magibrain: Peter Burke would like to know where you are at all times. (White Collar)
[personal profile] magibrain
So, What Happens In Burma has this exchange:

Peter: In the last year, it was held in a secured vault at a state mining facility, under army guard, in the middle of a jungle.
Neal: Not exactly a prime location for a college kid to just walk in and grab it.
Peter: No. The mine is in the Mogok Valley.
Neal: You can get there by a helicopter or a seven-hour jeep ride over some nasty terrain.
Jones: You just know these things?
Neal: Yeah, that's why they keep me around.
Peter: Mm.
Neal: You'd need some muscle, a cargo plane, and a few grand in bribe money just to get started.
Peter: You would?
Neal: And who knows what else? Because I've never considered stealing gems in Burma.


(Emphasis added.)

In Forging Bonds, when Mozzie walks in with the information on Kate's whereabouts, Neal is doing some red-ink work on a map. The conversation there:

Neal: Hey. Rubies in Burma. I'm gonna need a bush plane to get–


–and then he sees the look on Mozzie's face and asks him if his pigeon died.

That sure looked like he was planning a heist. And even if he wasn't planning on going through with it (though "I'm gonna need" seems a lot more committed than "I would need"), the fact that he had apparently gone to the trouble of plotting out what looked like modes of ingress suggests that "considering" is at least the minimum of what he was doing.

Which is amusing, considering Neal's insistence that he never lies to Peter. And really, "I've never considered stealing gems in Burma" doesn't leave a lot of room for ambiguity.

So, I kinda have to wonder which of the following is the correct explanation for that:

1) Neal totally forgot about that incident, despite the fact that he was recounting it in a flashback in the previous episode.

2) Neal was lying about never lying. (Either because he's deliberately trying to mislead Peter or because he's not consciously aware that he's lying/doesn't consciously choose to lie, sometimes, when he lies.)

3) Neal didn't lie to Peter prior to bringing up that particular rule in Need To Know, but after that, he just let Peter assume that this was the rule he'd be operating under in the future, and ditched the rule. (Though, doesn't an episode in S5 contradict this? I can't remember if it was specifically stated.)

4) Neal was making a general statement of his lack-of-consideration to the whole meeting room, and does not consider responding to one of Peter's statements with a lie to be lying to Peter so long as he's not directly addressing Peter.

5) The writers forget about the no-lying rule while writing.

6) Forging Bonds dances on canon's corpse and should not be regarded as an authoritative source.


I'm a fan of #6, personally. Then, adopting #6 does tank two of my favorite pet theories: one, that Diana is a Time Lord, and two, that Neal got on a Greyhound from St. Louis to NYC, and the Greyhound had a series of increasingly improbable mishaps and it took them five years to get there.*


*Context is as follows:

[personal profile] magibrain: I was trying to write out this short precanon thing and then discovered that I couldn't because nothing made sense. Like, one of the things I tried to do was figuring out how old Neal was when/when it was that he came to New York.

[personal profile] magibrain: But. Okay.

[archiveofourown.org profile] storyinmypocket: Split the difference and include a note re: the show's plot holes?

[personal profile] magibrain: 1. In Wanted, Neal tells Maya that he came to New York because he had to leave the place he was from, which was St. Louis.

2. He also tells Maya that his first friend there was Mozzie.

3. In Forging bonds, he tells Peter that he met Mozzie when he had just arrived in the city.

4. He tells Peter that Mozzie approached him to pull the con on Adler – a con with a clock of five months. To start pulling that con, he had to cash in some of the bonds, which put him on Peter's radar.

5. Peter chased Neal for three years, and then Neal was in prison for most of four, and then, if we're generous with the season-equals-year calculation, by the end of S3, he's been working with Peter for three more years. That puts us up to Judgment Day.

6. In Judgment Day, Ellen and Neal have a conversation about how Neal ran on his 18th birthday, and that was the last time Ellen saw him. Ellen says it was "almost a decade and a half ago".

[personal profile] magibrain: … 3+4+3 ≠ 15. Or even 14 or 13.

[personal profile] magibrain: All I wanted to know is if Neal would still have a gut "…aren't there US marshals who are supposed to stop this sort of thing from happening?" reaction to Mozzie randomly showing up in his apartment. That's all I wanted to know.

[personal profile] magibrain: And then I went and reviewed canon and had a Mordecai shipper meltdown.

Date: 2014-03-27 06:37 am (UTC)
sholio: Peter from White Collar in sunglasses (WhiteCollar-Peter in sunglasses)
From: [personal profile] sholio
Hmm. I did notice the Forging Bonds and What Happens in Burma lines on some rewatch or other, and I assumed they were supposed to be deliberate callbacks to each other -- little nods to people paying attention, because why else would Neal have that information? Anyway, my take on that is ...

