![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakMore good news from the Babylon 5 front: ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hobsonphile had updated the new website, whose existence I'm still giddy about, with a great essay about Londo and G'kar, tracing them from the earliest days in season 1 onwards, and with a delightful future Vir story by neuralclone.
You know, thinking about B5 in general and my two favourite ambassadors so much in recent weeks, together with the other fandoms occupying my mind, it's interesting how differently, and in other cases similarly, the concept of fall and redemption is handled. Several of the fannish wars in the Jossverse are waged over this; there is the whole "Spike should have been redeemed without his soul!" faction, then there are the fans thinking he isn't redeemed at all. Moreover, we have the fans complaining that Willow got not "punished"properly for her deeds on the show and thus did not atone or redeem herself (and she didn't die, either). Moving over to L.A., there is the eternal "is or isn't Angel responsible for his deeds as Angelus" question which the show answers differently at different points. And what about his souled actions like the infamous lawyer buffet? What about Connor, who did assist murder out of his free will, no matter how much manipulated, but now due to being mindwiped has no possibility to make up for his actions? Which neatly brings me back to B5 again, where one great episode, Passing Through Gethsemane deals with a very similar issue: in the B5 universe, the death penalty has been modified to the "death of personality", i.e. the murderer in question is mindwiped and in essence given a completely new personality, conditioned to social service and regard for life. In the episode, a monk, a genuinely good, kind man discovers that he used to be a serial killer and that his entire character is an artificial creation. He's shattered and horrified and wonders just this: how can I repent for what I did, how can I atone, when I don't even remember it nor remember anything from that life?
Now that I think of it, this character, played by Brad Dourif who excels in such roles, is a great contrast and parallel to Durka in Farscape. Durka has also been given a completely new personality by the Nebari, conditioned to serve others and abhor killing. But the question of whether or not this somehow redeems him is never asked, partly because Durka's conditioning is shattered and he regains his old character. The episode does however take the position that the "mental cleansing" the Nebari practise is wrong, even in cases such as Durka.
A method favoured by a great many narratives is atonement/redemption by death. Of course, the mere concept of redemption implies there is someone who can extend forgiveness. Other characters? Social institutions? The audience? It depends, I suppose. If death is not offered by the narrative, it's interesting to observe fans often object or don't accept alternate methods. Of course, this is also connected to the amount of sympathy the audience has for the character in question. I recall long "Spike is already redeemed!" threads in early season 6 (the main arguments being he continued to protect Dawn and help the Scoobies after Buffy's death, plus the Glory torture), additionally complicated because it wasn't quite clear what "redemption" in this instance was supposed to mean, because there seemed to be the idea it would be expressed through some sort of reward - someone declaring him to be a hero? The Scoobies declaring him to be a friend? Buffy declaring her love? Meanwhile, on AtS the idea of Shanshu as a reward and signal redemption had been accomplished was demolished as early as season 2 but the fannish expectation that this will indeed one day happen to Angel is still there.
In the Farscape universe, redemption isn't an issue in the same way, but I did see the phrase "Crais redeemed himself through his death" more than once. Considering that Crais did nothing Aeryn has not done as well, and that his decision to die arguably had more than one motive, one could wonder: did he? If there is such a thing as redemption in this particular fictional universe, did Crais achieve it sometime between kidnapping Talyn and blowing himself up together with Talyn and the Command Carrier because he more often than not helped our heroes? Or is "helping the Moya crew" a standard for proper atonement at all, considering that Scorpius could argue that by his final act, Crais could have condemned the Sebacean race to extinction and all because of some personal grudge? (I'm not saying this is my pov, mind you.) And speaking of Scorpius: he doesn't give the impression he's out for redemption or thinks he has anything to atone for, but then most (though by no means all) of his actions are in his own belief system done for the greater good. By the end of season 4, the show's hero, John Crichton, has arrived at the point where he killed hundreds and hundreds for the greater good as well (Command Carrier, Katratzi, and if you count TalynJohn's action, the Dreadnaught). They just don't agree on the definition of the greater good, and there is no superior moral authority in this universe to decide.
