Dallas: What It Had And What It Lost

[Kenny Coyote]

Ok, @Kenny Coyote, these are some interesting points.
The hero having to be present to fight the villian makes sense. If the hero doesn't do anything, what good is he or she? I think it also depends on the goal or "quest" of the hero. Getting to see Lucy was her quest and she succeeded in that. It took her several years, but in addition to being poor and alone, it's important to remember how young Valene was when she had Lucy. I believe 15 or 16. She was a poor kid on her own up against the
Ewijg money and influence. Not easy.
If Valene's quest was to get Lucy away from the Ewings, well she failed at that, but it's debatable if that was her quest. JR called her out in this when he visited Knots Landing. He told her she can't blame him for her relationship with Lucy because she could visit Lucy any time she wanted and vice versa.
I still believe a hero is one who holds onto their core values when it would be easy to give in to the wickedness and cynicism of the world, which Valene always did.
This brings me to your point about being cutthroat in the oil business. I agree with that, but how cutthroat one has to become is debatable. It can be a rough game and one can play rough, but do they have to lose their core values? Maybe, but there are two philosophers whose ideas relate to this, imho: Hannah Atendt and Jean-Paul Sartre.
I'm sure your familiar with the phrase Arendt coined, :the banality of evil." Evil becomes an everyday thing, so it's accepted and not thought about too much. However, is it any less evil just because it has become a mundane part of life? Are we all subject to the "banality of evil"? For example, if I became an oil baron would I engage in corrupt practices such as blackmail and exploiting workers to the point where it became just part of the job and I never gave it much thought? I'd like to think I wouldn't, but if I was born into the same circumstances as Bobby and JR, I very well might.
Sartre brought up the idea of "bad faith." My understanding of it is people justify unethical or immoral behavior by saying, "it was the times," or "it was the culture" so no one really thought it was evil. Is this true or are people of that time period or culture just kidding themselves and deep down they know what they're doing is wrong?
My point is that if someone in such a situation takes an honest look at themselves and decides, despite the pressure to maintain their code of ethics, they are a hero. I could be completely naive in thinking that's possible in the oil business or politics, but I would like to believe somebody could do it.
Here's a thought: Aristotle said a classic tragic character must, among other things, be basically good but have gone wrong and have sone admirable qualities, even when they go down the dark path. They also have a fatal flaw. JR did many evil things, but he had admirable qualities: tenacity, the ability to take command of a situation, quick wit. Maybe he and several other characters aren't just villains, but have some elements of the tragic. I'm not saying they are all 100% classic tragic characters, but some aspects. JR was pretty much told by both parents that he was not their favorite. That has to be scarring for a little kid to hear. Returning to Atendt, would anyone be just as bad as JR if their parents sent them the same message?
Just throwing this out there because of the definitions you and I have for what constitutes a "villian," a "bad guy," and a"hero."

Good post Jimmy! I especially like the quotes from philosophers. I love a post with intellectual substance.

I have to congratulate on making a case for who is the hero of Dallas: Of everyone who thinks that JR was a villain, you're the only one so far who I have seen be able to answer the question who then, is the hero of Dallas?

I think we agree more than we disagree. We agree that while JR had charm, wit and other likable characteristics and redeeming qualities such as love and respect for his parents and remaining calm in high-pressure situations, JR also did many things which cannot be justified.

As for how cutthroat one has to become to not just survive but flourish in the oil industry Dallas depicts, Id' say pretty damn cutthroat. That's the way it appeared to me. It appeared that if a man didn't become very hard and aggressive, he wouldn't stand a chance against his competitors who had. I never bought into the notion that Bobby's personality and his values changed during the contest, and that he became a worse man. I think he became what he had to become and i don't see how anyone can blame him for becoming what he had to become. He adapted. It's a lot like Darwin's theory of evolution; it's survival of the fittest. It's not survive of the nicest or the most fair. Those who are not the fittest become extinct. You can hardly fault one for not wanting to become extinct.

When Bobby was at home he looked like the same old Bobby to me. I always saw Bobby treat his wife and son extremely well. Pam remarried him - so there must be something to that.

Do you remember seeing evidence of Bobby treating Pam and Christopher poorly during the time when he was what some called "the new Bobby"? I just never saw "a new Bobby" other than what I've already described pertaining to what he did professionally. I never saw him act any differently in his personal life. Aside from the way he had to be in his professional life, I thought "the new Bobby" was a myth.

Again, you backed up that argument you were defending far better than I've seen anyone else do it. We don't have to change each other's minds. The debate is an end in itself - the exchange of ideas and the challenge of making the best possible case for one's argument is something I find very enjoyable.

I know it's not for everyone. I've seen, and I'm talking abut the internet in general - not this forum necessarily - that not everyone has the constitution for a debate. So many times I've seen people become so shaken, they become insecure and afraid they're losing the argument and they get desperate enough that they initiate the use of personal attacks.

REALITY CHECK: We're using screen names, at least most of us are, so even if I, or Jimmy or someone else one day makes a silly mistake while debating, who cares, especially when we're using these screen names that give us anonymity? As human beings, we are all very fallible. Only God is not fallible. So when I do something I realize was not my best effort, that's a very human thing to do. The fun is in trying to do your best and enjoying the exchange of ideas!