2) Neal was lying about never lying. (Either because he's deliberately trying to mislead Peter or because he's not consciously aware that he's lying/doesn't consciously choose to lie, sometimes, when he lies.)

Yes. Well. I think Neal is sincere about his "don't lie to Peter" rule, in his own way, but he has large categories of exceptions. One of which, obviously, is lies of omission. Which he does all the time. But there's another kind of lie that he seems to consider a loophole, which is lying while Peter already knows he's lying.

There's something along these lines in one of the first-season episodes -- I think it's Front Man. Neal vanishes after they rescue the kidnapping victim, then turns up later in Peter's office to get the anklet put on, and makes the excuse "I got all the way home before I remembered." Ha. Yeah. Which is very obviously a lie. But Peter clearly knows that. The What Happens in Burma scene is similar, and I think there are a few other scenes along those lines -- I distinctly remember one from season two (don't remember the episode) that goes something like this:

Peter: Don't tell me you didn't [thing Neal did].
Neal: I didn't [thing he did].

... where they both know he's not sincere. I think there are a couple of other scenes along those lines elsewhere, though I can't remember specifics.

It's also possible I'm just rationalizing and the writers periodically forget about Neal's not-lying rule. XD (Very possible. Very very possible.) But the thing is, I think it's plausible to view it as a particular twisting of the "rules" that makes sense from Neal's point of view -- it's okay to lie to Peter as long as he's not actually trying to deceive Peter, and then it's on Peter to decipher it. If that makes any sense. At least from Neal's point of view, it's a particular application of the cat and mouse thing, and a lie only counts as a lie if he's intentionally trying to mislead (as opposed to lying playfully and providing a sort of plausible deniability for Peter's benefit, which is basically what he's doing in both of the above examples).

If that makes sense. But yeah, canon is not the most consistent of things, so it's also entirely possible that it's just the writers tossing off lines without thinking about the implications.

(Actually there's yet another alternative, which is that Neal just forgets he's not supposed to be lying to Peter sometimes. He can't police every single line that comes out of his mouth, so sometimes a lie drops out without meaning to; it's his fallback in most situations, after all. Which I guess is basically one of the variations of your #2.)
Edited Date: 2014-03-27 06:38 am (UTC)

Date: 2014-03-27 07:07 am (UTC)
sholio: Peter from White Collar in sunglasses (WhiteCollar-Peter in sunglasses)
From: [personal profile] sholio
So, Neal's rule is basically "You can lie to Peter, or you can deceive Peter, but not both"? ...sadly, this makes perfect sense, given Neal and his somewhat liberal interpretation of "sense". Though it also kinda contributes to my feeling that the not-lying thing is just Neal drawing arbitrary lines in the sand to make himself feel better, even though they have no practical effect.

.... yes, I think this is entirely accurate. XD At the same time, Peter seems to be on board with it in most cases, which I think is what makes it feel somewhat less like Neal being a manipulative asshole (although he can be) and more like another application of their particular kind of weirdness. They seem to have a complicated but weirdly formalized set of rules for interaction, which are not limited to Neal's rationalizations about lying -- there are also things like Neal being perfectly okay with Peter arresting him if he's actually done what he's being arrested for (but not if he hasn't, as in "Free Fall"), or Peter and Neal's exchange in 2x05 about Sara:

Neal: She testified against me at my trial!
Peter: *I* testified against you at your trial.
Neal: It's different.

So, yeah. I think there probably are instances of Neal lying in the show that are just the writers being careless or inconsistent (quite possibly all of them) but it's also entirely possible to explain most of the instances of Neal lying as a sort of deliberate shell game that Peter is intended to see through, and therefore not lying in Neal's mind. And Peter actually recognizes and accepts this -- but only from Neal and no one else. It's not that he doesn't know the difference between truth and lies, it's just that this is part of the formalized-dance-step relationship that he has with Neal. (ETA: I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well, but I think the issue I'm trying to get at is that it's a sort of mutually consensual thing, and it only becomes "lying" to Neal when he crosses over the lines that they both agree are there.)

... my own rationalization/fanwanky headcanon about Forging Bonds is that Neal is editing/manipulating events for Peter's benefit, along with a healthy dose of selective memory. So it's more like a compressed, filtered version of events than what "actually" happened. I am aware this is nothing like what the writers had in mind, though; it's simply a terribly written episode. XD
Edited Date: 2014-03-27 07:26 am (UTC)

Date: 2014-03-27 04:31 pm (UTC)
sholio: Neal from White Collar, hand on hat (WhiteCollar-Neal hat)
From: [personal profile] sholio
Hee, yes, I don't have the power dynamics narrative kink, but I do have a huge kink for character relationships that are bizarre and incomprehensible to outsiders, but work just fine for the people in them. And Peter and Neal hit that kink really hard for me. :D

... Neal spending most of his formative young-adult years on a Greyhound bus trying to get to New York might explain a lot about Neal's personality, actually. XD

Date: 2014-04-12 09:07 am (UTC)
sholio: Neal from White Collar, hand on hat (WhiteCollar-Neal hat)
From: [personal profile] sholio
.... that ... is a REALLY EXCELLENT POINT. XD I had forgotten about that scene; I don't think there's any fanwanky explanation that works for that one ... well, except "Neal is a pathological liar who sometimes believes his own lies" -- which is also consistent with his characterization. Clearly it's been too long since I rewatched the older episodes ...

