PTSD and Mal. Really?

POSTED BY: Bytemite
UPDATED: Monday, January 27, 2020 20:08
VIEWED: 36442
PAGE 10 of 12

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

AGENTROUKA

Monday, March 23, 2009 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

AR - working on the writing. Slowly! Just blogged a bit about it, in fact...

Exciting! Thanks. :) And yay for spring break?

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
OK - this I see. But (I just can't stop saying that LOL!) isn't that just part of a good soldier? Oh, you brought that up too. Good!

Hmm, yeah she could use a little less soldier-ness. Her future in the series surely would have gone that way, toward finding her own voice separate from Mal. Would have been interesting!

It technically is part of being a good soldier... But Mal and Zoe's relationship is not JUST that of the sergeant and their underling corporal. He wasn't giving her an order, so a "hop to it" reaction isn't what we're seeing there.

If she had given him an alternative, he would have thought it over, but she didn't even try to think of one. She just went along, ultimately unphased by the danger. It's like the prospect of danger occurred to her on a logical level, but actually noticing and feeling her own concerns beyond pointing them out to Mal didn't seem to happen.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:01 PM

I know this fell off the front page, but today on NPR I heard an interesting interview on the topic of PTSD.

According to Dr. Michael A. Grodin, from the Boston Center for Refugee Health and Human Rights, one aspect of PTSD observed in Tibetan monks who were imprisoned and are now exiled is homesickness, a longing for familiar and stable surroundings.

I think that has some particular insight into Mal's case, considering that he lost Shadow, and tried to establish a life on Serenity.

ANOTHERSKY

Friday, March 27, 2009 3:47 AM

Something I noticed a while back...people are really intertwining their arguments about the characterization of the character and their love of the character and what that means for the characterization.
And thus...we have frothing at the mouth which is sensibly defrayed by a cookie break.

Now, an example. Since this was originally about Mal, I'll use him: I love Mal to pieces. Doesn't mean that I'm gonna have to sugarcoat the times where he's just plain cold blooded (instance: SERENITY, shooting the surrendering Alliance pilot)--in order to interpret him, even though I really, really want to ignore those clear examples. I love my captain, but everybody has facets--and other people might interpret those facets differently. Doesn't mean they hate your beloved character.

Good that we're bein' all sensible here, a browncoat characteristic! Back to PTSD in it's possible manifestations--and when I get back I can put that list down that I promised about Mal and examples.

"I think we lost our fuzzy dice back there."
"Going for a ride."

Another Sky

BYTEMITE

Friday, March 27, 2009 4:39 AM

I agree, Mal is bad... He just has hurty bits that are fun to talk about, especially in how they might affect/influence some of his worse behaviour.

Still looking forward to that list. :)

PLATONIST

Friday, March 27, 2009 6:10 AM

Speaking of Mal,

I've always found this to be an interesting essay on Mal and what the other characters symbolize in the story and how they relate to him:

http://www.soulfulspike.com/aspects_of_mal.htm

NOSADSEVEN

Friday, March 27, 2009 8:10 AM

I think to some extent the debate here is less about the characters and more about what constitutes "damage". What is PTSD, and how is that different than just a person being changed from their experiences? Surely a person will be affected and changed by their wartime experience, if they weren't, I would be seriously concerned about what kind of damage they're already suffering. (Tangent: I tend to see Mal's "strength" throughout War Stories as evidence of such damage.) But my impression of PTSD is that it implies a disruptive, uncontrollable interference, more than an evolution. It's termed as a malfunction of brain chemistry. But either way it's a moot point because the purpose of such a diagnosis is to facilitate treatment. It's naming something so that it can be isolated and dealt with as a pathology. So in fiction, it's kind of an oddly narrow topic to debate, when you're exploring the complexities of characters more than trends of populations.

In the series, we aren't shown Mal or Zoe having nightmares or panic attacks or what not, but we are also seeing them a good six years out from the trauma. We do see these symptoms in River, whose trauma was much more recent, and much more profound, what with a stripped amygdala and all. But Mal and Zoe, being anatomically intact, seem to have found solutions for coping with the trauma. Namely traipsing around together in freedom, even if not in security. Are these ideal solutions? Not really. "This is what I do, darlin', this is what I do." Mal does not want to be a petty thief, that's just the only tolerable option for him. "There's no place I can be / Since I found Serenity".

Now I don't think Zoe is as tied to the freedom thing as Mal, but she is tied to Mal. So in her argument with Wash over the baby issues, it is not that his arguments are not well founded, it is that they are just not relevant. She doesn't have rational reasons for being on the ship with Mal - she has a need to be on the ship with Mal. That is how she is coping; that is how she is surviving. Mal has a need to be free, so he's stuck doing the petty criminal stuff, because he can't take the "Alliance mince work." And she is with him. So yes, I suppose that is damage, but it is also a triumph in carrying on. Their life on Serenity is what allows them to function. So Zoe's choice is not whether or not to give up the thrills and glory of criminal enterprise to have a baby. Her choice is simply whether or not to have a baby, because her circumstances aren't changing.

