Reductio Ad Absurdum Armitage: TAE Word for the Day

Standard

Sir Guy, once more being bested by his enemies. He still looks hot, though.

Gosh, I feel practically highbrow with these latest words–not in Dr. Servetus’s territory, but drifting in that direction.

reductio ad absurdum: (noun) Demonstration of the falsity of a premise by showing an absurdity to which it would logically lead.

The first assocation I made with Richard Armitage and his characters and today’s word: Guy of Gisborne. Guy is the sheriff’s master-at-arms. He is a trained knight, experienced in weaponry, tall, broad-shouldered and very fit *squee!* And yet he is constantly getting whupped by a woman more than half a foot shorter than he and a weedy-looking Justin Beiber look-alike.

I find it a reductio ad absurdum that a vile creature like the sheriff would have kept Guy in his office– that he would have been promoted to that office by Vasey–if Gisborne were as much of an numpty as he was presented to be. Perhaps the Treacherous Troll wouldn’t have killed Guy or had him killed in a fit of pique; rather, he would have kept Guy around in a more menial position so he could continue to enjoy abusing and belittling him. Vasey wan’t a sentimental type. He wouldn’t have kept Guy as his master-at-arms just because he was pretty and had a great arse.

Oh, I know, I know–it’s a child-friendly show so the baddies had to be made to look like incompetent fools. I’m just sayin’ . . .

I am sure you can think of other cases of reductio ad absurdum related to RA and his characters.

About fedoralady

I'm an LA native--Lower Alabama, that is. My husband of more than 30 years and I live here on a portion of my family's former farm with two gorgeous calicos and a handsome GSD mix. My background is art education, and over the years I've been a teacher, department store photographer, sales associate and a journalist. My husband, his business partner and I have Pecan Ridge Productions, a video production company, for which I shoot & edit video and stills and manage marketing. I also still write part-time for the local paper. I love movies, music, art, photography and books, and my tastes in all of them are eclectic.

14 responses »

  1. Great Word for the Day Angie! Yes, Guy was definitely an example of reductio ad absurdum.

    Another one I always thought a reductio ad absurdum was Lucas (I refuse to call him that other name *eek*). This is a highly trained and competent spy, one of the best in the business and Harry’s protege, who put up with eight years of torture and stayed loyal. A man who walked away from Elizaveta, the first supposed love of his life who he thought of every day while in prison, in favour of MI-5 and never mentions her again.

    Yet one King Lear quote from a woman who horrifically mangled her American accent as well as her presidents and one quick flash of a photo from years ago of a lumpen leaded woman he has never mentioned before and his sharp witted brains go to sleep and veer dangerously south of his very lovely Gnothi Seauton tattoo.

    At least Robin Hood has the ‘family friendly’ excuse. Spooks on the other hand … *shakes head*

    • Spooks seasons 7-9 are so full of “Reductio Ad Absudrum” instances, it’s incredible! I didn’t watch any of the earlier seasons but was the writing as bad in those as in the seasons featuring Lucas? In that case I’m surprised by the series’ long lifespan.

      • Judit, some of the earlier seasons had better writing, but by 5 & 6, it was getting spotty. By the time Lucas appears, well, I think they were down to halfwit hacks. I think that TPTB and the writers sabotaged the Lucas character just to see what Richard would do, the blank-blank so-&so’s.

        • I saw the first few seasons on A&E and enjoyed it, but they stopped airing the show because the ratings weren’t that great. I don’t think it helped that they edited for commercials because the plots could be convoluted enough without snippets here and there being taken out. I didn’t see it again until Richard came on board in S7.

          I do think the quality of the writing was much better earlier on. S7–well, I just loved the Lucas Richard gave us and the writing was OK.It established him as a complex character with an interesting, mysterious past. I was less enthusiastic about series 8–in large part due to the woeful miscasting of GOR as the “American” agent–and the less I say about S9, the better.

          I have thought this over quite a lot. I think there are people who are long-time, die-hard Spooks fans who were willing to suspend disbelief and love the show no matter what. And there are people like me who are die-hard RA/Lucas fans but Spooks itself–not as much. not if it totally deconstructs my favorite character in a ludicrous soap opera-ish manner. I am not saying my way of seeing things is right and others are wrong, or vice-versa. We are all entitled to our own opinion and POV/

          But I do know I would never have gone to great lengths from across the pond to see Spooks 7, 8 and 9 in a timely manner if Richard hadn’t been in it. And I have no interest whatsoever in seeing the final series. I would make more effort to see Doctor Who or Being Human, I think, but they both air here anyway.

  2. Having watched all of Spooks, except for S10, I agree with your points. When I hear RA was in it, I began to watch it from the beginning on Netflix. I enjoyed it at the beginning. I enjoyed Series 7. But the writing was getting spotty. But 8 and 9 were terrible. The inconsistency’s made very little sense. How Richard got through it without blowing his stack shows that he’s a wonderful actor and a gentleman.I still remember the quote that the actress who played Ruth made about how she admired Richard’s ability to change his whole character, and do it so well.

    • His professionalism and dedication to his role could not be faulted, IMHO. He did a great job with what he was given–but he should have been given so much better.
      Perhaps if they had kept the S7 writers in place he could have been written out of the show in a more reasonable, logical manner and in a way that explored that dark side without turning him into a psycho. I rather like the False Memory Syndrome theory–that the whole Maya-Vaughn backstory never really happened, but was implanted in his brain during his time in the prison, waiting to ultimately be triggered. I also had thought if they had brought Elizaveta back into his life–she’s gotten herself into a jam, needs help and Lucas is the only one she trusts to help her. It rekindles the flame of their relationship hut it also puts Lucas in a difficult position of having to possibly choose between Elizaveta and MI5 . . . I don’t know, there are lots of things that could have been done differently.

      • Yes, bringing Elizaveta back and False Memory Syndrome are definitely my favourite ways round the (IMHO otherwise nonsensical) s9 Dakar-Maya-Vaughn plot.

      • I agree about Elizaveta. She and Richard had great chemistry. I thought they really could have explored the whole relationship. They had her new marriage, the double spy thing and the child aspect. But we end up with blondie and the whole Maya, “lost love out of the blue” mess!

        • It made poor Lucas look like a complete fool for “love” . . . I know the man had been stuck in a Russian hellhole for eight years and was likely very lonely and starving for physical affection, but WHY would he torture himself further by falling in love with a woman whose accent could make your ears bleed, who was elitist and shallow and cold . . . and Maya. Oh, child–puhLEEZE. I never bought that relationship.

  3. I use this term a lot 🙂 I’m always surprised at what your dictionary is giving you. Gedankenexperiment the other day — I wasn’t aware that even counted as English vocab.

    • 😀 I use two different services now for the daily word in my inbox, Dictionary.com and Wordsmith. Wordsmith has really been coming up with some interesting entries of late. Today I got “plurisignification.” 😉 I find I really enjoy saying “gedankenexperiment” . . . I keep imagining Heinz saying it. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s