Actually, one thing I liked about Neal in season one -- one of the things that originally sold me on the show -- is that the show was a lot less circumspect/self-justifying/whatever about his fundamental dichotomy (that he's a basically decent and well-meaning person who does some really unpleasant things). He's unrepentant about breaking the law, like participating in Alex's theft of the mark's wallet or forging credit cards, but in a sort of a petty-criminal way rather than a WHEE BASE-JUMPING ON WALL STREET kind of way. He has that little speech about wanting to give Kate a better life but instead she got a guy who was locked up for four years; he has that episode where he has to meet people he conned. I felt like the show was more honest about the damaging effect of Neal's chronic lying and conning on his relationships with the other people in his life, as well as the difficulties that he had not stopping. It seemed like later on, we were still seeing a Neal who couldn't stop lying and stealing things, but the show wanted to sell us on a redemptive version of him that we weren't quite seeing on screen. (I really love Neal, I do, but I had to do a lot of mental rearranging of my viewpoint on him sometime around season four.)

.... and, ha, yes, watching with dragon!Peter in mind must be kind of awesome and hilarious. (Regarding your other comment ... STUBBY CLAWS OMFG. XD I want this fiiiiic.)

Date: 2014-04-12 05:49 pm (UTC)
sholio: Neal from White Collar, hand on hat (WhiteCollar-Neal hat)
From: [personal profile] sholio
Yeah, I think the thing at this point is .... I do not for a minute think that Neal will go straight after the anklet is off. Why would I? The show has spent the last five seasons making the very compelling case that he won't. He might actually intend to at the moment; I think he is actually sincere when he tells Peter that (he believes) he can. (The fact that Peter believes him and is willing to go to bat for him AFTER EVERYTHING, and after spending most of the season apparently getting the more realistic view of Neal that I've wanted him to have since early season four, is, uh, a major problem that I have with the finale, BUT WHATEVER.) However, after Neal's more or less constant backsliding while Peter is right there tracking his movements and telling him not to steal things, why on earth would the show actually expect us to think that Neal's not going right back to a life of crime as soon as he gets his freedom back? Even if he actually intends to go straight at this point (and I think he's genuine about it), the show's given us ample examples of situations that are VERY LIKELY to come up that would make him backslide instantly: someone from his past shows up; he gets in trouble; he needs money (and for Neal, "needs money" doesn't equal "can't pay the rent", it's more like "can only afford generic-brand caviar").

Neal might be able to go straight with a lot of work, but we're not seeing the work. Neal might be able to get to a point where he's not exactly a law-abiding citizen but he still actually considers the consequences of his actions and who they might harm, but while we've seen more of that work, they seem really, really intent on making all of it into a series of broken aesops.

RIGHT. YES. EXACTLY. I mean, I don't think Neal is actually incapable of it. It's just that he's proven conclusively, time and again, that he doesn't want to do the things he's going to have to do in order to go straight. He doesn't feel bad about what he's done. He doesn't want to make reparations. He doesn't have a plan for when he gets off the anklet. Ironically it's Mozzie who is the voice of reason here, pointing out the practical problems with Neal going straight (and in season three also, pointing out that he's not just going to be able to walk into a six-figure job as a convicted felon). Of course, Mozzie's doing it for largely selfish reasons, because he wants to keep his partner in crime, but Neal's reaction is just "pshh" *changes the subject*. ... like figuring out how he's going to make a living after he's no longer a ward of the prison system is completely unnecessary when planning his future, oh god, Neal. /o\

One thing that frustrates me, actually, is that Peter has never sat down and offered to help him make a plan for his future once he's off the anklet. Although, after the way seasons four and five went, I am of the opinion that the less Peter gets involved with Neal's post-anklet life, the more likely he is to stay out of prison ... but still, Neal is obviously deficient in the "future planning and consequences" department, and he looks up to Peter a lot. If Peter sat him down and started pulling out college brochures and pulling up USA Jobs on the laptop … well, Neal would probably complain and roll his eyes and steal Peter's watch, which might be exactly why Peter hasn't (I mean, besides "the writers never thought of it, and anyway, making practical plans for your future isn't nearly as much fun as cracking safes in a Manhattan high rise"). And it's possible that the more Peter tried to get involved -- read: "meddled" -- the more Neal would rebel against it, a la his arrested-development teenager mode.

Still, it's frustrating and kind of sad that he hasn't at least tried, because it's one area in which he's an expert (Peter is basically the epitome of having your life together) and it's an area in which Neal desperately needs guidance.

On the other hand, Neal's sending off seriously mixed signals about whether he wants help in that area or actually wants to change at all. I think I was on board the "redeemable Caffrey" wagon up until he failed to show any sign that the entire treasure debacle, El almost getting killed, etc. made any impression on him. It threw my whole plan for where the show was going, honestly, because it really looked like the mid-season events of season three were going to be a catalyst for Neal taking a serious look at his life and not doing the things he'd been doing that got him (and his loved ones) into that situation.

And then season four rolled around, and nnnnooooope. When Neal's backed up against the wall, the first thing he does is … steal things, and not only that, but scam Peter in a situation where Peter just got his job back, WHICH HE LOST BECAUSE OF HELPING NEAL, and has made it pretty clear that he's on thin ice because of all of that. So, not only is Neal's first reaction in times of trouble still to lie and steal his way out of it, but he's entirely willing to risk Peter's career on top of it, after Peter's just gone to bat for him in a number of ways.

(And also gone halfway around the world on the biggest stalker trip of all time -- I do love Peter, but in "Wanted/Most Wanted" I took a break from being pissed at Neal to be pissed at Peter for a while, because seriously, Peter, you are AWFUL and Neal would have had every reason to run and never have anything to do with you again.)

Neal's also entirely capable of stealing things just for revenge; I honestly can't see a single reason in 4x10 why he wants to steal the bug-tracker thing from the FBI convention (since their plan goes off perfectly fine without it) except as a giant "fuck you" to Peter.

… so basically, yeah, by the time we hit season five, I mostly just wanted Peter to do -- well, exactly what he did do, at least up until the season five finale: acknowledge that Neal is showing no particular progress toward "redemption", and pull back a bit. One of the reasons why season five delighted me is because that seemed to be happening. (Consequently, I don't know WHAT the hell is happening in the finale. Peter's gone right back to thinking Neal can change? On the basis of absolutely zero evidence? You could make a pretty logical case, I guess, that Peter's just done getting involved in Neal's messes and has decided to let Neal take the consequences on his own head for a change, but that wasn't the general tone of those scenes …)

And yet at the same time, like I've said elsewhere, I don't think that Neal being "redeemed" on Peter's terms would be a healthy situation for either one of them. Otherwise it's just Peter imposing, top-down, his idea of what a happy life looks like, which isn't Neal's idea of it, and is just going to lead to Neal being miserable as he tries to contort himself into a 9-to-5 lifestyle, and Peter being miserable because Neal is constantly letting him down.

That kind of change is going to have to come from Neal in order for it to take. And at this point I feel like the show has made a 5-season case that Neal doesn't want to go straight, at least not enough that he's willing to work for it and make the necessary sacrifices to achieve it.
Edited Date: 2014-04-12 05:51 pm (UTC)

Date: 2014-04-12 06:12 pm (UTC)
sholio: Peter and Neal from White Collar (WhiteCollar-Peter Neal look to side)
From: [personal profile] sholio
And one thing I wanted to add, belatedly, is that I don't inherently have a problem with criminal!Neal or with Neal scamming Peter -- as long as they're both on board with it, or at least both acknowledge that it's a possibility. Like you said in a different comment, a big part of their relationship involves poking each other with sticks. I think what frustrated me most in season four, particularly, is that it felt like things had gotten awfully one-sided, with Peter always being the one to make concessions and apologies, always managing to restore his optimistic view of Neal after every time that Neal screwed him or someone else over. Neal is a sweet person and a fascinatingly layered character, but I feel that everyone around him has to keep a bit of distance and never quite believe or trust him, at least until whatever point that he figures out how to stop using people. And Peter lost that distance for awhile.

Date: 2014-04-12 06:21 pm (UTC)
sholio: (WhiteCollar-Hard Sell Peter Neal)
From: [personal profile] sholio
d'awwwwww. <3 <3 <3 I love the comparison to cats bringing small dead animals to their people. Wibbly adorable, yes indeed.

Date: 2014-03-27 11:45 am (UTC)
princessofgeeks: Shane smiling, caption Canada's Shane Hollander (Default)
From: [personal profile] princessofgeeks
I really like the theory that Diana is a Time Lord.

Profile

magibrain: A radiation symbol. It appears to be a little bit on fire. (Default)
magibrain

April 2019

S M T W T F S
 1 23456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 22nd, 2026 07:32 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios