Here via the newsletter (which really provides links to interesting topics) and this is my first meta so I don't really know what I'm doing here. *carefully throws her 2 cents in*
Why do all our heroes have the same motive? Are we not strong enough to handle someone who takes on bad guys just because they're bad guys? Do we have to justify it to ourselves? Why do the bad guys have to commit a bad act on the hero first? We know that people who kill people are bad, we don't need proof of it.
I personally think that we aren't strong enough. I mean, everyone reading this knows that there are evil and bad things happening in the world and probably very few of us suddenly decides to do something about it proactively. People have a tendency to hide their heads in the sand and hope that evil never catches them that way. But if it does, then it's a lot easier to do something about it. Plus there are the mandatory sympathy points in there. And you can go a little further with the revenge because it's personal (and you can have more drama slipped in between the plot points ;).
It would require a very black-and-white view of the world just to get up now, turn your life around and go fight evil. Maybe that's the reason revenge is often brought into the mix. It expands the spectrum with all the shades of gray, and more often than not, the tragedy has already messed up the hero's life so that the lifestyle change is easier to imagine.
With gray areas you ponder whether it is right to kill something just because you _know_ it is --or has been-- evil; you obviously have morality left, want real proof that you're actually chasing something evil that isn't trying to change and are thus more relatable than the black-and-white vigilantes. And this reminds me of Dean in the end of Bloodlust where he wonders what if they had killed things that hadn't deserved to be killed. Actually, the whole episode seems quite relevant in this discussion. Would you rather have the heroes in Supernatural be like the Winchesters or like Gordon (who indeed sees everything in black and white)?
So why is it that all of our heroes must first sit by and let evil flourish before we can find ourselves comfortable cheering for them?
To sum it up: because we all do it. Not necessary when face to face with evil and bad things, but if we can avoid getting involved, then we usually opt to do just that. Having John take the boys without any supernatural reasons and raising them as he did gives out more oh-man-he's-just-nuts vibes than what-a-great-and-unselfish-man vibes. Because humans have a tendency for empathy, the avenging hero picture makes the characters more interesting and relatable. It is what you would --or would want to-- do when faced with a personal tragedy that turns your life upside down. Probably :)
no subject
Why do all our heroes have the same motive? Are we not strong enough to handle someone who takes on bad guys just because they're bad guys? Do we have to justify it to ourselves? Why do the bad guys have to commit a bad act on the hero first? We know that people who kill people are bad, we don't need proof of it.
I personally think that we aren't strong enough. I mean, everyone reading this knows that there are evil and bad things happening in the world and probably very few of us suddenly decides to do something about it proactively. People have a tendency to hide their heads in the sand and hope that evil never catches them that way. But if it does, then it's a lot easier to do something about it. Plus there are the mandatory sympathy points in there. And you can go a little further with the revenge because it's personal (and you can have more drama slipped in between the plot points ;).
It would require a very black-and-white view of the world just to get up now, turn your life around and go fight evil. Maybe that's the reason revenge is often brought into the mix. It expands the spectrum with all the shades of gray, and more often than not, the tragedy has already messed up the hero's life so that the lifestyle change is easier to imagine.
With gray areas you ponder whether it is right to kill something just because you _know_ it is --or has been-- evil; you obviously have morality left, want real proof that you're actually chasing something evil that isn't trying to change and are thus more relatable than the black-and-white vigilantes. And this reminds me of Dean in the end of Bloodlust where he wonders what if they had killed things that hadn't deserved to be killed. Actually, the whole episode seems quite relevant in this discussion. Would you rather have the heroes in Supernatural be like the Winchesters or like Gordon (who indeed sees everything in black and white)?
So why is it that all of our heroes must first sit by and let evil flourish before we can find ourselves comfortable cheering for them?
To sum it up: because we all do it. Not necessary when face to face with evil and bad things, but if we can avoid getting involved, then we usually opt to do just that. Having John take the boys without any supernatural reasons and raising them as he did gives out more oh-man-he's-just-nuts vibes than what-a-great-and-unselfish-man vibes. Because humans have a tendency for empathy, the avenging hero picture makes the characters more interesting and relatable. It is what you would --or would want to-- do when faced with a personal tragedy that turns your life upside down. Probably :)