Redial the Gate: some meta on Nick Ballard

[fignewton]

grav_ity has just posted a delightful recap of Crystal Skull over at redial_the_gate. There's sure to be some great discussion there, but I wanted to encourage some thoughts on another subject: Nick Ballard.

Most fanfic writers tend to demonize Nick. He's a cold-hearted, selfish creep who puts his own crazed obsessions over the life of his grieving grandson, abandoning him to a series of foster homes where he will be cruelly abused and traumatized, because no one realizes he's more comfortable speaking Arabic than English, and anyway, the one family that was really nice to him couldn't adopt him because Nick refused to sign the papers, and...

Erm. Yeah.

As we discussed back when we did canon vs. fanon on pre-series Daniel, all we really know about Daniel and Nick, pre-series, are these facts:

1. Nick took Daniel to a waffle house after the funeral.

2. Nick did not take custody of Daniel.

3. Daniel visited Nick regularly before they had a final argument and falling-out over Daniel's theories.

The rest of it? All fanon.

Now, Daniel calls him, and I quote, "The great explorer, the not-so-great grandfather Nicholas Ballard." But despite his reference to their disagreements - "Oh, please, he kicked me out. We had a huge fight." - Daniel is quite surprised when Janet tells the team that the doctors told her that "any friends of Dr Jackson's are welcome." So how much of Daniel's perceptions of Nick are based on assumptions, and how much is reality? Everyone talks about Daniel's "abandonment issues," but do we have any canon proof that he actually has any?

If you consciously set aside the fanon condemnations of Nick, what are we really supposed to make of him? randomfreshink suggested once that Nick might have felt he was making the best possible choice for Daniel - he was older, he didn't have the right temperament or patience to deal with a small child, and he couldn't offer Daniel the proper stability he needed. How plausible do you find that theory? Nick is unquestionably conniving and manipulative - he virtually blackmails Jack into bringing him to the SGC, and he takes advantage of Daniel's inability to speak for himself to finagle his way onto the planet. But to be fair, it looks like Daniel inherited that particular trait in spades. "Oh, yes, I can find the address on the other side of the Stargate and get the team back. Sure I can." Sound familiar, anyone?

Was it cruel of Nick not to take Daniel? Do you think they had any ties other than blood? How much did Daniel know Nick before his parents died? He cared enough about him to keep in touch after he'd grown older - from the dialogue in the ep, it seems that they only parted ways a few months before Daniel first stepped through the Stargate. Was their relationship only a professional one, archaeologist to archaeologist?

My question isn't how likeable we find Nick - I can't say I like him very much myself. My questions is, does Nick deserve the pillorying he gets from fanfic, and is there another, canon-based way to perceive the character?

A few other questions on the lighter side: Daniel, why are you the last one to go back through the Gate when it nearly shut down on you last time? And then, isn't it amazing how the team knows to conveniently leave space for him in the middle as they walk down the causeway?

Was anyone else utterly charmed at how Nick introduced himself, pointing to his chest and pronouncing his name? That must be genetic, too - it's exactly how Daniel introduced himself to Sha'uri in the movie, and we see him do it time and again in the show.

Also, this is the only episode in the entire series (and SGA, if you want to include his guest-appearance there) where Daniel is not only unfazed by the prospect of radiation, but actually argues in favor of longer exposure! Of course, this is before Meridian, but we've seen Daniel nervous about radiation as early as Singularity....

Comments

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

I can see Nick thinking it would be equally cruel to take Daniel. That may, or may not have been the case, but I can see him thinking that. He was probably someone that Daniel saw every year or two when his parents and Nick happened to be on the same continent. I'd say their relationship was one of common love of his parents, the somewhat distant love that we feel for family that we don't see very often, and professional. They probably exchanged letters - mostly about archeological subjects.

I don't think Nick deserves the grief. Here's an older single guy, who spends all his time travelling, who doesn't have the respect of his peers, who knows he is obsessed with something, and has at least some doubts himself... Well, he's not really guardian material, is he?