So is Zoe's attachment to Mal unhealthy? Yes and no. Out of the context of their experience in the war, it'd be pretty darn unhealthy. But in response to the deficits the war caused? It's adaptive; it's what makes her healthy. It's not poor, damaged Zoe. It's Zoe found a way, Zoe found a life, Zoe found some happiness, and is willing to pursue more. You go girl! Using a crutch is only unhealthy when you don't need it. So the interesting question is, when (or if) she will stop needing it. Would she recognize that? Or would habit or loyalty prevent her from moving on? Of course her fate in Serenity renders the question a bit moot, but I'd argue that we've already seen evidence of her progress - marrying Wash against orders, and all. I also think it is illuminating to look at what she was like earlier. Tracy's impression of her during the war leads me to believe not only is it in her nature to be terse, serious, and controlled, but that she has actually expanded beyond that to be a healthier person. Smiling, even.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't. We. Just.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, March 27, 2009 11:54 AM

But isn't it a little simplistic to consider it a triumph if she is only able to function under this one particular, dangerous set of circumstances and is unable to adapt to any other situation even if the plans or people she holds so dear might require it?

I think that's damage.

That Zoe found a way to cope with her damage - in a limited way - doesn't mean that it's a triumph over her damage, it just means she hasn't been completely destroyed. But then not everyone who suffers from PTSD or other such war damage is completely destroyed, they cope. In healthy or unhealthy ways. Still means that they are damaged.

MAL4PREZ

Friday, March 27, 2009 5:21 PM

Platonist: really good essay! I especially like the breakdown of the scene in Serenity Part 1 just after Kaylee gets shot - every character reacts as some sub-id of Mal would. Interesting, for sure. I won't restate the discussion here, but if anyone hasn't read that essay yet, you should!

This sentence also stood out to me: "Zoe is the soldier that has never been betrayed – because her first loyalty is to Mal." I think this is particularly relevant to our discussion, and oddly fits both sides of the debate. On one hand, Zoe was less damaged by the war because she had her loyalty to Mal, and that never faltered. On the other hand, having that level of faith in a regular human person is inviting trouble. Hero worship can set unfair expectations, and lead bad places for both parties. I’ve been on both sides of that myself, to my regret.

Even so, I think the heathly/unhealthy-ness of Mal and Zoë’s relationship depends on how aware Zoe is that Mal is flawed. I would argue she is very much aware. I think if he really screwed up she'd be able to step back without being dragged down with him, or hating him for betraying her. I think she could even become the strength of the relationship if it became necessary. I guess that's why I just can't see this thing they have as bad.

Quote:
Originally posted by nosadseven:
Now I don't think Zoe is as tied to the freedom thing as Mal, but she is tied to Mal. So in her argument with Wash over the baby issues, it is not that his arguments are not well founded, it is that they are just not relevant.

I agree - well stated! I agree that Mal and Serenity are crutches for Zoë, but crutches can be pretty useful, right? I guess AR and I differ on whether it’s still a useful crutch. In the end, no one but Zoë could decide that. And she’s not a real person damnit, so we’ll never know LOL!

NSS – the rest of your post made me think of this analogy: it’s like Mal and Zoë have lost use of their emotion legs and both are in emotion wheelchairs. Mal is sitting in a corner and stubbornly refusing to go to physical therapy where, with a lot of work, he may walk again. Zoe, on the other hand, is getting to her appointments and giving it a try. Maybe she doesn't always try her hardest, and maybe it's slow going, but she's making an effort.

I think Wash, being a whole, undamaged kind of person, can’t see the wheelchair she’s in. He wants to go disco dancing, and can’t understand why she can’t simply will herself to walk and just get the hell on with things. I mean, the war was seven years ago, right? But emotional damage heals at its own pace, and it can’t be seen so it’s hard to judge.

I also agree that she’s made a lot of progress since the war. Maybe just the fact of wanting a baby is a huge step for her, who knows? And probably it would be a sign of her ongoing recover if she could leave Mal and Serenity to pursue her own goals. But I think she’s not ready for that yet. She chooses to be where she is for a reason – maybe that reason is, it’s good for her. Maybe.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

MAL4PREZ

Friday, March 27, 2009 5:29 PM

Oh - I've also meaning to mention this: I think the best thing a parent can do to be a good parent is to be happy. Zoe could force herself to leave Serenity, but if she feels she has unfinished business there, whether outside observers like us choose to label it "healthy" or "unhealthy", she will have problems down the road. Dissatisfaction and regrets would lead to resentment of Wash, and little ones see that stuff.

Of course, the same can be said of Wash being forced to stay on Serenity when he'd rather leave. He would have had the same stuff to deal with, if he wasn't so busy dealing with being DEAD. (Still too soon to be flippant about that? )

And this is why I love Joss - nothing is simple. These two were in a pickle, no mistake. And that's just how life is.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE