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
( Read more... )
I don't believe that "you have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."
I was thinking yesterday how they are all really working for God, yet it isn't really stated - just implied in so many ways. And what does God stand for? that goes on to the meaning of life - which is, by the way, to create more life - which does occur to the good guys in The Stand.
Though I do hate the way their committee and such works - I always hate a closed door, *our* friends are always right therefore we are in charge situation. And they don't seem to care about the practical things that need taken care of (or only a few) like how are they going to get more spam into that town when the grocery stores are all empty and the roads are snowed over? sheesh!
Reply
Uh, yes. They do. They're in a situation of great ethical implications, and being against the bad guy isn't good enough.
I know it's implied that they're "for" God, but that doesn't mean anything practically, because they're not backing it up with any morals.
At times they go "should we really do this" and write it off with necessary measures (fighting the bad guys). At other times they don't even do that.
I think The Stand is fabulous as an adventure and positively terrible as a morality. If it's to be a stand, it should be a *stand*.
The Dark Man is bad. Fine. Why is he bad? Why is the Zone better? No mumbo jumbo about "the old ways", because comparing the two cities that's *not* the difference, and before one finds something that actually *is* different and worth fighting for, letting oneself be martured is pretty much pointless.
Reply
It is, I think, better to know what one is for rather than only what one is against, but I think it is probably possible to do things that are worthwhile and important even if -- at least to begin with -- all you're going on is that "This is not right; this is bad and must be prevented or changed." There are dangers, of course: particularly if you're talking change rather than prevention, there's the need to make sure that what "this" gets replaced with isn't as bad or worse; there's also the matter of methods, and to what extent fire can or should be fought with fire (or flood, which can also be devastating... *pauses to rein in runaway metaphor*), and what constitutes an acceptable loss in order to prevent a worse one.
Being for, though as I said I agree that it's better, has its own dangers; you have the matter of methods and what constitutes an acceptable cost for a gain (and I had to stop and word the corresponding problem carefully above for cases ( ... )
Reply
Yes, I think that's it, really. Both in BtVS and in The Stand, the good guys are willing to do things they know to be bad because it's for a higher good, but it's never clearly stated what this higher good is, and it never seems to extend to people who aren't them. (Like the way Buffy killed those knights in s5 without a second thought.)
I have a lot less problem with Fellowship of the Ring where this is concerned, because they don't compromise their morals to the same degree as the others, and because they do have some sympathy for the fallen (Gollum). But since it's such a very influential story, I think the lack of a positive common goal has meant that other writers feel that such a thing is unnecessary.
Reply
I think America is the greatest example of how being "for" something isn't the best option. Iraq? that was "for" freedom. Yeah, sure, it sounds great - and people here wouldn't go for the whole idea if nobody said "This is for our freedom!" Freedom from terrorism, freedom for tyranny, or just freedom to set off our big boms is another issue - but by-God, we are for something. and to quote that damned country song again, "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything ( ... )
Reply
Being for a good thing doesn't excuse all sorts of bad behaviour, no. But the point in this case is that they did all sorts of bad things *anyway*, and still called themselves the good guys by just not being the bad guys.
As for America, obviously it's very easy to claim to be for "freedom" if "freedom" doesn't conflict with such things as putting 600+ people in jail for two years without a trial.
Reply
Leave a comment