![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
All About Pepper: some thoughts
More Civil War triggered thoughts, this time about someone who isn't in it (with a good reason), Pepper Potts. Because the explanation for her absence reminded me of a couple of things, and made some thoughts about Pepper and her characterisation in the movies versus fanon come together.
So, Pepper, when she shows up in fanfiction, or is talked about tends to be described with the default label often used for female characters in male heavy narrative, "awesome woman being awesome". "Awesome" usually being equated with social concerns as well as with general competence. I remember some stories exploring how the Extremis experience was for her after Iron Man 3 (which was what I was looking for to read at the time), but I don't think I've come across exploring something which the current Tony/Pepper breakup and the reason Tony gives for it when Steve asks (that he went back to superheroeing post IM3 and realised he couldn't give it up) reminded me of, which is a, to me, hugely important for Pepper's characterisation exchange between Pepper and Tony in Iron Man I. It comes when Pepper, upon realising Tony is set on a new crimefighting career, says she's leaving. Then we get this, somewhat paraphrasing because I don't have time to look up the exact wording:
Tony: All these years as an arms dealer you stood by me, and this is where you draw the line? Now that I'm trying to make up for the destruction?
Pepper: You're going to kill yourself. And I can't watch that.
What I'm trying to get at here: Pepper signed on for a job with Stark Industries when its primarily source of income was manufacturing and selling arms, and worked so well for it that even villainous Obediah Stane, not a sentimental guy, regrets the prospec t of killing her once she figures out the truth about him. If Tony was "The Merchant of Death", as the press called him, she surely was Death's Accountant. Throughout all existing movies, there is no indication this bothered her in the slightest. She goes from extremely competent personal assistant to extremely competent CEO, and after Tony stops the arms production line, it's her idea to put clean energy at the centre of SI instead (at least that's how I interpret the dialogue references in Avengers). This makes sense consisting Tony's recent inventions (or improvements on Howard's and Vanko's inventions, if you want to get technical) re: arc reactor. But if Tony hadn't had his epiphany in Afghanistan, Stark Industries had continued as it was and Tony had still made Pepper CEO, would Pepper have changed the focus that way, once she had the power? Maybe, but movie canon has given us no reason to assume that.
Don't get me wrong: I don't mean Pepper doesn't have her own ideas or standards. On the contrary. And I don't think she misses the arms trade. But there's no indication anywhere she sees "saving the world" (however you define that) as a worthwhile cause or wouldn't be equally as satisfied being the competent CEO of a company that, say, manufactures bubblegum. What the Extremis experience seems to have left her with was a very clear idea of what she doesn't want for her own life. As for Tony's life: an argument can be made that the early classification of superheroing as an expression of Tony's self destructive streak doesn't really change in Pepper's mind. And you can see where she's coming from: in IM2, being Iron Man is literally poisoning him and he knows it and does it anyway, in Avengers, he nearly ended up dead by nuke in space in order to save the day, in IM3, he gives a top terrorist (he thinks) his home address issuing a challenge and nearly gets them all blown up as a result. And then he creates (well, co-creates, but it was his idea) an AI whose idea of saving the world is to kill every human on it.
Still, Pepper able to live with and support Tony Stark, Profiteer Of Death, but not with Tony Stark, Self Destructive Superhero, says something interesting that I don't believe has been explored yet, or really faced yet. (Though I recall at least one great ensemble story by Lettered, "Let's do the time warp again", in which Pepper says to Bruce something along the lines of how she doesn't care about the world: she cares about Tony.) Possibly because it's not how much of fandom's idea of how a strong female character should be (if she's not a supervillain) goes. (Incidentally, yes, of course there are a lot of good reasons not to have a romantic relationship with Tony Stark, or to end one, without even touching on whether he's currently busy saving or destroying the world, but if Tony isn't misrepresenting things to Steve, and the way the scene plays doesn't make it look that way, those weren't the ones for Pepper (at least temporarily) breaking up with him.)
Pepper is far more socially competent than Tony; she pays attention to people, whether or not they're interesting to her, and takes care not to alienate them (unless they're Christine Everhart). (She'd never been such a good P.A. otherwise.) And she doesn't have either a god or a guilt complex. But I think an argument can be made that she doesn't really care about people, either, let alone issues; she cares about a few individuals, and that's it. Heretical thought: the closest female character we've seen to MCU Pepper Potts is Wilson Fisk's beloved Vanessa in Daredevil, i.e. a villain. (In a way Jeri Hogarth in Jessica Jones, too, but here their attitudes towards exes is a key difference. I don't think Pepper would ever fight a nasty divorce battle about money.)
