Well, it kinda makes sense that Jack has an adolescent side to him. He was what, 17? when his mom was killed? Instead of dealing with it in the normal manner (denial, anger, grief, etc.), he killed the kid. So he kinda locked himself into being 17. I think his obsession with black and white movies and things like that is another sign of his denial of his mother's death...if he focuses on things from the distant past, maybe the memory of his mom won't haunt him so much. I think this could be part of the reason why Jack can also be the perfect boyfriend/father figure...he has the experience of an adult, but his mindset is partially still a teenager. So, he knows how to deal with the day to day problems presented in relationships, but he also has that teenagerish side to him where he lavishes attention on those he cares about.

Well, it kinda makes sense that Jack has an adolescent side to him. He was what, 17? when his mom was killed? Instead of dealing with it in the normal manner (denial, anger, grief, etc.), he killed the kid. So he kinda locked himself into being 17. I think his obsession with black and white movies and things like that is another sign of his denial of his mother's death...if he focuses on things from the distant past, maybe the memory of his mom won't haunt him so much. I think this could be part of the reason why Jack can also be the perfect boyfriend/father figure...he has the experience of an adult, but his mindset is partially still a teenager. So, he knows how to deal with the day to day problems presented in relationships, but he also has that teenagerish side to him where he lavishes attention on those he cares about.

Tempest, "a human being should be able..." Is that from Heinlein?

Well, it kinda makes sense that Jack has an adolescent side to him. He was what, 17? when his mom was killed? Instead of dealing with it in the normal manner (denial, anger, grief, etc.), he killed the kid. So he kinda locked himself into being 17. I think his obsession with black and white movies and things like that is another sign of his denial of his mother's death...if he focuses on things from the distant past, maybe the memory of his mom won't haunt him so much. I think this could be part of the reason why Jack can also be the perfect boyfriend/father figure...he has the experience of an adult, but his mindset is partially still a teenager. So, he knows how to deal with the day to day problems presented in relationships, but he also has that teenagerish side to him where he lavishes attention on those he cares about.

Welcome Tempest, and congrats on being the 500th member of the board!

No prizes, but a hearty slap on the back.

Dave

Howdy doo,

I was thinking about Jack’s overall character/personality, in light of what are for me a few noteworthy moments in the books.

Here are three of Jack’s four principal modes (at least the ones that I can think of):

- Jack as brother and son. Jack’s had his ups and downs with family members. It’s not as close and friendly a family as one would like, but it’s not too unusual. And Jack is fortunate enough to be able to resolve things with his father and sister to a greater extent than many people ever do.

- Jack as perfect boyfriend/husband/father. Apart from the conflicts arising from his, er, unusual life choices, he’s basically a woman’s (and child’s) dream come true: Steady-tempered, fair, fun, comfortable with intimacy, etc. (I know he has issues with giving up the repair work, but they don’t seem terribly agonizing -- the “how do I do it?” seems to bother him more than the “can I do it?”)

- Jack as cold, hard killer. Those brown eyes harden and it’s time for someone to die…

Those are the first three. The fourth principal mode, though, is what got me thinking about this in the first place. It is:

- Jack as juvenile.

Here are three scenes from the books that have really stuck out for me:

In Hosts, when Jack is with the reporter and witnesses a mugger fleeing a crime scene on a bicycle, he causes the mugger to crash his bike, and Jack proceeds to let loose with a very weird rant.

In Legacies, Jack prevents thieves from stealing Julio's car by means of that bizarre trick with the fake eyeball. I know that that scene is among some readers' favorite RJ moments, but it struck me as the kind of cringe-inducing, "neato!" fantasy a skinny 13-year old would have for dealing with the school bullies. I realize there are not many ways for one trained fighter to take down three men whose level of training is unknown, and that Jack’s trick in this scene might qualify as brilliant and embodying everything we love about him, etc. -- but there’s still… something about it that strikes me as characterological rather than tactical.

In The Haunted Air, after dispatching the big thug via a fork to the brain, Jack says something to his client along the lines of "Thought I was just a cute character, huh?!" This seems, frankly, somewhat insecure -- the client hadn’t heretofore behaved in a way suggesting he didn't respect Jack or think he was a serious dude. And even if he had, it’s noteworthy that Jack would cared enough to set someone’s view of him straight in this way.

Possibly another example of this is when he baits the three-card monte dealers in [?], and nearly gets killed by them. I’m not sure about that one, so I’m not including it.

