A Room With No View

[Raven Wolf]

Wow! It's wonderful to see this thread brought back to life!!!

Though I do see MDM's point, I have to say that I don't see Landon's staying with his father as "giving in". One does not have to have a college degree and a fancy profession to make a difference in the world. Landon's friend was actually taking the "easy road", by taking in and believing what others said he should do, and what he was, and was not capable of. When the guidance counselor raised doubts that he could succeed at the college of his choice, he turned to Landon for support, lacking the strength of character to stand by his decision. Landon had made the difficult choice to stay with his father. But, it was his CHOICE. Lucy came along, tempting him with pancakes, probably like his mother used to make. A life of comfort, if he did as he was TOLD. Yet, he again chose to return to his father.

In the end, the only thing that matters is being true to who you really are, and true to your own convictions, no matter what the cost.

[Guest Jim McLean]

But, it was his CHOICE. Lucy came along, tempting him with pancakes, probably like his mother used to make. A life of comfort, if he did as he was TOLD. Yet, he again chose to return to his father.

Yes, I'm a little thread necromancer me.

This is a great point - I'd not considered this; that by showing the scene of Landon going back to his dad actually shows him defying Lucy by returning to his situation. I won't I definitively subscribe to that being the scenes intent, because it doesn't truly prove defiance (given he lives there), but there could be a duality of dramatic notions; a sign than Landon is making no obvious routes of change, and that the relationship given back to his dad by Frank is precisely the relationship Frank craves with Jordan but cannot have.

[ethsnafu]

I hope no-one minds me sticking my twopenneth in.

There seems, to me, to be a general misconception with regards to Lucy's role in the events than transpire in 'Room'. It is wontedly conceded that Lucy is an agent of normalcy, taking promising or special individuals and reprogramming them as agents of convention. To subscribe to this belief one has to accept that Lucy would be acting in flagrant opposition to past and future depictions of her nature. We are lead to believe that she is an incarnation of the luciferian principle. A manifestation of chaotic, cthonic and anarchistic energies and yet herein we subscribe to the notion that she is somehow stripping individuals of their individuality.

Landon is not merely selected by Lucy because he is special, far from it, indications in the story (Watts "...Landon appears to have been an average student with average grades...") are that he is not necessarily of surpassing intelligence or application. What is confirmed about the nature of Landon Bryce is that he is strong, antagonistic and unconventional, the precise characteristics an entity such as Lucy would seek to propagate rather than inhibit. If much of this episode is a commentary on convention, order and perceived behavioral norms etc. then Lucy stands to lose more than she gains by reinforcing societal conventions in those she abducts. Lucy's taunting with home-cooked food, twee muzak and matronly

smothering is a perverted display of the very things we believe she is infact instilling, the bland, safe and sweltry panopticon she has created is designed to

produce, by reaction, the potential for anarchy and rebellion that she has perceived in her subjects: a state by her nature she is drawn to. If Lucy where to achieve what we commonly believe is her goal, inducing a state of submission to convention, in her subjects we have to therefore accept that this is somehow a desirable condition for an agent of destruction, anarchy and chaos.

To state that evil seeks to inspire convention and create sheep seems incongruent with reality. Satanists and Luciferianists revile convention, order, law and societal norms. The adumbrative of order, subjugation, convention, dogma and ordinariness is perceived by those of such beliefs as Christ and his followers. It appears to me to be a gross misapprehension to conclude that in in submitting to a life of ordinariness, convention, apple pancakes and easy listening that this is in anyway the ultimate goal of evil?

On the nature of Landon's return to his father. I fail to see the relevance in this scene at all. What we actually see is Landon hug his father after being rescued from an abduction: no clarification or confirmation is given that Landon returns home at all. We see the reconciliation of Father and Son but at no point are we assured that Landon returned home on a permanent basis. If meaningful discourse is to be given to the meaning of Landon returning home to his father can somebody indicate where it states that this is what he did? Of course it is fair to argue that if he were to return to his father he is returning to the life of averageness that Lucy so craves but again I would argue that a rebellion against custom is exactly what she seeks to inspire.

[Raven Wolf]

That's a great perspective, eth.

I'll be back on tomorrow.

[Guest Jim McLean]

I hope no-one minds me sticking my twopenneth in.