Both of them could use a chat with Londo Mollari. Just as Scorpius' desire for vengeance influences his actions just as much as the wish to save the Sebaceans from the Scarrans, Londo's own ambition and resentments of a lifetime help set him on his course as much as his fierce patriotism. Of course, during the course of the show Londo's more petty motives are chipped away bit by bit, but not before we get to watch him hit moral rock bottom. However, in the Babylon 5 universe death is not always in the offering as far as redemption is concerned, nor does it necessarily mean redemption. Marcus, for example, has nothing to atone for; his decision to die for Ivanova is an act of romantic love. Byron's decision to commit suicide along with his followers is even less a redemptive act and in fact a good illustration of why self-sought martyrdom is terribly wrong. Delenn, who out of grief and rage crucially contributed to the Earth/Minbari war and thus has in her way nearly as much blood on her hands as Londo spends her life trying to make up for it, but nowhere does the narrative imply she should need to die in an heroic act to achieve her redemption. Sheridan offers and gives his own life in Zha'ha'dum, but it is to win a victory in a war and prevent the loss of more lives, not to make up for anything in his past. Not that Sheridan doesn't have blood in his hands as well (coughtelepathscough), but the narrative nowhere implies that a quest for forgiveness is part of his personal storyline.
As for Londo: I would argue that his death (not part of the actual five years of the show but given to us via a trip to the future and various visions) might be the last act but that his path to redemption - and there is such a thing in the B5 universe - starts long before that. Hobsonphile, in her essay, thinks it's when he honours his bargain with G'Kar and frees Narn in season 4. You could also argue for the moment when he offers his life so the Vorlons might spare the Centauri. Or later, when he goes through the purgatory of his mind in The Very Long Night of Londo Mollari and comes speaking those crucial three words to G'kar. But certainly, though several of the B5 characters offer their life at various points if the show, and some give it through dying, there is no moment where self-sacrifice, not through dying but through living, has to be endured in such terrible terms as when Londo accepts the keeper near the end of season 5 so the Centauri might be spared. Dying in season 4, in comparison, would have been easy. Volunteering for endless years of living hell is the hardest atonement I've ever seen a fictional character taking upon himself, or herself.
hobsonphile had updated the new website, whose existence I'm still giddy about, with a great essay about Londo and G'kar, tracing them from the earliest days in season 1 onwards, and with a delightful future Vir story by neuralclone. You know, thinking about B5 in general and my two favourite ambassadors so much in recent weeks, together with the other fandoms occupying my mind, it's interesting how differently, and in other cases similarly, the concept of fall and redemption is handled. Several of the fannish wars in the Jossverse are waged over this; there is the whole "Spike should have been redeemed without his soul!" faction, then there are the fans thinking he isn't redeemed at all. Moreover, we have the fans complaining that Willow got not "punished"properly for her deeds on the show and thus did not atone or redeem herself (and she didn't die, either). Moving over to L.A., there is the eternal "is or isn't Angel responsible for his deeds as Angelus" question which the show answers differently at different points. And what about his souled actions like the infamous lawyer buffet? What about Connor, who did assist murder out of his free will, no matter how much manipulated, but now due to being mindwiped has no possibility to make up for his actions? Which neatly brings me back to B5 again, where one great episode, Passing Through Gethsemane deals with a very similar issue: in the B5 universe, the death penalty has been modified to the "death of personality", i.e. the murderer in question is mindwiped and in essence given a completely new personality, conditioned to social service and regard for life. In the episode, a monk, a genuinely good, kind man discovers that he used to be a serial killer and that his entire character is an artificial creation. He's shattered and horrified and wonders just this: how can I repent for what I did, how can I atone, when I don't even remember it nor remember anything from that life?
Now that I think of it, this character, played by Brad Dourif who excels in such roles, is a great contrast and parallel to Durka in Farscape. Durka has also been given a completely new personality by the Nebari, conditioned to serve others and abhor killing. But the question of whether or not this somehow redeems him is never asked, partly because Durka's conditioning is shattered and he regains his old character. The episode does however take the position that the "mental cleansing" the Nebari practise is wrong, even in cases such as Durka.
A method favoured by a great many narratives is atonement/redemption by death. Of course, the mere concept of redemption implies there is someone who can extend forgiveness. Other characters? Social institutions? The audience? It depends, I suppose. If death is not offered by the narrative, it's interesting to observe fans often object or don't accept alternate methods. Of course, this is also connected to the amount of sympathy the audience has for the character in question. I recall long "Spike is already redeemed!" threads in early season 6 (the main arguments being he continued to protect Dawn and help the Scoobies after Buffy's death, plus the Glory torture), additionally complicated because it wasn't quite clear what "redemption" in this instance was supposed to mean, because there seemed to be the idea it would be expressed through some sort of reward - someone declaring him to be a hero? The Scoobies declaring him to be a friend? Buffy declaring her love? Meanwhile, on AtS the idea of Shanshu as a reward and signal redemption had been accomplished was demolished as early as season 2 but the fannish expectation that this will indeed one day happen to Angel is still there.
In the Farscape universe, redemption isn't an issue in the same way, but I did see the phrase "Crais redeemed himself through his death" more than once. Considering that Crais did nothing Aeryn has not done as well, and that his decision to die arguably had more than one motive, one could wonder: did he? If there is such a thing as redemption in this particular fictional universe, did Crais achieve it sometime between kidnapping Talyn and blowing himself up together with Talyn and the Command Carrier because he more often than not helped our heroes? Or is "helping the Moya crew" a standard for proper atonement at all, considering that Scorpius could argue that by his final act, Crais could have condemned the Sebacean race to extinction and all because of some personal grudge? (I'm not saying this is my pov, mind you.) And speaking of Scorpius: he doesn't give the impression he's out for redemption or thinks he has anything to atone for, but then most (though by no means all) of his actions are in his own belief system done for the greater good. By the end of season 4, the show's hero, John Crichton, has arrived at the point where he killed hundreds and hundreds for the greater good as well (Command Carrier, Katratzi, and if you count TalynJohn's action, the Dreadnaught). They just don't agree on the definition of the greater good, and there is no superior moral authority in this universe to decide.
Both of them could use a chat with Londo Mollari. Just as Scorpius' desire for vengeance influences his actions just as much as the wish to save the Sebaceans from the Scarrans, Londo's own ambition and resentments of a lifetime help set him on his course as much as his fierce patriotism. Of course, during the course of the show Londo's more petty motives are chipped away bit by bit, but not before we get to watch him hit moral rock bottom. However, in the Babylon 5 universe death is not always in the offering as far as redemption is concerned, nor does it necessarily mean redemption. Marcus, for example, has nothing to atone for; his decision to die for Ivanova is an act of romantic love. Byron's decision to commit suicide along with his followers is even less a redemptive act and in fact a good illustration of why self-sought martyrdom is terribly wrong. Delenn, who out of grief and rage crucially contributed to the Earth/Minbari war and thus has in her way nearly as much blood on her hands as Londo spends her life trying to make up for it, but nowhere does the narrative imply she should need to die in an heroic act to achieve her redemption. Sheridan offers and gives his own life in Zha'ha'dum, but it is to win a victory in a war and prevent the loss of more lives, not to make up for anything in his past. Not that Sheridan doesn't have blood in his hands as well (coughtelepathscough), but the narrative nowhere implies that a quest for forgiveness is part of his personal storyline.
As for Londo: I would argue that his death (not part of the actual five years of the show but given to us via a trip to the future and various visions) might be the last act but that his path to redemption - and there is such a thing in the B5 universe - starts long before that. Hobsonphile, in her essay, thinks it's when he honours his bargain with G'Kar and frees Narn in season 4. You could also argue for the moment when he offers his life so the Vorlons might spare the Centauri. Or later, when he goes through the purgatory of his mind in The Very Long Night of Londo Mollari and comes speaking those crucial three words to G'kar. But certainly, though several of the B5 characters offer their life at various points if the show, and some give it through dying, there is no moment where self-sacrifice, not through dying but through living, has to be endured in such terrible terms as when Londo accepts the keeper near the end of season 5 so the Centauri might be spared. Dying in season 4, in comparison, would have been easy. Volunteering for endless years of living hell is the hardest atonement I've ever seen a fictional character taking upon himself, or herself.
