(no subject)
Jul. 25th, 2006 10:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyficIn Misbegotten the Atlanteans fuck up repeatedly. I see this incompetence as the result of their unwillingness to relinquish the role of hero. The most logical road to survival, as best represented by John, is to eliminate the prisoners. But Weir and especially Beckett still see themselves as essentially good people doing what's right which means that they go down this immoral path but they won't take things to their logical conclusion. Carson Beckett, who has created this retrovirus that clearly violates his Hippocratic oath, asserts his morality only after the retrovirus has been deployed and he has two hundred human/wraith prisoners. He still sees himself as a good doctor. This moral floundering on his part and the part of Weir is what makes the situation as bad as it is. If either of them were willing, as Sheppard is, to relinquish the role of hero and admit that they are doing what they have to to survive, they would have killed the prisoners and not risked endangering Earth again.
And let's not forget that the dithering about giving the prisoners ethical treatment leads to the death of a few guards. I was most amazed by Beckett's blind faith that the Wraith prisoners will behave. He trusts them with an absurd amount of responsibility, given that they are POW's and he is at war with their kind. I can't see this as anything other than a rationalization to himself that the creatures he has created with his retrovirus are in fact human and essentially good -- because if he admits that he has radically changed them without changing their nature then he admits that he is unethically experimenting on them rather than "curing" them.
By administering the retrovirus, the Atlanteans are clearly gaining something. They are (at least temporarily) pacifying and neutralizing an enemy. Particularly in the case of Michael -- they give him the treatment the second time just to eliminate the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of their interactions with him. They do it specifically to erase his memory, and therefore control him.
But throughout all of this, Beckett and Weir insist they are doing it for the Wraith's own good. This is clearly a conflict of interest, and one Michael pointed out in his first appearance. They can't be doing it to benefit the Wraith if they are clearly doing it to win the war.
This is what bothers me the most about Weir's role in all of this. If she just admitted it was survival, fine. I'd understand that. It's that she insists that it's in the Wraith's best interests -- heck, that she knows and has the right to decide the best interest of an entire sentient race -- that seems so immoral to me.
Man, oh man. Clearly this ep has me riled. But I will take this any day over the complete apathy I feel after watching season 10 episodes of SG1.
And let's not forget that the dithering about giving the prisoners ethical treatment leads to the death of a few guards. I was most amazed by Beckett's blind faith that the Wraith prisoners will behave. He trusts them with an absurd amount of responsibility, given that they are POW's and he is at war with their kind. I can't see this as anything other than a rationalization to himself that the creatures he has created with his retrovirus are in fact human and essentially good -- because if he admits that he has radically changed them without changing their nature then he admits that he is unethically experimenting on them rather than "curing" them.
By administering the retrovirus, the Atlanteans are clearly gaining something. They are (at least temporarily) pacifying and neutralizing an enemy. Particularly in the case of Michael -- they give him the treatment the second time just to eliminate the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of their interactions with him. They do it specifically to erase his memory, and therefore control him.
But throughout all of this, Beckett and Weir insist they are doing it for the Wraith's own good. This is clearly a conflict of interest, and one Michael pointed out in his first appearance. They can't be doing it to benefit the Wraith if they are clearly doing it to win the war.
This is what bothers me the most about Weir's role in all of this. If she just admitted it was survival, fine. I'd understand that. It's that she insists that it's in the Wraith's best interests -- heck, that she knows and has the right to decide the best interest of an entire sentient race -- that seems so immoral to me.
Man, oh man. Clearly this ep has me riled. But I will take this any day over the complete apathy I feel after watching season 10 episodes of SG1.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 02:45 am (UTC)I can't really fault them for adhering first and foremost to the "ethics" of survival. It's just annoying and really morally suspect that they cling to this view of themselves as selfless and good. I mean, nobody can fault you for not being a saint... unless you walk around all the damn time talking about what a fucking saint you are.
I think you're so right in this post about where the Atlanteans go wrong.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 03:05 am (UTC)I'm reading a book of essays analyzing Stargate (it just came out!), which means I have my academic goggles set on high. I find it interesting that SG1, which started in 1996 is all about typical genre black-and-white morality. Whereas Atlantis, starting in 2004, has all this rhetoric and immorality. You could probably make an argument tying that to the current political situation; it's kind of hard to look at Weir's speeches about "curing" the Wraith without thinking of Bush's rhetoric with respect to the people of Iraq. But there's a whole other paper in that. Maybe if they put out another book of essays...
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 06:23 pm (UTC)So far the essays have been extremely academic: the authors will spend four pages talking around the topic before stating a thesis, as if they have to take a running start. But there have been some good discussions of Stargate-as-Canadian and its atypical message for an action show. (It points out that in season 1, most of the episodes resolved through solving a puzzle, not through heroics.) Now I'm reading about "Heroes Parts I & II" which has all sorts of interesting themes about the role of the observer in shaping the perception of events...
I love this shit. Sometimes I'm sad I'm not in academia anymore.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 06:35 pm (UTC)Damn, this means I have to go shopping...I hate shopping...
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 03:19 am (UTC)One more thing:
Weir and Beckett are not accepting any moral responsibility for their actions!
I find this especially interesting since the show is written so that their refusal to do what is necessary endangers Earth. This may be a typical sf McGuffin, but it does provide a strong justification for ruthlessness that Weir refuses to admit.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 06:20 pm (UTC)I can't help but wonder how much of Weir's rhetoric, er propaganda, is really just for Woolsey's benefit? It's like having a parent constantly looking over your shoulder while taking the SAT's. In that same vein, I can't help but wonder what lengths she'd go to to keep her position...
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 06:27 pm (UTC)I do wonder about how much Weir would do to stay in power, because I honestly can't see her as the best leader of Atlantis, especially after she condoned torturing Kavanagh because he spoke out against her last season. But this being a popcorn show, I doubt they would ever remove her from power despite her colossal screw-ups. She's in the credits, after all.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 06:30 pm (UTC)I won't even get into the fact that the ranking military officer on Atlantis is only a LT. Colonel. Guess we'll just chalk that one up to a suspension of reality...
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 06:25 pm (UTC)I've got a whopper of a headache and I'm not thinking too clearly.
I'll have to keep an eye out for that book.
Also, I can't help but wonder how much of Weir's rhetoric, er propaganda, is really just for Woolsey's benefit? What is she willing to say/do to keep her job?
I hate the fact that he was brought in to be this great antagonist and has simply become a 'yes man'. Sigh...I miss Kinsey...
no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-26 06:30 pm (UTC)