There seems, to me, to be a general misconception with regards to Lucy's role in the events than transpire in 'Room'. It is wontedly conceded that Lucy is an agent of normalcy, taking promising or special individuals and reprogramming them as agents of convention. To subscribe to this belief one has to accept that Lucy would be acting in flagrant opposition to past and future depictions of her nature. We are lead to believe that she is an incarnation of the luciferian principle. A manifestation of chaotic, cthonic and anarchistic energies and yet herein we subscribe to the notion that she is somehow stripping individuals of their individuality.

Surely to be inconsistent would be chaotic? To be consistent would be extremely non-anarchistic by nature. ;)

Landon is not merely selected by Lucy because he is special, far from it, indications in the story (Watts "...Landon appears to have been an average student with average grades...") are that he is not necessarily of surpassing intelligence or application. What is confirmed about the nature of Landon Bryce is that he is strong, antagonistic and unconventional, the precise characteristics an entity such as Lucy would seek to propagate rather than inhibit. If much of this episode is a commentary on convention, order and perceived behavioral norms etc. then Lucy stands to lose more than she gains by reinforcing societal conventions in those she abducts. Lucy's taunting with home-cooked food, twee muzak and matronly

smothering is a perverted display of the very things we believe she is infact instilling, the bland, safe and sweltry panopticon she has created is designed to

produce, by reaction, the potential for anarchy and rebellion that she has perceived in her subjects: a state by her nature she is drawn to. If Lucy where to achieve what we commonly believe is her goal, inducing a state of submission to convention, in her subjects we have to therefore accept that this is somehow a desirable condition for an agent of destruction, anarchy and chaos.

I agree. But I think the outcome is that defiance is not an evil trait. Submission is evil. Temptation brings control. Break the spirit, you break the man, you can control the man. To me, what Lucy is representing in this episode is control.

To state that evil seeks to inspire convention and create sheep seems incongruent with reality. Satanists and Luciferianists revile convention, order, law and societal norms. The adumbrative of order, subjugation, convention, dogma and ordinariness is perceived by those of such beliefs as Christ and his followers. It appears to me to be a gross misapprehension to conclude that in in submitting to a life of ordinariness, convention, apple pancakes and easy listening that this is in anyway the ultimate goal of evil?

I disagree. It's not about making people normal because normal is good, its about breaking people with spark so they are become weaker. Evil thrives on weakness, not strength. Break those who could be something special - and not special in the way society dictates through qualifications - special as in strong and defiant, they are the people Evil cannot break; it cannot control. Lucy Butler is there to destroy the seed of that strength, for as the education officer proved, once you are broken and broken to believe in Lucy's love, you are hers forever. That is what Evil does in Millennium and in theology, look to tempt, break and ultimate control people's destiny.

If meaningful discourse is to be given to the meaning of Landon returning home to his father can somebody indicate where it states that this is what he did? Of course it is fair to argue that if he were to return to his father he is returning to the life of averageness that Lucy so craves but again I would argue that a rebellion against custom is exactly what she seeks to inspire.

As I said, given he was initially with his dad, the ending doesn't show any definitive change to make the point he is looking for a life of averageness. He stayed with his dad initially because he cared for his dad, so this affection at the end doesn't add or subtract from that - just human behaviour. My gut tells me the end is meant to suggest he's okay; that we saw he got out and away from Lucy. No attempt is made to suggest they were too late in stopping him succumbing to her will - I think given that would be a break from the status quo, if that was the answer, they'd have made it more clear. I'd suggest at worst its ambiguous, at best we're to interpret his return home as Landon being saved. Either way, I don't think he'd have survived Lucy Butler if Frank hadn't come along.

Either way, I think the scene is more about the Father being reunited with the son being Frank's success, even when Frank can't give himself that same gift. The connection between the scene with Frank and the scene with the Father holds far more relevance than the scenes prior. They escaped, Landon survived and is back with his dad - that's the resolution to Landon's arc. The show seems more interested in the parallels/schism between the two fathers. I think it would be dangerous to read too much into the Landon scene away from its relevance to Frank's final scene.

[ethsnafu]

"...In the Christian religion, good is, by definition, what God commands, and Satan works to spread evil (disobedience) in the world..."

"...Plato argued that...good is that which everyone desires..."

Isn't this just the strength of Millennium? That one episode can elicit such polar interpretations? I thoroughly enjoy reading this sort of banter when such incongruous views are celebrated.

