#1012-1013: Crossing the Line, Parts 1-2

[Polehaus53]

I honestly have never been a huge fan of Jules. She crossed all my lines a long time ago. As early back as her return to Odyssey in Album 62 and her behavior in Album 63. Looks like in these episodes she is once again wrecking vehicles. CRIMINAL!! I would like to see if anyone still likes Jules after this latest two-part episode.

Needless to say, these episodes drove (no pun intended ) me crazy. I thought Jules had learned her lesson from "Friend Or Foe". That episode is the whole reason why the two of them (Jules and Valerie) are sworn enemies. Why in the world would Jules team up with her? Is she really in such a poor state of mind from being hurt by Bridget and Buck that she has resorted to hanging out (and now LIVING?!) with the one person she learned was trouble albums ago? Hmm, actually, now that I say it, I suppose that could be an explanation. With everything that happened with the band and then Buck breaking up with her, it could be that Jules is not thinking straight. But in my opinion she generally never thought straight so this time she is really off the rails.

Not to say I disliked everything. There were some parts I liked. I did like that we had Jillian using her investigation skills in this episode. The part where she was told by Connie to get rid of the snack that Buck liked was funny: I think she just started eating them. And of course, I am never opposed to having Detective Polehaus appearing in episodes.

Overall, my annoyance with Jules aside, I am quite intrigued with how this will go! The album cover art has Jules being injured in the wilderness, and that has not happened in these episodes. I guess in another episode in this album we will see this, and I am curious how it will go down!

Anyone else have any thoughts? Anyone out there who would like to defend Jules? Let's discuss!

[Bob]

Here's a few disorganized thoughts on this and on Jules, split into several sections.

* * *

What's curious about the assessment of Jules is that she is being judged by a different standard than at least one other character. You say that you dislike her because of her poor choices and criminal activity, but other characters have also made poor choices and committed crimes, or highly dubious acts.

Some of Jules Kendall's lowlights include:
* Stole a piece of jewelry from a store in California a few years ago
* Set off fireworks illegally in city limits
* Attempted to help spy on and steal things from Wooton Bassett
* Lied repeatedly over a variety of things whenever she got in trouble
* Encouraged Buck to commit minor crimes whenever it was convenient for her personally
* Covered up others' underage drinking, though she didn't drink herself
* Set off smoke bombs in the school
* 'Borrowed' (stole) Connie's car several times without permission
* Committed a hit-and-run
* Was willing to let Connie take the blame for it
* Broke one of Connie's wall hangings

Compare this to the record of a known villain, Rodney Rathbone, who, among other things:
* Beat up various kids over a long period of time
* Endangered children by having them run out over ice
* Committed various acts of vandalism and criminal mischief, including setting off the sprinklers in a school, and vandalizing Whit's End, the church, and the Harlequin Theatre, among others
* Plotted other acts of vandalism, and may have eventually committed some of them, including setting school property on fire, and egging a nursing home
* Forcibly painted a child's hair blue
* Stole school tests on various occasions
* Framed Mandy for one of those times
* Stole other items, like Tom Riley's apples, a security tape at Whit's End, and a statue he believed was valuable
* Lured a minor (Lucy Schultz) into a situation comparable to kidnapping
* Witnessed an attempted murder and did nothing to help
* Forged a historical signature and attempted to sell it as memorabilia

In the categories where Jules has done similar wrong things as Rodney, Rodney's actions are worse (even to the point of being cartoonishly despicable), and as far as I recall Jules has never beaten anyone up, or even threatened to. Why then do we find Rodney acceptable (in that we still enjoy listening to his character), but Jules has gone too far?

The first difference to come to mind is expectations. Rodney is 'supposed' to be a bad guy, so bad behaviour is the norm, while we have cast Jules as a protagonist. Decent people don't do what she's done, so she is 'failing to play her role', while we don't expect any better from Rodney. This typecasting is strong enough that even the comparison (Jules Kendall to Rodney Rathbone) seems absurd.

Another difference, highlighted in the most recent episode, is that Rodney does have one line he won't cross: he is loyal to and respects his parents, and isn't willing to openly defy them. Jules, on the other hand, has repeatedly undermined Connie or gone behind her back, and her recent tantrum may exceed any level of disrespect we've seen from a major character in the history of the show (although a few characters, like Monty in "Member of the Family", or Alex in "No Boundaries", have come close). (The fact that you can point out some area where Jules is worse than Rodney is incredibly unflattering, pointing back to the previous difference.)

