|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 3, 2006 23:09:39 GMT -5
Okay, so clarify for me how you two see this happening. Dunbar goes down in the fight. Last he saw, Terry was frozen. Dunbar's in the hospital, blind. Won't talk to anyone, won't see anyone, hiding from the world. When he stops hiding - what stops him from hiding? - he goes out, takes on rehab, the PD, the press and gets his job back. Why is he avoiding Terry if they've never talked? I don't think Jim was hiding from the world. He was avoiding Terry, because he "wasn't ready to talk." It doesn't appear that it took much effort to avoid Terry, by the way. According to Terry himself, he only called a couple of times. Jim doesn't need to talk to Terry to know what happened. He was there, at the bank, and he remembers. Edited to add: Jim may have "hidden from the world" for a period of time after losing his sight, if he went through a period of depression as suggested by what he said to Pete Steckle in "Dance With Me." If this occurred, I don't think it lasted very long, since he accomplished quite a bit -- rehab, the lawsuit, getting Hank -- in the year between the shooting and the Pilot. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 3, 2006 23:40:17 GMT -5
Okay, so clarify for me how you two see this happening. Dunbar goes down in the fight. Last he saw, Terry was frozen. Dunbar's in the hospital, blind. Won't talk to anyone, won't see anyone, hiding from the world. When he stops hiding - what stops him from hiding? - he goes out, takes on rehab, the PD, the press and gets his job back. Why is he avoiding Terry if they've never talked? And Maggie, you probably have to take this one: Jim is not about denial; he’s been forced to a brutal honesty by events and by his attempts to handle an abruptly altered reality. How does the 'can't face the world Dunbar' mesh with the 'all brutal honesty Dunbar'? Kyt I didn't mean that Dunbar couldn't -- or didn't want to -- face the world, or was hiding. Maybe he just didn't want to talk to Terry, and it's not unexpected, given his imagined (I'm not above a little supposition myself here) circumstances post-shooting that he would have been able to put off seeing Terry for months if he wanted to. Once he was home and in control of who walked through the door or which phone calls he chose to duck or take, that control would have been absolute. Really, why the hell would Dunbar even want to talk to Terry until he was good and ready? Call it running away . . . or call it the self-knowledge to understand what he's ready to deal with. He's got far more pressing concerns -- what I listed before as the items on his plate -- than Terry. Terry did what he did (or didn't do), he's moved on to another precinct, there's no way they'll be partners again, he's out of Dunbar's life directly except when the subject of the bank comes up. Dunbar's not all that far away from his statement in "Up on the Roof" that he's "done with" Terry. Maybe he was done with Terry the minute he grabbed the gun from his hand. If you've ever been in a situation where you were stabbed in the back by a co-worker -- or thought you'd been -- that person then becomes someone you'll go to any lengths to avoid. And I'm talking about things like missed promotions or getting credit with the boss for a well written report. I, uh, think being blinded trumps all that. Jim and Terry were in a tight situation, and Terry let Jim down. Oh, sure, let's go have a beer and talk it over. Excuse me while I check the Weather Channel for the latest temperature in Hell. Whatever happened immediately after the shooting -- whatever means Jim used to duck Terry when he was in the hospital and then rehab -- I don't see it as being at odds with the brutal honesty he's been forced into as he undertakes his journey through a new and radically different life. Maybe he hid out for a while -- we'll never know, will we? -- but once he got his feet solidly beneath him Dunbar tackled the department, the Mayor, the press, and the doubts and suspicions of probably everyone he came in contact with during that year. What stopped him from hiding out, if indeed he did? Something else we'll never know, but I like the idea that it was the resolve to be reinstated on The Job. Fight or flight, and Dunbar's all about fight. It's clear from the way Dunbar stiffens the minute he identifies Terry's voice in the squad room that he just wants him to go away. I just don't see that as a sign of weakness. I see that as a man who knows what he can deal with, and what he can't . . . and who, from his subsequent dialogue, does not want to be pushed into it before he's ready. It's also clear to me that he pretty much knows what Terry's going to say before he says it: there's no surprise on his face, just a kind of weary "I had a feeling this was coming." Another reason to avoid the conversation. What's Terry going to add? Nothing new, nothing but another grinding of salt in a unclosed wound. Hiding from the world -- for a time -- followed by an uncompromising, hard-earned honesty? For me, it was the complexity of the character, the dichotomies in his nature, that made Jim Dunbar so compelling, and this is perhaps just one more example. Or not.  Mags PS Damn, this is fun! Thanks, Kyt and mlm88. |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 3, 2006 23:45:01 GMT -5
Oh, jeez, I keep finding things to respond to . . . There's no way these two guys didn't talk shortly after Dunbar was recovering from the shooting. They didn't resolve anything, and then Dunbar ducked his calls, so this is Terry's first opportunity to corner Dunbar.] What evidence do you you have that they talked other than supposition and gut instinct? If it isn't canon (as anna terms it), how is it admissable? Just curious. "If it isn't canon, how is it admissable?" I don't recall Anna's definition, and the only one I'd apply would render the board obsolete if only canon is allowed. But going back to the actual question: based upon the personalities as presented by these characters, to be true to the characters, there's simply no way they didn't talk early on. If we're meant to infer something (ie: they didn't talk), the writers failed completely in my case. They provided a solid background of friendship between two cops who were also friends and partners. Not a chance I'd believe the two men wouldn't talk after one was shot. Solid background? In The Pilot our only evidence is Terry's line about how he's not looking to be friends, like they once were. A minor point, to be sure, but we aren't given any evidence until "Up on the Roof" of the extent of that friendship. Fellow cops and partners, absolutely, but how far does this extend beyond end of shift? It's not until the final confrontation by the river that Terry plays all his emotional cards that we learn how close they were. And readily sets up that they were friends and cops. I don't see a conflict here. As a side note: I do consider the series, as a whole, when referencing the characters. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 3, 2006 23:59:03 GMT -5
As for whether Jim Dunbar would have spent his time in the hospital hiding, afraid to show weakness... I'm not sure. I don't think he would have kept everyone out. If anyone, I'd think he would have tried to keep Christie and Terry both at bay. Her because they were obviously on shaky ground when this happened, though who knows whether they were on the uphill or downhill slide in their relationship. And him because, obviously. Probably not because he was saying, You did this, you did this to me. But more because he was angry, at himself, at Terry, at the whole situation, and frustrated, and chances were, if Terry had gotten within striking distance during the first few months (not saying he didn't stand in the doorway, though), he would have at least ended up with a black eye. But who knows, that might have been healing, for both of them. If they were 18 years old, maybe punching out the guy who wasn't hurt would seem like a satisfying move. But Dunbar's been through a lot on the force, and so has Terry. You really think Dunbar would want to punch Terry after being blinded? And if so, why didn't he take the shot later? Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 4, 2006 0:03:33 GMT -5
Simultaneous posts again -- how will I ever sort this out?! Such a loooooong post I was composing while you were logging on, Kyt. I know, canon is too strict, and would render invalid much of what we engage in. I just think, given the evidence, that all we know is Terry called "a couple of times" and Jim ducked those calls. When those calls occurred? Damn, we'll never know. And, taken purely from the point of what is dramatically satisfying, it is effective for them to meet again for the first time on the day Dunbar returns to the job . . . Mags |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 4, 2006 0:27:58 GMT -5
Jim doesn't need to talk to Terry to know what happened. He was there, at the bank, and he remembers. If Dunbar hasn't spoken to Terry since he was shot, how does he know what the fallout is for Terry and if their friendship can continue or not? Or is it a given that the single moment wipes out any goodwill Dunbar had previously held for the man? And if so, why hasn't he written Terry off and let him know as much? Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 4, 2006 0:48:24 GMT -5
I didn't mean that Dunbar couldn't -- or didn't want to -- face the world, or was hiding. Maybe he just didn't want to talk to Terry, and it's not unexpected, given his imagined (I'm not above a little supposition myself here) circumstances post-shooting that he would have been able to put off seeing Terry for months if he wanted to. Once he was home and in control of who walked through the door or which phone calls he chose to duck or take, that control would have been absolute. Really, why the hell would Dunbar even want to talk to Terry until he was good and ready? Call it running away . . . or call it the self-knowledge to understand what he's ready to deal with. He's got far more pressing concerns -- what I listed before as the items on his plate -- than Terry. Terry did what he did (or didn't do), he's moved on to another precinct, there's no way they'll be partners again, he's out of Dunbar's life directly except when the subject of the bank comes up. Dunbar's not all that far away from his statement in "Up on the Roof" that he's "done with" Terry. Maybe he was done with Terry the minute he grabbed the gun from his hand. What is it you see in Dunbar's personality that makes him waffle on Terry instead of telling him to get lost with as much solid determination as he had in taking on the PD in getting his job back? If you've ever been in a situation where you were stabbed in the back by a co-worker -- or thought you'd been -- that person then becomes someone you'll go to any lengths to avoid. And I'm talking about things like missed promotions or getting credit with the boss for a well written report. I, uh, think being blinded trumps all that. Jim and Terry were in a tight situation, and Terry let Jim down. Oh, sure, let's go have a beer and talk it over. Excuse me while I check the Weather Channel for the latest temperature in Hell. This entire section supports that Terry has a single defining moment for Dunbar and nothing Terry's done in the past, and nothing Terry can do in the future, has any weight on the fact that Terry froze for a moment. If that's the case, why did Dunbar deal with Terry at all? Why would Dunbar allow Terry to believe Terry had a snowball's chance in winning Dunbar over? It couldn't be due to Dunbar wanting to spend more time with him. ...but once he got his feet solidly beneath him Dunbar tackled the department, the Mayor, the press, and the doubts and suspicions of probably everyone he came in contact with during that year. What stopped him from hiding out, if indeed he did? Something else we'll never know, but I like the idea that it was the resolve to be reinstated on The Job. Fight or flight, and Dunbar's all about fight. And again, if Dunbar's all about the fight, why didn't he take up that fight with Terry and get the man out of his life once and for all? If Dunbar thought Terry would stop trying, he learned otherwise his first day of the job, and he still did nothing to prevent Terry from trying again. At no point, did Dunbar take a stance. Why wouldn't he, if he's all about the fight? It's clear from the way Dunbar stiffens the minute he identifies Terry's voice in the squad room that he just wants him to go away. I just don't see that as a sign of weakness. I see that as a man who knows what he can deal with, and what he can't . . . and who, from his subsequent dialogue, does not want to be pushed into it before he's ready. It's also clear to me that he pretty much knows what Terry's going to say before he says it: there's no surprise on his face, just a kind of weary "I had a feeling this was coming." Another reason to avoid the conversation. What's Terry going to add? Nothing new, nothing but another grinding of salt in a unclosed wound. Well, I'd be inclined to take that in the direction more akin to: Been there, done that. But knowing you don't agree with that theory... It still keeps coming back to: If Dunbar's written off Terry, why hasn't Dunbar followed through; what makes Dunbar hide out, avoid, and divert? Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on May 4, 2006 0:59:46 GMT -5
Simultaneous posts again -- how will I ever sort this out?! Heh. I know what you mean. I tossed in that mental towel a bit ago. I know, canon is too strict, and would render invalid much of what we engage in. I just think, given the evidence, that all we know is Terry called "a couple of times" and Jim ducked those calls. When those calls occurred? Damn, we'll never know. And, taken purely from the point of what is dramatically satisfying, it is effective for them to meet again for the first time on the day Dunbar returns to the job . . . Just two points: We were never enlightened as to the happenings immediately following Dunbar going down, or even how long he was in the hospital. But cops being cops, they were there. I'd vote the precise opposite. Terry and Dunbar not talking until a year later is so far-fetched as to be, well, another Semple(*) {One of those moments in which the writers have so misrepresented the established 'world' and characters, that the viewer's attention is yanked outside the story. Suspended disbelief is unsuspended.} Just using the pilot, you can base the personalities on cops in general, and what we know of the two men working together, and know that Terry was at the hospital. Kyt (*) Edit to add: I think that's the second time I've referenced Semple and writers in this discussion, so started a thread in Free For All. |
|
|
|
Post by inuvik on May 4, 2006 13:24:11 GMT -5
 Am I the only one who is totally lost and has given up trying to follow all this?
|
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on May 4, 2006 13:55:22 GMT -5
Am I the only one who is totally lost and has given up trying to follow all this? I've been learning that different people have different levels of interest in debate. I love that this topic is still generating so much discussion and conflict and--believe it or not--I know the conversation is good natured. I enjoy it as an onlooker at this point and I'm sure I'll jump back in if I think anything is lacking in the discussion. That's one of the fun things about this board. People who like to really get into it can still do that, but there are always plenty of other ways to go in discussion if picking things apart to this degree isn't your thing. I know this type of discussion isn't for everyone, but for those who like to analyze, it's a lot of fun. |
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on May 4, 2006 17:37:30 GMT -5
I've been learning that different people have different levels of interest in debate. I love that this topic is still generating so much discussion and conflict and--believe it or not--I know the conversation is good natured. I enjoy it as an onlooker at this point and I'm sure I'll jump back in if I think anything is lacking in the discussion. That's one of the fun things about this board. People who like to really get into it can still do that, but there are always plenty of other ways to go in discussion if picking things apart to this degree isn't your thing. I know this type of discussion isn't for everyone, but for those who like to analyze, it's a lot of fun. Well, it's finally happened -- we're discussing our discussions! ;D As one of the participants in the discussion under discussion, I can attest that it is all for fun (at least, as far as I'm concerned). As passionate (to borrow maggie's word) as I am about Blind Justice, and as much as I enjoy discussing it, I never forget we're talking about a television show. It's not about world peace or ending hunger or any other life-and-death issues -- it's entertainment. As shmeep says, the beauty of this board is that everyone can participate, in his or her own way. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on May 5, 2006 8:03:57 GMT -5
Entertainment, and great brain candy. I'm back to Kyt's question about why Jim never directly told Terry to just piss off, get out of my life, get out of my face -- which, admittedly, is more in keeping with his profile of Fight or Flight. The only answer I can come up with after going around all the corners is that it was dramatically satisfying for him not to have done so, as it gave us that great scene between the two men, so brutally timed to occur on Dunbar's first day back at work. (The writers really liked to pile on the sturm und drang in the early episodes, didn't they?) It adds to Dunbar's being so raw and defensive when he gets home that night, and sets up Terry as an ongoing problem, one more thorn in Dunbar's side. The fact that their relationship is unresolved after a year is also the set-up for UOTR, and it's not until after their last meeting that Jim can finally be "done with" Terry. Taking the shootout as a life-altering moment for both men, it's interesting to play around with Kubler-Ross's Five Stages of Grief. The stages are (from Wikipedia): Denial and isolation: "This is not happening to me." Anger: "How dare God do this to me." Bargaining: "Just let me live to see my son graduate." Depression: "I can't bear to face going through this, putting my family through this." Acceptance: "I'm ready, I don't want to struggle anymore." Easy enough to apply all the stages to what we know of Dunbar's journey post-shootout. (I'm not sure Bargaining was ever possible, unless that's where the fight to be reinstated comes in.) But what of Terry? His Denial is ongoing. Did he ever progress beyond Bargaining -- the scene by the river is all about bargaining. You could consider Terry going to Fisk as Acceptance, but he was backed into a corner and I don't believe it came out of any self-realization. Jim did, eventually and painfully, come to terms with what "happened that day." Did Terry? Mags |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on May 5, 2006 12:08:51 GMT -5
I'm back to Kyt's question about why Jim never directly told Terry to just piss off, get out of my life, get out of my face -- which, admittedly, is more in keeping with his profile of Fight or Flight. I think telling Terry to piss off was the farthest thing from Jim's mind. He just needed to keep moving, one foot in front of the other, trying to get back in some kind of groove after the shooting. Sure he was pissed at Terry. Sure he was done with Terry. But he didn't have the luxury of being able to wallow in it or think through what he would say to him. |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on May 5, 2006 16:51:56 GMT -5
"I don't know what I was supposed to do, what people expected from me..." Terry
"Don't you make it worse by trying to pretend differently" Jim
Terry was a detective. That means he has had years on the force, been a beat cop, passed the tests, etc. I don't think he needed anyone to tell him what he was supposed to do. Was he waiting for Jim to tell him? He did--'take the shot'! He didn't tell him to leave cover and expose himself needlessly. Just...take...the...shot! I have often wondered if in their partnership Jim took the lead and took up a lot of the slack. I don't feel or mean that Terry was incompetent maybe just lacked a certain initiative and drive. A follower instead of a leader.
Jim's response has often made me wonder if Terry made a habit of passing the buck or rationalizing situations by shifting the blame onto the circumstances or onto others so that it wasn't him at fault it was something beyond his control. At the bank, it was the gunman (who they were all facing not just Terry) and that he was pinned down (evidently no one else was)
|
|
|
|
Post by bjobsessed on May 5, 2006 17:18:48 GMT -5
But what of Terry? His Denial is ongoing. Did he ever progress beyond Bargaining -- the scene by the river is all about bargaining. You could consider Terry going to Fisk as Acceptance, but he was backed into a corner and I don't believe it came out of any self-realization. Jim did, eventually and painfully, come to terms with what "happened that day." Did Terry? I don't think Terry ever really accepted his part in the whole thing. He froze and wasn't there to back up his partner. Jim didn't have to expose himself the way he did, but once done Terry should have been there for him and he wasn't. In one sense I don't blame Terry for freezing. I think I would do the same thing if I saw someone shot right beside me. On the other hand, as a cop, he is trained for all situations. My biggest beef with Terry was that he never accepted responsibility for his actions. He tried to pass the buck and make excuses. Going to Fisk was not a sign of acceptance since it was forced. I had always hoped that Terry would find peace within himself over what happened for his sake and no one else's. He could never really find it in himself to say I messed up and I'm sorry for what happened without having an excuse attached to it. |
|
Am I the only one who is totally lost and has given up trying to follow all this? 
