I wish I could say that I disagree. But alas, I don't. The Finn storyline worked up to a point. Where it failed is like you state...the decision to emphasize the pain of the Sky People over the Grounders. Unfortunately, the show is set up that way -- we're in the point of view of the Sky People, so we will always get their side over the Grounders. If you look at it from the perspective that you are in one point of view not the other, and you should as a viewer be questioning that point of view/perspective...it sort of works. (Point of view fascinates me in stories.) Here, our point of view is split between various post-adolescent protagonists - Clarke, Bellamy, Octavia, Jasper, Raven, and Murphy. And a few adult protagonists - Kane, Abby, and Theolonius. Everyone else, with the possible exception of Lincoln -- is secondary point of view, although I think Lincoln is as well.
So the story tellers are telling the story through the perspective of the settlers or the astronauts coming back down to earth after being in the sky for decades. And like most people, they see it as being all about them, their pain, their needs, their issues, and they've cast themselves as the heroes.
I think the Finn arc was supposed to question that perspective. Yet at the same time add a layer of ambiguity to it -- in that the Sky People weren't permitted to put him on trial themselves and had to follow the Grounder's ways. This feels largely unfair, considering that the Grounders were permitted to try the Ice Nation themselves and not let the Sky People enact their brand of justice. Perhaps if they had turned over the Ice Nation to the Sky People to enact justice...things would have gone differently? Who knows.
Anyhow that's how I've made it work for myself. Take it or leave it. Because I'm not sure it entirely works. And like you, I don't like the repetition of the story arc. I feel like we've done this three times now. The best was Mount Weather -- that was the best of the three and the most ambiguous and horrific. After that, I didn't think it needed to be explored again...but I guess the writers felt they needed to make a much bigger point about the Grounder's being less monsterous in some respects than our protagonists, or rather make that point to the protagonists -(who consider themselves they advanced culture)- you sought the violent remedy, not the Grounders who you accuse of being uncivilized. (Which is true. Sure the Grounders have attacked, but their attacks are nothing compared to :1) the nuclear explosion in S1, Finn's massacre of the village - S2, Clarke and Bellamy's massacre of Mount Weather -S2, and Bellamy/Pike's massacre of the 300 Grounder army that was there to protect them.) To put this into historical perspective? The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor pales in comparison to the two bombs the US dropped on the Japanese. Just as the various Native American/indian attacks in America pale in comparison to how the European settlers almost massacred them with their bigger weapons. (There's a lot guilt in my country over that by the way, hence the reason the trope keeps popping up.)
I think that's why they are doing it. I'm just hoping they move on soon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2016-02-22 03:40 am (UTC)So the story tellers are telling the story through the perspective of the settlers or the astronauts coming back down to earth after being in the sky for decades. And like most people, they see it as being all about them, their pain, their needs, their issues, and they've cast themselves as the heroes.
I think the Finn arc was supposed to question that perspective. Yet at the same time add a layer of ambiguity to it -- in that the Sky People weren't permitted to put him on trial themselves and had to follow the Grounder's ways. This feels largely unfair, considering that the Grounders were permitted to try the Ice Nation themselves and not let the Sky People enact their brand of justice. Perhaps if they had turned over the Ice Nation to the Sky People to enact justice...things would have gone differently? Who knows.
Anyhow that's how I've made it work for myself. Take it or leave it. Because I'm not sure it entirely works. And like you, I don't like the repetition of the story arc. I feel like we've done this three times now. The best was Mount Weather -- that was the best of the three and the most ambiguous and horrific. After that, I didn't think it needed to be explored again...but I guess the writers felt they needed to make a much bigger point about the Grounder's being less monsterous in some respects than our protagonists, or rather make that point to the protagonists -(who consider themselves they advanced culture)- you sought the violent remedy, not the Grounders who you accuse of being uncivilized. (Which is true. Sure the Grounders have attacked, but their attacks are nothing compared to :1) the nuclear explosion in S1, Finn's massacre of the village - S2, Clarke and Bellamy's massacre of Mount Weather -S2, and Bellamy/Pike's massacre of the 300 Grounder army that was there to protect them.) To put this into historical perspective? The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor pales in comparison to the two bombs the US dropped on the Japanese. Just as the various Native American/indian attacks in America pale in comparison to how the European settlers almost massacred them with their bigger weapons. (There's a lot guilt in my country over that by the way, hence the reason the trope keeps popping up.)
I think that's why they are doing it. I'm just hoping they move on soon.