I don't see any reason to believe that Daniel was mistreated as a result. He never actually mentions fostercare, does he? Do we even know if he lived with a family at all? There is no one that he seems to have a connection with. I'm pretty sure that we know nothing about it, except that he was advanced enough to go to university at a very young age.

Daniel really doesn't seem to have the character of someone who expects abuse. On the contrary, he expects to be believed, he expects that his enthusiasms will be shared by those around him - he expects to succeed. He expects determination and good will to overcome obstacles. That doesn't mean he wasn't devastated by his parents deaths, anyone would be. It doesn't mean that he wasn't irritated/disappointed/hurt that Nick wouldn't take him. And I bet he really missed going on digs.

I like the similarities between Daniel and Nick. You really believe that they are family, and their bickering is part of that.

The devil-may-care attitude toward radiation is one of the many oddities of the episode (Giant aliens. Made of mist), but it's so great in so many ways that I just ignore those things. ; )

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

As the canon v. fanon post Fig linked to probably says, the only reference to foster care is this section of dialogue from the original movie when Catherine first recruits him and shows him a picture:

CATHERINE
Jackson, are those your parents?

DANIEL
Foster parents.

The advanced enough to go to university at young age is from the novelization and/or fanon. It never came up in the movie itself nor the series.

Sorry, fig, couldn't resist retreading old ground. Will go reread fanon v canon preseries post myself now.

I haven't read Nick related fics in so long, I forgot there was a tendency to demonize him (like McKenzie) in some stories. Poor Nick.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I forgot there was a tendency to demonize him (like McKenzie) in some stories. Poor Nick.

I'd say most, if not all of them. That reminds me - must post at fanworks, especially a delightful little fic that is pro-Nick-ish and ties into Meridian.

B-b-b-but it's fun to make anyone who looks sideways at Daniel eeeeevil! And anyway, it allows for whump, so that excuse everything, right? Right? ;)

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

And anyway, it allows for whump, so that excuse everything, right? Right? ;)

Well...there is that. Heh. ;-) I'm a strange pullup by their own bootstraps (with team support) kinda whump lover though. Emo angst...it all depends.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I would agree with you wholeheartedly, except I have written emotional whump. Er. Twice, at least.

Hopefully, it gets a check mark in the "all depends" column. :)

[aurora-novarum.livejournal.com]

Oh "depends" means the type of emo-angst, my particular mood, the alignment of the stars, and of course the quality of the fic. :-)

It's all a matter of taste. Heck I've written emo-whump...*thinks*...most of my whumping style fics are actually more "emo" whump than regular whump. LOL!

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

To me, the 'depends' (because I have that,too) is 'does this have a point?' Does it really take the plot somewhere, or is it the emotional equivalent of having the villain kill the family pet because it's a quick and easy way to demonstrate something about the character, or get to emotional interaction. Then there is a matter of degree. Some awfulness can't be undone or balanced by non-awfulness. It's just 'there', forever. I kind of think that kind of thing should be left to canon - it's too big for it to come from outside. And some things are simply too ugly and unbearable for words...

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on that. Damsel-like emotional or physical helplessness makes me cranky, especially when there is plenty of room between superhero, and helpless pawn of fate, to tread.
I have to admit that I have a story idea that goes pretty close to the edge, though. I'm not going to try to write it until I can do it without wallowing. ; ) I want to stay well away from the character torture area, but the situation is a bad one, so I think I need to be a better writer before I go there...

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

Given the number of PHD's he has, it would have to be the case, wouldn't it? You can only attend so many classes in a given day, and he was only - what?- 32 when he went through the Stargate for the first time...
Point taken on the foster parents. I'm not that familiar with the movie. I wonder if they are dead. It seems odd that they were never mentioned again.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I wonder if they are dead.

The novelization has them dead of a plane crash, with the suggestion that Daniel's allergies, which are travel-related, are a psychosomatic reaction to that event. But I personally consider book-canon as apocryphal, since so much contradicts what happens in the movie and later characterization.

Oh, you must watch the movie! If only for the Abydos bits. And it's great fun to see the Daniel and Jack that were - I find it astonishingly easy to picture them growing into the Daniel and Jack that are.

