All Episodes Talk: Breadstix

[Cranberry]

Either Lost or Heroes, but at least people acted in character on those shows, for the most part.

[Craphole Island]

Heroes is the only show that I stopped watching because of how terrible it became. That first season was my obsession though (I still love it.)

 

I loved LOST, including the finale!

[Camera One]

I can't compare "Glee" to "Lost" at all.  For me, "Lost" had a solid 5.5 seasons.  "Glee" is slightly more akin to "Heroes", which also had a good first season.  I suffered through "Heroes" until the bitter end, but I'll have to say despite the dreck of latter-season "Glee", at least there were still some amusing moments and decent musical sequences.

[camussie]

Nah the storyline that character assassinated Finn was in S2, starting w/ The Super Bowl episode.

 

 

That was the third and worst strike but they already spent the first half of the season tearing down Finn's character and I felt, in part,  it was to try and sell Sam as the new Finn (and I will never get why we needed a new Finn at that point as original Finn ended season 1 on a high note)

 

First Strike: Duets  - Finn tries to recruit Sam to New Directions but warns him against dueting with Kurt lest it hurt Sam's rep.  Never mind in "Theatricality" Finn doffed a skin tight red shower curtain in front of the football team to defend Kurt all the sudden Finn was worried how Sam singing with Kurt  in everyday clothes in the choir room (where Karofsky and friends wouldn't be hanging out) would damage Sam's rep.  Of course Sam says he doesn't care  and then Kurt backs out anyway so he doesn't have to deal with any fall out.  I am a Finn fan but I thought Finn was a jackass to warn Sam off Kurt even as I thought "stupid writers didn't we already do this last year with Finn/Kurt."

 

 

Second Strike: Furt- Sam is willing to beat up the football players to defend Kurt and Finn isn't.  Again the writers completely ignored  Finn stepping in "Theatricality," dressed in costume no less, to defend Kurt.  The worst part of that is if they wanted to go there they had a kernel of a reason why Finn didn't want to step up that would have nicely set up his devastation over Cooter saying he reached his football ceiling in season 3.  Among the rest of the excuses there was a throwaway sentence in there about him not wanting to be sacked.  As a QB that was a legitimate concern  especially as a QB who saw football as one of the few ways he may get out of Lima.  Ticking off your offensive line is one of the quickest ways for a QB to either get injured or trash their stats so if they just had Finn say "I don't want to be sacked because it could trash any chance i have at college ball and keep me in this cow town."   Still wouldn't have been noble hat he was willing to put his possible future ahead of Kurt's safety (at least in RM's warped worldview) but more nuanced than Finn is a coward who won't stand up for Kurt while Sam is a hero and a leader.  Now to be honest I don't think Finn looked as bad in "Furt" as he did "Duets" because I simply never bought into the notion that is was any of the guys' jobs to confront Karofsky for Kurt and if they didn't they were wrong, wrong wrong.  That said the show was not subtle in telling us Finn was absolutely in the wrong while Sam was a hero and leader.  

 

Strike three: that Quinn redux mess - no defending Finn for going back to Quinn all while not forgiving Rachel and encouraging Quinn to cheat of Sam.  It as a jackass move that coincidences of all coincidences Sam came out on the better end of compared to Finn.  Strangely enough shortly after that is when they finally gave up their Sam is the new Finn push and instead made him a background player in the Brittany/Santana back and forth..  Well until season 5 when they had Will anoint him with some drumsticks.  

Edited January 16, 2015 by camussie

[jaytee1812]

Well, to me it's more like the dark, un-PC comedy of Season 1 that I miss so much, but we all have our perspectives.

It's not dark un-PC comedy, if it ever was its not now. Coupled with Bieste's storyline, and the show's ongoing misogyny, and the hero worshipping of straight white men, it looks like the worst thing this show thinks you can be is feminine, or female. And if you are a woman don't be a nice one. Only nice guys get ahead, if women wants something they have to be bitches.

No wonder this show shits all over Tina, a nice women, who's also a person of colour must be their worst nightmare.

[caracas1914]

it looks like the worst thing this show thinks you can be is feminine, or female.

 

Yup even though Blaine is pretty effeminate himself, it's amusing the show tries to portray him as a masuline gay who "passes" do that he's inmune from slurs and insults and attacks.

 

Quite telling that Kurt, Unique are bashed onscreen.  The women are all portrayed as bitches, yet the perceived masculine or straight men are above sniping or petty jealousies.

[dizzyizzy01]

And Rachel stabbed each and everyone of those people in the back somehow afterwards (well except for Quinn, unless I forgot something).

 

Rachel has not stabbed anyone in the back.  The writing for a lot of those scenarios (Santana/Kurt/FG, Tina/NYADA. Quinn/Prom) have been and sound like they will be dreadful (Rachel/Mercedse/Sam), but Rachel did not stab any of those characters in the back.

[Glorfindel]

Rachel has not stabbed anyone in the back.  The writing for a lot of those scenarios (Santana/Kurt/FG, Tina/NYADA. Quinn/Prom) have been and sound like they will be dreadful (Rachel/Mercedse/Sam), but Rachel did not stab any of those characters in the back.

Let's see: there's Rachel not wanting Santana to be her understudy, there's Rachel saying to Kurt's friend Elliot that Kurt was a traitor and had done nothing for her since they moved to New York, also Rachel not allowing Kurt to be part of her benefit concert, her fight with Mercedes in '100' and now her dating Sam behind her back.

Hmmm, I have to think about Tina..... you're right, she didn't stab Tina in the back directly, she just still felt entitled to the solo and the duet at Nationals after Tina expressed she thought it was her turn for once and helped her out with going to Carmen. But I agree the Tina one is debatable

 

It's true though that Rachel never asked for those things.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Glorfindel

[SevenStars]

It's true though that Rachel never asked for those things.

 

Yeap, the writers just have the characters hand these things to Rachel, while telling us that Rachel is such a special snowflake and more than talented then all these characters.  But at the same time the writers are showing that Rachel can’t reach her goal, her dream without someone opening the door for her and giving it to her. That while the writers are telling us that Rachel is a special snowflake that can do anything and everything unlike the other characters, they are showing us that’s not true by always having one of her friends do the work for her or at least take the first steps for her or fix things for her to reach her goals. 

 

It's not fair to Rachel or the other characters. 

[tom87]

Let's see: there's Rachel not wanting Santana to be her understudy, there's Rachel saying to Kurt's friend Elliot that he was a traitor and had done nothing for her since they moved to New York, also Rachel not allowing Kurt to be part of her benefit concert, her fight with Mercedes in '100' and now her dating Sam behind her back.