* * *

Now, to get the obvious out of the way, all of the above are a testimony to FPW’s artistry: He’s given us a complicated, three-dimensional character who ultimately cannot be “understood” any more than any real person can be understood.

Nonetheless, I find in interesting to (try to) ponder that final category, "Jack as juvenile." It makes me realize that, in fiction as in life, it can be easy to want to pin down who a person “really” is. In the case of RJ, my inclination is to think that “Jack as cold/hard killer” is somehow more the real Jack than “Jack as juvenile.” (In the same way, say, that “Jack as cold hard killer” is more real than the flamboyant homosexual character he pretends to be in Crisscross -- and there the distinction is indeed accurate).

But he’s not, is he?

I find that fascinating, not only because it makes Jack more interesting, complex, etc., but also because it shows him to be more fractured, precarious, and tentative -- both to us (as a fictional character) and to himself (as an identity).

What I trace this too, or at least would like to trace it to, since it’s so poignant, is his mother’s death -- though it would of course also have to do with his innate temperament. He’s a guy who, filled with rage and pain, forcibly quitted adolescence, and is still somewhat uintegrated and unstable. The fact that there is something suicidal at the core of what he does is another aspect of this.

* * *

I think this is all terrific stuff. Perhaps the one thing that strikes me as being a bit weak is the “Jack as perfect boyfriend/husband/father” mode. It seems exceedingly unrealistic that a person like Jack would not have pretty serious problems to overcome in a committed relationship. I realize that what we have here in not an average guy -- we have a person so unusual as to be unique in all history -- so one could certainly argue that Jack simply has a staggering ability to compartmentalize and that he is able to focus all his love/stability/maturity/hope etc. on his relationship with Gia and the squirt (not to mention using his relationship with them to create the happy family he never had) -- and I guess that's fine. A bit of a stretch (to me), but not enough to constitute a major weakness.

-Oss

An excellent, thought-provoking post, Oss. You bring up points I'd never considered. My own take on Jack is this: he stopped being "sane" when he took revenge for his mother's death. Killing another person is at the top of the list of human taboos. (I'd guess killing an adult is right behind killing a child among the things you DON'T DO.) Not to say he wasn't justified, or you and I wouldn't have done the same thing if we had Jack's cullions. Sometimes murder (and that's what it was) is necessary. But it changes you. You realize in a truly visceral way that we're not the way we like to think we are: immortal. A little force applied, and we're dog food. And we all know that in an abstract way. Jack KNOWS it. But I like to think he's a truly good man struggling with an awful burden. Which will only get heavier as we countdown towards NIGHTWORLD.

Dang Dave...I don't even get a signed hardcover edition of Infernal?
Yes Mike, it is indeed a Heinlein quote. I agree...killing another human is definitely the biggest taboo in our society, and when Jack killed the kid, I think in some ways he stopped progressing. It would explain alot of his behavior, and his view of life. What 17 year old doesn't dream about not paying taxes or taking on any of the responsibility that is inherent (sp?) in our society?

My own take on Jack is this: he stopped being "sane" when he took revenge for his mother's death. Killing another person is at the top of the list of human taboos. (I'd guess killing an adult is right behind killing a child among the things you DON'T DO.) Not to say he wasn't justified, or you and I wouldn't have done the same thing if we had Jack's cullions. Sometimes murder (and that's what it was) is necessary. But it changes you. You realize in a truly visceral way that we're not the way we like to think we are: immortal. A little force applied, and we're dog food.

Hooray, Tempest! Hooray, Mike! Awesome posts, cutting to the quick of natural morality / profound psychology. (Not terms in which I tend to think.) Yeah, I'm afraid my imagination failed me (or my shallowness betrayed me) -- it didn't occur to me that when you kill someone, it's said to be one of the, er, bigger events in your life. I was focusing more on his mom dying.

RJ BOOKS ARE GOOD!

-oss

I think this is all terrific stuff. Perhaps the one thing that strikes me as being a bit weak is the “Jack as perfect boyfriend/husband/father” mode. It seems exceedingly unrealistic that a person like Jack would not have pretty serious problems to overcome in a committed relationship. I realize that what we have here in not an average guy -- we have a person so unusual as to be unique in all history -- so one could certainly argue that Jack simply has a staggering ability to compartmentalize and that he is able to focus all his love/stability/maturity/hope etc. on his relationship with Gia and the squirt (not to mention using his relationship with them to create the happy family he never had) -- and I guess that's fine. A bit of a stretch (to me), but not enough to constitute a major weakness.