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

Will do! It's on my hard drive...

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Yes and yes and yes, but with a few caveats:

happened to be on the same continent and really missed going on digs

All fanon, y'know. :) We do not know if the Jacksons ever took their son on a dig, much less out of the country!

I agree with you a thousand percent - Daniel does not behave like someone who suffered emotional and/or physical abuse. He is politely (sometimes), relentlessly persistent. He is stubborn beyond belief. He has self-confidence in spades (albeit not with the military, at first) and arrogance galore. Yes, he might have risen above amazingly... but isn't it more likely that there was no abuse to rise above in the first place?

As Aurora points out, we do know he had foster parents. Singular. That's it.

You really believe that they are family, and their bickering is part of that.

Oh, I like that. No one can squabble quite like family. SG-1, of course, is family. ;)

LOL - we'll chalk up the radiation thing to the general suspension of disbelief, shall we?

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

'happened to be on the same continent and really missed going on digs'

"All fanon, y'know. :) We do not know if the Jacksons ever took their son on a dig, much less out of the country!"

Hmmm, I wonder where I got the idea that he had spent time in Egypt as a child. I could have sworn there was a reference, but you are the authority here! Maybe there was a reference to graduate studies, somewhere along the way, that I took as referring to childhood...

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Maybe from the picture of him in his teens/early twenties on a camel, oddly wearing a heavy sweater?

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

Lol! I believe you are correct! It can get pretty cold in the desert... Well, the Mohave... I have no idea about Egypt. : )

[aelfgyfu_mead]

No, there's never any evidence of abuse or neglect of any kind. As you say, the confidence Daniel displays works against that assumption.

There seems to be something in fandom that wants abuse; call it a kink, an idiosyncrasy, whatever you want. It really struck me when I started reading fics in other fandoms: in SGA, Rodney is sometimes presented as a victim of abuse, or severe neglect, which isn't really authorized by the show, I think; in Torchwood, one of the characters does seem to have had a troubled relationship with his mother, but two other characters who both make very positive references to their fathers are presented in multiple stories by different authors as having been abused by their fathers, sometimes sexually! Huh?

SG-1 fandom actually seems relatively restrained in its presentation of child abuse by contrast, but I still don't get where it's coming from! Maybe for some writers, it's a way of dealing with issues in their own lives, or the lives of those close to them?

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

I noticed that. Actually, when I first read fanfic, (and hadn't yet found this group ;), I was deeply creeped out by what I perceived as a genuine enjoyment of inflicting severe, unneccesary pain and trauma on the characters. The same plot and character development aspects of the stories (if there even were any) could easily have been achieved without that level of graphic physical and emotional violence. And that's not even touching on the fact that it was often wildly inappropriate given the nature of the shows in question. Maybe it is a matter of working out issues. That would be a more charitable interpretation than the answer that I was left with. (brrr... heebie jeebies...)

[samantilles.livejournal.com]

I actually rather like Nick as a character. I don't see him as a nasty old man, but rather one, who by the time Daniel lost his parents, was like three or four years in to a maddening hunt for the Crystal Skull. His concerns were elsewhere, and someone bent on this kind of research could be single-minded. Who's to say that if he hadn't found the skull in 1970 he wouldn't have adopted Daniel?
The movie suggests "foster parents", which for me actually works into a storyline I'm building. But the word "foster" rather than "adopted" also suggests no complete placement-- or at least a situation where 1.) adoption was not allowed (as fanon suggests, often by Nick) or 2.) the family in question chose not to push forward on the path towards adoption. Many fanfics demonize Nick as someone who blatantly refuses adoption privileges to loving families for Daniel, dooming him to lifelong misery in abusive foster homes. This though requires Nick to be responsive to those requests. I am assuming here, but as IM's, LJ's and email didn't exist to the main public in the 70s and early 80s during Daniel's childhood, it probably wasn't that easy to get a hold of Nick to get permission. Letters sent out to one campsite or another might come back unreturned as he moves on from ziggurat to ziggurat.
I do agree with sg_betty that it might have been "equally cruel to take Daniel" with him on his hunt. Daniel's chances of proper education would be minimized as Nick's expedition might have moved around, and then there is the possibility that Nick, slowly going crazy trying to find the temple he visited, might have put Daniel in more danger than if he was with a foster or adopted family. A dig might not be a very safe place for a child, but for all we know, Nick might not have even been as formal as setting up a dig--rather just a search for the temple. Its possible there might not have been any stabililty in Daniel's life--at least in foster care he was in the same city the entire time.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

That's an excellent point - by the time Daniel's parents were killed, Nick was already well and truly obsessed. Selfish maybe, but also pragmatic, perhaps.

Foster vs. adopted - the thing to remember is that foster parents doesn't suggest impermanence. A child could live with foster parents until adulthood. Adoption is a formality, not proof of love. Good point, too, that Nick might not have refused proposals of adoption as much as simply been too difficult to locate!

Someone theorized once, in other discussions here, that if the Jacksons did take Daniel on digs, Nick strongly disapproved of it as being an improper venue for a child. Who knows? It's as plausible as the usual fanon, anyway. :)

[samantilles.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right--foster doesn't imply an absence of love nor is it necessarily impermanent... Foster Care parents can be among the most loving of people, from the few that I've met, they are among the most generous.

when I was researching for a young daniel fic, I came across the website for New York City Foster Care Services here (http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/html/become_parent/adopt_or_foster.shtml) which outlines where I do make many of my assumptions... I'm sure policy has changed in 30 years, but it was the most reliable information I could go with at the time. Different cities/states may have different policies-- i know a woman who kept several foster children through adulthood without ever adopting, but she had indicated that the birth parents hadn't approved their adoption petitions, nor had the birth parents ever proved their worthiness to reclaim the children.

As for taking Daniel on digs, well, like I said, it may not have been the most safe place for a child, but people have been digging in Egypt for years--those digs might be more stable/secure/safe than others newly constructed? I would also like to think that somehow a five year old Daniel probably had a nanny watching over him during the day, not in the dirt next to the crew shoveling and troweling like a laborer... as his parent(s) were egyptologists, if Daniel lived in Egypt with his family, chances are they had some sort of home-like base and traveled from there...

Another reason I personally think Nick wouldn't have taken Daniel is because of his education: continuing from my previous post, it would have been difficult at best for Daniel to enter into a formal university program if he had little formal schooling (and little evidence of schooling) even with the great Nick Ballard. We can infer that Nick cared greatly about Daniel's academic career--he read all of Daniel's papers and kept an eye on his growing career. I like to think Nick had great concern for Daniel's future in academia, and perhaps chose to leave Daniel with someone who can give him a formal education (the not-so-selfish side to Nick... don't get me wrong, I still see him as a selfish guy, but the argument might make sense.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to disagree with your research. :) It makes a lot of sense.

I will point out, though, that we have no canon proof whatsoever that the Jacksons ever took Daniel to Egypt, or even that they themselves were in Egypt from the time Daniel was born. We don't know. How many years passed from the discovery of whatever site it was that they were displaying in New York?

So, could Daniel have been on digs with his parents? Maybe - who knows? That's the point, really. :)

(Also, those who know more about archeology can clarify this better than I can, but "living on digs" is a gross exaggeration. If you're lucky, you'll get a few months every couple of years. I hope someone will correct me if that assertion is wrong.)

I like the idea that Nick's perception of raising Daniel properly was making sure he got a good education. I worked with a woman once who was writing a book about her children, and it was impossible to get her to talk about them on an emotional tangent - all her anecdotes were about their intelligence and proficiency in math. ::shrugs::

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

The only item that could be put in evidence that Daniel didn't have a perfectly happy homelife with his foster parents is the fact that he never talked about them, and that's a pretty spurious argument. Daniel never gets chatty about his past or his feelings about things that have happened in his life. Sam didn't know that his parents had been crushed to death by a giant rock in front of his eyes until she witnessed it herself.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I really like your take on the matter. It fits what we see of Nick, and of how Daniel relates to him.

[sg-wonderland.livejournal.com]

Well, I can just give you what I know, being employed in the field of social work. Laws vary from state to state, that is true, so there's no definitive nationwide foster care system. Most children who are placed in foster care are placed temporarily, whomever places them there, social worker, judge, etc., does so with a reasonable supposition that one of two things are going to happen. 1) A qualified family member is going to be found within a few days, or 2) the situation that caused the placement will have resolved itself. So foster care is not intended to be a long term placement, just a stop-gap solution. Rarely these days do you see children remain in foster care for any extended length of time.
I think, for the most part, foster parents are wonderful, saint-like people because they have no idea what's coming in their home from one day to the next. Having bad foster parents is so exceedingly rare, but it does happen. When it does, it gets a lot of press coverage.

As Fig points out, we have no idea, no way of knowing what Daniel's relationship with said foster parents was. (And I still find the photo that Catherine produces of Daniel's foster parents inexplicable. This is not Daniel in the photograph, it simply can't be. We know he's eight when his parents died and this is no eight year old in that picture. I have no explanation and I'd welcome anyone explaining it to me.)

My personal fanon is that he had good foster parents and I justify that to myself by saying Daniel did not fail to welcome other familial-type relationships when they presented themselves. The Abydos family, the SG-1 family, Hammond's paternal affection.
Plus, Daniel never flinched from Jack's touchy-feely, which would be a classic example of abuse.

On the subject of Nick, I like the idea that he wanted Daniel to have a classical, well-rounded education and, in his mind, that could only occur in a normal home-life type situation. Realistically, if he'd taken Daniel with him, would Daniel have turned out to be the same guy who boldly and arrogantly erased a learned colleagues work of two years? Probably not.

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

Just out of curiosity - if foster care is only temporary, and assuming that he didn't stay with them long enough to form a close relationship (given his neutral reaction to the photograph), where might he have ended up? We know he wasn't adopted...

[sg-wonderland.livejournal.com]

The intention for foster care is short-term placement; however, that doesn't mean it won't become a long-term situation. Laws vary from state to state about terminating parental rights and if the parents fight the termination process, it could conceivably stretch out over several years. I would imagine at the time this happened (1973), then terminating parental rights would have been nearly impossible, as drug and child abuse weren't as common as we unfortunately see now.

When it became apparent that no family member has the capacity to take custody, he would have become a ward of the state and could have been kept in long-term foster care or moved to a state-run or state-sanctioned orphanage.

I personally see Daniel as having stayed with the same foster parents for those ten years until he was eighteen. I've seen several fics that portrayed Daniel as becoming an emancipated minor at the age of sixteen so he could attend college in another state. That is entirely possible because the basis of the emanicpated minor is that a judge deems the child old enough and mature enough to make decision about where he will live, go to school, etc.

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I've seen several fics that portrayed Daniel as becoming an emancipated minor at the age of sixteen so he could attend college in another state.

That's from the book, I think, where he was accepted at UCLA at the age of 16. It's one of the more harmless fanon bits - unless, of course, he petitions for emancipated status to get away from his eeeevil abusing foster parents. Or the orphanage. ::rolls eyes::

[sg-wonderland.livejournal.com]

A child could actually get into college without being an EM. Students, primarily home-schooled kids, who can pass the equivalency test for the home school programs, could conceivably enter college at, say 14. I know this happened in my home state, because my sister was teaching a university class and was shocked to find she had a 14-year-old student. And I have a nephew who needed a driver (his mother) to take him and his date to the senior prom because he wasn't old enough to have a license yet...

[samantilles.livejournal.com]

Also, this is the only episode in the entire series (and SGA, if you want to include his guest-appearance there) where Daniel is not only unfazed by the prospect of radiation, but actually argues in favor of longer exposure! Of course, this is before Meridian, but we've seen Daniel nervous about radiation as early as Singularity....

Daniel was sooo innocent in the third season... Nothing was going to stop him from the archaeological find of the moment!!

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Except that, as I said (and you quoted, heh), we have seen Daniel nervous about radiation before this - specifically in S1!

OTOH, your icon is TOTALLY made of win. :)

[samantilles.livejournal.com]

I was thinking that by third season, the whole apprehension of danger going through the stargate might have dissipated a bit--he's taking more chances and willing to sacrifice more (especially since he's already lost his wife) for his pursuits of the "meaning of life stuff"--perhaps he's not as guarded as he was in the earlier seasons, or beginning to believe that slight twinge of invincibility...

I was soo busy responding to earlier parts of your post I didn't see your final section... and then I knew I had to use my icon...

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. :) I think that Daniel is more aware of the dangers, not jaded, by later seasons - he may accept them, but that doesn't mean he'll ignore them. And I absolutely do not agree that Daniel grew more reckless after Sha're's death, even in pursuit of knowledge - if anything, he was less careful at the beginning. But the beauty of fandom is that we can all hold our own views. ;)

[randomfreshink.livejournal.com]

There are a few things we can infer from the few facts given.

It's actually to Nick's favor that he doesn't allow Daniel to be adopted by another family. The implication (as in Daniel says he visits Nick) is that Nick and Daniel carried on something of a relationship. Nick might have been the 'not great grandfather', but Daniel references their last fight as the breaking point (meaning there was enough of a relationship to break).

We can infer that Daniel also must have done some accelerated work to have the degrees that he does have. And also something of a reputation as the prodigal -- Steven makes a reference to this, and maybe he's just being catty, but it's sort of implied that Daniel's done more for his age than most.

From the number of advanced degrees that Daniel has it's also possible that Nick may have had connections that helped Daniel -- or it's also possible that Nick's reputation was bad enough that Daniel did his own work just to try and avoid tar and same brush and all (and boy what the gossip must have been after Daniel flamed out -- did folks expect nutty theories from this family?).

We do have the photo of Daniel on a camel in front of a pyramid (and, yes, Egypt is just like everywhere else that's not smack on the equator -- it can get cold, and you're wise to actually go there between Oct - May, and take a sweater and coat instead of frying your brain in the summer). But there's nothing to say that his parents took him.

However, while digs don't happen year-round, obviously Daniel's parents found and excavated a temple. That's not something that happens in a year or two -- it probably took them years of reasearch, getting funding, going to Egypt, coming home to teach. Daniel would either have to be left with family/friends in the states -- archeologist don't generally make great money, so any kind of private school is unlikely. Or he'd go with them.

It's actually pretty likely that Daniel would go with--both to Egypt and then back to the States for teaching positions. And Daniel certainly has never shown any kind of ability to put down roots, so I think while there's no proof of this, a lot of travel makes sense. It also is an argument for the multiple languages--early years in other countries would make it easier for him to acquire more laguages.

Finally, as to Daniel's foster parents and that photo -- the logic here would be that the foster parents had a child and also then took Daniel in. It's possible that the foster parents were either friends of Daniel's parents, or friends of Nick's even. It always seemed to me that Daniel's reaction to the photo was just blank--not a bad reaction, just those weren't his parents (as in it seemed as if these were people he hadn't connected with all that strongly -- he didn't reach out to touch the photo, or smile at it with memory, as you'd expect if this was a photo of him with people he'd known and loved).

So I go for the decent foster parents -- but just not folks Daniel clicked with. Visits with Nick -- they stayed in touch (and probably had more in common once Daniel got further into his education and career). Possibly Nick helped him-- definatly they argued and had a final knock-down about opinions. Family traits of being stubborn, opinionated, taking on wild theories pretty much abound.

Kind of makes you wonder if Daniel's dad was the more stabelizing one in that relationship -- or maybe Daniel's parents also had wild theories and ideas (they always looked like a bit radical types to me).

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

Yes, here definitely was a relationship, so even if Daniel wasn't raised by Nick, there's plenty of reason to call the "abandonment issues" thing into question. I don't know how much help Nick could've been with opening doors for Daniel, though - he'd been disgraced for decades. That's like our Daniel trying to, say, get Nyan a job in academia without using SGC clout - his rep would hurt, not help.

obviously Daniel's parents found and excavated a temple

Just to play devil's advocate here :) - do we know that? Just because they were setting it up doesn't mean they'd actually found it. Occam's Razor says they did, but I want to point out that we don't actually know...

I do agree that the multiple languages does suggest broader travel, although simply by virtue of the family he would've been exposed to several (his parents would speak Arabic, even if they never took him to Egypt, so he'd pick it up from them; he'd learn Dutch from Claire and Nick).

Yes, I agree with the "kid in picture is other foster child, or even natural child of foster parents." It's the only that makes sense, really. And, like you, I picture Daniel having an amicable relationship with his foster parents, but not a very close one.

[randomfreshink.livejournal.com]

Just to play devil's advocate here :) - do we know that? Just because they were setting it up doesn't mean they'd actually found it

I do think the evidence that they found it is pretty much not in question actually. First off, they're not setting it up in Egypt -- meaning getting something like this out of Egypt is not easy, and so there has to be some major connection there.

I could see one of the Dr's Jackson being hired to be a consultant to assemble an exhibit - but two? Doens't seem likely (given museum budgets). Also, the Jacksons are so obviously in charge of everything--directing the workers, holding the plans for reasembly. And being so deep in what's going on--so excited by it--that to view this as just something they got hired in to do doesn't really go with the facts.

They're also dressed far more informally than they should be if they were desk acacemics, or museum staff hired on to handle this.

So I think the family pattern is the stuff they discover up keeps getitng them in troulbe (Nick with his skull, the Jacksons and their temple, Daniel and the Stargate he opens.)

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

So I think the family pattern is the stuff they discover up keeps getitng them in trouble (Nick with his skull, the Jacksons and their temple, Daniel and the Stargate he opens.)

Hee! Oh, for the win. :)

[samantilles.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you on a number of points! I completely imagine that Nick was tangential to Daniel's upbringing--his line of the "not so great grandfather" just lends itself to the idea that Nick got himself involved in decisions maybe Daniel think he didn't need to be a part of, like deciding whether Daniel could play soccer or choose a particular instrument to play.

As for the Egyptian Digs, I imagine, like you suggest, excavating a temple takes more than six months--Many of those dig sites have been up for decades, and its the researchers that rotate in and out... As long as a dig is funded, I don't see why it wouldn't continue. As for funding, if Mel and Claire were that high up on the dig site, they would have focused a lot of their attention to publishing research relating to the dig. Publishing=money for the university=university continues to fund dig. I personally like to think that while their base of operations was at a dig site in Egypt (with an established home in a nearby city-not raising kids in tents) they would have had to travel frequently throughout the middle east and Europe for research. European libraries would have much more primary sources for their research, so I really don't see the Jacksons travelling to the United States for long periods of time. The Jacksons might spend a whole season in another city doing research, but they would ultimately return home to Egypt.

As for money, based on Robert Rothman's talk about the Crystal Skull being exactly like the Ballard Skull in the Smithsonian, it makes sense that the Ballard family (not necessarily the Jacksons though) made both fame and fortune from archaeology/exploring--including the collection and selling of artifacts... The Jacksons may not have been millionaires, but I just get a sense that the Ballard Family somehow had money in it before it seemed to die off-- I also like to think that Nick used his money to help Daniel get an education

As for decent foster parents- whether one's preference is for a single set or for the juggling around of a kid- I do not believe in any sort of way physical/sexual abuse was a part of that scenario (going back to previous discussions earlier)

[sg-fignewton.livejournal.com]

collection and selling of artifacts

Eh, that would be a definite no. Any discovered artifacts belong to the country in which they are found. Catherine's Eye of Ra pendant, for example, would never have left Egypt in more modern times. Nor would the Stargate, for that matter... :)

OTOH, Nick did have the money to pay for twenty years in an institution. That had to come from somewhere. But Daniel certainly was dead broke when the movie started - "I'm never going to get paid." "We get paid for this, right?" And even in the SGA guest appearance, "No, we're doing this for the money." So while I don't think Daniel is money obsessed by any means, I think he's very money-conscious - and that suggests that he wasn't exactly rolling in it when he was growing up.