The Defenders-only Discussion Post!

[ddk_mod]

All Rounds & Other Useful Links | Rules | Mod Post | Fills: Completed & WIPs
The Defenders Prompt Post

Talk about the Defenders! Speculate, discuss, squee and debate. There's a thread for each episode so you can discuss what you've watched so far without being spoiled for future episodes - click on top level view to see only the first comment in each thread and stay spoiler-free.

Anon commenting is not mandatory for this post. Playing nice is always mandatory.

Comments

Re: Episode 2 Discussion

[(Anonymous)]

DA

When does Defenders say the only time they meet is for this reason? Matt said it had been a long time, but that is an indeterminate amount of time. They used to see each other everyday, so a few weeks would be forever in comparison. They aren't as close as they were, that doesn't mean the only reason they met is for Daredeviling check-ins.

Also if Matt is trying to stop because in his own words "getting involved only made things worse," and Foggy knows this, how is him seeing if Matt is struggling to do that, and offering him alternatives to help him met his self-stated goal not friendship? I think checking in is a form of friendship, (even if it could be argued it's also condescending). [Furthermore, even if it was completely condescension, "I don't think you can take care of yourself. Are you okay? Try this, it will be better for you." Which I really don't think it was. But even if it was, the motivation to do that would be concern for Matt's life. Which is still concern, although a condescending form in a misguided act of friendship, which is still friendship. If Matt leaving to 'protect his friends' as misguided an act as that is, especially unexplained, is something you consider Matt trying to be a good friend, surely trying to convince your friend to give up something that you have almost seen him get killed multiple times is also an act of friendship. So I think other anin's concern theory is true).

As for his gratefulness, I feel like he has to have known that he screwed Foggy over in S2 of DD. Whatever his reasons were, he didn't show up in court, he didn't show up in the hospital, and the thing he probably worries about most and I imagine Foggy probably worries about least of the list, Foggy got shot (in Matt's opinion, because of him). The fact Foggy is willing to reach out to him at all probably is completely unexpected for Matt, because Matt is extremely self-punishing, and he feels he doesn't deserve it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "every time Matt tells Foggy the truth, Foggy makes him pay for it," because the times Matt told Foggy the whole truth and not part of it and then said "you wouldn't believe me if I told you" as a short cut are minuscule, and most times there was way more in play. And every time Foggy "made him pay" by what I assume is anger and disapproval it's when the act is done and Matt is telling the truth after things have gone south, because it's seeped into Foggy's life, (see examples below), and he is trying to justify his actions. Foggy gets angry not so much because Matt is telling him the truth, but because of how he is telling him the truth (which is essentially "I know (x) but it's because (y) and so it's really not a big deal that (x) happened in comparison to (y) because I must/must not (y).") The one time he tells Foggy the truth ahead of time (taking down Fisk), Foggy actually supports him, even if he is a little hesitant because he's worried.

During the reveal, he is not just telling the truth he is exposing that he has been lying their entire friendship, making Foggy question everything. Yes, Foggy said some unkind things, but Matt actually "paid" very little since he paid in justified anger (Matt lied for years, did countless things under false pretenses, involved their firm in illegal activity without even telling Foggy), in no way apologized, or did anything other than try to justify his actions while not acknowledging at all that what he did hurt Foggy. I should clarify, I am not saying Matt needs to apologize for being himself, but he does not to apologize for hurting Foggy. They are related, but not the same thing.

Later, he told the truth (sort of?) when he got shot in the head, and he tried to minimize it before Foggy got truly nasty. (Come on, Matt as good as said that he, a short range hand-to-hand fighter, was better equipped for taking down a trained, military-precise person with a long-range weapons than several trained cops who also have long-range weapons, so it was okay for him to go out again less than 24 hours after getting shot in the head because it was necessary. And that Foggy was being dramatic for thinking it was a big deal.)

In the bathroom in the courthouse, Matt only told him a partial truth, and in a "you wouldn't believe me if I tried" attitude that was infuriating to Foggy. Also, even if he hadn't, Foggy is allowed to be human and get mad, and then cool off. They lost a major witness, and Matt was involved, even if unintentionally and indirectly, why does Foggy need to be so perfect that he doesn't get angry? Why doesn't Matt who has on a few occasions thrown things in anger, and in the bathroom tried to physically grab Foggy in anger and desperation, have any responsibility to acknowledge that sometimes anger is a natural part of life, friendship and relationships, (damaged past or not)?

The comparison to Jessica is not the same. She came down on him when he lied too. She was upset with him when his action effected her and he didn't keep her in the loop. That she acknowledged he and abandonment issue, (which she discovered by invasively searching his past by the way), made a connection because she's experienced bad things too, which she knows he knows, and showed understanding. That is not acceptance of his life or his choices. Understanding is not equal to acceptance. (Equally Foggy is not without understanding. Part of the reason he and Matt were friends was because he never doubted Matt was capable because he was blind. He saw Matt as self-sufficient, brilliant and as a person not a disability. He also responded with whatever understanding he had to any truth Matt told him about his dad.) She didn't justify his actions, nor should she, nor should Foggy.

