The Monster in the Mirror

So I was watching the rerun of last night's Colbert Report, and I saw this segment which fit in with some of my recent thoughts: ( Colbert v. Colbert )

Now, I don't buy that argument--I tend to side rather with these students. But my point isn't to bring up my politics so much as my ethics, although the two can't really be separated. I'm not going to be talking about President Bush in this post. I'm going to be talking about Dawn Summers and Rupert Giles.

The point is that I don't think it's morally permissable to set aside one's principles because of extrenuating circumstances. Doing so is tempting, as Colbert ably demonstrates using his Superman metaphor. If the only way to stop the world from ending is doing something morally reprehensible--for example, taking a life--isn't that necessary? Commendable, even?

( Capt. Kirk Logic )

The twist is, what if the Huns at the gates aren't Islamofascists, but vampires and demons?

I remember reading someone recently complaining (in a review of Serenity, I think) that Joss Whedon's characters are never held accountable for their actions. ThI think they might have missed the point (I like that about his characters, and I'll explain more in a bit), but they are right, of course. Buffy's the Slayer, and as such as works behind the scenes, never being held answerable to Sunnydale's clueless (or in the case of the Mayor, evil) authorities. (Although, sometimes she does hold herself answerable to them.)

As I pointed out to hermionesviolin in the comments to A Watcher's Work, Dawn and Giles, while they run the Watcher's Council, are accountable to no one but themselves. There are no checks and balances to restrain their power. And this makes them very, very dangerous, especially since they allow themselves the freedom to utilize that power. Sure, they angst about it--I've written a good number of ficlets on the subject--but they still do it.

In her post on moral ambiguity, jennyo called Giles' (and President Laura Roslin's from Battlestar Galactica) moral paradigm "on the very outside edge of ambiguous, in that he is basically on the side of good, but is entirely capable of being not morally conflicted about doing evil or wrong in the cause of good. Like, it's the lightest shade of morally ambiguous: being willing not to go to heaven for the cause."

And this is basically a description of the Operative in Serenity. He, like them, has no illusions that what he does is evil. He is a monster. So are they. To continue to quote jennyo (who is still referring to Giles and Roslin), he "has humanity's back" but has "done scary shit to have humanity's back." He has ( Serenity spoiler )

, but the difference between ( Serenity Spoiler )

and what Giles does to Ben in "The Gift" is merely a difference in degree, not quality.

Now I've said before that Dawn Summers is my Mary Sue. Certainly I return to the character again and again. How do I manage to see myself in a character whose paradigm I find morally repugnant. Or to look at it the other way, why have I given this moral paradigm to a character in whom I see myself, since when we finish canon Dawn isn't quite like this (although it is a plausible development)?

( The Allure of Evil )

I can see my Dawn and Giles ordering the illegal wiretaps that Bush ordered. I can also see them ordering the ( Serenity spoiler )

. I can see them giving the order for (what I call) Project Pandora, to cut into River's brain and make her an assassin. The fact that they could do these things and still believe in a more perfect society, that they were doing what they were doing to protect humans, that is what makes them endlessly fascinating to me.

But I don't particularly want to see them outside of my (and Joss's, and your) fiction. Because that's where monsters belong, in bedtime stories.