There's also a difference in perceived maturity. We have always known that Rodney is immature, to the point of being 'developmentally disabled', as far back as his earliest appearances. But Jules is apparently, other than her troubled background, a normal teenage girl, who has normal accomplishments and capabilities, and can be expected to hold up normal responsibilities. Rodney gets a pass because he isn't expected (there's that expectation again) to learn or to know any better, but we think Jules ought to. "To whom much is given, much is required," I suppose.

* * *

The most comparable arc I can think of is Aubrey's, but there are a few important differences in their characters that contribute to the results we're seeing.
* Aubrey came from a stable and loving family background, and she felt the same way about them, even if she wouldn't always admit it. Jules didn't have this until relatively recently.
* Aubrey was a bit younger during her 'dark period' than Jules is now.
* Aubrey is a deeper thinker than Jules.

* * *

What this episode reinforces, the same as in her trip to California, is that Jules, for all of her talk about being 'stifled' or 'controlled', is not an independent person. If someone else proposes something, she goes along with it. Even when her conscience is triggered, it only takes a little bit of pressure before she eventually agrees with everything they tell her to do. Given that tendency of caving, I was surprised that she openly rebelled against Connie at the end of the episode, but she was probably 'fortified' by a conversation with Valerie in advance. The fact that the choice seems to be 'having fun' vs. 'being responsible' might have helped push her over too.

As far as the dubious quality of her decisions, I think that speaks for itself. I'm not yet acquainted with whatever Bridget supposedly did to Jules, but I don't see that it could possibly be worse than what Valerie did before this episode on multiple occasions, ranging from blackmail to setting Jules up with a massive bill that she couldn't pay off. I wouldn't even be surprised if Valerie rigged the smoke bomb to malfunction so that Jules would get in trouble (although given that she has little love for Bridget, she probably hoped that it would work out so that she could 'take out' both of them at once).

In any case, the folly of Jules putting herself in a situation where she is totally dependent on Valerie's goodwill is clear. The album cover implies that she will soon be injured and probably abandoned in the woods somewhere.

But even if she is less likable now than she has ever been, I project that by the end of this album, she will come to herself, and we will see things begin to turn around.

[Polehaus53]

Thanks for the response, Bob!

Very well-done comparison of Rodney and Jules! I don't have the time to respond in detail to all the points, but I have read through it a bunch of times. Very greatly thought out! As you said, the way that the characters are portrayed in terms of one being a comedic antagonist and the other a serious protagonist, will impact how one looks at them and the standards for each one will vary. I also realized that there have been episodes where Jules was actually the good person in the story. "Judge Me Tender" is one that comes to mind. Very good point about Aubrey as well. I unfortunately have not re-listened to the Novacom Saga as much as I have other sagas, so I often forget about the darker period of life that Aubrey went through before she came to Christ.

What this episode reinforces, the same as in her trip to California, is that Jules, for all of her talk about being 'stifled' or 'controlled', is not an independent person. If someone else proposes something, she goes along with it. Even when her conscience is triggered, it only takes a little bit of pressure before she eventually agrees with everything they tell her to do. Given that tendency of caving, I was surprised that she openly rebelled against Connie at the end of the episode, but she was probably 'fortified' by a conversation with Valerie in advance. The fact that the choice seems to be 'having fun' vs. 'being responsible' might have helped push her over too.

This is a valid point, I did not think about that. You are entirely right; it is quite ironic how Jules is easily influenced by others despite her repeatedly saying that she is independent and doesn't need others. Valerie's influence definitely played a role in driving her to act the way she did in these episodes. I need to re-listen to these episodes again but I still cannot seem to grasp how willingly she worked with Valerie and let herself be swayed by her when Jules literally had an entire episode where she learned that Valerie was trouble.

But even if she is less likable now than she has ever been, I project that by the end of this album, she will come to herself, and we will see things begin to turn around.

I don't doubt that this will be the case. But I am hoping that we see Jules actually changing for the best, unlike Valerie. We had "Take Every Thought Captive" with Valerie where it seemed as though there was hope for her to change. However, it does not look like she took anything away from her experience there. I am hoping that Jules proves better and her experience will result in her actually changing to be a better person.