I think Matt sees things too simplistically. All or nothing, absolutism, (Foggy could be hurt by what I do, so I will leave so he will not be affected. Foggy was shot because of me, I am bad for him. Vigilantism produced Frank, so it is bad, and I should stop. Me getting involved with the Hand led to Elektra's death so all I did was bad so I should stop being Daredevil. Foggy is mad at me so he rejects me. Foggy doesn't completely get Daredevil so he never will. Elektra love me, so we are good together. Elektra killed someone so she is bad. I can't tell you the truth, because you might disagree or be upset.) A with me or against me mentality. The end justifies the means. I will not apologize for being me or doing the right thing. Any push back is judgment or rejection.

Foggy sees things differently, and more complexly. Things are a combination of right and wrong (this man is in a motorcycle gang and doubtlessly violent, but he also donates food to the needy every year. This man did bad things and went to jail, and rightfully so, but he loves his daughter and I want to help him do right by her. It is good to help a woman get away from her abusive husband, but it bothers me that you are hurt, and I am not sure it's worth losing you. I love, and I don't like that what you do as Daredevil hurts you, but I would still lie to cover for you, or risk my life or career to help you do it. I think you should balance your life and sometimes step back from Daredevil, what you can't? Well if it's go, go all the time or not at all, then not at all is preferable because the other will get you killed. I would rather you take cases than be Daredevil, but I still acknowledge that what you did/do as Daredevil is heroic [i.e. "Being a different kind of hero" implies that being DD is being a hero]. You can tell me the truth, because even if I disagree or am upset, I will still help you, and I will still love you.) I want to be with you, but I want you safe, and I really don't understand why you are doing this when you're risking so much, (which just leads to Matt getting mad instead of explaining in terms of yes, I know what is at risk and I still chose this for x reason, or no I didn't think of that, but it is still worth it for this reason), but if push comes to shove I am always in your corner whether or not I totally agree (someone else asked if Foggy bore any legal responsibility after choosing to come back. I think he does, and I think he thinks he does, even if he is a little resentful that he had to make the choice between upholding the law which he strongly believes in and swore to uphold, or helping Matt, whom he loves). The ends might be desirable, but one is still responsible for the mess they made along the way. I am not asking you to apologize for being you or doing what you think is right, but I am asking you to consider how what you do affects other people, and apologize or make reparations if your actions along the way hurt them. Acknowledge that your actions have consequences that hurt me or someone else. That is not the same as saying everything you did is wrong, and pointing it out to you when you seem to be avoiding it is not judgment but a reality check from someone who cares enough to hold you accountable and is also kind of hurt that you don't seem to understand that what you do has affected them and you seem to be downplaying it.

Acceptance is not all or nothing. Caring about someone does not mean thinking everything they do is good for them. Loving someone does not mean agreeing with them all the time, or that you will never hurt them, or make mistakes.

Foggy can only do so much. I think saying "they both made mistakes and both need to change" is simplistic, but better than putting Foggy fully at fault. Yes, Foggy made mistakes, but Matt's are an immovable roadblock until he deals with some of his abandonment issues and other issues that seem to cause him to be unable to own up to his mistakes, or do anything other than wallow in them the few times he acknowledges them, and to assign an undue amount of judgment and malice to what Foggy is saying. It's not necessarily fault, but it is key that Matt needs to change his hardline point of view for the friendship to be anywhere near equal ground. Anything short of that is Foggy accepting anything Matt dishes out while supporting Matt, because accepting Daredevil the way Matt wants is accepting that any collateral damage to their work or relationship is okay because Matt's doing good as Daredevil, and thus Matt apparently can't be held accountable for anything he does along the way. It would be taking the majority of the burden because Matt needs him, and he wants Matt, but Matt is not ready to give support or understanding to the level he gets it.

Re: Episode 2 Discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Have either of you considered that a more fair comparison to Jessica would be Foggy is seasons 1 of Daredevil?

Matt lied to Jessica and the rest of the team. She was mad. She learned more, she decided there was a reason and decided to trust him.


In season 1 of Daredevil Foggy finds out Matt lied. He is angry. He learns more about Fisk, and he reaches out in an olive branch to Matt. He acknowledges that DD has a part to play, and when Matt goes out to stop Fisk, Foggy trusts him. He tell him to "go be a hero" and trusts he has to do this.

Admittedly it's not a perfect match, but I think closer to Jess accepts him fully, or differentiating that understanding is not acceptance.

However, if after Jess' act of trust, Matt started doing the same stuff. Withholding from the group and endangering them, I don't think understanding him would prevent her from being angry.

Likewise, when Foggy acknowledged Fisk needed to be stopped by both the law and DD and trusted Matt, Matt followed that by escalating DD until he was going every night, getting hurt all the time, lying or neglecting to mention what he was doing, and eventually not showing up for work.

