At 05:32 PM 4/13/99 -0500, Ranma Al'Thor wrote:
Assuming Serenity is actually leading humanity around by the nose. Which
we have no actual proof of except the ravings of a man who wants to
destroy peace for humanity's own good. Supposedly. I wouldn't trust
Emerald to tell me what color the sky was. The man is a lunatic.
Ultimately, he'll sacrifice all of humanity's happiness to satisfy his own
personal vision of how the universe should be, even when no one else wants
it. Oh, he'd assert that they just don't know what is good for them, that
Serenity has turned them into sheep. But what he wants to do is
ultimately no different from what he accuses Serenity of doing: molding
humanity to his vision. If he thinks she is evil for what she's done,
then he's just as bad.
And isn't that the real tragedy about him? Something very Nietzche
about that, wouldn't you say? 'Those who fight monsters..." and all that.
Myself, I like Emerald-- as a character, at least. He's got that layer of
honesty and introspection to him that makes him and his arguments _sound_
plausible. He uses logic to back up his actions-- but like Satan in
Paradise Lost, the logic, and the premises and suppositions it is based
on, is flawed.
So, while he might be a nutjob, he's an _interesting_ nutjob....
Besides, I've always been partial to stories which play around with
viewpoint. To those who might say, "But it isn't like that! Serenity and
CT are not like that at all!" well, I've not heard Mark say that it was,
or even that he believed that it was-- merely that a character did.
We gotta filter through Emerald's eyes to see what's really going
on-- we have to do that with any story, really, but some are more
subjective and more overtly subjective than others. Important for us to
remember that and not get trapped into thinking following Emerald's lead,
no matter how enticing or how well-argued it might be (enticing? Why, how
could that be when he talks about things like the ability to rule and
govern effectively not necessarily being a function of power, or against
a monarchy, especially an almost theocratic one ruled by someone who need
never die and can so therefore govern effectively. If presented from that
view, and if one has a belief in democracy and people being equal, then
it is conceivable that one might find Emerald's arguments enticing and
not go beyond that).
Emerald's big problem, to me, is exactly what he accuses the Sailors
of: a closed mind. Nothing can penetrate his worldview and make him change
it because it actively resists such attempts and can reclassify and explain
any discrepancy. Such a thing occurs, as does once in a while someone who
does this (adjusts the world to fit his view, instead of adjusting his view
to fit the world) suddenly, one day change his mind. Why? Not because of any
new information, not because of any new argument, or an old one even... one
day
they just wake up and the world is different. Michael Polanyi, in Knowing and
Being, talks about this (and gives an historical example of this, as well)....
A very interesting book, I have found (although not, by any means, a new
book).
Although once in a while we do see the other side of the coin, from the
Sailors view: during the journal entries they sometimes do comment on the
actual entry, allowing us at least a peek of another view....
All in all, I've been enjoying the series for the questions it's been raising,
perhaps because and not despite, my not being much of an SM fan. I'm not as
attached to the characters, so it doesn't pain or anger me as much to see such
an interpretation as it might in others. It perhaps allows me to look a little
deeper into it, to react on a more than surface level, which I think perhaps
much of the ire has/is/will come from.
(A whole message and I've been serious... I must be coming down with
something!
Aaauuuggghhh!) ^_^
Gee, a lot of this is just mimicking Mark's response, and/or perhaps
backing it up a bit, but I'll also add in:
Mark Doherty <mdoherty@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
Yesssss... up to a point. The difference is that he has expressed no desire
to set up something new, but to remove something there. A return to the
bad-old days, so to speak. He's not trying to set up a specific vision,
he's trying to get rid of someone elses.
------------
Emerald the nihilist-- before you can plan what you're going to create in
place of it, you must first destroy it. The process of destroying it
requires that he not be thinking of what to replace it with, and concentrate
all his abilities and efforts to destruction first, and negates any moral
concern of right or wrong. Again, paraphrased (and badly) from Knowing
and Being (it's been a while since I read it, okay?). I am so ineloquent.
Give me a day or so, and if you wish, I can find the relevant sections
in the book which I am referring to (just hope the book isn't checked
out!). ^_^;;
Matthew Lewis is:
Matt on IRC
Sojiro_Seta on Kawaiimuck
maybeso@ican.net
a casualty of causality
__________________________________________________
Reality and I have this arrangement, see?
I ignore it, and it ignores me. we're quite happy
with the way it works, really.
__________________________________________________