OTOH...I've seen the comparing of misdeeds thing done a lot in fandom. And in various fandoms -- usually as a way of defending one's favorite character. "My character is less evil than your character, nyah, nyah, nyah..." Which is of course irrelevant. Because honestly who cares? It's not like they auditioning for sainthood or even redemption. And often, in stories, the more interesting or better-written characters are the dark edgy ones...mainly because a lot of television and genre writers don't know how to write characters that aren't dark and edgy, and make them a bit bland. (But that's another discussion.) I often wanted to come back to people and say, in my best Dirty Harry/Clint Eastwood impression: " I don't care if Spike is evil and irredeemable -- I happen to like him. You got a problem with that? Do you bub?" But where would be the fun in that? So much more fun to have endless and unwinnable debates on which character did the worst thing ever and who was the least redeemable.
Because the problem is ...our actions are largely situational. At the end of the day, you've no idea what you would do if you were thrown into that situation and had that character's issues. No one does. Sure it's easy to judge in hindsight. But we don't know what we'd do at that moment in time. And if one thing were to change, or the timing were different or our mood or we ate something different that day -- we may well have done something different. That's why it is more than possible for someone to do something monsterous one day and saintly the next. It depends on multiple variables and is rarely predictable - unless you have the ability to see every single variable no matter how small or seemingly insignificant.
Fans don't know what Angel would have done if it had been him in those situations in S6 instead of Spike. (And it probably would have been Angel, if there wasn't a spin-off and Spike hadn't taken off.) They don't know what they would have done.
For example? I remember when I was defending a career bank robber - I was handling his parol hearing. The man was in his late 40s. He robbed banks to support a drug habit. And he asked me if I thought he'd be able to go legit on the outside, to not fall back on old ways. He'd rehabilitated himself in prison, did all the right things. I remember thinking and in fact I told him this...that I had no idea. And I did not think I had the right to judge him, because I had no idea what I would have done if I were him. Literally him. And you can't know unless you are literally in that other person's body.
But we judge these fictional characters morality anyhow. It's impossible, I think, not to. Deeply ingrained in our DNA. An evolutionary tactic no doubt - to ferret out those we do not want to model ourselves after, and too steer clear of. But it's also a flaw, I think, to the extent that it cuts off compassion and understanding. But again, easy to say...when you aren't the victim of the crime or the crime the fictional character committed doesn't trigger a crime committed against you. It's easy to be non-judgemental of a character that say robs banks, when you've never been robbed at gunpoint. Not so easy when you have.
And I think that's part of it as well. Certain fictional characters misdeeds trigger people, who have either been victims of similar misdeeds or had close family members who did. And that's an emotional reaction, I don't think most people can easily dismiss or get around.
no subject
OTOH...I've seen the comparing of misdeeds thing done a lot in fandom. And in various fandoms -- usually as a way of defending one's favorite character. "My character is less evil than your character, nyah, nyah, nyah..." Which is of course irrelevant. Because honestly who cares? It's not like they auditioning for sainthood or even redemption. And often, in stories, the more interesting or better-written characters are the dark edgy ones...mainly because a lot of television and genre writers don't know how to write characters that aren't dark and edgy, and make them a bit bland. (But that's another discussion.) I often wanted to come back to people and say, in my best Dirty Harry/Clint Eastwood impression: " I don't care if Spike is evil and irredeemable -- I happen to like him. You got a problem with that? Do you bub?" But where would be the fun in that? So much more fun to have endless and unwinnable debates on which character did the worst thing ever and who was the least redeemable.
Because the problem is ...our actions are largely situational. At the end of the day, you've no idea what you would do if you were thrown into that situation and had that character's issues. No one does. Sure it's easy to judge in hindsight. But we don't know what we'd do at that moment in time. And if one thing were to change, or the timing were different or our mood or we ate something different that day -- we may well have done something different. That's why it is more than possible for someone to do something monsterous one day and saintly the next. It depends on multiple variables and is rarely predictable - unless you have the ability to see every single variable no matter how small or seemingly insignificant.
Fans don't know what Angel would have done if it had been him in those situations in S6 instead of Spike. (And it probably would have been Angel, if there wasn't a spin-off and Spike hadn't taken off.) They don't know what they would have done.
For example? I remember when I was defending a career bank robber - I was handling his parol hearing. The man was in his late 40s. He robbed banks to support a drug habit. And he asked me if I thought he'd be able to go legit on the outside, to not fall back on old ways. He'd rehabilitated himself in prison, did all the right things.
I remember thinking and in fact I told him this...that I had no idea. And I did not think I had the right to judge him, because I had no idea what I would have done if I were him. Literally him. And you can't know unless you are literally in that other person's body.
But we judge these fictional characters morality anyhow. It's impossible, I think, not to. Deeply ingrained in our DNA. An evolutionary tactic no doubt - to ferret out those we do not want to model ourselves after, and too steer clear of. But it's also a flaw, I think, to the extent that it cuts off compassion and understanding.
But again, easy to say...when you aren't the victim of the crime or the crime the fictional character committed doesn't trigger a crime committed against you. It's easy to be non-judgemental of a character that say robs banks, when you've never been robbed at gunpoint. Not so easy when you have.
And I think that's part of it as well. Certain fictional characters misdeeds trigger people, who have either been victims of similar misdeeds or had close family members who did. And that's an emotional reaction, I don't think most people can easily dismiss or get around.