If someone were to somehow "prove" my favorite Dallas character is a worse person than I thought, it wouldn't change my life by one iota. I hope I never become so emotionally invested in a fictional character that I just cannot stand to face the realization that he's not or she's not what I thought. The day that ever happens to me, is the day I quit watching Dallas and anything similar to it.

They're fictional characters! They don't exist! They never did exist. They're the product of someone's imagination and at the push of a pen, your favorite character could have been changed into a spoiled, petulant, little brat you absolutely cannot stand. That's all it would have ever taken. The push of a pen. Keep that in mind.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

Your comments about civil debate, keeping things in perspective, and not being afraid to be wrong could be an entire thread themselves. I can't tell you how many people I've met much younger than me who share your view. Just yesterday I was speaking to someone at the gym who was saying how few people
he knows can have a debate without getting their feelings hurt if you don't agree with them. I don't know why this has become more prevalent, but it's a shame. Debating people with whom you don't agree and being wrong are great ways to grow and learn. They, like this forum, can also be great fun.
Back to the so called Bobby, he never really did anything that season or after that was so terrible besides the George Hicks thing. I blame JR for not that situation more than Bobby. I'm not saying Bobby was behaving entirely ethical, but Pam overreacted a bit. I'll put Pam's reaction down to stress. She recently adopted a baby, a good thing, but a major life change, her brother attempted suicide, and her mother died.
So to answer your question, no, I never saw Bobby radically change. He was always the same. For example, he won the contest and could have kept Ewing Oil for himself as JR planned to do. Yet, he decided to share it. That's in keeping with his character.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Back to the so called Bobby, he never really did anything that season or after that was so terrible besides the George Hicks thing. I blame JR for not that situation more than Bobby. I'm not saying Bobby was behaving entirely ethical, but Pam overreacted a bit.

Bobby takes a lot of flack for the George Hicks incident, but think of what would have likely happened had Bobby done nothing, just let it slide. Then Hicks keeps voting to ensure JR keeps his variance. JR can supply all his gas stations and add who knows how many extra ones. The variance had been called JR's big edge over Bobby. With the amount of extra profit JR would have made by being able to keep his variance, it's very likely that even having the Canadian deal come through on time wouldn't have been enough. Jr wins the contest. Does anyone think JR would have done what Bobby did and share the company after winning it? So then we have a situation where JR is running Ewing Oil with complete autonomy. Imagine the harmful things JR could have done without Bobby there to temper that element of him.

I have to think if you weigh the bad JR could have done with complete autonomy, it would have far outweighed the bad of Bobby blackmailing Hicks. So you might look at it as Bobby was just being proactive and doing what would ultimately cause the least amount of overall harm done by Ewing Oil. I also think Bobby wanted his father's company to keep a reputation of integrity and he couldn't trust JR with complete autonomy to keep his father's company's image in good standing.

Bobby was doing what was necessary to accomplish those goals, unless of course you can think of a way he could have accomplished what he did by blackmailing Hicks in a different way that didn't involve anything dirty such as blackmail or bribery. Here we are, over 36 years after that happened and although I have debated that exact subject before, I've never had a single person come up with a better way of achieving what he did - getting the board to vote honestly on the variance. Not one. Thirty six years is a long time to have to think up a better solution for Bobby. The majority outright pretended they didn't see the question. Would it hurt their egos so badly to say, "All this time I've criticized Bobby over blackmailing Hicks and sided with Pam, I've never been able to come up with a better solution for Bobby to achieve the same thing by ethical means"? I'll admit it right now. I can't think of a way Bobby could have handled that ethically while still achieving the result of getting the board to vote impartially on JR's variance. That didn't hurt a bit.

I've never ran from a question in a debate. I've said "I don't know" and I've sometimes given answers that I no longer agree with today, but I've never ran from a question. That would defeat the whole point of the debate - to test yourself and your beliefs against opposition and find out what happens. It's a growing process. Im a big believer in personal growth but a lot of people don't want to do it because in the process of personal growth we're going to make mistakes and out in the real world where we're doing things with real consequences, those mistakes are often painful. Everybody wants the benefits of personal growth but not everybody is willing to pay the price required to achieve it.

 

[J. R.'s Piece]

How about Valene?

You described Valene as the most heroic person in Dallas history. When did Valene ask Miss Ellie, or better yet, demand Miss Ellie give Lucy back to her? You say Valene never gave up. We never once saw Valene even try to get Miss Ellie to give Lucy back to her. As Miss Ellie was raising Lucy, she had possession of Lucy more often than anyone else. She would have been the one for Valene to confronted demand Lucy be returned.

So, in that scenario, you're right in that Valene "never gave up", but only because one first as to make the attempt in order to be able to give up. One cannot give up doing what he or she has never done! However, never even making the attempt hardly makes one heroic.

Valene attempted to get Lucy back legally. Lucy mentions that she heard this to Pam in the very first episode of Dallas. Valene and Gary also confirm to Sid and Karen Fairgate in episode 7 of Knots Landing that Valene tried to get Lucy back but the law sided with Gary’s family.