Usually prioritizing a man above a cause/ethics is seen as a sign of weakness in a female character (but not in a male one, though whether or not Steve does that in Civil War is the type of thing fandom fights over for the rest of time), which is possibly why Fanon Pepper rarely is written that way. But the underlying assumption to this idea of weakness is that the female character in question gives up her own standards/ideals in favour of her love for a man, or for the man's ideas. And this specifically isn't the case with Pepper and Tony. A I said: Pepper was fine with the arms manufacturing and trading. It's Tony turning the destructiveness against himself that she can't stand, nor does she see possible saved lives of strangers as a justification for this. And when it becomes clear that he won't be able to stay away from this behavior for more than short breaks, she draws the consequence and gets out, at least for now.
Cooly competent business woman Pepper who doesn't really care whether she's making her living in the weapons or the energy industry isn't a character as sympathetic as Pepper being nice to Bruce or rolling her eyes together with Natasha at the guys' posturing, or the generic Awesome Lady Being Awesome that shows up now and then, but it's a side of the character I would be interested in reading about.
On another note, here is a Rolling Stone profile of Chris Evans, in which Steve's actor has this to say about the central conflict of Civil War:
" It's a nice role reversal," says Evans. "You have a company man like Steve who always believed in the hierarchy of the military, but in the last couple of movies has seen the people he was loyal to misuse their power. Whereas Tony, who's always danced to the beat of his own drum, is feeling guilt for the collateral damage they've left. But that's why I like this movie: There's no clear villain in terms of right and wrong. And the truth is, I actually think Tony is right. To see Steve prioritize himself over what other people need is selfish. That's what makes it interesting."
So, Pepper, when she shows up in fanfiction, or is talked about tends to be described with the default label often used for female characters in male heavy narrative, "awesome woman being awesome". "Awesome" usually being equated with social concerns as well as with general competence. I remember some stories exploring how the Extremis experience was for her after Iron Man 3 (which was what I was looking for to read at the time), but I don't think I've come across exploring something which the current Tony/Pepper breakup and the reason Tony gives for it when Steve asks (that he went back to superheroeing post IM3 and realised he couldn't give it up) reminded me of, which is a, to me, hugely important for Pepper's characterisation exchange between Pepper and Tony in Iron Man I. It comes when Pepper, upon realising Tony is set on a new crimefighting career, says she's leaving. Then we get this, somewhat paraphrasing because I don't have time to look up the exact wording:
Tony: All these years as an arms dealer you stood by me, and this is where you draw the line? Now that I'm trying to make up for the destruction?
Pepper: You're going to kill yourself. And I can't watch that.
What I'm trying to get at here: Pepper signed on for a job with Stark Industries when its primarily source of income was manufacturing and selling arms, and worked so well for it that even villainous Obediah Stane, not a sentimental guy, regrets the prospec t of killing her once she figures out the truth about him. If Tony was "The Merchant of Death", as the press called him, she surely was Death's Accountant. Throughout all existing movies, there is no indication this bothered her in the slightest. She goes from extremely competent personal assistant to extremely competent CEO, and after Tony stops the arms production line, it's her idea to put clean energy at the centre of SI instead (at least that's how I interpret the dialogue references in Avengers). This makes sense consisting Tony's recent inventions (or improvements on Howard's and Vanko's inventions, if you want to get technical) re: arc reactor. But if Tony hadn't had his epiphany in Afghanistan, Stark Industries had continued as it was and Tony had still made Pepper CEO, would Pepper have changed the focus that way, once she had the power? Maybe, but movie canon has given us no reason to assume that.
Don't get me wrong: I don't mean Pepper doesn't have her own ideas or standards. On the contrary. And I don't think she misses the arms trade. But there's no indication anywhere she sees "saving the world" (however you define that) as a worthwhile cause or wouldn't be equally as satisfied being the competent CEO of a company that, say, manufactures bubblegum. What the Extremis experience seems to have left her with was a very clear idea of what she doesn't want for her own life. As for Tony's life: an argument can be made that the early classification of superheroing as an expression of Tony's self destructive streak doesn't really change in Pepper's mind. And you can see where she's coming from: in IM2, being Iron Man is literally poisoning him and he knows it and does it anyway, in Avengers, he nearly ended up dead by nuke in space in order to save the day, in IM3, he gives a top terrorist (he thinks) his home address issuing a challenge and nearly gets them all blown up as a result. And then he creates (well, co-creates, but it was his idea) an AI whose idea of saving the world is to kill every human on it.
