(no subject)
So I've been thinking about Crazy Uncle Arvin and his shiny new personality. But before I go any farther with this, is the Crazy Uncle Arvin a TwoP thing, or am I stealing something from jennyo?
The B.H. has a theory about Charmed, which includes some stuff about cleavage and skimpy outfits and the claim that all Charmed plots boil down to "Is Cole evil, or not?" So this will be the "Is Sloane evil, or not?" post.
Arvin Sloane is the enemy. Right? Sydney hates him: after all, he had her fiance killed, and that's not something you forgive easily. Not if you're Sydney Bristow. He's done quite a few other very bad things: had people tortured and killed, engaged in the trade in illegal arms and various forms of espionage. Even Sloane's better qualities seem to have bad results: he loved his wife so much that he had the wife of the man who killed her murdered. I can't say that I think Emily would have approved.
But what does Sloane really want? He certainly seems to enjoy the trappings of wealth and power, but that's not what motivates him. He's capable of caring deeply for other people (Emily, Sydney, and I think Jack as well), but although that might drive him to take certain actions in the short term, like destroying the Alliance so that he and Emily could be together, that emotion doesn't drive his biggest decisions.
Sloane's real goal is knowledge: specifically, knowledge about Rambaldi and the fulfillment of Rambaldi's prophecies. As far as he's concerned, the means don't matter. He readily agrees to incinerate a church-full of innocent people, if it means that an Afghan warlord will give him another piece of the Rambaldi puzzle: in Sloane's algebra, those lives simply don't matter.
But what if Sloane changed his mind? What if he thought that the means did matter? What if he thought that his actions were leading him farther away from Rambaldi's vision, rather than bringing him closer to it? In that context, I would find Sloane's changed character perfectly believable: he would give up violence and crime in a heartbeat and dedicate himself to doing good in the world. Because in effect, it wouldn't be change of character: he would be maintaining his primary interest in Rambaldi. With the exception of his devotion to Emily, Sloane has never, I would suggest, cared about other people's lives except insofar as they relate to Rambaldi (even his affection for Sydney might fall into this category, depending on what he knew when): the fact that he's devoting himself to saving lives doesn't necessarily indicate a change in that characteristic.
So is he evil, or isn't he? I think I'd suggest that the terms don't really apply. Sloane has an obsession, and that obsession drives him to act in certain ways. Some of those actions help people, and some hurt people. If one isn't going to give him credit for helping people (because he's doing it in pursuit of a larger goal to which they are irrelevant), should one blame him for all the death and pain he caused?
Like pretty much everyone else, I don't believe that Sloane has really changed. I'm just not sure, now that I've thought about it, that that makes him evil.
Next week: I try to work cleavage into my Grand Sloane Unification Theory.
The B.H. has a theory about Charmed, which includes some stuff about cleavage and skimpy outfits and the claim that all Charmed plots boil down to "Is Cole evil, or not?" So this will be the "Is Sloane evil, or not?" post.
Arvin Sloane is the enemy. Right? Sydney hates him: after all, he had her fiance killed, and that's not something you forgive easily. Not if you're Sydney Bristow. He's done quite a few other very bad things: had people tortured and killed, engaged in the trade in illegal arms and various forms of espionage. Even Sloane's better qualities seem to have bad results: he loved his wife so much that he had the wife of the man who killed her murdered. I can't say that I think Emily would have approved.
But what does Sloane really want? He certainly seems to enjoy the trappings of wealth and power, but that's not what motivates him. He's capable of caring deeply for other people (Emily, Sydney, and I think Jack as well), but although that might drive him to take certain actions in the short term, like destroying the Alliance so that he and Emily could be together, that emotion doesn't drive his biggest decisions.
Sloane's real goal is knowledge: specifically, knowledge about Rambaldi and the fulfillment of Rambaldi's prophecies. As far as he's concerned, the means don't matter. He readily agrees to incinerate a church-full of innocent people, if it means that an Afghan warlord will give him another piece of the Rambaldi puzzle: in Sloane's algebra, those lives simply don't matter.
But what if Sloane changed his mind? What if he thought that the means did matter? What if he thought that his actions were leading him farther away from Rambaldi's vision, rather than bringing him closer to it? In that context, I would find Sloane's changed character perfectly believable: he would give up violence and crime in a heartbeat and dedicate himself to doing good in the world. Because in effect, it wouldn't be change of character: he would be maintaining his primary interest in Rambaldi. With the exception of his devotion to Emily, Sloane has never, I would suggest, cared about other people's lives except insofar as they relate to Rambaldi (even his affection for Sydney might fall into this category, depending on what he knew when): the fact that he's devoting himself to saving lives doesn't necessarily indicate a change in that characteristic.
So is he evil, or isn't he? I think I'd suggest that the terms don't really apply. Sloane has an obsession, and that obsession drives him to act in certain ways. Some of those actions help people, and some hurt people. If one isn't going to give him credit for helping people (because he's doing it in pursuit of a larger goal to which they are irrelevant), should one blame him for all the death and pain he caused?
Like pretty much everyone else, I don't believe that Sloane has really changed. I'm just not sure, now that I've thought about it, that that makes him evil.
Next week: I try to work cleavage into my Grand Sloane Unification Theory.