Serenity: A Question

[butterfly]

Okay, how is the Operative like Jubal Early? I do not get it. To me, they seemed like completely, utterly different characters.

Jubal was a bounty hunter who was clearly nuts and who liked causing pain and threatening people, the Operative was an assassin who was very rational and straight-forward. And Jubal didn't Believe in much of anything (is it still River's room if River isn't in it?), much less a better world. And the Operative was exceedingly polite and open-minded, even while killing people (Young miss?). I can't picture the Operative threatening to rape Kaylee. And Jubal tried to deny to himself that he was a monster, tried to claim that it was just his job, whereas the Operative was just doing his job and was aware that that choice did make him a monster.

Seriously, I just really want someone to explain to me how they're alike.

Comments

[timba.livejournal.com]

I think they're fairly different as well, but I can see where people could say that.

I think it's mainly in their delivery. That calm, precise "this is what I am going to do and your impassioned speeches will mean nothing to me because I am not DOING this job; I AM this job."

[popfantastic.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

The real answer, which I suspect few people will not just own up to: they're both black antagonists (ergo OF COURSE they are, like, THE SAME, right?). And I suppose they're both antagonists who do not get to develop beyond being antagonists. Beyond that, arguments can be made, but I've really got nothing. Their personalities and M.O.s are totally different.

[ros-fod.livejournal.com]

They're both black?

I am kidding. Sort of, as I am also cynical.

[ilanabean42.livejournal.com]

Well, they've both got the "I'm going to very politely talk about killing and other similarly upsetting things" thing going, so I can see why people would compare them, but they are different. Early was, I think, much more of a sociopath though, doing the job because he liked it, whereas the Operative did it because he felt it had to be done. They're both scary, but a different brand of scary.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

They're similar mainly in their preoccupation with what's right and wrong, and with sin, in their philosophizing to their quarries and the combination of quite horrific violence with a conversational tone. I thought Early was reasonably polite while threatening Kaylee with rape, no abusive terms involved, very goal oriented. Much like the Operative killing men and then expecting the young miss to go to work. (I don't see him threatening rape, because he doesn't much go in for threats, but I think he would commit it without a blink if he thought it was necessary to achieve his goals.)

Also both are aware that the violence they commit is wrong, and profess not to like it, but feel it is necessary to their job.

They're not completely identical, of course. Early hunts for profit, the Operative from conviction. We are given reason to doubt that Early's professed distaste for the violence is real, but no reason to think the Operative's is, given that he countermands the kill order. It's hard to see Early ever unquestioningly accepting authority to the point of taking orders, let alone giving up his name.

But they do remind me of each other, in that way that criminals and cops often come from almost identical backgrounds, even sometimes the same family. If Early had had something to believe in, he might have become something like the Operative -- his own turn for violence harnessed and disciplined, but also given a justified outlet, turned into a Holy War instead of eating him up inside until there was little left.

It's harder for me to think the Operative without belief would have turned into something like Early, but that's because I can only picture the Operative having lost belief, not who he would have been if he'd never had it. It's too much of what he was, or at least what we saw.

[bhadrasvapna.livejournal.com]

I don't think he is quite like Jubal as an evolution of the existential "villian" (for lack of a better word).

All of Joss' shows are existential masterpieces. I doubt anyone could question this after listening to Joss' commentary on "Objects in Space." Since Jubal appears in "Objects in Space," he is cast as the existential villian.

What is paramount in Existentialism is free will. Without free will, we cannot give anything meaning. That meaning is given to us. Sartre wrote about this throughout his career. So did Camus and many of the French existential. Seeing as Nausea is what turned Joss onto existentialism (per himself in "Objects in Space") I feel it is proper to say his existentialism is not the earlier German camp, but the later French one.

Now with Jubal we have someone who is willing to take away someone's free will, which is systematically does by taking care of each member of the crew. River triumphs by taking control of Jubal's ship. This control wigs him out.

Transfer this to The Operative. He is taking free will away left and right. Murder is the ultimate usurption of free will. Unlike Jubal he has a belief that fuels this. Jubal was doing it for money. Various characters state how imporant/dangerous belief is. It is belief that fuels how we use our free will.

So this is the evolution I see. Both men take away free will. Jubal does it for money. The Operative does it for belief. Both men are dangerous, The Operative more so because belief is stronger than money.