Still, Pepper able to live with and support Tony Stark, Profiteer Of Death, but not with Tony Stark, Self Destructive Superhero, says something interesting that I don't believe has been explored yet, or really faced yet. (Though I recall at least one great ensemble story by Lettered, "Let's do the time warp again", in which Pepper says to Bruce something along the lines of how she doesn't care about the world: she cares about Tony.) Possibly because it's not how much of fandom's idea of how a strong female character should be (if she's not a supervillain) goes. (Incidentally, yes, of course there are a lot of good reasons not to have a romantic relationship with Tony Stark, or to end one, without even touching on whether he's currently busy saving or destroying the world, but if Tony isn't misrepresenting things to Steve, and the way the scene plays doesn't make it look that way, those weren't the ones for Pepper (at least temporarily) breaking up with him.)
Pepper is far more socially competent than Tony; she pays attention to people, whether or not they're interesting to her, and takes care not to alienate them (unless they're Christine Everhart). (She'd never been such a good P.A. otherwise.) And she doesn't have either a god or a guilt complex. But I think an argument can be made that she doesn't really care about people, either, let alone issues; she cares about a few individuals, and that's it. Heretical thought: the closest female character we've seen to MCU Pepper Potts is Wilson Fisk's beloved Vanessa in Daredevil, i.e. a villain. (In a way Jeri Hogarth in Jessica Jones, too, but here their attitudes towards exes is a key difference. I don't think Pepper would ever fight a nasty divorce battle about money.)
Usually prioritizing a man above a cause/ethics is seen as a sign of weakness in a female character (but not in a male one, though whether or not Steve does that in Civil War is the type of thing fandom fights over for the rest of time), which is possibly why Fanon Pepper rarely is written that way. But the underlying assumption to this idea of weakness is that the female character in question gives up her own standards/ideals in favour of her love for a man, or for the man's ideas. And this specifically isn't the case with Pepper and Tony. A I said: Pepper was fine with the arms manufacturing and trading. It's Tony turning the destructiveness against himself that she can't stand, nor does she see possible saved lives of strangers as a justification for this. And when it becomes clear that he won't be able to stay away from this behavior for more than short breaks, she draws the consequence and gets out, at least for now.
Cooly competent business woman Pepper who doesn't really care whether she's making her living in the weapons or the energy industry isn't a character as sympathetic as Pepper being nice to Bruce or rolling her eyes together with Natasha at the guys' posturing, or the generic Awesome Lady Being Awesome that shows up now and then, but it's a side of the character I would be interested in reading about.
On another note, here is a Rolling Stone profile of Chris Evans, in which Steve's actor has this to say about the central conflict of Civil War:
" It's a nice role reversal," says Evans. "You have a company man like Steve who always believed in the hierarchy of the military, but in the last couple of movies has seen the people he was loyal to misuse their power. Whereas Tony, who's always danced to the beat of his own drum, is feeling guilt for the collateral damage they've left. But that's why I like this movie: There's no clear villain in terms of right and wrong. And the truth is, I actually think Tony is right. To see Steve prioritize himself over what other people need is selfish. That's what makes it interesting."
no subject
She's also very into nice clothes and shoes, past what she needs for presentation for her job, and was the one who was doing the art collecting in both movies, even if that was "for Tony" (who clearly didn't care).
I'm not completely convinced that Pepper thinks the nature of the original business was wrong though. I don't know if she'd put a lot of thought into it, but she could just be fine with it too. However, the narrative wants us to think it's wrong (and I personally agree, but I'm rather to the left of... everyone in the US arms business, probably), Tony does too, so I suppose that's the narratively approved option. The IM movies weren't exactly strong on people who thought differently than Our Hero having a valid outlook.
Though it just occurred to me that RHODEY is never seen as being in the wrong either, and he's actually in the military, and certainly didn't have trouble with Tony making weapons for him. He was Tony's liaison back in the day, and expresses very similar doubts about Tony's new career.
no subject
Why "though"? I argued that she doesn't think that at all.
re: Rhodey, not only didn't he have trouble with Tony manufacturing weapons, he seems to have felt Tony was letting the side down when Tony stopped in IM1. Which brings me to:
The IM movies weren't exactly strong on people who thought differently than Our Hero having a valid outlook.
Well, there are some, in addition to Tony being meant to be in the wrong as an active arms dealer at the very start of the movie. I would say the narrative is with Rhodey in his "you don't respect me or yourself" speech re: Tony's behavior at the Vegas event, it's again with Rhodey in IM2 re: Tony's behavior there, and Nick Fury comes across as speaking with authorial voice re: Howard (my reason for believing we're supposed to take Nick's impression of Howard over Tony's is that the movie immediately validates Nick's by letting Tony find that old movie with a post mortem message to himself and figure out that his fat, her had hidden a discovery for him in the Stark Exhibition model); later, Nick's acid assessment on Tony Stark as opposed to Iron Man at the end of the movie (or rather Natasha's assessment as recited by Nick) is also meant to be dead-on.