-Oss

I don't think there's much need for Jack to compartmentalize anything when it comes to Gia and Vicky, because he doesn't feel those violent tendencies towards them in the first place (unless he's on certain aggressive drugs, of course, and even then he was able to control himself long enough to get himself away from them). I think it makes perfect sense in the context of his character that Jack is such a great boyfriend/father figure. Jack's path towards violence started because of his devastation at losing his mother, showing right off the importance he places on the wellbeing of those he loves. It's because Jack knows what family means that he is as violent and loving as he is, depending on the situation.

I don't find the concept of Jack's now gentle, now violent modes coexisting that much of a stretch when you consider the idea that sometimes it's the stoniest, most hardhearted killers who have the strongest family or personal ties, and show the most loyalty and protectiveness because they truly understand and appreciate their significance. Take the sworn brotherhoods of people in the Mafia, for example, or the close relationships that develop within members of an army. Everyone finds some form of stability in times of distress, and for Jack to express his gentle side with a caring, understanding woman and her lively child couldn't be more natural.

By the way, why doesn't Jack give high fives if he gives handshakes? They seem like something that would suit his character.

I don't think there's much need for Jack to compartmentalize anything when it comes to Gia and Vicky, because he doesn't feel those violent tendencies towards them in the first place (unless he's on certain aggressive drugs, of course, and even then he was able to control himself long enough to get himself away from them). I think it makes perfect sense in the context of his character that Jack is such a great boyfriend/father figure. Jack's path towards violence started because of his devastation at losing his mother, showing right off the importance he places on the wellbeing of those he loves. It's because Jack knows what family means that he is as violent and loving as he is, depending on the situation.

I don't find the concept of Jack's now gentle, now violent modes coexisting that much of a stretch when you consider the idea that sometimes it's the stoniest, most hardhearted killers who have the strongest family or personal ties, and show the most loyalty and protectiveness because they truly understand and appreciate their significance. Take the sworn brotherhoods of people in the Mafia, for example, or the close relationships that develop within members of an army. Everyone finds some form of stability in times of distress, and for Jack to express his gentle side with a caring, understanding woman and her lively child couldn't be more natural.

By the way, why doesn't Jack give high fives if he gives handshakes? They seem like something that would suit his character.

I don't have THE HAUNTED AIR with me, Xiao, but doesn't Jack give Charlie a high-5 at one point?

I don't have THE HAUNTED AIR with me, Xiao, but doesn't Jack give Charlie a high-5 at one point?

I think Charlie wanted to high five, but Jack was not into it.

I don't think there's much need for Jack to compartmentalize anything when it comes to Gia and Vicky, because he doesn't feel those violent tendencies towards them in the first place (unless he's on certain aggressive drugs, of course, and even then he was able to control himself long enough to get himself away from them). I think it makes perfect sense in the context of his character that Jack is such a great boyfriend/father figure. Jack's path towards violence started because of his devastation at losing his mother, showing right off the importance he places on the wellbeing of those he loves. It's because Jack knows what family means that he is as violent and loving as he is, depending on the situation.

I don't find the concept of Jack's now gentle, now violent modes coexisting that much of a stretch when you consider the idea that sometimes it's the stoniest, most hardhearted killers who have the strongest family or personal ties, and show the most loyalty and protectiveness because they truly understand and appreciate their significance. Take the sworn brotherhoods of people in the Mafia, for example, or the close relationships that develop within members of an army. Everyone finds some form of stability in times of distress, and for Jack to express his gentle side with a caring, understanding woman and her lively child couldn't be more natural.

By the way, why doesn't Jack give high fives if he gives handshakes? They seem like something that would suit his character.

High five is kind of a goofy thing, I think. I hate it, myself, when people hold up their hand for a high five. I feel like they are just assuming that I'm going to jump at a chance to be part of something. I don't like to play along with the little game. Another thing that bugs me, a little, is the fist bump. I just don't get it. What's worse is people who expect you to play along just because. Because why? I don't know. Exactly. Yeah.

Shaking hands with someone is a good way to greet or show appreciation to someone that you repsect, like, or appreciate. I don't shake hands with people I don't like. I don't mind leaving them hanging. If I respect or appreciate someone, I'll gladly shake hands. It's a little more traditional, and a lot less goofy than a high five.