts others around you or not. I'm speaking hypothetically of course, we really don't know the character well enough to make these assumptions, but I know enough to at least have a taste.

If you had a friend in that situation (let's take Simon's argument that you have to let friends make their own mistakes to the test), would you just accept an oath to pretend that he's dead, making you a big part of the mistake, or would you do anything and everything possible to make sure he gets help? They may not understand the situation, the same way a friend of a drug addict may not understand why they would hurt themselves with substances, but at the same time, you wouldn't/shouldn't let him continue to hurt himself. You get him into drug rehab and counseling. If you just let him rot, or worse, give him more drugs, you're not a friend, you're a dlilik. Period. Same applies to the Jonathan situation. Oh sure, you can beg your friend to stop doing drugs, but when you're that out of it, it's like talking to a brick wall and any sensible and knowledgeable person knows this. You have to learn, as a friend, when it's time to take action yourself to help him.

As I mentioned, a delightful irony of "Second in Command" is figuring out when you should be loyal to your friend, or when you should take action to prevent them from hurting others.....even if that means breaking a promise you made to them because in doing so, you take a part of the responsibility for you friend's actions and perhaps even more, because you were the sensible one in the situation.

If you had a friend in that situation (let's take Simon's argument that you have to let friends make their own mistakes to the test), would you just accept an oath to pretend that he's dead, making you a big part of the mistake, or would you do anything and everything possible to make sure he gets help? They may not understand the situation, the same way a friend of a drug addict may not understand why they would hurt themselves with substances, but at the same time, you wouldn't/shouldn't let him continue to hurt himself. You get him into drug rehab and counseling. If you just let him rot, or worse, give him more drugs, you're not a friend, you're a dlilik. Period. Same applies to the Jonathan situation. Oh sure, you can beg your friend to stop doing drugs, but when you're that out of it, it's like talking to a brick wall and any sensible and knowledgeable person knows this. You have to learn, as a friend, when it's time to take action yourself to help him.

All right, I'll take the bait. For the record, I'm not saying that letting him do what he did was necessarily the best action for Jonathan's friends to take, I was just defending the believability of it. Honestly, most people don't know how to deal with a friend with depression. I will make a concession that the agreed-upon pact to pretend his death is probably actually the worst decision made by all parties involved--but you've got to protect the continuity somehow in fan-fic when resurrecting a character. The only alternative I can think of would be that they just weren't complicit in his plans and that Jonathan acted alone to fake his death, but that opens up a host of other narrative problems to deal with, mostly having to do with the fact that he would've most likely gone unaccompanied, and given his assumed state, I think his death would've been a nearly foregone conclusion anyway.

However, given that, I'd like to know what you think they should've done, given the options available to them? Would the rats even have a trained psychologist at their disposal? Keep in mind, they've had less than a decade of being on their own post-escape. Their study at the Boniface Estate notwithstanding, I'm not sure that they would necessarily have that depth of knowledge on the workings of the psyche. Using magic might be another option, but do you really want to take the easy way out? What sort of help could they have offered without destroying the story's believability?

Honestly, I think part of the problem is that I'm approaching this from the storytelling angle rather than the "human" angle (if that makes sense). Sure, given the circumstances, we'd probably do something different, but Paul Gibbs was working with a very difficult literary problem: In the book and movie, several very (apparently) trustworthy characters affirm Jonathan's death at Dragon's paws. How do you bring Jonathan back without destroying or substantially altering the character of those that claimed he was dead? Maybe there's a different way, but a lilotli of the decisions Gibbs made about Jonathan's character (who, by the way, is very nearly a blank slate when considering the source material) seem to fall out pretty naturally when you consider this narrative problem of keeping with the continuity.

The main reason I "resurrected" this topic is that you seem to think that his friends aren't as responsible for his actions and that you find said actions acceptable (at least to an extent), which I couldn't disagree with more. That, and I was in the mood to reflect on past experiences. For storytelling purposes, yes, this is the best route to take without making him fake his death or having his death be a misunderstanding, but I'm mostly doing a character analysis here (based on what we know of him), not a continuity analysis. I would never consider the events of ROTV and SIC canon anyway, so I don't see the point of discussing that other to confirm hat, yes, it would be the best way to resurrect him without it being mary-sueish/sinister, it also gives the story emotional weight, which I can appreciate.

However, given that, I'd like to know what you think they should've done, given the options available to them? Would the rats even have a trained psychologist at their disposal? Keep in mind, they've had less than a decade of being on their own post-escape. Their study at the Boniface Estate notwithstanding, I'm not sure that they would necessarily have that depth of knowledge on the workings of the psyche. Using magic might be another option, but do you really want to take the easy way out? What sort of help could they have offered without destroying the story's believability?

I already brought this up, but if somehow you couldn't convince him, just like you couldn't convince a drug addict to stop taking drugs, you take actions into your own hands. You don't give said drug addict more drugs, or in this case, give in to his demands. You contact his family, explain the situation, which would convince him to return to the farm. Sure he'll hate you for it, at least for awhile, then he'll realize that he was wrong and you were right. Maybe he could see that his family is more merciful and understanding than he originally thought. Second in Command shows this fact.

You may be unable to understand him and help him directly, but when you're that depressed, you need all the help you can get and his friends are the only help he can get. This would flilik up the continuity of events, sure, but in the situation Gibbs presents, it would be the best option.

The main reason I "resurrected" this topic is that you seem to think that his friends aren't as responsible for his actions and that you find said actions acceptable (at least to an extent), which I couldn't disagree with more. That, and I was in the mood to reflect on past experiences. For storytelling purposes, yes, this is the best route to take without making him fake his death or having his death be a misunderstanding, but I'm mostly doing a character analysis here (based on what we know of him), not a continuity analysis. I would never consider the events of ROTV and SIC canon anyway, so I don't see the point of discussing that other to confirm hat, yes, it would be the best way to resurrect him without it being mary-sueish/sinister, it also gives the story emotional weight, which I can appreciate.

Believable and acceptable are quite two different things. Hence my clarification. Given the context (e.g. here's the continuity Gibbs had to work with), I think the story is self-consistent and for the most part makes sense. Remember, Jonathan as a character suffering from depression didn't exist until Gibbs wrote it in. We really just don't know much about Jonathan looking at the canonical sources, so who's to say he really was suffering from depression in Robert C. O'Brien's eyes?.

I already brought this up, but if somehow you couldn't convince him, just like you couldn't convince a drug addict to stop taking drugs, you take actions into your own hands. You don't give said drug addict more drugs, or in this case, give in to his demands. You contact his family, explain the situation, which would convince him to return to the farm. Sure he'll hate you for it, at least for awhile, then he'll realize that he was wrong and you were right. Maybe he could see that his family is more merciful and understanding than he originally thought. Second in Command shows this fact.

You may be unable to understand him and help him directly, but when you're that depressed, you need all the help you can get and his friends are the only help he can get. This would flilik up the continuity of events, sure, but in the situation Gibbs presents, it would be the best option.

Hmm. Seems pretty reasonable to me, if we assume Gibbs' interpretation of the character and a retcon of the "Jonathan got eaten by Dragon" story. I wonder how that would've turned out. Still, I wouldn't say forgiveness is a foregone conclusion either-- in ROTV, Jonathan comes back to find them in the relative safety and comfort of the Valley (aside from Dr. Schultz); would they have been quite so forgiving if they were still struggling for their survival on the farm and knew he had the power to rescue them from that? And there's the fact that it's his friends staging an intervention that makes the truth come out; Jonathan didn't come back with hat in paws and willingly volunteer an explanation and ask for forgiveness. In this case he's basically forced into it. Would that change their reaction?

Apologizes, I didn't mean to say that I was doing a character analysis (you can forgive me, Abilify withdraw sucks), I'm just doing an analysis on the situation Gibbs presents and of course I'm speaking hypothetically on some points, more specifically that they would be merciful towards him at any point.

The main focus here is that what his friends did in response to the situation was the wrong thing to do and the only reason I keep beating this horse is that you seem to find it acceptable and I don't. I don't want to give the impression that I hate Gibbs storytelling, far from it, it's just that there's a lot of suspension of disbelief I have to shallow and that I was in a very similar situation Jonathan was in (well okay in the sense that my actions would harm others) and the fact that Jonathan's friends did the wrong thing hit me the hardest because I can sympathize with a depressed character, I can't sympathize with a jackass who plays along.


.....Now in a completely unrelated note, Ghostbusters is playing at my local theater tonight. OMGWTFBBQ!!!! I know what I'm doing tonight. I must of put that on my list of things to do before I die: See Ghostbusters as if you were a kid in the 80s in the theater and sing the theme song loudly and with childish glee. Life can be cool sometimes.


I'm not eccentric...am I?

I have something interesting to spark up a discussion....If you were in Mrs. Brisby's shoes would you forgive Jonathan for what he done? And when I mean forgive, I mean actually "take him back" and allow him to be apart of your life again.

I honestly can't say yes for certain, but I will say that I would try and help him get back into shape after all my pissiness has worn out because I can at least empathize with the fact that he did what he did because he thought he was going to help me.Though beyond that, it's hard to say. I've never been in that position before.

I have something interesting to spark up a discussion....If you were in Mrs. Brisby's shoes would you forgive Jonathan for what he done?

Mrs. Brisby doesn't wear shoes. ;)

Steven

I have something interesting to spark up a discussion....If you were in Mrs. Brisby's shoes would you forgive Jonathan for what he done?

Mrs. Brisby doesn't wear shoes. ;)

Steven

http:/" alt=""/img4.imageshack.us/img="4/8536/24940142.png[" alt=""/img]

Oh really?