Now I grant you, the villains in all three IM movies are shown as being in the wrong, and one of the many reasons why IM2 is the weakest of the lot is that the comitee investigating Tony at the start is written as unsympathetic straw men (complete with one senator who later turns out to be Hydra), but critique of Tony's behavior coming from non-villains is usually always validated.
Anyway, going back to Rhodey, he also gets the last but one word in Civil War (other than Steve's voice over letter and of course the post credit scenes), so one can argue that the MCU likes to use him in a "not always our hero's pov, but valid" manner.
no subject
I guess I'm just not sure, on reflection, why Pepper being fine with being Death's PA and not fine with Tony's self-obsessed superhero endeavours (or at least with Tony apparently trying to kill himself with them) makes Pepper morally ambiguous or even amoral. She may not have considered it, but she just as easily could have thought about it and decided it was fine, as Rhodey did (one assumes, since he's in the actual military).
I would say that Nick's assessment and Rhodey's general annoyance with Tony are meant to be correct in the facts, but sort of against the spirit of the movies and often written off in something of a boys will be boys tone. Natasha thinks Tony's too unstable and self-centred to be an Avenger, and rolls her eyes at him overriding the comms with rock music, but Nick goes out of his way to put him on the team, and Tony gets the big hero moment at the end of Avengers, proving his isn't as selfish as Steve thinks. Tony is not always meant to change, and the idea that he should is there but often written of as a joke that he knows what people think, but doesn't care.
no subject
None of which means he isn't still self centred. Or still prone to ignore good advice. But he's become more aware of other people and their needs, and that's at least partly to all the interaction with and criticism by the other characters.
guess I'm just not sure, on reflection, why Pepper being fine with being Death's PA and not fine with Tony's self-obsessed superhero endeavours (or at least with Tony apparently trying to kill himself with them) makes Pepper morally ambiguous or even amoral
See above, and the other comment, re: amoral being the wrong word, I admit. More hardcore pragmatic. But I think there is a certain moral ambiguity. Rhodey as part of the army of course believes in the use of weapons (and hence also in the justification of creating them, as long as they're supplied to the military). (BTW, beyond Rhodey staying in the army through the IM movies - I wonder whether he's still in the army as an Avenger, i.e. between AoU and CW? There's no sign to the contrary, at least, but you'd think that would be an additional argument for the Sokovian Accords demanding countries to use, because if an active member of the US army is part of this outfit, it's hard not to classify the Avengers as irregular US military?). So it makes character sense that when Tony in IM1 quites arms manufacturing, Rhodey first tries to talk him out of it.
But Pepper doesn't do that. Now this could be because Tony is her boss (and he's not Rhodey's), but she isn't shy about giving him her opinion on other matters she disagrees with. Which leaves me with the impression that Pepper doesn't really have an opinion on the arms trade per se, not because she hasn't thought about it - Pepper is a smart woman, and the reporter scene early in IM1 where Christine Everhard throws that "merchant of death" phrase at Tony certainly can't have been the first time, so I bet Pepper who is often with him on such occasions heard that a lot - but because whether or not the company she works for manufactures weapons or, I don't know, tractor parts isn't something that is important to her. Whereas Tony in her eyes practising self destruction via superheroing is. (I don't think the self obsessed part matters, because he was that as an arms dealer, too.)
no subject
I think pragmatic is a better word. But I do still wonder if the fact that Pepper has no problem with the arms industry is because she thinks it's fine. We don't get any word on this either way (which in itself probably supports your theory), but in the US, making weapons is often... less charged than non-Americans think of it as being. For Pepper, it could well be a more or less ethical proposition, and even one of service.
It's been a while, but I think one of her main problems with Tony's new vocation is that it brings violence into her life. The first thing that happens pretty much is that Stane tries to kill her, and she's almost in an Arc Reactor explosion. Then next movie, Tony gets in a fight at the race track, pretty near her, then she pairs up with Natasha and flinches back when Natasha starts hitting people. The line at the end of IM3, played for laughs but still, is, "Oh my god... that was really violent." And she leaves Tony, or goes on break, when his suit attacks her. I do wonder how much of it is not wanting Tony to get hurt, and how much is her worries about her personal safety.
Which is a more interesting to have a women who is completely fine with making and selling weapons, and strongly adverse to people using them near her.