The Powers That Screw You: Babylon 5, Jossverse, SW, Harry Potter and a little Farscape

[selenak]

The above was a quote from Fred of AtS fame, but what really got me thinking on this was a Farscape debate. astrogirl2 made some excellent points about TalynJohn's body count being actually higher than MoyaJohn's thanks to the Scarran Dreadnought here, which led searose & self to speculation about the nature of the Ancients (and TJohn's complete trust as opposed to MJohn's attitude later towards Einstein).

It occurred to me that the - justified - mistrust in seemingly benevolent, superior mentor figures is something relatively new (correct me if I'm wrong). As a friend of mine put it, would Arthur have distrusted Merlin? Frodo have distrusted Gandalf? Would Luke have distrusted Obi-Wan? (Answer: no, but he should have.*g*) On the other hand, within the last decade or so, we've got the Vorlons on Babylon 5, the forcers of order as opposed to the Shadows as forces of chaos, and Kosh I definitely has the Merlin position towards Sheridan's Arthur. Despite some early warning signals (such as the Vorlon's willingness to let Delenn be interrogated by Sebastian, aka Jack the Ripper, or their threatened retaliation in the pilot), the show's heroes and the audience are lulled into thinking of the Vorlons as trustworthy, even angelic, superior forces. This includes, interesting for Farscape fans, the way the parent card is played - Kosh appears to both G'kar and Sheridan as their respective fathers. When the first doubt as to the nature of the Vorlons is voiced ("if you see a Vorlon, you see exactly what you are meant to see"), it's by agents of the Shadows, so of course the audience discounts this.

Then, in season 4, the bill for trust in benevolent parent figures arrives: the Vorlons reveal themselves as ruthless bastards of the first order who don't care about the body count, as long as they're proven right in their eternal war with the Shadows. JMS, the show's creator, has been head to say that the showdown between the Alliance on the one hand, and the Shadows and Vorlons on the other, is all about killing your parents. So far, so Freudian, though he muddles waters by including yet another parent figure in the game, Lorien, who as the deus ex machina and the superior force to both Shadows and Vorlons offers the solution to get rid of them without actually killing them. But Lorien or no Lorien, the lesson remains - don't trust these superior mentor types.

In the Jossverse, which started out, after all, with a show based on adolescence and rite of passage as a premise, it's not surprising that the first superior authority institution, the Council of Watchers, is discredited as early as season 3. During the first three seasons, there were some, but only a few hints (in Becoming and Amends that I can think of), at some superior supernatural forces who also operate as guiding figures. This was detailed further in the spin-off, AtS, where The Powers that Be were talked about on a regular basis. Again, like the Watchers on BTVS at first (I'm talking movie and first two seasons here), they seemed benevolent - interested in guiding Angel towards his redemption, giving Cordelia the painful but ultimately beneficial gift of visions which in turn enabled her and her friends to help others. Much like the Vorlons on B5, they had their visible evil counterpart not just in the occasional villain of the week but in the established, organized villains, Wolfram & Hart and the ominous "Senior Partners".

There are actually some B5 references in both BTVS and AtS. I suppose it's not surprising that TPTB started to look more suspiciously over the seasons. Again, there were hints you can argue about at first. But come season 4, we got the Jasmine arc. (While simultaneously season 7 on BTVS revealed that the very existence of Slayers started with a massive violation - the image of the First Slayer chained to the ground is one which will always stay with me.) Now Skip might have been boasting a lot, and Jasmine could have been exaggerating or being economical with the truth somewhat when defining herself as one of the Powers. But according to David Fury and Tim Minear at the Succubus Club, Joss' basic idea for Jasmine - who look quit a lot like a Vorlon in her tentacly form -, or rather, Jasmine's aim, was for it to be an enforced garden of Eden status for humanity. Good without choice. And all the dead who Jasmine, or her helpers, killed on the way justified by achieving this much as the Vorlons justify their slaughter in season 4 by the idea that the complete defeat of the Shadows will be worth it.

Angel & Co. reject this fate for humanity (with the added irony that Angel later chooses it for Connor, in a way). Whether or not the rejection of Jasmine means that in the future, The Powers That Be (whose status remains ambiguous - their only undoubtedly benevolent act this season was the Darla and Connor meeting, and Connor, the only one who witnessed this, does no longer remember it) will be rejected as well, only future episodes will tell.

Firefly, in what episodes we have (insert obligatory rant at Fox here), operates without any apparently benevolent superior forces altogether, be they human, alien or supernatural. I don't think some would shown up later; in the Firefly universe, distrust at authority is already firmly established, and parental rejection has taken place. But then again Joss might have surprised us and opted for the need of reconciliation instead?

The distrust of Wise Old Men has infiltrated the Star Wars universe as well. If Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" attitude in the OT has made him look less than saintly and Gandalfian for only a few fans, the prequels have indicted the entire Jedi Order of the Old Republic as deeply flawed. There are no superior authorities in wisdom or morality in the prequels (which is one of the reasons why I love them), nor is there a black-and-white world view anymore. No matter whether it's Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Yoda or the entire Council - they each make mistakes, and are shown to make them, and contribute to the tragedy developing. The only parental figure who does have all the answers and pushes things this way and that way is none other than Palpatine.

And lastly, we've got J.K. Rowling devoting an entire novel to the fallibility of father figures. Harry loses the saintly image of his real father which has been carefully build up during the earlier novels, sees his replacement father, Sirius, as equally flawed, and then loses him literally. And the Über-Father of the entire saga, Dumbledore, is robbed of his aura of flawless wisdom; he loses Harry's trust, and relations between them are only patchily repaired by the end. This in a novel where the primary villain isn't Voldemort but the ministry of magic, yet another institution which got introduced as seemingly benevolent and superior.

What's a dedicated genre fan to make of all of this? Probably draw the old Fox Mulder lesson and trust no one. Certainly not Wise Old Men (or Women). Which makes it so suprising that any incarnation of John Crichton, geek that he is, does, see above.

Some more links for Potterverse aficionados: blackfall rants very entertainingly about Fanon!Snape here, and Canon!Snape facts are listed here..



<td bgcolor="#000000">livejournal user name</td><td bgcolor="#DDDDAA"></td><td bgcolor="#000000">Age</td><td bgcolor="#DDDDAA"></td><td bgcolor="#000000">Favorite animal</td><td bgcolor="#DDDDAA"></td><td bgcolor="#000000">With Who</td><td bgcolor="#DDDDAA">Bill Weasley </td><td bgcolor="#000000">Where</td><td bgcolor="#DDDDAA">Transfiguration Classroom </td><td bgcolor="#000000">What You Do</td><td bgcolor="#DDDDAA">Be savaged by houselves </td>

What Will You Do at Hogwarts? by lady_feylene
Created with quill18's MemeGen!

Hm. And:

<td bgcolor="#000000">Username</td><td bgcolor="#DDDDAA"></td><td bgcolor="#000000">Number of LJ Friends</td><td bgcolor="#DDDDAA"></td><td bgcolor="#000000">You will be wanked for</td><td bgcolor="#DDDDAA">stalking aristocratic BNFs </td><td bgcolor="#000000">On this date:</td><td bgcolor="#DDDDAA">August 20, 2005</td>

How will you be fandom_wanked? by morrigain
Created with quill18's MemeGen!

Hm. Considering I lurked for quite a while before raincitygirl gave me an lj code, this could be true...

Comments

Re: Oh, I like morally ambiguous mentor figures as well.

[andraste]

So yay for the trend.

The only thing about it that annoys me is a side-effect - the tendency of fandom to assume that because the Wise Old Man is not perfect and godlike, he must go to the other extreme and be a demon in human form. But heaven knows I've ranted about Xavier-bashing enough over the years *g*.

Fandom often goes for extremes.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Hence the hero bashing, for example. (If the hero is doing the right thing, he/she is dull; if the hero does't, it's that demon-in-human-form thing.) In the case of Xavier and other Wise Old Men not presented as perfect and godlike, there is probably some projection going on as well - dissappointment with father figures & the like.

Though it's different if the Wise Old Man in question CLAIMED unimpeachable moral authority before being revealed as flawed, I'd say...

Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.

[andraste]

In the case of Xavier and other Wise Old Men not presented as perfect and godlike, there is probably some projection going on as well - dissappointment with father figures & the like.

I always hesitate to psychoanalyse other fans, especially in negative ways, but it does look like that's often the case. Obviously finding out that your father is not God but rather a fallible mortal who shall someday die is a fundamental trauma of the human psyche - I just wish people wouldn't take it out on Charles *g*.

(I find it fascinating that, when Giles started acting in ways a large number of fans didn't like he was declared to be Pod!Giles instead of demonised. That's partly because Joss wanted us to think he was the First, of course, but the trend neither begun nor ended with that subplot.)

Though it's different if the Wise Old Man in question CLAIMED unimpeachable moral authority before being revealed as flawed, I'd say...

Indeed. I'm also inclined to become attached to those like Xavier and Giles who ask a lot of themselves as well as their charges. The 'do as we say because we're right' model that seems to be the norm of the Watcher's Council is another thing entirely.

I was thinking after your post on hero-bashing, actually, that one of the roots of the problem is that many fans see a claim to absolute moral authority where none has (IMHO) been made. A lot of fans would accuse Buffy, Blake and Charles (just to name three characters at random) of being people who claim the moral highground and therefore authority over other people. I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of what they've said and done.

They've all been known to point out that they're better than the competition and/or the only game in town, of course, but that's a rather different claim ...

Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I find it fascinating that, when Giles started acting in ways a large number of fans didn't like he was declared to be Pod!Giles instead of demonised.

Yes, that is fascinating. Giles seems to have a strange immunity from the demonisation process - you just know that if it had been Xavier, or Dumbledore, say, they would be blamed, not their creators. I remember all the "out of character" accusations after Lies my parents told me and wondered: Did any of these people watch Helpless in the third season?

The mystery of Giles' immunity from mentor demonisation might be due to the fact he's regarded as sexy. (Whereas good old Albus is not, and, correct me if I'm wrong, Xavier only rather recently aquired the title due to Patrick Stewart.) It has been my experience that characters who are regarded as sexy, no matter their canonical status, are usually regarded as either always in the right or, if they're in the wrong, understandably so.

I was thinking after your post on hero-bashing, actually, that one of the roots of the problem is that many fans see a claim to absolute moral authority where none has (IMHO) been made. A lot of fans would accuse Buffy, Blake and Charles (just to name three characters at random) of being people who claim the moral highground and therefore authority over other people. I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of what they've said and done.

Yes, I think you're dead-on here. And it's funny, if you ask people, for example, in which episode Blake claimed the others ought to follow him because of him having the moral highground, they're hard-pressed to come up with an answer. Or, in the case of Buffy, they quote out of context or only half the phrase spoken. (Case in point: her "therapy" session with Holden in CWDP, which just got a Hugo, I hear. Countless times I've seen it cited as proof that Buffy thinks she's superior. Somehow, the equally important "I feel that I'm beneath them" and "I behaved as a monster" passed right by them.) I imagine much the same is true for Xavier bashers.

Oh, and of course it's very easy to quote examples of Blake, Buffy and Xavier pushing themselves and judging themselves just as harshly, if not more so, than anyone else.

They've all been known to point out that they're better than the competition and/or the only game in town, of course, but that's a rather different claim ...
Quite true.*g* Someone has to fight the Federation, poor Charles is stuck with trying to stop a mutant/human war because so many others are hell-bent on fighting one, and when Buffy says, in Selfless, "I am the law", she says so sadly, not self-righteously or triumphantly, not in the sense of "...and I can do what I want" but in the sense of "there is no one else who can take the responsibility from me".

Also, each of them, I think, would regard passivity - the looking away in cases of emergency - as a cardinal sin. A trait I like in a world which increasingly looks away.

Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.

[andraste]

You just know that if it had been Xavier, or Dumbledore, say, they would be blamed, not their creators.

I certainly didn't here many cries of 'that's not really Albus! He's being badly written!' after OotP. Don't even get me started on Charles *g*.

I remember all the "out of character" accusations after Lies my parents told me and wondered: Did any of these people watch Helpless in the third season?

All the negative personality traits Giles displays in the later seasons - from withholding information from Buffy to running away when things just get too hard - are there in the first three. But I have a long post about that to write once I rewatch some episodes.

(Whereas good old Albus is not, and, correct me if I'm wrong, Xavier only rather recently aquired the title due to Patrick Stewart.)

Actually, I still get some odd looks over that one. Although less so from movie fans.

It has been my experience that characters who are regarded as sexy, no matter their canonical status, are usually regarded as either always in the right or, if they're in the wrong, understandably so.

Ah, yes. Because of course if you look good, naturally you must be good.

This falls under Things That Annoy Me About Fandom #376: the conflation of emotional response and rational argument.

I admit to being powerless in the face of Giles's puppy dog eyes myself. I instantly forgave him for every questionable thing he'd done during Season Seven because he played D&D with Andrew. However, I'm not under the mistaken impression this is a rational argument in favour of his actions.

The inability of people to separate 'I like X' from 'X is good/right' never ceases to drive me up the wall. It's possible to like a character and still aknowledge that they're flawed, or even evil.

And it's funny, if you ask people, for example, in which episode Blake claimed the others ought to follow him because of him having the moral highground, they're hard-pressed to come up with an answer.

I think the closest he gets - and it's hardly close - is 'you could be looking at them' in response to Vila's 'where are all the good guys?'

Given the tone of voice - and the fact that he's including everyone up to and including Vila in the description - I'm pretty sure he's making a rather black joke. Especially since that he gives up any claim to the moral highground earlier in Shadow, in favour of means-to-an-end pragmatism. Blake is a man who ultimately sacrifices everything for his cause - up to and including his own moral purity.

Or, in the case of Buffy, they quote out of context or only half the phrase spoken.

That, too, drives me crazy. Watch the frelling episode, people! All of it!

I imagine much the same is true for Xavier bashers.

Ironically, most of the evidence - including God Loves, Man Kills - suggests that, far from thinking himself a saint, Charles Xavier is desparate to be good because he believes on some fundamental that he's not good. And perhaps never can be.

Oh, and of course it's very easy to quote examples of Blake, Buffy and Xavier pushing themselves and judging themselves just as harshly, if not more so, than anyone else.

I don't even have to think about it: Trial, Conversations With Dead People and ... well, I won't get into obscure X-Men issue numbers, but Charles is on record saying that he thinks himself a monster.

Also, each of them, I think, would regard passivity - the looking away in cases of emergency - as a cardinal sin. A trait I like in a world which increasingly looks away.

Indeed. I admire that in Blake, especially, since Buffy and Xavier were both forced to live up to power they were landed with through no fault or desire of their own. (Which they ultimately manage to do in their different ways.)

Nobody died and made Blake the man who has to fight the Federation - he always has the option of sitting down and shutting up. Except that it's clearly not an option, in spite of the impossible odds against winning. The only time it occurs to him to stop is when he fears he might be doing more harm than good, wasting lives for nothing. Better to light a candle than to curse - or worse, ignore - the darkness.

Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I certainly didn't here many cries of 'that's not really Albus! He's being badly written!' after OotP.

Nah. Potterfans reserved that particular objection for Draco.*g* (Insert my usual "I don't get the adoration for dull Draco Malfoy" blather here.)

Actually, I still get some odd looks over that one.
?!? To quote you: "But...Patrick!"

I instantly forgave him for every questionable thing he'd done during Season Seven because he played D&D with Andrew.
Which was extremely cute, and such a Joss touch to put in the episode.

However, I'm not under the mistaken impression this is a rational argument in favour of his actions.

Allow me a sigh as I think of all the "everything which happened on Gauda Prime is Blake's fault" and "Avon didn't really mean it in Orbit arguments...

The inability of people to separate 'I like X' from 'X is good/right' never ceases to drive me up the wall. It's possible to like a character and still aknowledge that they're flawed, or even evil.

No kidding. I mean, I like people like Warren or Servalan...

Nobody died and made Blake the man who has to fight the Federation - he always has the option of sitting down and shutting up. Except that it's clearly not an option, in spite of the impossible odds against winning.

Now I have the urge to filk "To fight the impossible fight" for Blake. You know, The Man of La Mancha. Curses! Sweet seems to be still with us.

Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.

[andraste]

Insert my usual "I don't get the adoration for dull Draco Malfoy" blather here.

It's very strange indeed - I don't think he's even described as attractive in the books. The influence of fanfiction, I suppose.

To quote you: "But...Patrick!"

People who have Xavier ingrained in their minds as 'asexual mentor figure' sometimes remain unswayed even by the glory of Patrick Stewart. And some people have issues with baldness or men over forty that I will never understand ...

Which was extremely cute, and such a Joss touch to put in the episode.

'Illusions? Against a burninator? Silly, silly British man ...'

Allow me a sigh as I think of all the "everything which happened on Gauda Prime is Blake's fault"

Well, of course it was. Blake forced Avon to shoot him by ... er ... being misunderstood. Avon has the leather pants, so he must be in the right, even if he couldn't wait five minutes and hear Blake's side of thes story before opening fire. Bad Blake. No biscut.

Seriously - even without seeing Season Four, I can understand the psychological pressures that conspired on Avon to put him in a tragically trigger-happy mood, and I gather Blake made mistakes. That doesn't make Avon an angel and Blake a demon in rebel form ... and Blake wasn't the one who pulled a gun on a frined and ally over a misunderstanding.

I mean, I like people like Warren or Servalan...

You know, I was actually thinking today that I don't think I've ever really loved a character who didn't unsettle me on one level or another. Faults are what make the interesting.

Curses! Sweet seems to be still with us.

Filking is a tragic yet amusing adiction, obviously. I now have visions of Blake tilting at windmills, and Avon as the snarkiest Sancho Panza in history ...

Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It's very strange indeed - I don't think he's even described as attractive in the books. The influence of fanfiction, I suppose.

Absolutely. I mean, young Tom Riddle IS described as good looking and charming (by Dumbledore, no less). But Rowlings' usual description for Draco is that he has a pale, pointed face. Which isn't ugly but doesn't double for attractive, either. Then you've got the phenomenon of Snape magically transforming into a sex god in fanfic, but at least with Snape, change of physical description aside, you have some canon basis to see him as an interesting character worth further exploration. Draco has to be the first case where fanon has come up with something based solely on other fandoms, but not on the original source. It's the only explanation I have for how he ended up as the bastard of Spike and Lex Luthor (Smallville edition). And since JKR clearly has absolutely no intention to go in that direction, the gap between fannish expectations based on fanon and canon will grow ever wider.

People who have Xavier ingrained in their minds as 'asexual mentor figure' sometimes remain unswayed even by the glory of Patrick Stewart. And some people have issues with baldness or men over forty that I will never understand ...

The more fool they.

Blake forced Avon to shoot him by ... er ... being misunderstood. Avon has the leather pants, so he must be in the right, even if he couldn't wait five minutes and hear Blake's side of thes story before opening fire. Bad Blake. No biscut.

I kid you not - there are plenty of PGP fanfics in which our heroes are revived/rescued in various ways (mostly Blake's followers reconquer the base and Blake & Co. survive due to the wonders of futuristic medicine), and then Blake is lectured by Vila that it is all his fault, and how Avon suffered in his absence, and then Blake grovels in abject apology at Avon's feet.

Seriously - even without seeing Season Four, I can understand the psychological pressures that conspired on Avon to put him in a tragically trigger-happy mood

Oh yeah. It's completely understandable. In simplified form, you could call it the Anna complex. Poor Avon obviously took The Ballad of Reading Goal far too serious...

I gather Blake made mistakes
So he does. It's the most fatal case of mutually grown paranoia and paradoxical longing for trust ever.

I now have visions of Blake tilting at windmills, and Avon as the snarkiest Sancho Panza in history ...

"Windmill? Qichotte, I'm still amazed even a sentimental idiot like you would..."
"Get back to your position."

Re: Fandom often goes for extremes.

[andraste]

Draco has to be the first case where fanon has come up with something based solely on other fandoms, but not on the original source. It's the only explanation I have for how he ended up as the bastard of Spike and Lex Luthor (Smallville edition).

That does seem to be the case, and I think it is a new phenomenon, perhaps caused by increasing multifandomness. People have always gotten characters wrong, of course, but the wholesale appropriation and projection of characters from different texts altogether is something new.

And since JKR clearly has absolutely no intention to go in that direction, the gap between fannish expectations based on fanon and canon will grow ever wider.

I imagine so. All canon-in-progress presents some risk to preconceptions about characters, but seldom have those preconceptions been quite so far from authorial intent.

Then Blake is lectured by Vila that it is all his fault, and how Avon suffered in his absence, and then Blake grovels in abject apology at Avon's feet.

Because of course Vila, post-Orbit, considers Avon a completely trustworthy friend and ally who would never do anything wrong. And Blake is known for grovelling ...

Remind me to never, ever read one of these stories.

Poor Avon obviously took The Ballad of Reading Goal far too serious...

Which is another reason why people who don't see the Blake-Avon bond confuse me. I can understand not wanting to see it as sexual (I think that's one of those things that's entirely open to interpretation) but to argue that it's not there ... the paralells drawn between Blake and Anna seem very clear.

It's the most fatal case of mutually grown paranoia and paradoxical longing for trust ever.

It may be that one of the reasons Avon gets more sympathy from fans is that we know why he's paranoid, because we followed his journey. You actually need to think about how the no doubt equally dreadful things that have happened to Blake contributed to his state of mind.

"Windmill? Qichotte, I'm still amazed even a sentimental idiot like you would..."
"Get back to your position."

Oh dear. I'm never going to get the picture out of my head now *g*.