Why can't we just have evil villains?

[stonester1]

This is the wrong place to have a discussion about good and evil. I would go out on a limb and say most of the people here do not believe in the concept, just like they do not believe there is a right and a wrong. People are pretty much free to do whatever they like is the Trekbbs mantra.

There are just too many intelligent, well read people here to accept anything so simple as good and evil.

I'm intelligent and well read, but DO accept "good" and "evil". I just don't think they are always "simple".

But to deny them completely throws you into a dangerously morally ambiguous zone where no one can be judged and anything can be justified.

That way lies madness and destruction.

 

[stonester1]

One of the reasons I so enjoy Whedon's work is that he knows that the outer universe gives a fuck about good and evil - and he understands that most of the time other than when they're chatting about, neither do most human beings.

Ah, but even in Whedon's world, it is NOT that simple. He makes it clear the outer universe DOES care. But it's not nearly so simple as some of his characters, or us, sometimes want it. But he has never just dismissed it.

Like the episode of Angel, where he had his confrontation with a Senior Partner from Wolfram and Hart, and he was told by the deceased Holland Manners that there can be no final defeat of evil, because there is no real war. That "evil" is just a part of human nature, and it will always be there in all it's mundanity.

Angel came away from that believing since it looks like there is no big picture, and nothing matters in the grand scheme, it would seem, then the little things matter that much more. Because there is no "big picture", and the deeds don't matter. We don't matter.

Then Kate, the lady cop, told him that he managed to enter her apartment and save her life without being invited, with the suggestion of divine intervention VERY clear.

The greatness of Whedon is not a morally indifferent universe. It is complex one that allows for a wide range of possibiities and even more important...HOPE.

 

[DevilEyes]

This is the wrong place to have a discussion about good and evil. I would go out on a limb and say most of the people here do not believe in the concept, just like they do not believe there is a right and a wrong. People are pretty much free to do whatever they like is the Trekbbs mantra.

There are just too many intelligent, well read people here to accept anything so simple as good and evil.

I'm intelligent and well read, but DO accept "good" and "evil". I just don't think they are always "simple".

But to deny them completely throws you into a dangerously morally ambiguous zone where no one can be judged and anything can be justified.

That way lies madness and destruction.

It's a matter of wording. I believe that there is right and wrong, and while you distinguishing between them is not always easy and there are many grey areas, I don't believe in total moral relativism either.

The problem is that words "Good" and "Evil" sound too metaphysical to many people, reminiscent of notions such as God and Satan instead of a realistic depiction of the causes of crime, corruption, abuse etc.

 

[stonester1]

This is the wrong place to have a discussion about good and evil. I would go out on a limb and say most of the people here do not believe in the concept, just like they do not believe there is a right and a wrong. People are pretty much free to do whatever they like is the Trekbbs mantra.

There are just too many intelligent, well read people here to accept anything so simple as good and evil.

I'm intelligent and well read, but DO accept "good" and "evil". I just don't think they are always "simple".

But to deny them completely throws you into a dangerously morally ambiguous zone where no one can be judged and anything can be justified.

That way lies madness and destruction.

It's a matter of wording. I believe that there is right and wrong, and while you distinguishing between them is not always easy and there are many grey areas, I don't believe in total moral relativism either.

The problem is that words "Good" and "Evil" sound too metaphysical to many people, reminiscent of notions such as God and Satan instead of a realistic depiction of the causes of crime, corruption, abuse etc.

Well, one can't completely dismiss and "sanitize" considerations of good and evil, either. Who we are on the inside matters at least as much as what is going on in the outer world.

I think it can be clearly demonstrated that "grey areas" complicate things (and in storytelling, make things more interesting). But acknowledging the metaphysical doesn't eliminate it, either. In fact, IMO, just lends another element to consider, ie human nature, which IMO, doesn't just break down to biological processes (and becomes less interesting when one attempts to do so).

 

[Trent Roman]

Ahistorical? The Nero of Trek 11 wasn't an accurate depiction of the real Nero that came back to the 23d century? Well, honestly, I could buy that...

As an aside, why did they call him Nero--does anyone know? I would have expected that naming your character after a well-known historical figure would evoke deliberate echoes, but beyond the general Roman feel of the Romulans, there aren't much in ways of echoes between them. Did they just think Nero sounded cool?

In any case, what I meant is that Nero felt like a character who had no history. He emerges almost literally ex nihilo at the beginning of the film, vanishes entirely for a few decades, and reappears at the right plot moment. And apart from a throwaway flashback sequence to give him the typical Trek villain motive (dead wife), we know nothing of his life, his culture (which significantly differs from what we've seen of Romulans), his ship (ditto), who all these cronies are, etc.

But to deny them completely throws you into a dangerously morally ambiguous zone where no one can be judged and anything can be justified. That way lies madness and destruction.

Or, you know, there's always the possibility that there exist other criteria for judgement beyond those two...

Well, one can't completely dismiss and "sanitize" considerations of good and evil, either. Who we are on the inside matters at least as much as what is going on in the outer world.

I can't agree with that. It's terribly deterministic and generally unjust. You can't change who you are; but you can choose what you do. It's on the latter that a person should be judged.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[stonester1]

Or, you know, there's always the possibility that there exist other criteria for judgement beyond those two...

Maybe, but I've yet to see anyone attempt to articulate one that didn't just sound like mushmouthed PC nonsense.

Well, one can't completely dismiss and "sanitize" considerations of good and evil, either. Who we are on the inside matters at least as much as what is going on in the outer world.

I can't agree with that. It's terribly deterministic and generally unjust. You can't change who you are; but you can choose what you do. It's on the latter that a person should be judged.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Not deterministic at all. Because most of the belief systems that these come from heavily emphasize personal choice and responsibility.

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

You think that's what we're "supposed" to see (whatever that means)?

Much apologies, I didn't realise that when I was watching the show and enjoying it, I was actually enjoying it for the "wrong" reason.

Did you happen to completely miss the last season?

Um, yes, I did actually

 

[Nerys Myk]

Ahistorical? The Nero of Trek 11 wasn't an accurate depiction of the real Nero that came back to the 23d century? Well, honestly, I could buy that...

As an aside, why did they call him Nero--does anyone know? I would have expected that naming your character after a well-known historical figure would evoke deliberate echoes, but beyond the general Roman feel of the Romulans, there aren't much in ways of echoes between them. Did they just think Nero sounded cool?

In any case, what I meant is that Nero felt like a character who had no history. He emerges almost literally ex nihilo at the beginning of the film, vanishes entirely for a few decades, and reappears at the right plot moment. And apart from a throwaway flashback sequence to give him the typical Trek villain motive (dead wife), we know nothing of his life, his culture (which significantly differs from what we've seen of Romulans), his ship (ditto), who all these cronies are, etc.

Is Spock a baby doc? Is Chang Chinese? Is Decius from BOT anything like the Emperor Decius? I think cool covers it.

Nero was a miner and his cronies are miners too. His culture is that of Romulan miners. And he holds a grudge. His ship is a mining vessel so it doesn't look like a warbird. His favorite color and zodiac sign were not mentioned.

 

[Greg Cox]

Careful. Too much explanation and you risk justification.

No. Explanations are not excuses. But too many people confuse the two . . . to the extent that any attempt to explain why things happen is seen as an excuse or justification. Which just gets in the way of the understanding the problem.

Things happen for reasons. Effects have causes. People behave the way they do because of complicated factors: psychology, sociology, history, culture, parenting, etc. This doesn't mean that it's okay to eat babies, blow up buildings, commit genocide, etcetera--but, in general, examing the root causes of malignant behavior is more useful (and interesting) than just labeling it "evil" and saying that's all that matters.

As for fiction . . . depends on the story. Sometimes a clear-cut villain helps move a fast-paced adventure story along. More complicated stories require more complicated antagonists . . . .

 

[DevilEyes]

You think that's what we're "supposed" to see (whatever that means)?

Much apologies, I didn't realise that when I was watching the show and enjoying it, I was actually enjoying it for the "wrong" reason.

I wasn't aware that I was "supposed" to think something that I didn't think while watching the show. Where exactly did you get the info on what we were "supposed" to think? And oh how did I fail to meet that condition?

Did you happen to completely miss the last season?

Um, yes, I did actually

Then I am curious what how you'll feel after seeing the entire show.

 

[stonester1]

Careful. Too much explanation and you risk justification.

No. Explanations are not excuses. But too many people confuse the two . . . to the extent that any attempt to explain why things happen is seen as an excuse or justification. Which just gets in the way of the understanding the problem.

Things happen for reasons. Effects have causes. People behave the way they do because of complicated factors: psychology, sociology, history, culture, parenting, etc. This doesn't mean that it's okay to eat babies, blow up buildings, commit genocide, etcetera--but, in general, examing the root causes of malignant behavior is more useful (and interesting) than just labeling it "evil" and saying that's all that matters.

As for fiction . . . depends on the story. Sometimes a clear-cut villain helps move a fast-paced adventuresstory along. More complicated stories require more complicated antagonists . . . .

Heck, understanding the reasons can sometimes lead to a more interesting resolve than just one more fight scene, especially in stories.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Ah, but even in Whedon's world, it is NOT that simple. He makes it clear the outer universe DOES care.

I remember something he said once about Firefly, regarding the Alliance. Now the DVD case - and quite a lot of reviews and stuff - flat out labels the Alliance as a "totalitarian regime" like SW's Empire. But I think we know it's not that simple. The Alliance may be overextended, too big, but not evil. Whedon said that sometimes, the Alliance is the USA in World War II (good) and sometimes it's the USA in Vietnam (not so good).

That being said, I rooted for the Alliance for two reasons: 1) I have very little tolerance, fictionally, for 'renegades, rebels and rogues' (to paraphrase Tracy Lawrence ). I find them disagreeable jerks. 2) The specific characters in this show were VERY disagreeable jerks. Except for the Shepherd. I couldn't like or sympathize with any of them. I thought they should all get blown out the damn airlock.

Much apologies, I didn't realise that when I was watching the show and enjoying it, I was actually enjoying it for the "wrong" reason.

See above. Whedon's intent in making FF was most likely to make us sympathize with and like the 'browncoats' (since they were the main characters), but I didn't. I was rooting for the Alliance the whole time. I'm not saying the Independents didn't have legitimate grievances, but hey, this is a TV show after all, I'll root for whoever I bloody feel like. So if I couldn't root for them, where I was supposed to, that's probably why I never liked the show.

 

[Greg Cox]

Did you happen to completely miss the last season?

Um, yes, I did actually

Then I am curious what how you'll feel after seeing the entire show.[/QUOTE]


Indeed, it's probably worth remembering that a lot of us don't get Showtime and haven't seen the new season yet. I'm trying very hard to avoid reading any spoilers until Season 4 comes out on DVD next year . . . .

 

[stonester1]

I remember something he said once about Firefly, regarding the Alliance. Now the DVD case - and quite a lot of reviews and stuff - flat out labels the Alliance as a "totalitarian regime" like SW's Empire. But I think we know it's not that simple. The Alliance may be overextended, too big, but not evil. Whedon said that sometimes, the Alliance is the USA in World War II (good) and sometimes it's the USA in Vietnam (not so good).

Yes, it's clear the Alliance is NOT an evil despotic regime. It's just a big government that is well meaning but occasionally clumsy and overreaching.

 

[stonester1]

See above. Whedon's intent in making FF was most likely to make us sympathize with and like the 'browncoats' (since they were the main characters), but I didn't. I was rooting for the Alliance the whole time. I'm not saying the Independents didn't have legitimate grievances, but hey, this is a TV show after all, I'll root for whoever I bloody feel like. So if I couldn't root for them, where I was supposed to, that's probably why I never liked the show.

I love FF, btw. Not just because I loved the characters and had sympathy with some of Mal Reynold's feelings, but the working Joes in space thing was a shot in the arm for space opera.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Yes, it's clear the Alliance is NOT an evil despotic regime. It's just a big government that is well meaning but occasionally clumsy and overreaching.

Their starships are really cool though.

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

I wasn't aware that I was "supposed" to think something that I didn't think while watching the show. Where exactly did you get the info on what we were "supposed" to think? And oh how did I fail to meet that condition?

Where? From my very own head of course!

Am I in trouble now for not providing evidence of right-thinking?

How oh how will I be punished for the crime of daring to share a brief thought on a television show I enjoyed, with the rest of the BBS?

Or... why not just share your alternative view and illuminate me on the subject. You can fight ignorance and allow someone to perhaps better appreciate something from a whole new point of view. Doesn't any of that sound appealing to you?

 

[stonester1]

Yes, it's clear the Alliance is NOT an evil despotic regime. It's just a big government that is well meaning but occasionally clumsy and overreaching.

Their starships are really cool though.

Indeed, good starship porn on FF/Serenity.

 

[DevilEyes]

I wasn't aware that I was "supposed" to think something that I didn't think while watching the show. Where exactly did you get the info on what we were "supposed" to think? And oh how did I fail to meet that condition?

Where? From my very own head of course!

Am I in trouble now for not providing evidence of right-thinking?

How oh how will I be punished for the crime of daring to share a brief thought on a television show I enjoyed, with the rest of the BBS?

Or... why not just share your alternative view and illuminate me on the subject. You can fight ignorance and allow someone to perhaps better appreciate something from a whole new point of view. Doesn't any of that sound appealing to you?

Oh, poor you. Your freedom of speech has been denied by someone who dared question your statement that you knew exactly what the viewers were SUPPOSED to think about a show. *yawn*

You're the one who said you knew what the One Right Interpretation of the show was. So it's quite silly for you to pretend that it was me. It looks like you're arguing with yourself, but for some reason you keep quoting my posts.

Also, if I were you, I'd watch the entire series before making such big pronouncements as that everyone has to recognize that Vic was the greatest guy eva who made everything so great and happy and wonderful.

 

[Greg Cox]

See above. Whedon's intent in making FF was most likely to make us sympathize with and like the 'browncoats' (since they were the main characters), but I didn't. I was rooting for the Alliance the whole time. I'm not saying the Independents didn't have legitimate grievances, but hey, this is a TV show after all, I'll root for whoever I bloody feel like. So if I couldn't root for them, where I was supposed to, that's probably why I never liked the show.

I love FF, btw. Not just because I loved the characters and had sympathy with some of Mal Reynold's feelings, but the working Joes in space thing was a shot in the arm for space opera.

Me, I just loved the characters and the snappy dialogue.