And Thus Change Begins

As someone who literally can't remember a time when Stephen Harper was not prime minister (seeing as I wasn't exactly the most political at the age of seven), it's pretty significant for me that all of a sudden our prime minister is Justin Trudeau.

For me, this represents so many good things. On a personal level, it means I won't have to listen to my mother's "Stephen Harper is literally Satan" rants (why, yes, she is a bit more left than right, how did you guess?) but on a less personal level, it means that I'm probably going to start seeing actual change. And that'll be an interesting experience.

This is probably not the best way to prelude a post about the younger Trudeau, but I have to say it, so that people know how I'm politically bent: I really admire Pierre Trudeau. From what I learned in Socials 11, Pierre Trudeau was a pretty cool dude who implemented a lot of positive change for the country (including, but not limited to, patriating the Constitution, putting way more women in positions of government, making Canada an officially bilingual country, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and, if I recall correctly, it was he who introduced the concept of multiculturalism. I have to say this because people around have often asked, "Name one good thing he ever did." Hopefully that clears that up). I can't, for the life of me, understand people who dislike Pierre Trudeau or what he did while in government. (That said, I was only given a crash course of his political career in a Socials course - seeing as I wasn't alive at the time, I could be missing pieces of the story).

Big shoes for his son to fill, perhaps, but I definitely have faith in Justin Trudeau. Without going into too much detail on every single issue, of which, it turns out, there are a few, let's just say that my ideas align fairly well with his, and the Liberal party's.

And, in all honesty, just having a change from how the Conservative party was running the country will be good. The Conservatives did nothing for the environment at all (it was almost to the point of, "if I can't see it it can't see me" put your fingers in your ears and sing "lalalala" kind of denial), and their stance on the niqab was getting really hard to take. (There are issues around the niqab - mainly whether or not they'd be willing to show their faces if it came to an issue of security - but turning it into a women's rights issue is just not the way to go, here. How are you advocating for women's rights if you're telling them how to dress? How are you upholding the Canadian multiculturalism which is, in my experience, a pillar of our particular society? HOW IS IT "MORE CANADIAN" TO INFRINGE ON THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION???)

I am really surprised, not unpleasantly so, that we ended up with a Liberal majority. My original prediction had been that we'd have a Liberal government, but a minority. To go from a Conservative majority to a Liberal majority is a fairly radical change, and one that I'm quite ready for.

I'm glad this has happened, and I can't wait to see what changes happen as a result.

P.S "You young people only like Justin Trudeau because he's going to legalize marijuana!"

Yeah, because I, a straight-edge introvert whose most rebellious action of my high school years thus far has been to trick-or-treat on Halloween when my Dad told me I was too old, am totally going to have a really strong opinion about whether or not I get to smoke weed. My support of Trudeau and the Liberals definitely has nothing to do with my general ideological stance.

But, for the record:

"Is that really our biggest issue right now?" asks the anti-Trudeau "nice hair though" commercial.

No, it quite clearly is not, but isn't it rather hypocritical for you to point that out, Conservatives, having put so much effort into arresting those who use marijuana?

And, one last thing: no, marijuana still isn't our biggest issue. But there are a lot of good arguments to legalize it, regardless. Basically, what it amounts to is this: if you take the power away from the drug-dealers, than the country will be a safer place. Regulate the drug, and it won't be laced, and people who choose to use it will be safer. Collect the tax money from the sales and use it for something worthwhile. Put laws around who gets to use it - for example, an age limit. I really don't see a particularly strong downside to this course of action.

Fight me, Conservatives.

So, I Watched a Political Debate

So tonight my mom dragged me to a political debate.

It wasn't for the prime minister candidates, just for the candidates we vote for in our riding, which meant that most of the issues talked about were mainly municipal. I actually understood a lot more about what they were talking about than I expected to (thank you, Socials 11. Good class. Actual useful information, there). It helped that they preceded each question with some supplementary information, but still, it was nice to know that I'm actually not as politics-dumb as I thought I was.

Anyway, there were five debaters there, which surprised me: MP candidates from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Green Party were a given. I wasn't expecting to see someone representing the Libertarian Party.

As it turns out, that was for good reason.

If you'll allow me to describe his side of the debate in metaphor, I'd say that it was basically like watching someone have their back turned the entire time because they thought the camera was behind them. "Look this way!" call the other candidates onstage. "The camera's over here!" "No," he says in return, "you're wrong, it's here. I know it is, even though you all are telling me and the audience is telling me, but I know I'm right."

It was amusing at first. Then it wasn't so much.

But, good Lord. The way he was talking, you'd think we live in an Orwell novel. "The government is imposing its decisions on us without our consent!" "The government is stealing our money and we never get it back!" I'm not sure if he ever actually used the word "totalitarian" or if my brain self-inserted that into his monologues, but either way, it was sort of like giving that crazy guy with the "The end is nigh!" sign two minutes to say his piece into a microphone.

And when he wasn't going on about how the government is screwing us over every chance it gets, he was completely off-base on all the issues. "What would you do to advocate for aboriginal people?" asks the mediator. "I think I'd leave them alone. We've done enough to them."

Fun fact of the day: advocating for people actually necessitates acknowledging them, and doing nothing will change nothing about their station.

"Would you advocate to have municipal governments recognized in the Constitution?" asks the mediator. "Oh good," I think to myself, "I learned all about this in Law class already, what an interesting question! I never really thought of the implications of not having municipal governments constitutionally recognized, but surely it must complicate jurisdiction issues and the like."

"I never heard that municipal governments weren't in the constitution until now," says Libertarian Guy.

I don't know, I feel like a high school student three weeks into a Law course shouldn't know more about the Constitution than someone who calls themselves a politician.

"What would you do to help the environment?"

"Well, I think that global warming is just silly nonsense."

Oh, yes.

And when the crowd booed, he accused everyone of being ignorant.

He later complained about it being a "hostile crowd".

I WONDER WHY.

Anyway, I've said enough about him. He was just annoying, but it's not like he matters in the scheme of things.

So, the Conservative MP candidate.

Boy, can this guy talk. On and on and on he talks, until I start to zone out. Eventually, I start noticing this. "Don't zone out," I think to myself. "That's what he wants you to do. Listen. Form an opinion. As Jon Stewart has trained me to do, pick out the bull." So I started making more of an effort to pay attention.

First of all, he starts off every one of his things with, "This is a very important issue." Yes, we know it is. If it wasn't important, I'm sure we wouldn't be asking you about your position on it.

And then he talks. For a long time. Without really saying anything, though, that's important. He reiterates, in a lot of different and varying fashions, that the issue is important. He states, in very general terms, sort of what the Conservative party can do and/or is doing about it. He brings up local examples, which usually fall apart as soon as open discussion starts and the NDP starts ripping him. I'll get to her later, though.

I didn't learn anything about the Conservative party I didn't already know. I get the impression that he was trying to appeal to a mostly Liberal/NDP leaning audience without ever actually saying anything his party wouldn't approve of, leading him to very general statements with a distinct lack of actual substance.

Basically, think of a kid writing a two thousand word essay about a book they didn't read. Long, well-written, proof-read, certainly; but does it say anything worthwhile? Probably not.

Next we come to the Liberal MP candidate.

I forgot he was there half the time, to be honest, and that's something, considering he was literally in the center of the stage. He could have been invisible for how much I noticed him. I'm sure he was saying things that were decent, but could I tell you any of it? Not really.

I hate to reduce politics to this, but as it turns out, charisma is important for politicians, and, well, anyone who does public speaking as part of their job. This guy did not have any, and therefore I can't think of a single notable thing he said. Call me shallow, but it does seem important.

Next up, Green Party.

This guy. This guy was smart. This guy was well-spoken. He was also quite involved in our local community, which he wasted no time in pointing out, but that's okay. He talked about the issues properly, actually proposing solutions and stances on subjects that I found other candidates dancing around.

The other thing, of course, that really earned my respect, was him cutting through one of Conservative Guy's monologues with a, "Sorry, what's your point?"

Good. Challenge that dude. I, as the audience, don't want to hear a long-winded anecdote designed to appear to supplement the argument but actually distract from the lack thereof.

Yeah, if I thought the Green Party had a chance, (and if I could vote yet) I might be voting for him, because he seemed to understand what was going on, and how to answer things in a way that seemed authentic without seeming arrogant.

And finally, the NDP, with the only woman candidate! Represent!

Whew. She was killing it.

She was well educated in her opinions, well spoken in her positions concerning them, and was not afraid to point out that her experiences (as a younger woman) were sometimes more relevant to the issues being discussed than the others. It definitely showed. She was also very vocal during the open discussion, challenging people's opinions and forcing them to answer for themselves.

Two things that turned me off: first of all, I heard a lot about how the NDP had a plan for that. They're proposing a plan for this. We're going to fund this, and that, and everything. I found myself asking "How?" a lot of the time. However, I find it hard to fault her for this, because I assume that these are complicated things that take more than thirty seconds to explain.

The other thing is that she, especially near the end, started talking about how much the Conservative government was doing wrong, a lot of which was met with a reply from Conservative Guy, "That's just not true!"

Now, due to my personal biases, I'm more inclined to take her word for it because she didn't beat around the bush like Conservative Guy, and because she has good credentials as a journalist, meaning she's probably pretty good when it comes to things like information. I realized after a while, though, that objectively, it was essentially her word against Conservative Guy's.

And when you think of it like that, you realize that it was sort of like reading a Wikipedia article - I want to trust it, and often do, but at the same time, I need sources. Because the thing is, she could have said, "The Conservatives are killing puppies, isn't that terrible!" Yes, of course that's wrong, and I don't want to support people who do that. But how do I know that what you said is actually true? I don't, basically, not in that moment, and she didn't give anything about how she knew what she knew.

Which, again, is hard to fault her for, as they were very short segments of time to pack in some substantial stuff, but it still read as a little bit... off.

But let's make this clear - her answers did have substance. In contrast to Conservative Guy, who would talk endlessly without saying anything, her answers were short and sweet and answered the question directly.

Basically, NDP gal was slaying.

And, all in all, it was a really interesting experience, and actually rather satisfying. It was nice to discover that I actually understood the issues being discussed, and had an opinion about how to go about them. It was also really interesting because, in Socials 11 (which, as I've mentioned, was an extremely useful class), the course straight-up outlines clear-cut, useful solutions to some of these problems, mostly environmental issues, and it's interesting to see some people dance around them while others - mainly Green Guy - say, "This isn't possible now but we will take steps so that it is possible and in place by 2020" or whatever. It never before occurred to me how much politics is simply a mixture of education and ideology.

Anyway, it was nice to find out that I knew enough to disagree with people on issues and agree with others. It's also interesting because I never really thought of MPs as meaning much except personifying votes for the Prime Minister. However, it became more clear than ever for me that MPs, as being actually part of Parliament, do have a certain amount of power regardless of whether their party wins Prime Minister, and that voting with an MP in mind instead of the leader of their party isn't actually as ridiculous a course of action as I had originally perceived it.

Basically, I learned a lot about Canadian politics that day - a lot of stuff that I knew in theory but had never completely understood in practise. And I'm really glad I did.

A Quick Note Concerning Arthuriana and BBC Merlin

I know, this is the sort of stuff that's supposed to go on my nerd blog, and probably it'll end up there too, but I think this has an element of interest to it that can put it here too. Also they're both my blogs and I'll deaL WITH THEM HOW I PLEASE.

So my mother was telling one of her friends how obsessed with Merlin I am. (Which is super great, thanks for giving me that reputation, Mom). And she says, and I quote: "It's a terrible show. It's based on the Arthurian legends and it just bastardizes them."

Leaving aside her extremely poor opinion of the show, which I find inexplicable (which is fair, considering everyone finds my love for it inexplicable), one cannot 'bastardize' the legend. It's actually not a thing that can happen.

Because here's the thing: there's actually no one legend. There is no set canon. Every author for the past few centuries have re-invented everything about this legend to suit their own needs, and BBC Merlin is just contributing to the trend.

For instance, in some versions of the legend, Morgana (who is sometimes called Morgaine and sometimes called Morgan, and sometimes she's Morgan le Fay) is a positive character. Sometimes she's a healer. Sometimes she's a heinous bitch/evil sorceress who causes the downfall of Camelot. Sometimes she's Arthur's sister. Sometimes she has an incestuous relationship with Arthur. Sometimes she isn't, and doesn't. Sometimes she isn't even a thing.

What about Guinevere? Sometimes she's caught between Lancelot and Arthur. Sometimes she's all about Lancelot. Sometimes she has an evil half-sister who convinces Arthur that she's the real Guinevere.

Sometimes Lancelot is raised by the Lady of the Lake (hence Lancelot du Lac). Sometimes he isn't.

Sometimes the Lady of the Lake is called Vivane, sometimes Niniane, sometimes Elaine, sometimes Nimueh. Sometimes she gives Arthur Excalibur from the lake. Sometimes he pulls it out of a rock.

Sometimes Mordred isn't even a thing. Sometimes he is. Sometimes he's Arthur's bastard son. Sometimes he's the bastard son of Arthur and Morgana. Sometimes he's completely unrelated to Arthur at all.

And don't even get me started on Merlin. Sometimes he isn't even Merlin. Sometimes he's the Merlin, a high priest of the Druids, and a new Merlin is elected when the last one dies. Sometimes he is Merlin, as in that is his name, and he is a sorcerer. Sometimes he's young, with a sister. Sometimes he's old. Sometimes he's Arthur's foster father. Sometimes he isn't. Sometimes he sexually harasses his student - usually Nimueh, who isn't always the Lady of the Lake - so much that she traps him in a tree. Sometimes he lives his life backwards, so that his specialty isn't so much prophecy so much as he already lived what happens in the future. Sometimes knowing the future just isn't a thing with him. Sometimes he and Guinevere are a thing. Sometimes not.

There are really just entirely too many version of this particular mythos, most of which contradict one another. Sometimes the same work even contradicts itself repeatedly. (I think of the story of the Grail, which Chretien de Troyes could not find it in him to finish, and it apparently ended mid-sentence. Thus began a saga of several different authors attempting to continue it, one taking up after the other after one gave up, and eventually ended up with four continuations and two different endings due to authors not communicating and both attempting to finish it at once. Supposedly, all read together, it's a chaotic mess of conflicting plotlines and themes and characterization, as well as the fact that most authors didn't even agree with Chretien on what a grail even is).

The point being, with this many versions of what is, essentially, the same story, you can't really claim one is any more the "real" story than any other. (Unless you're Thomas Mallory, in which case you write something so cohesive and good that you effectively ruin the party for everyone.) (Can you tell I've been doing some research?)

The show doesn't "bastardize" the legend, because it's just not possible to do such a thing to a story that already has so much history of being a complete mess. It adapts it. Which is the only thing that every author of a version of the story have in common - they're all just adaptations. The Arthurian legend is basically like having a bunch of characters who have a sort of basic function (Arthur is king, Lancelot's a knight, Guinevere's a queen, etc.), and then everyone else gets to write their own fanfiction about them and their relationships and how the story goes, and they're all as valid as any other.

Which I think is something that's kinda cool about the whole thing, and that's why that particular complaint bothered me.

Heads Up!

I made a new blog. It's specifically for my nerdy rantings and analyses and the like, so that whenever I'm analyzing yet another show or book or what-have-you, you don't have to be bothered/cluttered with it over here. See how considerate I am?

It's called The Unapologetic Nerd for reasons that I think should be fairly obvious, and it can be found here:  http://theunapologeticnerd.blogspot.ca/

So if anyone's ever interested in my more nerdy and obsessive ramblings, well, that's where to find them.

Just thought you ought to know.

Super Quick Show Recommendation Because I Can't Not Talk About It

I recently began watching a show called Humans, pretty much with no idea what it was or ever hearing about it before.

This show holds the record for the shortest amount of time it took to get me completely suckered in.

It handles a familiar concept (the ethical ambiguities regarding robots, namely), but it does so extremely intelligently, and from a lot of different angles, which is nice. There are several different storylines which eventually intersect, and each one offers a different perspective on the subject. I cannot stress enough how smart this show is.

Secondly, because there are so many different storylines, this show has a lot of characters. But it handles each character gracefully, and so beautifully communicates the complexity of each one of them. They're all intelligent people with their own lives and struggles and thoughts, but because they are all intelligent and you do have a respect for all of them, you understand their actions and sympathize even when they're wrong.

And, if all that weren't enough, the emotional tone of the show is just so strong. I recently watched episode seven (there are eight in the first, and so far only, season), and the ending may have broken my heart more swiftly than anything I can think of. Like, I felt physical pain in my soul. It was beautiful.

It's emotionally strong in other ways as well, of course. Also, the show is very good at withholding enough information to keep you wanting more, but not enough to make it so nothing makes any sense.

In conclusion, this show is honestly wonderful in so many ways and I recommend it with all my heart.

Did Homer Pick the Losing Side?

Disclaimer: I talk a lot about the story of the Iliad here, which I decided to risk because I know the story (and its various versions) quite well, as it was part of my Ancient Greek mythology education/becoming the encyclopedia, but my discussion may be inaccurate or hampered due to the fact that I haven't actually read the Iliad yet. Please don't throw rotten tomatoes at me. 

I was thinking about the story of the Trojan War. This is pretty common for me these days, since the Trojan War plays a pretty big role at the end of the novel I'm writing, and I'm always trying to find a way to twist the story to fit my needs while still retaining a certain amount of faithfulness.

Anyway, I was thinking about the Trojan War, and it occurred to me: Homer doesn't seem to like the Greeks in that story. If anything, he appears to prefer the Trojans.

That's a pretty interesting observation, if I do say so myself, because Homer was obviously a Greek writer (even more obviously as there's no actual evidence to suggest that Troy ever actually existed. If anything, it was probably part of Persia or something).

But when that occurred to me, I started thinking it through. And the fascinating thing is that the evidence seems to agree.

The first Greek character I thought of was Agamemnon, naturally, and everyone even in Ancient times would agree that Agamemnon was a huge douche (which is why it's so weird to see him portrayed as a positive character in versions of the story that want to take the winning side). For one thing, when the sea was too rough to be able to sail to Troy properly and several ships sunk in the attempt, Agamemnon decided that the best way to appease the gods would be to sacrifice his youngest daughter, Iphigenia, to them. He literally kills his youngest daughter in the hopes that Poseidon will calm the sea so he can cross it. Surprisingly, it works, but the thing is, even in the Ancient world people thought that human sacrifice was disgusting and barbaric. Audiences watching this play would not have thought this a reasonable course of action.

And to back up the fact that this is a disgusting act, he does get punished for it at the end, when his wife, Clytemnestra, murders him in the bath. But the thing is, Homer doesn't seem to like Clytemnestra (also Greek, naturally) that much either. She was unfaithful, for one thing - she had a lover by name of Aegisthus, who helped her kill Agamemnon, along with the prophetess Cassandra who I'll get to later. And in the Ancient world, it was definitely a no-no for a woman to be unfaithful - it's a no-no now, even, but it was much more serious back then. A man could divorce his wife if she so much as spoke to a man who wasn't her husband, and this story is quite specific in Aegisthus being her lover.

But don't worry! Clytemnestra and her lover get punished for their sins as well. Clytemnestra's remaining children, Orestes and Electra, kill both of them for their crimes.

Back to Agamemnon for a moment, he does something else that's quite negative in the story: he takes Cassandra (yes, the tragic prophetess, that one) as a concubine. I'm not as certain about the Ancient world's opinion of concubines, though with the knowledge I possess, it's hard to imagine them condemning it too hard, women being less than people in the eyes of this society at large. However, in one version of the story, he does this in a particularly cruel fashion that I'm sure even the Ancient Greeks wouldn't have approved of - he tells the other Greeks that Cassandra was raped, making her unclean, and making it so that he's the only one who could want her for a concubine. (This whole "unclean" thing also speaks to how profoundly misogynistic they are, but of course, we knew that). It's implied, also, that Clytemnestra's jealousy for Cassandra having her husband's favour is one of the reasons that she and Aegisthus kill them both, as well as avenging Iphigenia.

And while we're on the subject of Cassandra, there's another Greek character in this story who likewise isn't a strong case for the Greek's morality. Ajax the Lesser - yes, this is his actual title, because people didn't want him confused with a different Ajax, who was the strongest fighter in all of Greece. Anyways, in versions of the story where Agamemnon tells the truth about the rape of Cassandra, it's Ajax the Lesser who commits this act. This would have been bad enough, because, for all their ideological flaws, the Ancient Greeks were all about consent (even if their version of consent was different than ours - they didn't have an age of consent, for one thing, and I'm sure the idea of coercion didn't play into anything at all, but nonetheless, consent was a big deal), but what's worse, he finds her in the middle of praying to Athena, and commits the act right there in Athena's temple.

This, naturally, would have been seen as dirty, especially in the temple of what many people consider the Greek's most important god - the Acropolis, possibly the most famous and important Ancient Greek temple still standing, was dedicated to Athena - so, of course, people would not have liked Ajax the Lesser.

And the more I think about it, the more I realize that the only truly positive Greek character I can think of is Achilles. And even he isn't entirely untainted - the only reason he's next to invincible (besides his heel, of course) is because his mother dipped him in the Styx, which is an act full of pride that the gods really do not approve of. So of course, possibly as a punishment for this failing of his mother's, Achilles ends up dying in horrible pain.

You see, this isn't only a matter of treating the Greek characters badly because it's a tragedy and there's no story otherwise - you definitely get the feeling that you aren't supposed to like them. Agamemnon being murdered by his wife isn't tragic, it's just desserts, and the same goes for when his wife is murdered by her children. Ajax the Lesser is literally punished with death by Athena and Poseidon for what he did in Athena's temple, which, again, is less tragedy and more just desserts. I'm less clear on whether or not we're supposed to root for Achilles, but I do know that we're not meant to approve of Achilles' mother's act, which is yet another example of Homer treating the Greeks with disdain.

Meanwhile, in Troy, the characters are largely positive. The Greeks view the Paris and Helen situation as an abduction, when they themselves see it as an elopement, and the thing is, Paris was granted Helen by Aphrodite, meaning that at least one god is in favour of this union (hint: if the gods like it, so should you). And any idea that Helen doesn't actually love Paris is completely thrown out the window when, as he lays dying from his wounds, she literally climbs a mountain to ask a nymph to heal him. Homer wants us to know that Paris and Helen are actually in love.

Interestingly, Homer doesn't want us to think that Paris is actually any good at fighting - out of speculation, I'd say that this is to set him further apart from the Greeks of the story. See, he's good at the bow and arrow, but not any actual fighting in duels (Aphrodite actually spirits him away from a duel at one point because he's losing so bad), and the bow and arrow is kind of the coward's-way-out sort of weapon here. But even though Homer wants us to know that he sucks, he also gives Paris the very attractive trait of graciously recognizing that and admitting it rather than being indignant about it. Paris also gets the honour of delivering the fatal blow to the otherwise-invincible Achilles (with the help of Apollo), and these things together make me think that Paris is someone we're supposed to like, and someone whose death is actually supposed to be tragic.

Along with the Trojans, there's Helen, who genuinely loves Paris and tries to save him and is rewarded for this by literally ascending to Olympus.

There's also Cassandra, a figure who is only supposed to be viewed as tragic, as she predicts horrible futures and finds herself utterly unable to prevent them and eventually gets driven insane by this. That, along with how much she gets screwed over when those Greek bastards like Ajax and Agamemnon come into play, is definitely a tragic aspect, something we're supposed to feel pretty bad about for her, in direct opposition to the main Greek woman, Clytemnestra, who we're not supposed to feel bad for whatsoever when she eventually dies.

Aeneas, a Trojan warrior and something along the lines of Cassandra's third cousin, is one of the only Trojan warriors to escape when they lose, and, as Cassandra predicts, he sails away and eventually founds one of the greatest empires to ever exist - this myth puts him as the founder of Rome. (Apparently Homer didn't realize that the Romans had their own myth about their founder, which, in much more Roman fashion, included feral children and wolves). Now, I don't know about you, but putting a Trojan warrior as the founder of the greatest empire in history seems to me like quite the honour. And I just find it interesting that Homer kept bestowing all this honour on the Trojan characters, when A) Homer himself was Greek, and B) he knew how it ended. He was under no illusions about who won the Trojan war.

(Bearing in mind, of course, that the story also Greek-ifies the Trojans a bit - after all, it has them worshiping Greek gods when, in all likelihood, they would have had their own gods unbeknownst to us. But I find that to be more indicative of ignorance of culture, rather than an attack on Trojan identity, whatever that may be).

Now, of course, one reason for this would be that when writing a tragedy, it's much more tragic if the protagonists lose, and if that's the tack you're taking then the only logical protagonists are the Trojans. However, that doesn't really explain why the story goes to such great lengths to make the Greeks so completely abhorrent. The tragedy could have been complete even if the Trojans were honourable and the Greeks were, I don't know, morally neutral. After all, if not for the separate characters whose actions we know to be gross, an audience could forgive them. By their perspective, Helen was abducted, after all, and the story very easily could have had an audience rooting for the Trojans without entirely demonizing the Greeks.

Which, as I say, is why that choice is so baffling to me.

A theory I came up with that I rather like is that a reason for this could be that all the major Greek characters in the legend are Spartan. As a writer, Homer would not have been Spartan - the culture was very different from Sparta to the rest of the Greece. Sparta was all about the military, whereas the general non-Sparta part of Greece was much more oriented toward philosophy and art and all those things that we associate with Ancient Greece - including writing. And I find it possible that Homer could have felt a certain amount of contempt toward Sparta for their un-enlightened ways, and that it could have translated into his work.

And I think that's kind of backed up by the reasons we're not supposed to like them. Agamemnon and Ajax are typical testosterone driven creatures who, sure, can fight, but are savages. This is in direct contrast to characters like Paris of Troy, who we are supposed to like, and who can barely fight to save his life.

This is interesting because it would have been easy to be contemptuous toward a character who can't fight - especially considering said character effectively started the war - and revere the characters who are warriors. But Homer does the exact opposite, which makes me wonder about his opinion of warriors - or Spartans - in general, and if he didn't think them all a bit savage.

That's the best theory I can come up with, anyway. The terrible regard he has for his Greek characters seems bizarre through any other lens.

I love thinking about this stuff. It's just so fascinating. I especially find it interesting because it directly opposes the more modern habit of choosing to tell a triumphant story and sympathizing with the winning side, even if the winning side in question did so by terrible means (you only have to look at movies like American Sniper to see what I mean). Meanwhile, Homer decided that the heroes of his story would be honourable losers rather than savage winners - even if that meant siding with his nation's enemies.

That's not a perfect analogy - there are some obvious differences of circumstance - but there are also some interesting parallels.

I mean, I just think that when you look at it from this perspective, it opens up a whole new window into the mindset of the Ancient Greeks versus our current mindset. I mean, sure, I've seen a few modern stories that sympathize with the losing side (I'm mostly thinking of the recent slough of movies depicting America's various violent stints in the Middle East), but never ever above the winning side. Some have acknowledged the distasteful methods used, but they tend to also try to justify it. None have ever tried as hard to distance itself from such distasteful methods as Homer distanced himself from Greek general Agamemnon.