Hmmm, I have to think about Tina..... you're right, she didn't stab Tina in the back directly, she just still felt entitled to the solo and the duet at Nationals after Tina expressed her disagreement on that and helped her out with going to Carmen. But I agree this one is debatable

 

It's true though that Rachel never asked for those things.

I guess I have a different idea of what back stabbing is..

 

Rachel didn't pretend to be freind and then come along and do something to try to hurt them.  

 

Rachel never did anything behind Santana  back with the understudy she flat out told her she didn't like it. Santana did stuff behind Rachels back.  

 

Oh Kurt being a traitor he was so upset by this he gave her a big hug before she left.  I guess him calling her a slut  in season 4 was backstabbing too.  Or him just having to have diva off  to  hopefully public humiliate her so she would stop hogging the shower.  

 

The  concert made no sense but it seems Santana was pretty backstabby  too and  Mercedes didn't seem to care one way to another if we want to stretch for stuff.

 

And it takes two  to tango with the Mercedes fight that was not all Rachel so not sure how that was backstabbing

 

Point is yes Rachel  is not going to win BFF any time soon but they all have done questionable things to each other.

 

Real reason: Her more cause she is the lead and they have to have her interact in with many people to keep the stories more intertwined.

Edited January 20, 2015 by tom87

[SevenStars]

Real reason: Her more cause she is the lead and they have to have her interact in with many people to keep the stories more intertwined.

 

Interacting doesn't mean having the other characters always be the ones to hand stuff to her or do stuff for her. It makes it look one-sided when it doesn't seem to be reciprocated by Rachel and that Rachel can't really accomplished anything without them. Like I said before, that's not fair to Rachel or them. 

[tom87]

Yeap, the writers just have the characters hand these things to Rachel, while telling us that Rachel is such a special snowflake and more than talented then all these characters.  But at the same time the writers are showing that Rachel can’t reach her goal, her dream without someone opening the door for her and giving it to her. That while the writers are telling us that Rachel is a special snowflake that can do anything and everything unlike the other characters, they are showing us that’s not true by always having one of her friends do the work for her or at least take the first steps for her or fix things for her to reach her goals. 

 

It's not fair to Rachel or the other characters. 

I  do not like they have to have other help Rachel so much.  But all of them have had the other help them too.  Sam helped Mercedes but putting  the video.  Rachel helped Kurt with his confidence and song choice before his impromptu NYADA audition. They had several people including Rachel  pump up Finn to get  his teaching dreams.  Mercedes  got  Santana and Brittany gig as back up dancer even though they had no professional training.  Blaine tried to help Kurt get in with Shirley McClan.

Interacting doesn't mean having the other characters always be the ones to hand stuff to her or do stuff for her. It makes it look one-sided when it doesn't seem to be reciprocated by Rachel and that Rachel can't really accomplished anything without them. Like I said before, that's not fair to Rachel or them. 

I just meant Rachel is involved in these things more because she is the lead and they want to intertwine things. I didn't say they are doing a good job at using her more.

Edited January 20, 2015 by tom87

[SevenStars]

I  do not like they have to have other help Rachel so much.  But all of them have had the other help them too.  Sam helped Mercedes but putting  the video.  Rachel helped Kurt with his confidence and song choice before his impromptu NYADA audition. They had several people including Rachel  pump up Finn to get  his teaching dreams.  Mercedes  got  Santana and Brittany gig as back up dancer even though they had no professional training.  Blaine tried to help Kurt get in with Shirley McClan.

I just meant Rachel is involved in these things more because she is the lead and they want to intertwine things. I didn't say they are doing a good job at using her more.

 

You are right, all these characters have helped and had others helped them. I think the difference is that most of them had to give-up something they wanted in order to help Rachel. While Rachel never had to do that for them. 

 

But no one was questioning Rachel's involvement in these things but the way the writers decided to have her be involved.

[tom87]

You are right, all these characters have helped and had others helped them. I think the difference is that most of them had to give-up something they wanted in order to help Rachel. While Rachel never had to do that for them. 

 

But no one was questioning Rachel's involvement in these things but the way the writers decided to have her be involved.

What have they given up for her?  Did they even have it in the first place?  Did Rachel ask them to give it up?   If she didn't why is she being blame for it?

Edited January 20, 2015 by tom87

[dizzyizzy01]

Of course all have done questionable things, but I was talking strictly about Rachel here and how she treats her friends. But maybe backstabbing was a too harsh word.

None of the examples you provided come even close to what I think most people would consider "backstabbing".  But either way, all these characters do shitty things at one point or another to each other and all of them do nice things for each other at one point or another often in nonsensical ways.  

 

I get it.  You just don't like Rachel.  However, you pretty consistently characterize things as she's screwing over her friends all the time and nothing else and that's not accurate.  If I skew things the way you skew them for Rachel, I can easily make the case for any character that's gotten significant screen time of being a horrible friend.  

Edited January 20, 2015 by dizzyizzy01

[jaytee1812]

None of the examples you provided come even close to what I think most people would consider "backstabbing".  But either way, all these characters do shitty things at one point or another to each other and all of them do nice things for each other at one point or another often in nonsensical ways.  

 

I get it.  You just don't like Rachel.  However, you pretty consistently characterize things as she's screwing over her friends all the time and nothing else and that's not accurate.  If I skew things the way you skew them for Rachel, I can easily make the case for any character that's gotten significant screen time of being a horrible friend.

I don't think Rachel's necessarily a backstabber or a horrible friend. But she does come across as not giving too much of a shit about their hopes and dreams, especially if they interfere with her own.

The example of Tina in Props, I couldn't see Rachel doing that for Tina. And had Tina needed the spotlight at Nationals for her chance at college I couldn't see Rachel giving it up. Just like I could never see Rachel helping Quinn be Prom Queen, or giving up being an understudy to make Santana happy.

[Glorfindel]

None of the examples you provided come even close to what I think most people would consider "backstabbing".  But either way, all these characters do shitty things at one point or another to each other and all of them do nice things for each other at one point or another often in nonsensical ways.  

Yes, but all these characters don't get constantly handed things to them, especially not by Rachel.

And the writers often skew things in a way that in the rare times Rachel does give up something to someone else (oftentimes things that aren't hers to begin with, like a solo) she ends up with it anyway.

 

I get it.  You just don't like Rachel.  However, you pretty consistently characterize things as she's screwing over her friends all the time and nothing else and that's not accurate.  If I skew things the way you skew them for Rachel, I can easily make the case for any character that's gotten significant screen time of being a horrible friend.

Lol, and most of them are. It really makes no sense at all why these people are still friends with one another.

[dizzyizzy01]

I don't think Rachel's necessarily a backstabber or a horrible friend. But she does come across as not giving too much of a shit about their hopes and dreams, especially if they interfere with her own.

The example of Tina in Props, I couldn't see Rachel doing that for Tina. And had Tina needed the spotlight at Nationals for her chance at college I couldn't see Rachel giving it up. Just like I could never see Rachel helping Quinn be Prom Queen, or giving up being an understudy to make Santana happy.

 

This is a pretty fair assessment and perspective.  I don't disagree that if it truly got in the way of her dreams and goals she wouldn't necessarily sacrifice her desires for others, but I do believe what was said earlier was a complete characterization and a somewhat purposeful skewed interpretation of events.

[fakeempress]

 

Or pretending to be her friend in season one so he could give her a horrible makeover with the sole intent of humiliating her in front of the boy she liked. Was that more or less backstabby than the time Rachel called Kurt a traitor?

He wasn't her friend then, they were antagonists. But when he was in Season 3, and they made the pact as friends to be accepted into NYADA, and when Kurt got into the student president campaign to improve his prospects, what did Rachel as a supportive friend do?

Edited January 21, 2015 by fakeempress

[SadieT]

He wasn't her friend then, they were antagonists. But when he was in Season 3, and they made the pact as friends to be accepted into NYADA, and when Kurt got into the student president campaign to improve his prospects, what did Rachel as a supportive friend do?

 

Exactly. He pretended to be her friend solely to hurt her, which is the actual definition of backstabbing (faking friendship in order to hurt someone). Calling a friend a name out of anger or not including them in a concert isn't even in the realm of backstabbing behavior. 

 

What did she do? She stupidly dropped out of the race because Kurt acted like he owned the right to class presidency, threw a fit and made Rachel feel bad about caring about her own future and not conceding something to Kurt he felt was owed to him simply because he didn't have the foresight to build up his college application before senior year, like Rachel wisely did. Then she foolishly risked her future by stuffing the ballot box in his favor. 

 

But I'm guessing you meant how she entered the race... which was in a sneaky and underhanded way, much like how Santana went about auditioning for Funny Girl. Surely enough Kurt and Kurt's fans had no problem when Santana did it to Rachel but wanted Rachel crucified for doing it to Kurt. In both cases, someone went behind a friend's back in a move to better their own life with little regard to how it'd make their friend feel, and yet I don't recall anyone, especially any of Kurt's fans, calling what Santana did wrong last season. Instead it was all about how Rachel doesn't own the part (I think Kurt even says that to her, ironically) and how it's a good opportunity for Santana and she should go after it even if her friend isn't happy about it. And Kurt didn't own the right to run for class presidency and winning would have been good for Rachel too, but she was horrible for doing that to poor poor Kurt. Isn't it funny how differently people perceive a situation when it involves their least favorite character? Any excuse to malign them, right? 

[tom87]

Exactly. He pretended to be her friend solely to hurt her, which is the actual definition of backstabbing (faking friendship in order to hurt someone). Calling a friend a name out of anger or not including them in a concert isn't even in the realm of backstabbing behavior. 

 

What did she do? She stupidly dropped out of the race because Kurt acted like he owned the right to class presidency, threw a fit and made Rachel feel bad about caring about her own future and not conceding something to Kurt he felt was owed to him simply because he didn't have the foresight to build up his college application before senior year, like Rachel wisely did. Then she foolishly risked her future by stuffing the ballot box in his favor. 

 

Rachel even offer to make Kurt VP if she won helping his chances of having a class office on his resume.

[caracas1914]

I had no problem with Rachel running for class president. i had no problen with Naya trying out for the understudy of Funny Girl. Nobody had a monopoly on either position, not Kurt and not Rachel.

In both cases I had a problem with not telling the other person impacted by their decision what they were planning to do. In both cases this is the least a friend would do IMO. For that specifically I had issues with both Rachel and Santana.

as far as Kurts RACHEL MAKEOVER in season 1, i have no problems that was underhanded, epically so. brillant in its gay Eve Harrington way.

Edited January 21, 2015 by caracas1914

[dizzyizzy01]

In both cases I had a problem with not telling the other person impacted by their decision what they were planning to do. In both cases this is the least a friend would do IMO. For that specifically I had issues with both Rachel and Santana.

 

 

 

Oh Yea.  It's the not telling the friend your impacting that is the problem, not the actual action of going after the presidency or the audition. The main difference in the story lines though is that Rachel was ultimately apologetic and tried to help Kurt.  Santana went nuclear on Rachel and went off on a vicious rant that led to more fighting.  Santana never really apologized for going behind Rachel's back.  I mean it was eventually wrapped up in a neat bow that Santana never cared about the role and gave it up, but she never really recognized why Rachel was upset in the first place and how her pretty awful words escalated the problem.

 

as far as Kurts RACHEL MAKEOVER in season 1, i have no problems that was underhanded, epically so. brillant in its gay Eve Harrington way.

 

I have no problem with it as a story.  It was fun, but it is a good example of being intentionally duplicitous which is kind of a requirement to stab someone in the back.  I thought the resolution of the story was nice too and made both characters very interesting.

[SadieT]

I had no problem with Rachel running for class president. i had no problen with Naya trying out for the understudy of Funny Girl. Nobody had a monopoly on either position, not Kurt and not Rachel.

In both cases I had a problem with not telling the other person impacted by their decision what they were planning to do. In both cases this is the least a friend would do IMO. For that specifically I had issues with both Rachel and Santana.

 

 

I agree. In both cases, what the person did wasn't wrong, it was how they went about it that was wrong. Both Rachel and Santana had an obligation as a friend to talk to the other person and be upfront about their motives. But the general consensus on Rachel running for class presidency seemed to be that her running was some selfish horrible betrayal against Kurt, because it was decided that Kurt needed the presidency more and Rachel should have never dared to compete with him, and I strongly disagree with that. Her going behind his back to sign up for the election was wrong, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with her running. She had just as much right to run as he did. Same with Santana. She should have absolutely told Rachel before she blindsided her at the audition, but Santana had every right to try out for the part because Rachel didn't own it. And then of course in both situations everyone overreacted, and with regards to the Rachel/Santana conflict, it escalated and became personal.

 

But my point was, Rachel has been on both sides of the situation and for some posters, she was somehow wrong in both cases. And I don't see how that could be attributed to anything other than a strong bias against her character.  

[tom87]

Neither Rachel nor Brittany were in the wrong for deciding to run against Kurt. However, what did bother me about Rachel's decision was that she expected (and IIRC pressured a little with the whole 'but I'm your girlfriend') Finn to vote for her instead of his step-brother, even though it seemed Finn wanted to vote for Kurt. As for offering VP to Kurt, again IIRC that wasn't simply some selfless gesture or a purely strategic move, but a way to placate Kurt and to possibly end any uneasiness she may have felt over the whole thing.

Well, he kinda did--football team, cheerleading squad, glee club (in two schools), and all the championships--but the writers made it so that he apparently forgot all of that because they needed him to be in a panic over college. I blame Emma Pillsbury for overlooking the need for a helpful brochure on the subject of the importance of preparing for good college applications.

Did she expect it?  She was teasing with him but I didn't see it as pushing him at all it seem all pretty playful actually.

 

And yes I get that Rachel suggesting VP was a way to lessen the blow but it was still a good suggestion that  would have helped  him.  She didn't need to offer that to him either.

 

As usual the need of the election for Kurt was lazy writing. He had glee,  football and Cherrios on his resume plus the musical even if it was a small part.

 

If he was smart he would have said he was a member or both New Directions and the Warblers where he could have said he was a  featured vocalist. .

[Hana Chan]

The difference, to me, between the class president and understudy "betrayals" was that if Rachel won class president, then she would be actively taking away from Kurt something he was working for. Santana winning the understudy part took absolutely nothing away from Rachel (despite her outlandish belief that Funny Girl needed to be about her and her alone). One was a zero sum game and the other wasn't.

 

The less said about how the NYADA application process went, the better. Kurt's application wasn't nearly as thin as the writers were making it out to be and Rachel in no way deserved to be admitted after botching her audition. And am totally tired of Rachel having everyone dancing around her to basically carry her to success because she's got the fortitude of an overcooked piece of pasta.

[caracas1914]

The difference, to me, between the class president and understudy "betrayals" was that if Rachel won class president, then she would be actively taking away from Kurt something he was working for. Santana winning the understudy part took absolutely nothing away from Rachel (despite her outlandish belief that Funny Girl needed to be about her and her alone). One was a zero sum game and the other wasn't.

 

 

It's true that Rachel had encouraged Kurt to run for President, but while it might be questionable, she had the right to change her mind and run herself.  Kurt was not guaranteed the victory, whether Rachel was in the race or not.  She should have  had the common courtesy of saying "Kurt, I need to run for Pres myself."  Kurt would probably still be as pissed at her as he ultimately ended up being, but I dont' think she should have excluded herself just because of a perceived entitlement for Kurt.

 

Kurt accepted that Blaine could take the WSS role of Tony, so IMO eventually  he would have accepted Rachel being President.

Edited January 21, 2015 by caracas1914

[dizzyizzy01]

The zero sum gain argument is such a flimsy justification to downplay what Santana did. Nobody auditions for an understudy part with the sole intention to forever be the understudy, and in Santana's case, she clearly states her intent is to psyche Rachel out so she can play the part.

Rachel did Kurt wrong with the election by not giving him a courtesy heads up. Santana did the exact same thing with the understudy.

That understudy storyline gave me one of my most favorite lines of the show though. Ghost Fanny was pretty classic.

[tom87]

 That smoothie is just a prop to Rachel.

[Advance35]

And to bring this back to the spoilers, it's like every little spoiler Rachel is mentioned in is twisted by certain posters in order to paint Rachel as the villain before we even know what happens. It's happening with this Sam/Rachel/Mercedes nonsense and it happened before the season started when it was spoiled that Rachel and Kurt would butt heads as co-directors, which turned out to be a very minor plot point where Rachel didn't even do anything wrong. We could get a spoiler tomorrow that says "Rachel drinks a smoothie" in episode 7 and the same people will turn that into, "That smoothie should have been Kurt's! Or Mercedes'! That selfish horrible bitch stole their smoothie!"

 

Exactly.  Though once you realize that and come to expect it, it's really very easy to shake off.   People have their view of Rachel, if someone thinks Rachel Berry is the greatest unrepentant evil to ever slither the halls of McKinnely, don't expect to change their mind with reasonable discourse, it won't happen.  I think parts of fandom (the tatters of what's left of it) probably just want to see Rachel miserable.  No career, no love, nothing.   Can't deny it, that's how I feel about certain characters myself.

[fakeempress]

Rachel even offer to make Kurt VP if she won helping his chances of having a class office on his resume.

Very generous. Of course in order to do that, she threw her hat into the student president race against him  behind his back (even though it was in the text she had enough for the resume) because that's what friends do. 

 

 

Exactly. He pretended to be her friend solely to hurt her, which is the actual definition of backstabbing (faking friendship in order to hurt someone). Calling a friend a name out of anger or not including them in a concert isn't even in the realm of backstabbing behavior.

You missed the point - it being they weren't friends then. But they were friends, and confidantes when Rachel decided she can hijack his run at resume padding for her own benefit. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by fakeempress

[SadieT]

 That smoothie is just a prop to Rachel.

 

Rachel just gets a smoothie handed to her. She doesn't have to work for her smoothie. 

[Hana Chan]

It's not impossible for someone to be wrong in both situations. Rachel had a right to run for president if she wanted to, but Kurt had every reason to feel angry, hurt and betrayed because someone who was until five minutes previously supporting his run was now running against him. It was more of a betrayal than Brittany's run because it flew in the face of their mutual support agreement over the NYADA applications - both of them agreed to help one another so that they could get into NYADA together. Once Rachel made the decision to run against Kurt, it became apparent that in the end Rachel would be out for herself and the heck with Kurt. Now I can understand her making that choice, but she can't blame Kurt for feeling the level of betrayal that he did.

 

As for Santana... in an extreme case an understudy (or in this case, a stand-by, which is what Santana actually was since she didn't seem to have any other role in the cast) can take over for an actor permanently. But that would mean Rachel would have had to either quit, or fuck up so badly that she'd have to be fired. It wasn't like Santana would waltz in and just decide that she was going to take over from now on. Rachel would have to have an understudy regardless of who did it - that's a basic requirement in any professional production. Santana only hinted that her goal was ultimately to drive Rachel out of the show after Rachel's irrational competitiveness got the better of her and she attacked Santana for horning in on her show.

 

Unfortunately for Rachel, she is wrong more often than she's right because the girl never learns a lesson. The show has not allowed her character to mature and grow beyond the selfish child she was in the premiere. Her self-centeredness still gets the better of her way too often and if it takes one of her friends standing their ground that they do not exist just to support her in her endeavors and that they have their own desires and aspirations that matter just as much as hers, that's too bad for her. Kurt, Mercedes, Santana, Quinn and Tina have all bowed out of things that they wanted for Rachel's benefit. The one or two times that Rachel actually bent hardly balances out how often she's been accommodated at the expense of others.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Hana Chan

[SadieT]

You missed the point - it being they weren't friends then. But they were friends, and confidantes when Rachel decided she can hijack his run at resume padding for her own benefit. 

 

No I didn’t miss the point. I was simply pointing out that what Kurt did in season 1 with the makeover was more in line with what backstabbing truly is than any of the stuff Rachel did that was previously called such. Kurt faked friendship to hurt and humiliate her. Rachel's friendship with Kurt was genuine at the time of the election, so even if she did something hurtful to him, she wasn't stabbing him in the back because she wasn't faking anything. She may have messed up by not telling him beforehand, but that's all it was really. And she didn't hijack anything either. 

[fakeempress]

It's not impossible for someone to be wrong in both situations. Rachel had a right to run for president if she wanted to, but Kurt had every reason to feel angry, hurt and betrayed because someone who was until five minutes previously supporting his run was now running against him. It was more of a betrayal than Brittany's run because it flew in the face of their mutual support agreement over the NYADA applications - both of them agreed to help one another so that they could get into NYADA together. Once Rachel made the decision to run against Kurt, it became apparent that in the end Rachel would be out for herself and the heck with Kurt. Now I can understand her making that choice, but she can't blame Kurt for feeling the level of betrayal that he did.

Exactly, they weren't just friends, they had the pact. After Rachel went behind his back at first opportunity, he should've cut ties with her then and there because you want to rely on your friends to have your back, not expect them to undercut you at the turn you told them you need. But as I said before, none of these people will be friends IRL and that concerns Kurt and Rachel.

No I didn’t miss the point. I was simply pointing out that what Kurt did in season 1 with the makeover was more in line with what backstabbing truly is than any of the stuff Rachel did that was previously called such. Kurt faked friendship to hurt and humiliate her. Rachel's friendship with Kurt was genuine at the time of the election, so even if she did something hurtful to him, she wasn't stabbing him in the back because she wasn't faking anything. She may have messed up by not telling him beforehand, but that's all it was really. And she didn't hijack anything either. 

We were talking about backstabbing among people that the show was telling us now were real friends, not among any two people. This is you missing the point again. When the group was portrayed as discordant and not real friends, a lot more happened, and Rachel did her own as well. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by fakeempress

[tom87]

Very generous. Of course in order to do that, she threw her hat into the student president race against him  behind his back (even though it was in the text she had enough for the resume) because that's what friends do. 

 

 

And in show canon Kurt had enough for his resume.     I did not say was right to run. I was just saying she came up with a idea that could help them both and give them both a bigger chance of having another item for their resume.

Edited January 21, 2015 by tom87

[SadieT]

We were talking about backstabbing among people that the show was telling us now were real friends, not among any two people. This is you missing the point again. When the group was portrayed as discordant and not real friends, a lot more happened, and Rachel did her own as well. 

 

You might have been talking about that, but I wasn't. So once again, I did not miss the point. I was making my own point about what actions on the show could actually be considered stabbing someone in the back (friend or not). So let's agree to disagree and move on, or this could probably go on forever. 

[Hana Chan]

Taken from the Spoiler thread (re: Rachel)...

Advance35, on 21 Jan 2015 - 07:57 AM, said:

I think parts of fandom (the tatters of what's left of it) probably just want to see Rachel miserable.  No career, no love, nothing.   Can't deny it, that's how I feel about certain characters myself.

 

 

How about having her, for a novel change, get something that doesn't require someone else to sacrifice what they want or worked for? Or having Rachel actually work towards her goal, even in the face of adversity, rather than having every other character carrying her along? I think that a lot of the resentment towards Rachel from fans of other characters is because there is this annoying trend of having everyone falling on their swords so that Rachel can succeed, and the hell with what anyone else might want.

 

Rachel being at her lowest point now gives so much room for her to finally grow as a character and find some strength and resolve to face the mess that she made of her career. To show that even if things don't work out the way she'd like, that she's willing and able to fight for her dreams. That she can actually grown and mature from the child who always seemed to think that the universe existed to revolve around her. Having Mercedes just magically be able to get her an audition when in all honesty, her CV would be tossed in the garbage by any responsible casting director is just more of Rachel skating over obstacles that would utterly destroy any other character. And she's not succeeding due to her own strength and talent, but because everyone else is doing the hard work for her.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Hana Chan

[truthaboutluv]

But the general consensus on Rachel running for class presidency seemed to be that her running was some selfish horrible betrayal against Kurt, because it was decided that Kurt needed the presidency more and Rachel should have never dared to compete with him, and I strongly disagree with that.

 

 

Well it's the same way, according to some, one of Blaine's greatest sins still to this day is that he auditioned for and got the part of Tony because "Kurt needed it and if he really loved him he would have just stepped aside." Nevermind that judging by Artie and company's reaction to Kurt's audition, I sincerely doubt Kurt would have gotten the part of Tony, Blaine or no Blaine.

 

As for the whole Rachel vs. Kurt thing and whether she backstabbed him or not, etc. I have to say this is the big reason I found Hummelberry, especially at the start of S3 where they were suddenly the greatest besties ever, pretty forced. Because, unpopular opinion perhaps, but I thought, particularly in the first season, Kurt was extremely antagonistic towards Rachel without reason. 

 

Yes Rachel was a diva, yes she was dismissive at times to the others in New Directions but there were times, particularly the botched makeover where Kurt seemed to truly hate Rachel and she'd done nothing to him and in fact, often seemed like she was trying to befriend him while he just treated and looked at her with disdain. The thing I always remember about the makeover episode is when she confronted Kurt about what he did and asked why he would do that when she thought they were friends and he nastily snapped at her, why she would think they were friends. Then there was the Defying Gravity sing off where he kept looking at Rachel while singing like she was the thing that wouldn't keep him down and all the words were meant for her. Rachel's baffled look at the glares Kurt was throwing her way while singing was hilarious. 

 

And still, as I noted, she seemed to be the one constantly extending the olive branch, trying to be friends. In S2, during the Duets episode, she recognized Kurt's being lonely and extended a hand of friendship and kindness to him and she was the one who not only realized something was really wrong with him with the whole Karofsky drama but tried to get the rest of the New Directions involved to fix the situation. Which by the way, brings me to a scene that bothered me when I first saw it but I couldn't figure out why for awhile.

 

When Rachel and Kurt saw each other at Sectionals, when he was already at Dalton and they have a nice conversation, he says to her "why couldn't you be this nice while I was at McKinley." And Rachel accepted that, mentioning how they were always competitors like somehow this was on her which was bullshit because just based on everything I mentioned and remembered of S1 and even early  S2, they weren't friends largely because Kurt couldn't stand Rachel. 

 

Again, not saying Rachel is not without her faults but honestly, who isn't on this damn show?  But the whole "she ran for the President" as another big evidence of her being so selfish and awful, I don't buy.  Yes she panicked about her future and maybe should have told Kurt she signed up to run before he found out after, but the way Kurt acted so affronted and like he was personally betrayed simply because Rachel decided to compete against him was ridiculous. To me it was no different than the Tony thing with Blaine - Kurt was never owed any of these things and no one was a bad person for not just laying down and letting him have it like it was his right.

 

Again, there are many things to judge Rachel on but that wasn't one of them in my opinion. And as noted, even if she was "wrong", which she wasn't in my opinion, she went out of her way to make up for it by not just dropping out but even rigging the election to give Kurt the win because quel surpris, even without Rachel, he still wasn't going to win. And that got her a suspension, a note on her school record and missing Sectionals. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[caracas1914]

during the Duets episode, she recognized Kurt's being lonely and extended a hand of friendship and kindness to him and she was the one who not only realized something was really wrong with him with the whole Karofsky drama but tried to get the rest of the New Directions involved to fix the situation.

 

OK, maybe a minority opinion, but I find that a specific example of just imposing Rachel as a lead character, because to say she would notice something about Kurt before Mercedes or Tina just wasn't that plausible to me.  I realize it's canon, but that was  some storyline manipulation.

Edited January 21, 2015 by caracas1914

[Hana Chan]

This sums up my feelings about Rachel perfectly.

 

[tom87]

OK, maybe a minority opinion, but I find that a specific example of just imposing Rachel as a lead character, because to say she would notice something about Kurt before Mercedes or Tina just wasn't that plausible to me.  I realize it's canon, but that was  some storyline manipulation.

I don't because it was set up that Rachel knows what it is like to be lonely.

 

I always saw Rachel is the poor kid who only got invited to anything becasue the mom made her kid invite the whole class.

 

Rachel obviously didn't even know what  friendship looked like or how to be a freind even.  

[SevenStars]

Well it's the same way one of Blaine's greatest sins still to this day to some is that he auditioned for and got the part of Tony because "Kurt needed it and if he really loved him he would have just stepped aside." Nevermind that judging by Artie and company's reaction to Kurt's audition, I sincerely doubt Kurt would have gotten the part of Tony, Blaine or no Blaine.

 

As for the whole Rachel vs. Kurt thing and whether she backstabbed him or not, etc. I have to say this is the big reason I found Hummelberry, especially at the start of S3 where they were suddenly the greatest besties ever, pretty forced. Because, unpopular opinion perhaps, but I thought, particularly in the first season, Kurt was extremely antagonistic towards Rachel without reason. 

 

Yes Rachel was a diva, yes she was dismissive at times to the others in New Directions but there were times, particularly the botched makeover where Kurt seemed to truly hate Rachel and she'd done nothing to him and in fact, often seemed like she was trying to befriend him while he just treated and looked at her with disdain. The thing I always remember about the makeover episode is when she told Kurt why he would do that when she thought they were friends and he nastily snapped at her why she would think they were friends. Then there was the Defying Gravity sing off where he kept looking at Rachel while singing like she was the thing that wouldn't keep him down and all the words were meant for her. Rachel's baffled look at the glares Kurt was throwing her way while singing was hilarious. 

 

And still, as noted she seemed to be the one constantly extending the olive branch, trying to be friends. In S2, during the Duets episode, she recognized Kurt's being lonely and extended a hand of friendship and kindness to him and she was the one who not only realized something was really wrong with him with the whole Karofsky drama but tried to get the rest of the New Directions involved to fix the situation. Which by the way, brings me to a scene that bothered me when I first saw it but I couldn't figure out why for awhile. When Rachel and Kurt saw each other at Sectionals, when he was already at Dalton and they have a nice conversation, he says to her "why she couldn't be so nice while he was at McKinley." And Rachel accepted that, mentioning how they were always competitors like somehow this was on her when just based on everything I mentioned and remembered of S1 and even early  S2, they weren't friends largely because Kurt couldn't stand Rachel. 

 

Again, not saying Rachel is not without her faults but honestly, who isn't on this this damn show?  But the whole "she ran for the President" as another big evidence of her being so selfish and awful, I don't buy.  Yes she panicked and maybe should have told Kurt about it but the way Kurt acted so affronted and like he was personally betrayed simply because Rachel decided to compete against him was ridiculous. To me it was no different than the Tony thing with Blaine - Kurt was never owed any of these things and no one was a bad person for not just laying down and letting him have it like it was his right. Again, there are many things to judge Rachel on but that wasn't one of them in my opinion. And as noted, even if she was "wrong", which she wasn't in my opinion, she went out of her way to make up for it by not just dropping out but even rigging the election to give Kurt the win because quel surpris, even without Rachel, he still wasn't going to win. And that got her a suspension, a note on her school record and missing Sectionals. 

 

I totally agree with you about Kurt in S1. He was the one who couldn't stand her because she was a Diva and because in his head he was competing against her for Finn's attention/affection. So to him, she was his enemy. So him doing those things to her was not done when they were friends. I don't remember Rachel ever intentionally doing anything in S1 to hurt Kurt, no matter what he did to her, instead she was always open to be friends with him and Mercedes. I think whether to be friends or not, was always in Mercedes and Kurt's hands when it came to Rachel. Rachel was not great at being friend because she was always willing to hurt that friend if it meant getting what she wanted but she was always willing to be friend with them and I understood why they weren't willing to be friend with her.

 

As for the president stuff, there is a difference when someone does something to hurt someone they call a friend and when they do it to someone they don't consider to be a friend. There was no betrayal of friendship in the things that Kurt did to Rachel when they weren't friends. If he had done that after they were besties trying to help each other out, that would have been totally different.

 

Rachel running for president after Kurt, her friend, told her that he needed it, without even giving him the courtesy of telling him first was bad. She had a right to run and win, but because of her friendship with Kurt, she always should have cared enough about him to tell him that. Her deciding to drop out after seeing how it was affecting him was nice but it doesn't take away from the fact that the way she handled the situation in the first place was wrong. Kurt had a right to be hurt because this wasn't an enemy who did this to him, this was a friend. 

 

The context of their relationship makes a big difference to me. The same way I had a problem with Santana not telling Rachel that she was going to audition for the understudy part. If Santana was not claiming to be Rachel's friend, I wouldn't have a problem with her not telling Rachel. But because she was claiming to be Rachel's friend, I had a big problem with it. 

 

When someone is claiming to be your friend, there are certain things that you have a right to expect, and the courtesy of them telling you what's going on when they know it might hurt you, is something that a friend have a right to expect. It doesn't mean you don't have a right to do it or that it's wrong.

 

This is where my problem with Rachel comes from, because a lot of the time she does things to people she claim to be her friends, that makes me question her friendship with them because she does it in a way that an enemy would, not a friend. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by SevenStars

[Advance35]

The thing I always remember about the makeover episode is when she confronted Kurt about what he did and asked why he would do that when she thought they were friends and he nastily snapped at her, why she would think they were friends.

 

I've never bought their friendship and that's one of the reasons.   I've always lamented that the writers never seemed to let Rachel hold grudges against anyone.   I agree it's a two way street, but I would've liked if the writers had let Rachel develop Friendships RELUCTANTLY on her part and maybe everyone else's as well.   She's always seemed so eager for friendship (which is believable for a lonely girl) but I had hoped the writers would let her mature beyond that.

 

Anyway, those attempts at BFF moments between "Hummelberry" just never resonate with me, the foundation is too rotten for my taste, which is funny because I thought the friendships/rapports between Rachel/Jesse, Rachel/Puck and Rachel/Schue all came across as very genuine and each was noteably antagonistic at one point durinig the show.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Advance35

[SevenStars]

Anyway, those attempts at BFF moments between "Hummelberry" just never resonate with me, the foundation is too rotten for my taste, which is funny because I thought the friendships/rapports between Rachel/Jesse, Rachel/Puck and Rachel/Schue all came across as very genuine and each was noteably antagonistic at one point durinig the show.

 

I think it's cause the writers never tried to make them BFF.

[fakeempress]

 

And in show canon Kurt had enough for his resume.     I did not say was right to run. I was just saying she came up with a idea that could help them both and give them both a bigger chance of having another item for their resume.

This would be pertinent to Rachel's actions if the setup and the characters recognized that canon. The setup was Kurt didn't have enough, and neither Kurt nor Rachel contradicted that setup in any way. And even with the canon included, she had legitimate arts starring stints while his football and cheerleading wins may not be something NYADA will value as much. Kurt never had a starring part when the GC he was with (be it NYADA or the Warblers) won a competition; Rachel did. Kurt didn't have a starring role in a school musical to put on his resume; Rachel did. As far as the show and the characters were concerned, Kurt needed a starring gig to improve his chances. It wasn't clear (at least I don't remember) if NYADA had male/female quotas, so it becomes even more important in case it didn't and they had to compete directly with each other for admission. 

 

Her idea slotted her again in the starring "role", and him as her support, while it wasn't what the setup said he needed. 

 

Rachel can be a very good friend when she doesn't see a direct stake for her in what her friends want. The only person I feel she weirdly forgoes all considerations, was Quinn (not that she did but that was my feeling). She seemed obsessed with getting Quinn's friendship and approval. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by fakeempress

[indeed]

Bringing over from 'spoilers and discussion' thread, since not spoilers...

Neither Rachel nor Brittany were in the wrong for deciding to run against Kurt. However, what did bother me about Rachel's decision was that she expected (and IIRC pressured a little with the whole 'but I'm your girlfriend') Finn to vote for her instead of his step-brother, even though it seemed Finn wanted to vote for Kurt. As for offering VP to Kurt, again IIRC that wasn't simply some selfless gesture or a purely strategic move, but a way to placate Kurt and to possibly end any uneasiness she may have felt over the whole thing.

simply because he didn't have the foresight to build up his college application before senior year

Well, he kinda did--football team, cheerleading squad, glee club (in two schools), and all the championships--but the writers made it so that he apparently forgot all of that because they needed him to be in a panic over college. I blame Emma Pillsbury for overlooking the need for a helpful brochure on the subject of the importance of preparing for good college applications.

Adding:

Did she expect it? She was teasing with him but I didn't see it as pushing him at all it seem all pretty playful actually.

You may not have seen it as such, but I got the impression she wasn't really teasing, but wanted the vote. I thought she brought it up again, but maybe that was just an innocent question out of genuine curiosity.

And yes I get that Rachel suggesting VP was a way to lessen the blow but it was still a good suggestion that would have helped him. She didn't need to offer that to him either.

I'm not questioning whether it was a good suggestion or if she needed to extend that particular olive branch. Rachel could've asked someone far more popular in the school to be her running mate. I just think there were layers to her reasoning. Rachel knew Kurt would be pissed and she did try to make the best out of the situation.

And in show canon Kurt had enough for his resume.

Yes, but it seems the writers changed the in-show canon to accommodate the story they wanted to tell then. There is no way that Kurt Hummel would just forget he had stuff to pad his application with or that Rachel, Blaine, or any of his other friends wouldn't point that out. It wasn't another thing for him to add, but basically as presented the only thing he would have to add for consideration. It was very annoying that we were just supposed to go with it, but hey, that's Glee. Ugh. Edited January 21, 2015 by indeed

[tom87]

This would be pertinent to Rachel's actions if the setup and the characters recognized that canon. The setup was Kurt didn't have enough, and neither Kurt nor Rachel contradicted that setup in any way. And even with the canon included, she had legitimate starring stints while his football and cheerleading wins may not be something NYADA will value as much. Kurt never had a starring part when the team he was on (be it NYADA or the Warblers) won a competition; Rachel did. Kurt didn't have a starring role in a school musical to put on his resume; Rachel did. As far as the show and the characters were concerned, Kurt needed a starring gig to improve his chances. It was never made clear if NYADA had male/female quotas, so it becomes even more important in case it didn't, and they had to compete directly with each other for admission. 

If NYADA didn't value his football or cheerios stint not sure why they would value the school election.  And Kurt was  feature vocalist for the Warblers I do not think it matters if they won or not for the resume.   And Rachel at that point  did not have a starring role in the musical that is why she panic and joined the election.   Rachel only go the musical up and going becasue the last two times the musical  was canceled.   Rachel is the one who did that  cause she felt she needed  a musical on her resume. 

 

 And none of that changes the fact that Rachel's plan to make him VP if she won was a decent  idea which was what I was addressing anyway.

[Glorfindel]

JFYI: some of the posts I quote are taken from the spoilers and discussion thread.
 

(...)simply because he didn't have the foresight to build up his college application before senior year, like Rachel wisely did. Then she foolishly risked her future by stuffing the ballot box in his favor.

The direct reason why Rachel ran for President too was because she panicked about her own thin resume after she thought she didn't get the role of 'Maria'.
And as was mentioned before: Kurt had more on his resume than was suggested in that episode, like the football team and singing a 14 minutes long Celine Dion medley in French that was a big part of the Cheerios winning the National title. He also had taken piano lessons, while Rachel took dance lessons.
The only big difference between both their resumees at that moment was that Rachel sang lead a few times with ND, but then Kurt also sang lead one time with the Warblers. So the statement that "he didn't have the foresight to build up his college application before senior year, like Rachel wisely did." is simply not true.
 

And none of that changes the fact that Rachel's plan to make him VP if she won was a decent idea which was what I was addressing anyway.

It's funny to me that Rachel offering Kurt VP is considered by some as a friendly and considerate act, when if Rachel really thought that being VP to put on his resume would make up for Kurt not becoming President instead, why did she not simply asked Kurt if she could be his VP to pad up her resume? When VP was good enough for Kurt it should have been good enough for her as well, right? Or at least not worth the trouble of going behind her bff's back for to run for President?
 

Again, there are many things to judge Rachel on but that wasn't one of them in my opinion. And as noted, even if she was "wrong", which she wasn't in my opinion, she went out of her way to make up for it by not just dropping out but even rigging the election to give Kurt the win because quel surpris, even without Rachel, he still wasn't going to win. And that got her a suspension, a note on her school record and missing Sectionals.

It's true Rachel gracefully bowed out of the Presidency race when she thought Kurt had the better platform, but though some may see her stuffing the ballot boxes as a kind act to help Kurt it still was a foolish, illiegal act that got Kurt disqualified, and she did it without his knowledge let alone permission.
It also implies that Rachel wasn't confident enough in Kurt to think he could win without cheating. And we'll never know if Kurt would have won without her rigging the elections or not, as he was disqualified because of Rachel's rigging.

And afterwards Rachel was willing to let Kurt take the fall for her stuffing the ballot boxes and even him getting suspended for it, right up untill Finn urged her to turn herself in.
Not really things a great friend would do.
 

But I'm guessing you meant how she entered the race... which was in a sneaky and underhanded way, much like how Santana went about auditioning for Funny Girl. Surely enough Kurt and Kurt's fans had no problem when Santana did it to Rachel but wanted Rachel crucified for doing it to Kurt. In both cases, someone went behind a friend's back in a move to better their own life with little regard to how it'd make their friend feel, and yet I don't recall anyone, especially any of Kurt's fans, calling what Santana did wrong last season.

But my point was, Rachel has been on both sides of the situation and for some posters, she was somehow wrong in both cases. And I don't see how that could be attributed to anything other than a strong bias against her character.

Nope. Right up till Rachel pissed on Carmen and NYADA and then left 'Funny Girl' after only a few months in I was okay with Rachel. And even now she threw away her own career twice I want her to go back to Broadway and become successful in the end, just not the way it's probably going to play out. I don't like what's she has done, and I do think she runs over people sometimes, but I don't really dislike her either.
I never really grew fond of Rachel, but for a long time I could root for her and often sympathize with her. I know what it's like to be ambitous and there's nothing wrong with that. There were also enough moments of her being supportive of others that I could believe she wanted to be a nice person and a good friend, and so far in season 6 she also shows herself a supportive friend and teacher. She did some shitty things in the past but so did the others.
So I object to being called strongly biased against her character. I just wish she would finally learn from the things she does, but I also don't want to excuse or wave away those things (or otoh the things she should have done) and how that directly or indirectly affected others, when she's the only character who gets constantly handed things, propped up and supported by those same people.

I also very strongly object to "Surely enough Kurt and Kurt's fans had no problem when Santana did it to Rachel but wanted Rachel crucified for doing it to Kurt."
First of all: wow, strongly generalizing a fandom there, and not even true in my case (and not for many other Kurtsies I know). Just because Kurt was involved in one of these incidents has very little to do with my opinion on both situations, plus simply calling "BIAS!" to undermine other posters' opinion can work both ways. Just saying.

The two situations (Presidency and understudy) are imo different, primarily because Santana never went directly for Rachel's position, whereas Rachel knew she was going for the same position Kurt wanted,even though she had every right to do so (but so had Santana).

 

I don't get the idea that understudies are all secretly hoping and scheming that the lead breaks a leg so they can take over their job, that's not how it works in rl and quite unfair to the very hard and underappreciated job of being an understudy. On the contrary: an understudy usually helps the lead by taking some stress and responsibility off their shoulders. Rachel should have been mature and educated enough to understand that, but she was strongly against having an understudy altogether in the first place, whether it was Santana or not.
I admit her understudy being Santana made it worse for Rachel because of her insecurities and their past together, but in the end Santana actually came through for her and replaced her when it was Rachel's own fault she couldn't perform.
Santana going behind Rachel's back was definitely wrong, (read that well: I, a Kurtsie, said that Santana was wrong too in the understudy fight) but imo that's a completely different issue from Rachel being so protective about Fanny Brice in the first place, not wanting an understudy and certainly not a latina (also, hypocrite much after she was Maria in WSS?). But then that whole fight escalated in Santana ripping into Rachel and Rachel slapping her and things got severely muddled, but imo that's also a whole different issue and discussion.
 
It's worth noticing that in both instances it was Rachel being insecure that gave her the motivation for her actions and reactions. Nothing wrong with that, as nothing is simply black and white, right or wrong, and every character has their own motivations.


What I find amusing in all of this is that there are now multilple post stretching over several pages on 2 different threads that partly began because I used the word "backstabbing", when I fairly quickly admitted afterwards that it was too strongly worded, mea culpa, and tried to explain what I really meant (that Rachel does not remember favors done to her at moments when she really should count to 10 and remember who were there for her at other times).

But when posters who were commenting on how Santana's vicious rant in 6x03 was too strongly worded and character bashing they were told that they were overreacting, repeating arguments, and the discussion about it was dragging on for too long. But of course noone was biased in that discussion, so it's different. Lol.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Glorfindel

[fakeempress]

If NYADA didn't value his football or cheerios stint not sure why they would value the school election.  And Kurt was  feature vocalist for the Warblers I do not think it matters if they won or not for the resume.   And Rachel at that point  did not have a starring role in the musical that is why she panic and joined the election.   Rachel only go the musical up and going becasue the last two times the musical  was canceled.   Rachel is the one who did that  cause she felt she needed  a musical on her resume. 

 

 And none of that changes the fact that Rachel's plan to make him VP if she won was a decent  idea which was what I was addressing anyway.

And still we don't know what NYADA valued, so I go by the setup (Kurt didn't have enough), within which Rachel decided she needed it as well as he did, and to hell with their pact. As to her plan, it was to placate him; and it would be good for her first, and for him second, and that's the point I in my turn made. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by fakeempress