in which Katta is much too concerned about the morals of fictional characters
Am still reading the long version of The Stand and have also joined a mailing list. While trying to wrap my thoughts around Harold I was suddenly struck with a very, very deep unease for the Boulder morals. It started with the general feeling I've had since I first read the original that if you really want to stop people from doing harm to themselves and others, mumbling about it in closed meetings isn't the way to go. That boy needed some tough love (equal stress on both words), not polite excuses and averted gazes.
And then I thought that it's much more than just Harold - they're not doing a damn thing to keep anyone around. The discussion when they find people have started to leave is on whether they should let them go or keep them there by force, but there's nothing said about what makes them go and what could make them stay. Spiritually speaking, everyone's on their own. A tug-of-war with the Dark Man on one side and only yourself on the other. Good luck!
Which led to another question: these people are against Flagg, but what are they for? I can't find an answer. Any principle they can agree on is overthrown just as quickly, and it seems to me that they're the good guys more by default than anything - good by being on the side of good, against the bad guys.
And that's hardly an uncommon position. I've had similar problems with BtVS for a long time, seeing how the thing that defines if a person should count as "good", "bad" or "unimportant" increasingly seems to be how close they are to the Scoobies (and Buffy in particular). This week's episode, Buffy said "there's only one thing on this earth more powerful than evil," and I held my breath, waiting for what would come, some sort of statement showing that the girl isn't as random as she appears to be.
"And that's us."
Fabulous. Once and for all, Buffy had thus clarified that the good guys of this show really are good guys by default and not by any virtue. What they do is okay because they're the ones doing it (and never mind that two of them were once serial killers and one was a bringer of apocalypse). Their loyalties lie with themselves, their virtues are that they're kicking the asses of the bad guys, and they get to decide who are the bad guys.
Lifting my eyes further, I keep getting troubled. What are the Fellowship of the Ring really on about? Destroying the ring, yes, defeating Sauron - saving what? Everyone seems to have their own idea about what's important and what's an acceptable loss. No wonder poor Boromir couldn't take the heat.
It makes it rather comforting to turn to Narnia. C.S. Lewis may be a fanatic and a misogynist, and his Perelandra trilogy is horrifying, but at least he let Aslan die for Edmund or all people. Gandalf died for the Fellowship. Buffy died for Dawn. Aslan died for someone who wasn't his friend and had never been his friend. Which is of course because Aslan is a Christ figure and all that, but as much as I love characters being just people, it's nice if they at least believe in something larger than themselves.
I also remember an episode of Charmed where the sisters came to the conclusion that they'd rather save five strangers than a friend. They're the characters of a lame-ass show by the master of self-righteous tripe Aaaron Spelling, but what the hell, it was a moral choice with some practical consequences (life is life, no matter who it belongs to), and that's more than I've come to expect.
Of course, I should stop interpreting the morals of my adventures or I'll never have any fun with them again ever, and that would be a pity.
After all, if I want to be upset at people who think being against the bad guys is all the morals you need, I can stick to US foreign policy.
And then I thought that it's much more than just Harold - they're not doing a damn thing to keep anyone around. The discussion when they find people have started to leave is on whether they should let them go or keep them there by force, but there's nothing said about what makes them go and what could make them stay. Spiritually speaking, everyone's on their own. A tug-of-war with the Dark Man on one side and only yourself on the other. Good luck!
Which led to another question: these people are against Flagg, but what are they for? I can't find an answer. Any principle they can agree on is overthrown just as quickly, and it seems to me that they're the good guys more by default than anything - good by being on the side of good, against the bad guys.
And that's hardly an uncommon position. I've had similar problems with BtVS for a long time, seeing how the thing that defines if a person should count as "good", "bad" or "unimportant" increasingly seems to be how close they are to the Scoobies (and Buffy in particular). This week's episode, Buffy said "there's only one thing on this earth more powerful than evil," and I held my breath, waiting for what would come, some sort of statement showing that the girl isn't as random as she appears to be.
"And that's us."
Fabulous. Once and for all, Buffy had thus clarified that the good guys of this show really are good guys by default and not by any virtue. What they do is okay because they're the ones doing it (and never mind that two of them were once serial killers and one was a bringer of apocalypse). Their loyalties lie with themselves, their virtues are that they're kicking the asses of the bad guys, and they get to decide who are the bad guys.
Lifting my eyes further, I keep getting troubled. What are the Fellowship of the Ring really on about? Destroying the ring, yes, defeating Sauron - saving what? Everyone seems to have their own idea about what's important and what's an acceptable loss. No wonder poor Boromir couldn't take the heat.
It makes it rather comforting to turn to Narnia. C.S. Lewis may be a fanatic and a misogynist, and his Perelandra trilogy is horrifying, but at least he let Aslan die for Edmund or all people. Gandalf died for the Fellowship. Buffy died for Dawn. Aslan died for someone who wasn't his friend and had never been his friend. Which is of course because Aslan is a Christ figure and all that, but as much as I love characters being just people, it's nice if they at least believe in something larger than themselves.
I also remember an episode of Charmed where the sisters came to the conclusion that they'd rather save five strangers than a friend. They're the characters of a lame-ass show by the master of self-righteous tripe Aaaron Spelling, but what the hell, it was a moral choice with some practical consequences (life is life, no matter who it belongs to), and that's more than I've come to expect.
Of course, I should stop interpreting the morals of my adventures or I'll never have any fun with them again ever, and that would be a pity.
After all, if I want to be upset at people who think being against the bad guys is all the morals you need, I can stick to US foreign policy.