Why I now think Book was an ex-Operative
POSTED BY: asarian
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 04:23
VIEWED: 17761
PAGE 5 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by LiLi:
He was clearly a commander in the war, not a covert assassin. The deaths associated with him came from what they thought were his poor command choices, but really it was a massacre because the Browncoats knew what was coming.
Yep and yep.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Though we still don't know what side he was on. His reaction to the counter attack very much suggests he never expected them such a retaliation.
He may not have suspected that degree of retaliation, no. And being that he was serving with the Alliance, I'm sure he was filled with a lot of mixed emotions over many acts. And this is setting aside the fact that he would be expected to react in such a way - that to do otherwise would endanger his cover, and he had clearly been undercover for a while, which indicates he would be quite practiced at "acting".
But the main point is: he still knew he was feeding that info, so we're left with two real choices - he's ultimately loyal to the Browncoats, or he's a naive fool.
Only one of those options strikes me as consistent with the Book we saw on the show, or in the comic.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Operatives do have people they answer to, if Those Left Behind is any basis.
True. Those people seemed to be more shadowy parliament types, rather than military guys. It was clearly a military guy reprimanding him and stripping his rank and ordering his dishonorable discharge (in a death-trap escape pod.) We didn't see any consultation with higher government officials, there.
It seems most likely that Book encountered an Operative or a mention of them at some point in his Alliance Military career. Maybe while he was doing his whole Jack Bauer Interrogation phase.
Facts are stubborn things.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Book I saw in the comics was a man with no loyalties who was constantly in over his head and trying to stay afloat. He might have been bitter, cynical, and things we don't associate with naivety, but that didn't mean he couldn't be played.
My feeling is he most certainly was, and by both sides. Look at how he is selected by the Alliance officers, and then discarded; it's even outright said the military never really thought his operation would work, so why go through with it? Unless the intention was to have a nasty loss to sway public opinion against the Indies and pour fuel on the fire. Considering the war is stated to have started at about the same time Miranda was reported a blackrock in the movie, I don't see this as coincidential.
Similarly, he didn't go back to the Independents, because they basically were prepared to throw him to the wolves from the moment they made him a spy. There was no extraction planned, this was always a suicide mission for Book, but he never realized it.
As for the Officer thing, I double checked, and yes, he is called Officer Book on the bridge of his command ship, and the guys who select him say he caught the eye of the Officer Corp.
We still don't know what that means. I admit this does suggest strongly a military route, but do we know the Operative isn't military? He IS given a military command at one point in the movie.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
As for the Officer thing, I double checked, and yes, he is called Officer Book on the bridge of his command ship, and the guys who select him say he caught the eye of the Officer Corp.
I do carefully cite my facts.
Quote:
We still don't know what that means. I admit this does suggest strongly a military route, but do we know the Operative isn't military? He IS given a military command at one point in the movie.
As I said, the Operative could override just about anything. Whatever he needed for his search was granted to him. Commanding ships was not his job, but a privilege he could invoke. The military would have no authority over him, as he has authority over the military. He might have been reprimanded for the fiasco if he had gone back, but the reprimand would not come from a commanding officer in the military, it would come from the deepest reaches of the Parliament. I also don't imagine that it would have ended in a similar "discharge," but in the Operative throwing himself on his sword. Actually, I imagine that happened, regardless.
Facts are stubborn things.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, actually, we know quite a bit about Book. I SO need to get Shepherds Tale! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll just reiterate my original statement at this point.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your original statement is presumptuous and offensive, so I wish you wouldn't.
I don't really care either way if Book is an Operative or not. But some people hear spoilers from Morena, or read something in the comic books, and say "this explains everything/ completely Josses this theory!" when the one thing the Whedons are good at is not telling you the WHOLE story so they can twist it on you later.
Because of this, I'm firm in my belief that any spoilers we hear, about Inara, about Book, or any of the other characters with long standing mysteries, that we don't really know enough to know anything for certain. We have a few pieces of a puzzle, and yes, I myself am guilty of taking those pieces and speculating (wildly even!), but I'm not so proud as to say I know everything, you don't, or to assume that if you disagree with me, well, you must just be irrationally clinging on to some pet theory.
My only point here is be cautious in ruling ANYTHING out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, sorry if you find it offensive, but your defensiveness tends to support my thesis. You think he was an operative, fine. But the comic suggests, quite strongly, otherwise. You've given reasons why you think the comic doesn't, and as this thread shows, others find those reasons thin at best.
NO ONE is saying we know all about the character - but as I said before, there is a big difference between not knowing the details, and not knowing ANYTHING as you claim is the case. It's simply not true, we don't know everything - but we know a fair bit now. And what we know indicates that he was not an operative. For him to be one would take a fair bit of mental gymnastics, which goes back to my original point - which I stand by. And as you yourself admit - your theory takes a lot of speculation, and even bending of what we know about the 'verse to fit it - saying he's not an operative is supported outright by the available text - no speculation required.
You say I'm holding onto a pet theory.... when I have not floated one (unless you count the comic as a "theory"). You, on the other hand, DO have a pet theory. Nor did I claim to know "everything" as you imply - all I did was dispute your (clearly erroneous) claim that we know "don't know anything". I just offered up an analytical view of what's in the story - all points you want to disregard to stick with your pet theory. Sorry, but that's projection right there.
You don't agree - that's your prerogative - but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
but your defensiveness tends to support my thesis.
It's not defensiveness. It's FRUSTRATION. You made an unwarranted assumption, an offensive one, that you're continuing to carry through. Which, by the way, it pissed me off the first time you did it above, but I decided not to make a big deal about it then. Now, though? Doing it twice means you're doing it on purpose, because you don't want to discuss, you want to WIN the argument.
I don't want to quibble over whether or NOT I believe something, thanks. I have no interest in playing that game with you. It's a waste of both of our time.
Quote:
You think he was an operative, fine.
And I DON'T. You = assuming.
Quote:
You say I'm holding onto a pet theory...
I didn't say YOU were, I said you were accusing ME of it.
So because you're ignoring everything I'm saying, we're done now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME