Jason's morality vs. my morality
I try to keep his code of ethics consistent rather than trying to put it on a moral scale. It would be easy for me to say: oh, no, I don't agree with killing, or vigilantism, therefore I don't sympathize with Jason at all! But that's disingenuous and ignoring the more specific aspects of what he believes in. That said, I don't believe Jason is right. I think that his level of violence only begets more violence, and is abhorrent besides. It's acceptable to me only in fictional terms.
On the other hand, I'm not so sure what I think about the concept that "sometimes to do a great right, you have to do a great wrong", which I interpret as something along the lines of Veidt's utilitarian solution of killing off a smaller amount of people in order to "save" everyone else. In that specific instance of Watchmen's plot, I don't condone Veidt's actions at all, I don't think it solves enough. In principle, however, I can see both sides of the argument. I think emotionally and, uh, I don't know, spiritually I really cannot cope with actually killing off ten people to save a hundred, because, um, I'm not a fictional badass who can make tough decisions like that and then stand by what they decided. Jason would kill those ten people himself if he had to, and then defend his actions stridently.
This is in part because he's willing to take on the consequences for doing that kind of thing. Whereas I am just completely O____O and frozen and unable to make a choice. Jason doesn't feel guilt to the extent Batman does, and tends to ignore any guilt he does feel what he says is that he isn't sorry. He says he feels no remorse. And that's... true, to an extent. He refuses to feel guilt, but that's not quite the same thing. There is an emotional toll slowly adding up on him, and he does sense it a bit, unconsciously, he does know that sooner or later, this is going to get to him. He's determined that it should be later, that he should get as much "good work" done as possible before he starts to falter. Which he may or may not ever actually do; it depends on how long he lives and the decisions he makes. Redemption isn't wholly out of the question, if only because much worse people have turned their lives around and gone the other way. It's just that Jason is extremely unlikely to.
I try to keep in mind that the Jason that put on a cowl and used his guns on thugs is the same Jason that cried in front of Bruce, saying that he wasn't talking about killing the Riddler or Two-Face but only the Joker, "because he took me away from you". You can see which side I'm biased to, not least because Under the Hood is far and away more nuanced a characterization than Battle for the Cowl. The Jason that decapitated a bunch of drug lords is the same Jason that approached Donna and after shooting her in the ruse to get them all away from danger said "you know I would never". The Jason that told Dick he wanted to be a family again and tried to work with Tim is the same Jason that later fought them both.
So... I do sympathize with Jason, up to a point, and I think he's an interesting character with a lot of interesting potential. But I'm not an apologist. He is wrong. He is disturbed, though maybe not as badly as he might be, and fucked up in ways that are not the kinds of ways people like to exploit for cheap drama. He rationalizes his actions and isn't as self-aware as he thinks he is. He has an extremely ugly side made of anger and instability and violence; he has a strangely noble side, with his Thing about rapists and his desire to uphold justice, although it's a form of justice that is highly questionable and highly controversial. And then he's also simply and inherently rebellious, going against things out of sheer stubbornness and perversity. He has lived through so much and experienced so many things, and yet he is still very, very young to me.
I try my best to write him as a fully realized character without being a total nutbag who puts him on a pedestal. That's basically what this entire thing is about, I don't want people to think I think he's right when he argues with people about his morals. He's "right" in that he is being consistent within his own personal system, but morality isn't totally relative, and in my personal system, he is wrong. THE END.
On the other hand, I'm not so sure what I think about the concept that "sometimes to do a great right, you have to do a great wrong", which I interpret as something along the lines of Veidt's utilitarian solution of killing off a smaller amount of people in order to "save" everyone else. In that specific instance of Watchmen's plot, I don't condone Veidt's actions at all, I don't think it solves enough. In principle, however, I can see both sides of the argument. I think emotionally and, uh, I don't know, spiritually I really cannot cope with actually killing off ten people to save a hundred, because, um, I'm not a fictional badass who can make tough decisions like that and then stand by what they decided. Jason would kill those ten people himself if he had to, and then defend his actions stridently.
This is in part because he's willing to take on the consequences for doing that kind of thing. Whereas I am just completely O____O and frozen and unable to make a choice. Jason doesn't feel guilt to the extent Batman does, and tends to ignore any guilt he does feel what he says is that he isn't sorry. He says he feels no remorse. And that's... true, to an extent. He refuses to feel guilt, but that's not quite the same thing. There is an emotional toll slowly adding up on him, and he does sense it a bit, unconsciously, he does know that sooner or later, this is going to get to him. He's determined that it should be later, that he should get as much "good work" done as possible before he starts to falter. Which he may or may not ever actually do; it depends on how long he lives and the decisions he makes. Redemption isn't wholly out of the question, if only because much worse people have turned their lives around and gone the other way. It's just that Jason is extremely unlikely to.
I try to keep in mind that the Jason that put on a cowl and used his guns on thugs is the same Jason that cried in front of Bruce, saying that he wasn't talking about killing the Riddler or Two-Face but only the Joker, "because he took me away from you". You can see which side I'm biased to, not least because Under the Hood is far and away more nuanced a characterization than Battle for the Cowl. The Jason that decapitated a bunch of drug lords is the same Jason that approached Donna and after shooting her in the ruse to get them all away from danger said "you know I would never". The Jason that told Dick he wanted to be a family again and tried to work with Tim is the same Jason that later fought them both.
So... I do sympathize with Jason, up to a point, and I think he's an interesting character with a lot of interesting potential. But I'm not an apologist. He is wrong. He is disturbed, though maybe not as badly as he might be, and fucked up in ways that are not the kinds of ways people like to exploit for cheap drama. He rationalizes his actions and isn't as self-aware as he thinks he is. He has an extremely ugly side made of anger and instability and violence; he has a strangely noble side, with his Thing about rapists and his desire to uphold justice, although it's a form of justice that is highly questionable and highly controversial. And then he's also simply and inherently rebellious, going against things out of sheer stubbornness and perversity. He has lived through so much and experienced so many things, and yet he is still very, very young to me.
I try my best to write him as a fully realized character without being a total nutbag who puts him on a pedestal. That's basically what this entire thing is about, I don't want people to think I think he's right when he argues with people about his morals. He's "right" in that he is being consistent within his own personal system, but morality isn't totally relative, and in my personal system, he is wrong. THE END.