Lucifer's alleged defiance against God is what gave birth to the notion of the rebellious (evil) angel. It was Lucifer's insistence that Adam and Eve rebel against God's law that brought about the fall from grace. Running concurrent and inseparable with all acts of evil are individuals who refuse to submit to the law, to the ten commandments, to societal convention, human morality and so on and so forth. There has not once been an instance of a man who accepts the law of the land and abides by it, accepts the law of God and abides by it and lives his life in accordance with largely accepted norms being described as evil.

Again I assert that if you truly believe that in creating mediocrity, submission, convention and blandness Lucy is achieving her remit as an agent of anarchy then it flies in face of any depiction of Miss Butler hitherto seen. I maintain that what she seeks to achieve is the same rebellion against convention that is synonymous with evil. Her constant jibes and taunts serve to elicit revulsion for the normalcy she has surrounded the abductees with. Defiance against and refusal to accept the accepted order is what she ultimately hopes to inspire.

The work of the devil has never been done by those individuals submissive to concept order.

Edited October 20, 2007 by ethsnafu

[Guest Jim McLean]

Lucifer's alleged defiance against God is what gave birth to the notion of the rebellious (evil) angel. It was Lucifer's insistence that Adam and Eve rebel against God's law that brought about the fall from grace. Running concurrent and inseparable with all acts of evil are individuals who refuse to submit to the law, to the ten commandments, to societal convention, human morality and so on and so forth. There has not once been an instance of a man who accepts the law of the land and abides by it, accepts the law of God and abides by it and lives his life in accordance with largely accepted norms being described as evil.

Again, I would respectfully suggest you are placing too much focus on social law. Religious doctrine throughout many religions support the connotations that those who follow evil are weak, be it in spirit or faith. Those who succumb to Evil are not strong people, but people who do not have the power to stand up against it. And Adam/Eve is a classic example of temptation, which to some degree, is a measure of strength and tenacity. Adam and Eve are scuppered because they don't remain strong to their commandment, and are lured into being banished by their own weakness.

I would suggest if we were to perhaps over-analyse this episode, that it does talk about relativity. It's not suggesting that society itself is evil, and to become like society makes you evil. It says we work relative to our abilities, and those with the potential to be naturally more than society would expect are very strong people for they defy the standards society limits them with. As such these are strong people who are independent from the natural seduction of Evil. Lucy Butler is essentially breaking these people so they will not be strong, that they will not just accept their role in society, but they will do so on her terms. She destroys those with natural independent spirit and then they become part of society "in their place" and under her power.

Again I assert that if you truly believe that in creating mediocrity, submission, convention and blandness Lucy is achieving her remit as an agent of anarchy then it flies in face of any depiction of Miss Butler hitherto seen. I maintain that what she seeks to achieve is the same rebellion against convention that is synonymous with evil. Her constant jibes and taunts serve to elicit revulsion for the normalcy she has surrounded the abductees with. Defiance against and refusal to accept the accepted order is what she ultimately hopes to inspire.

I don't believe that the episode is inherently trying to carry any consistency in chaotic method (which in itself doesn't really make sense), the theme the episode presents isn't about chaos, its about control. The tactics she uses are pretty classic control methods to break and seduce victims.

As we've seen in Millennium, Evil isn't entirely chaotic. It has control systems. Simply put, it has an agenda. If you want to look for chaos in Lucy's methods, simply look at how random her approach is; to pick potentials off whenever they appear. There doesn't seem to be a specific system or prophecy she's working towards, just taking people with spirit where ever her minions (broken by her own methods) find them.

The work of the devil has never been done by those individuals submissive to concept order.

It has never been done by those strong enough to resist the temptation. Those who are strong enough to defy social expectation, to become more than they are supposed to be are the ones that change things. It's that tenacity of human spirit which Evil wants to crush. Temptation of the devil is an age old concept; to weaken people's resolve to do wrong things. In fact, as glib as it is, the next episode deals with that very notion - manipulating people into damnation.

I respect your interpretation and its a joy to read, and while it might subscribe more to the notion of Lucy Butler, I think the direction of the episode isn't focused on chaos, its all about control through the subjugation of spirit.

[ethsnafu]

Fascinating reply my friend!

I am afraid we shall have to agree to disagree, a typical prognosis in many a Millennum discussion.

I will never to contend to the belief that the concept of evil is synonymous with mundaneness.

Adam and Eve were banished not because they were weak but because they displayed enormous courage in defying the omnipresence of God, to stand before his prodigious power and refuse his will is not an act of weakness but of valor. In Gnosticism, Lucifer is perceived as a liberator who took the robotic, unmindful husk that was man and in encouraging rebellion imbued this glume with an awareness of self, choice and defiance. Some of the most reviled characters in satanic lore, Anton Szandor LaVey and Aleister Crowley, far from being the broken spirited, cowering wrecks you suggest are indicative of evil were two of the most colourful, defiant and immense personalities of their day. Your analysis of what is righteous seems to suggest that those that break with societies conventions and refuse to be inhibited by law and morality are righteous and those that accept the notion of family, adherence to norms, acceptance of law and so on are evil which seems to me to be a gross perversion of the widely accepted definitions. The 19th century skeptic Swinburne had a character say of Jesus, "O pale Galilean; the world has grown grey from thy breath." He believed intensely that dogma created blandness, normalcy and obedience, again we have to believe that Lucy would desire such things, to want her abductees to be as pale and grey as the Galilean. I am not suggesting that evil is positive merely that it is born from a refusal to 'accept' and this is an established precedent in psychiatry. Psychology is drenched with literature that reinforces the notion that evil begins as an idiopathic rejection of the norm. In spoonfeeding this mediocrity to her prisoners Lucy hopes to identify those who refuse to bow to convention, those that accept the norm are released, those who do not are absorbed into the legion. You state that those who take their place in society are under Lucy's influence? The devil is in control of ordinary members of society? Are you sure?

It's not suggesting that society itself is evil, and to become like society makes you evil

Which is exactly my point yet you seem to have reversed my intention. I am suggesting that to become un-like society is a manifestation of evil. To succumb to society and revel in its order is a aspect of good.

If you want to look for chaos in Lucy's methods, simply look at how random her approach is; to pick potentials off whenever they appear.

To suggest that Lucy randomly picks her subjects is wrong. It is an essential element of the denouement that Lucy selects her subjects after the vetting of Roe. There is no randomness here, she identifies those who rebel against the numbers, impounds and then tests them. For an age she has utilised others to select those ripe for conversion. There is nothing random about having someone literally refer victims to her.

I hope this makes some sense as I am not all that enamored of this thread and am truly enjoying my study into the VS5 but I did want to take to take the time to write something at least to honor your wonderful reply.

Edited October 21, 2007 by ethsnafu

[Raven Wolf]

Good heavens!!!! I can't wait to get back to reading this topic on Monday! A full weekend has made it difficult to do more than skim these incredible posts....but boy oh boy, am I looking forward to sinking my teeth into a really wonderful episode discussion! It feels like old times again!

[Guest Jim McLean]

I will never to contend to the belief that the concept of evil is synonymous with mundaneness.

Adam and Eve were banished not because they were weak but because they displayed enormous courage in defying the omnipresence of God, to stand before his prodigious power and refuse his will is not an act of weakness but of valor.

That's a valid interpretation, but I think many would disagree, otherwise taking any offer by a second party could be considered "courage". Taking drugs could be seen as a defiant stand against the conformity of society.

While I think its a valid conclusion; that being God is absolute, defiance shows character, theology is rarely so kind, and could be conceded as hypocritical. It is strong to retain unmovable faith in your God; to obey with no question, yet it is weak to be tempted by sin, despite being actually quite a bold move against the absolute.

Judas is not seen as a strong man for standing against Jesus, even though he is some lights painted as part of a manifest destiny to betray Christ - he's seen as snake. A betrayer. Tempted by meagre amounts of money.

It's an unfair but a common theme where religion binds the righteous by dispelling other choices as being weaker than holding strong to Faith.

You'll rare see a strong depiction of a Satanist. You'll see strong depictions of demons, or actual agents of the Devil (like Lucy Butler), but those who follow Evil, don't get the righteous depiction that those who righteously follow God.

In Gnosticism, Lucifer is perceived as a liberator who took the robotic, unmindful husk that was man and in encouraging rebellion imbued this glume with an awareness of self, choice and defiance. Some of the most reviled characters in satanic lore, Anton Szandor LaVey and Aleister Crowley, far from being the broken spirited, cowering wrecks you suggest are indicative of evil were two of the most colourful, defiant and immense personalities of their day. Your analysis of what is righteous seems to suggest that those that break with societies conventions and refuse to be inhibited by law and morality are righteous and those that accept the notion of family, adherence to norms, acceptance of law and so on are evil which seems to me to be a gross perversion of the widely accepted definitions. The 19th century skeptic Swinburne had a character say of Jesus, "O pale Galilean; the world has grown grey from thy breath." He believed intensely that dogma created blandness, normalcy and obedience, again we have to believe that Lucy would desire such things, to want her abductees to be as pale and grey as the Galilean. I am not suggesting that evil is positive merely that it is born from a refusal to 'accept' and this is an established precedent in psychiatry. Psychology is drenched with literature that reinforces the notion that evil begins as an idiopathic rejection of the norm.

With respect, you are looking for specific theological instances and ignoring the general themes of good and evil. There are many contradictions in mainstream Christianity without looking at more specific interpretations and conceptional values within theology.

Again, I've never said the devil is weak. Or that the devil stands for some notion that everyone should be equal. I'm saying that Evil has always been the province of the weak, those who are tempted by sin. Sort of like the drug baron and his men have backbone, but the drug takers are weak, and are kept weak so they can be manipulated to do what the evil baron intends. Same with Pimps. The Pimps are strong characters, if they were weak, they'd be defied, but the prostitutes, their agents of their sin, have to be weak, broken and easily controlled.

This is the basic analogy I'm seeing in this episode. They are taking people with strong, natural spirit, so strong they defy their natural position in society, and break them into malleable, pawns for a larger game and devoid of any potential threat to their notion of control.

Because sin is a temptation, and to be a temptation, it's insidious. It preys on the weak because the weak cannot see the threat behind the veil. Strong people do. The education officer was intentionally deter those from succeeding, and Landon was a man who could encourage those with weaker spirit to do better things with their lives. There is common day social conception that Evil does like people to succeed, be it for threat, or be it for bloody mindedness, and so a "leader", or challenger of what could be considered as "social evil" or "natural evil" has to be broken.

While Millennium does have many roots in Biblical lore, its mainstream audience are not theologians. The theology adds colour to what are often contemporary conceptions. Evil not wanting people to succeed or defy the constraints that the world impresses on them, is an "evil" that the audience can understand and empathise with.

I can safely say, being someone who has studied a modicum of theology, the episode did not get across the theme of chaos which either means I'm very stupid; the show was very poor; or the show was written for people with a deeper understanding of theology. I don't subscribe to any of those elements.

In spoonfeeding this mediocrity to her prisoners Lucy hopes to identify those who refuse to bow to convention, those that accept the norm are released, those who do not are absorbed into the legion. You state that those who take their place in society are under Lucy's influence? The devil is in control of ordinary members of society? Are you sure?

No, never said that. I said that those who are released are now pawns to Lucy. She breaks the potentially strong of spirit by not only getting them to accept they have no role other than the one she offers, but that her love is only thing that can guide them.

To suggest that Lucy randomly picks her subjects is wrong. It is an essential element of the denouement that Lucy selects her subjects after the vetting of Roe. There is no randomness here, she identifies those who rebel against the numbers, impounds and then tests them. For an age she has utilised others to select those ripe for conversion. There is nothing random about having someone literally refer victims to her.

It's vetting, but - from what we see - it's not based on foreknowledge or prophecy. She's not a list for Roe to find, Roe works at schools, finds "candidates" and then reports them back. So far as a grand plan goes, Lucy is working on a small scale, fairly random approach. I think the reason for that is it makes for more scary TV, knowing that the youth are just bloody unlucky to be at the wrong school at the wrong time. In other words: it could be you!

Again, while I respect your ability to inform (it is a fascinating point), I would suggest you are reading too much historical theology into a show about contemporary evil. Millennium may sugarcoat its tales with theological backgrounds, but these are generally accepted or understand concepts of evil and horror. The show has to be like this to keep its ratings; the average joe who watches Millennium is not extremely intelligent or massive into theology. As much as fans would like to believe it, shows like M are not made up of the type of people we see here. It has a broader demograph to cater to, and as such, I don't believe the messages you suggest are as ingrained as perhaps it seems.

A show's message should be fairly clear, otherwise it will prove unsatisfying. I saw no elements of chaos at work here - even if characteristically, there is an argument that there should be for Lucy Butler. She is using fairly atypical torture techniques to break her victims into not just believing what she tells them, but falling in "love" with her Word. She is essentially taking an agent with natural, good spirit, and stealing their soul; making what is natural and free from social constraints a product of her will. Again, I submit this episode is about control, not chaos.