Overall, good defense for Jules! I appreciate you calling out my points and I give you my appreciation for it!

[MonkeyDude]

Great discussion, guys! Enjoyed reading your thoughts.

Bob, your comparison of Rodney and Jules was really insightful. I would have never thought to compare the to myself, but it's really interesting seeing their felonies side-by-side and being able to compare them. This may be contestable, but for me the biggest difference between Rodney and Jules is that Rodney's offenses feel a lot more directed and designed to be intentionally harmful to others. I would say that, most the time, Jules doesn't intend to hurt those in her life—however, the same cannot be said of Rodney who intentionally goes out of his way to be abusive and malicious. For me, the intent of Rodney's actions is why it is much easier to label him as a clear-cut antagonist.

In the end though, Jules still does cause a lot of harm, especially to the people closest to her. I would not label Jules as an antagonist, however, you make a really great point as to why she may be an equally problematic character as Rodney—someone intentionally designed to be bad.

I've heard a lot of people complain that, though Jules is being presented to the audience as a sympathetic and relatable, the show shies away from actually addressing just how toxic she is. While I can potentially see the danger of something like this—mostly on how it may impact younger, impressionable fans—I wouldn't say that it's a large concern of mine. For me at least, it's always been clear that the long game for her character is to eventually come to faith.

Polehaus, I can definitely agree with you that these episodes were hard to listen to, haha!! Not because they were written bad, but just because of the second-hand embarrassment. I definitely affirm what both of you guys stated about these episodes carrying heavy illusions to Aubrey's arc, especially Under the Influence (#488-489).

[Bob]

I agree with the point that Jules' intentions aren't usually focused on harming others. I feel another major thing that keeps Jules a pitiful, rather than a villainous, figure is that she isn't an initiator. Even when she is technically motivating some bad action, as often happened with Buck, her role in the process is childishly limited and mostly consists of pleading with him to accomplish something. Once he agrees, it's up to him to figure out what to do and to make it happen; she just trusts him to work out an agreeable outcome. Most of the rest of the time, she is panicking over some situation that a previous bad decision got her into, and, apparently not being able to think through the problem on her own, or to trust that the discipline that she would be given would be done for good, she grasps at any straw that's offered to her at the moment to get out of it.

Valerie has the strong qualities that Jules presently lacks; she is decisive and knows how to get things done (even if those things are evil). Jules is probably drawn to that type of personality, so unlike her own, on some level (Buck has those same traits), which is why Valerie can appeal to her even though she should know better.

I'm not sure what Jules' fundamental issue is, but at some point she is going to have to learn that everyone is told what to do, and that being the case, it's better to get it from someone who has your best interests in mind. She will shortly relearn that this person isn't Valerie.

* * *

Yes, Rodney is generally a malicious and intentional character, with a bad rap sheet. I'd argue that he isn't given enough credit for his accomplishments in that area: he isn't the toughest bad guy or even the toughest Bone (that's likely Rusty), but Jellyfish was a professional criminal, enough of a thug that Blackgaard trusted him to run a gang and to perform a murder, and yet Rodney got the best of him in their fight.

There's no physical reason why Rodney couldn't be doing things like rebelling against and beating up his parents, and if he did, he would be a genuinely frightening character. But we know that he would never do that; he's reluctant to punch his 'Pop' even when Bart tells him to. In an Imagination Station trip, he refuses to hit Stephen with a stone though Saul insists that he do so. When an authority figure (from his parents, to Mr. Whittaker, or even Connie) tells him to stop or to leave, he does, if begrudgingly. This is why Rodney was able to stay active for so long when someone like Vance got locked up after a relatively short period of time; while Rodney is amused by wrongdoing with temporary consequences, he isn't willing to do damage with obvious lasting repercussions. I suspect that on some level, he thinks of it all as like a 'big game', but when reality sets in, he backs away from it.

(Of course, this characterization logically flows from his role on the show. The writers wanted an ongoing and somewhat comedic villain. Villains who are good at what they're doing, and who are really hurting people, aren't funny, and have to face lasting justice sooner or later, so Rodney can't be any of these except in short spurts.)