In the Garden of Good And Evil

T.K. McNeil

The battle between good and evil has been a core theme of narratives nearly as long as there have been stories. From Michael casting Lucifer into the pit of Hell to Luke Skywalker blowing up the Death Star, there have been sides to take and characters to love and to loath. In the new Millennium however, things have gotten more complicated. Largely gone are the easy distinctions and glorious victories in narratives of the past, replaced by complicated structures and characters intentionally cast in shades of grey. A change that largely stems from a general recognition that not all systems are neatly organized and sometime people do the wrong thing for the right reasons and vice versa. One of the best examples of this new paradigm is the Game of Thrones universe.

Slightly ahead of the curve, the first of the books being published in 1996, the series is notorious for sudden, shocking deaths and a lack of an easy moral centre. There are no "heroes" and "Villains" in the traditional sense. While there is the occasional inveterate psychopath here and there, most of the characters are acting in their own self-interest and/or on what they think is right, much of the time what is called "justice" and what is referred to as "revenge" being interchangeable. So in an essentially brutal system, in which it can literally be kill or be killed the question becomes not whether a given character has blood on his or her hands but whose blood, how much and why was it spilt. This is the primary distinction between hated characters like Ramsey Bolton and Jamie Lannister and loved and missed ones like Ned and Arya Stark. Ramsey and Jamie are both men of violence as in a love of violence. It is not just something they have to do but something they like to do. Ned and Arya are nearly pacifist by comparison. They do not look for trouble and when they do kill there is almost a sense of somber duty about it, particularly in the case of Ned. There is also the fact that, in almost every case, this occurs in the context of war, state sanctioned execution and/or self-defence. Rather than killing because they like to, they do it because they have to, in many cases simply to survive. A similar case can be made for Tyrion Lannister who, despite his turn-coating ways, has never killed anyone he did not have to or did not deserve it and seems genuinely concerned for the future of the Seven Kingdoms.

Another case where this comes up is in The Hunger Games. While the world in which the story takes place is undoubtedly brutal and corrupt, when it comes to characters it is vital to distinguish between those who are part of the system and those who are trapped in it. Katniss Everdeen is clearly and firmly in the latter group. Despite this, she does not have the tone of rage so often associated with such situations. Author Suzanne Collins gives Katniss an observant, matter of fact voice, like somebody who is already deeply jaded. A perfectly realistic characteristic given the context in which she exists. What is most interesting about Katniss as a character, in addition to her heroic attributes, is how she came to possess them. Not even a reluctant hero so much as a surprise one, much of what keeps Katniss alive in the arena originates not from hate but from love. It is carefully established at the beginning of the novel that Katniss has basically been the head of her family since the death of her father. An event which made her mother emotionally distant, leaving Katniss to care not only for herself but also her little sister, Primrose. All of her skills, from her speed and resourcefulness to lethal ability with a bow and arrow were cultivated as a means to be able to hunt in order to keep her family together and alive. As a result, when she is thrown into the free-for-all of the arena, again to save her sister who Katniss knows could not survive the games, she displays more mercy and morality than anyone would have reason to expect. She keeps not only herself but Peeta, the baker’s son who jokes about his most fearsome skill being camouflage, alive but also takes on Rue, who by any definition would be her mortal enemy, Katniss having enough perspective to realize that the much younger girl is no real threat to her. That this does not end well in no way negates Katniss’s intent. Rue’s death serves as a reminder of the brutality of the system and re-establishes Katniss’s baseline personality as a caregiver. It also leads to the only time in the first part of the narrative in which Katniss kills in anger and only one of three instances overall. The other two being an act of desperation involving the dropping a nest of mutant insects on lurking enemies and what amounts to a mercy killing.

One of the main promoters of this idea of evil as a verb is, of course, Joss Whedon. From the brooding struggle for self-acceptance in Angel to the stark role-reversal in Firefly/Serenity, Whedon has become famous for morally complex characters and intricate plots. Whedon’s first and definitive statement on moral complexity goes all the way back to the second season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in 1997. At the end of the the episode "Lie To Me" (2.7), Buffy and her Watcher, Rupert Giles, talk about what she has just been through, having to kill someone she used to know who made a deal with Spike, one of the season’s Big Bads, to turn him into a vampire to avoid dying of brain cancer.

One of the clearest recent examples of this overall ethos put int series form, for both Whedon and in general is in the short-lived series Dollhouse. As with The Hunger Games the question of good and bad has less to do with the system, which is shown to be corrupt, than how people act within it. This is most clearly shown by three of the most morally questionable characters, Dr. Sanders, Mr. Dominic and Topher. What a medical doctor would be doing working for an organization like Dollhouse, whose business consists of hiring out brainwashed operatives for all manner of legal and illegal activity, is potent one. Though if one looks at Dr. Saunder's actual behaviour in the show it becomes clear. Rather than being an active participant in the goings on, her role is essentially reactive. Rather than inflicting suffering she is there to mitigate it when it occurs. She is also something of an outsider in terms of the corporate culture. She does not fit it with the environment and seems to be aware of this. Dominic, despite his swagger, is little more than an employee doing his job, which is to protect the integrity of the corporation. It is easy for viewers to hate him be cause he is set up to be against the main character, Echo, whom he has correctly identified as a threat to the business. From purely functionalist perspective he is not only not evil but, in fact, correct. It is also interesting to note that, aside from his justified suspicions of Echo, he does not do much that could be considered particularly "villainous". Topher is a very interesting case. The architect of the technology used for brainwashing the operatives, referred to as "Actives" or "Dolls", it would be very easy to cast him as a cackling mad scientist. Yet he is not. Enamoured more with the fact of his achievement than what it actually does, his greatest sin is not being able to distinguish between if something can be done and if it should be done. An outsider like Dr. Saunders, Topher is also quite funny, though with a tendency to say the wrong thing. Also, if one looks at his actual conduct, he is relatively kind, if a little goofy and in no way aggressive, actively backing down from physical confrontation and treating the Actives gently, particularly in their child-like "resting" state.

 There is a scene in the episode "The Target" (1.2), showing the results of one of the Actives going insane and attacking anyone in his path, that is character moment for all three. Dr. Saunders comes off as having been traumatized, conscious but barely responsive. Dominic is in his element, all business and barking orders. Topher is shown as being sad, worried and out of his depth. There is also a large blood mark on the front of Topher’s shirt with no wound to go with it. Strongly implying that he came across a wounded Active and tried to help, speaking to his basic humanity, despite arguably being the progenitor of every thing evil that happens within the system. A prime example of how even fundimentally good people can do bad things.