Foggy might accept there's a place for DD, but Matt took it to an extreme, and wasn't honest about it. In light of that, Foggy's worry, and then anger when his worry was ignored or belittled, and eventual wariness and mistrust when the cycle repeats and worsens bring them both down all while Matt still minimising show bad things have gotten until it became undeniable and then at that point he pulled a 180 and tried to shove Foggy out the door because it's too dangerous and too big a deal, (and to hard to face that Foggy had a point and he let him down).

Side note, Matt's send off to Elektra (we keep hurting each other. You believe something I can't support, and asking you to change it is asking you to be someone else, so we need to be apart), and his attempt to push Foggy away, (I won't apologise for who I am, start again with out me, I hold you back) seemed very parallel. I think in Matt's mind he was Foggy's Elektra in that Foggy was against vigilantism and Matt was a vigilante and to be otherwise would not be true to himself. I also think Matt is making a false parallel.

Matt's "true north" to borrow a phrase from Claire, is doing what he believes is right according to personal conviction. He believes murder is wrong, therefore what Elektra does is wrong, but she doesn't see it that way, putting them at odds and making them hurt each other and better off without each other. I think he believes Foggy is this way too, and that Foggy believes vigilantism is illegal and that makes it against his value system based on upholding the law (even though he is willing to fudge the law he thinks for him it is his moral truth), therefore what Matt does is wrong, but Matt doesn't see it that way, so they are at odds and hurt each other, and so they might be better off without each other too.

He's wrong on two counts. One, he misses Foggy because he relied on him more than he acknowledged and so he was not better off without him. Two, his assumption about Foggy's values is wrong.

Truth is, for Foggy, his true north is taking care of people and doing what preserves relationship. Basically he values maintaining relationship over an absolute moral conviction. That's why it's not as simple as not helping Matt even when it bothers him to do so because he has some problem with the legality of DD, (for Matt it would be; you follow my values or I leave), because his truth is putting people over ideals. Matt's safety. Matt's needs.

I think those who side with Foggy and those who side with Matt have a different moral hierarchy much like the men themselves.

Matt is straight up Kohlberg, where the highest form of morality is adherence to personal conviction. People who agree with this can't see why Foggy can't get onboard with Matt's convictions. There are who he is and he has to live them. Didn't he say he wouldn't apologise for who he was and explain about the sirens and his conviction that he had to protect the city? He needs to do that to be morally right. It is his conviction and who he is.

Foggy, on the other hand is straight up Gilligan, where the highest form of morality is considering the needs of everyone in the group and putting the group functionality, needs, and unity first by making sure to maintain the group and relationship when making choices. Interestingly Gilligan's theory was created because most women fall at this level, which is two steps down from the top of Kohlberg's ladder of morality, and she believed that women view the world differently rather than that they were morally stunted. Now obviously the scales are bigger than gender since I believe Foggy as a male may have a more Gilligan compatible view, and I am guess not everyone siding with Matt is male, though I am unsure. At any rate, from Foggy's point of view, Matt is consistently putting personal needs about the needs and functionality of the group, (I.e. showing up to court late because his activity as DD is so prolific it's cutting into his obligations. Downplaying his injuries or the needs of other for him to be well. Downplaying Foggy's concern that Matt might not be able to continue practicing with him because he may die or get disbarred. Making unilateral decisions about the practice.), and furthermore he is not trying to restore group harmony and seems to rebuff any statement Foggy makes to this point about how his actions affected other. Those are major problems if maintains group order and harmony, and valuing the others in the group over ideal is your view of strong morality.

There's a disconnect there. It is not simple on either side.

Being more Gilligan myself, I don't see Matt repeatedly giving Foggy chances to get out as a positive thing, or even an in anyway respectful thing as others do. Yes, he's saying, if you disagree, and this bothers you, you are free to follow your own conscience and leave, but it shows just how fundamentally he misunderstands Foggy. Leaving is the exact thing that would be the worst thing Foggy could do according to his value system. The most against his conscience. Instead I see him repeatedly devaluing his relationship with Foggy, by being willing to end it so flippantly. So much so, that eventually Foggy stops trying for as hard for a while, because things have fallen that far.

Re: Episode 2 Discussion

[(Anonymous)]

SA

Also law. Matt see law as right and wrong. If a law is wrong according to your conviction, you don't follow it or work to change it. Foggy sees law as maintain order and community in society, thus why he is willing to overlooking breaking the law if it is for the greater good, but vigilantism is a problem, not so much because it is illegal, but because it is illegal to maintain order and harmony by creating an agreement instead of letting each follow their own moralit which could disrupt the community. Also why Foggy gets more critical in season 2 when copycats apparent. Originally he thought DD may do more harm than good because he helped people, but if he inspires copycats that kill people, that get themselves or others hurt, or simply send the message that each can follow their own beliefs no matter who it hurt, now DD is a problem because it is more harm than good. (I really think this is what he meant by "you can't create danger [i.e. Copycats like Castle] and then protect us from it [and act like that's a noble thing to do], that's not heroic, it's insane." Not that he thought Matt was inventing danger as some have posited.)

Re: Episode 2 Discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Way late, but I agree with all of this, anon.