Again, it isn't a perfect analogy, but I do also think it's a parallel worth looking at.

And I just think that recognizing the oddness of the perspective from which the author chooses to tell the story opens up a fascinating vein concerning how people thought way back when, what their mindsets were like and, as the case may be, how flexible their sympathies were.

And being able to look at that and gauge that kind of meaning from it... well, I'd say that's kind of awesome.

Anyway. This is the sort of thing I think about on road trips. Hopefully I'm not the only one who finds it fascinating. (Oh god I'm the only one aren't I?)

Merlin is Flawed, and I Love It

Apologies in advance for the impenetrable wall of text. I apparently had a lot to say. 

So I've had like three draft posts about the show Merlin, and and none of them have really been working out. It's not because I don't have anything to say - quite the opposite. The problem simply seemed to be that I couldn't pull anything together cohesively, and I think it was because all the draft posts turned a blind eye to something that's rather unavoidable in talking about this show.

And that fact is that it's not the greatest show ever made. It has a lot of flaws, a lot of plot holes the size of the moon. The CGI is laughable, the plots are rehashed over and over, the show has a reset button that they repeatedly push for the first few seasons. And a lot of the third options that characters don't take for plot reasons makes 'em come off as pretty incompetent sometimes.

And yet in spite of all this, I really really love this show.

And I think the thing is in past posts I had a habit of glossing over these fundamental flaws as if they either didn't exist or didn't matter, but that's just not... truthful. Because the flaws do exist, they do matter, and a show can exist with flaws and still be, like, enjoyable.

What's Merlin, you ask? Well, lemme tell ya.

So, Merlin is a retelling of the old Arthurian legends, but set more as an origin story - so before the characters became the people who the world knows them as. They've also taken a bit of artistic license with their adaptation, which I'm totally a hundred percent okay with. So, in this version, Arthur isn't king yet, but rather a spoiled, arrogant, and elitist prince. Merlin is younger than him, and is a commoner who happens to get the job of Arthur's manservant. Uther (Arthur's father) is the king currently ruling Camelot, and - here's the catch - he has banned use of magic and/or sorcery on pain of death.

Didn't see that coming, did you? Neither did I, but what a great and clever way to raise the stakes for our protagonist right off the bat, right?

Merlin and Arthur begin really strongly disliking each other, due to the fact that Merlin began by calling Arthur out, and Arthur began by beating Merlin up. So when Merlin is told that it is his destiny to protect Arthur, for he is the Once and Future King and together they shall unite the lands and restore magic, blah blah blah, Merlin doesn't reallllly believe it. But destiny said so, and due to his Chronic Hero Syndrome, he doesn't really have a choice in whether or not he saves Arthur from the various perils the writers think up for him or not.

That's it. That's the basis of the show.

And, the thing is... they're not bad ideas. I love the idea of Merlin being, like, persecuted for his magic and having to hide it, rather than revered as this all-powerful magician. Call me sadistic, the more emotional turmoil characters can go through, the more on board I am with it.

And the other clever thing they did with it is that they've set up the characters as far away from what we know them as possible, so that we can properly watch them become the people we have in our heads. For instance, Merlin, known for being an extremely old, wise mentor of Arthur's, is an extremely young, extremely idealistic (and, by extension, fairly naive) young warlock who can barely control his own powers at the beginning of the show. (He's also really an adorable human being.) In a similar vein, Arthur, who is known for his egalitarian stance represented by the Round Table, is in this adaptation, a spoiled elitist brat.

Because of the way they've set it up, they've given the characters room to grow, and that's what makes it such a good approach. Arthur isn't born the most noble, brave, [insert heroic adjective here], he has to develop that, with no small help from Merlin. Meanwhile, Merlin, ever the idealist, has to face all this hardship, all the stuff he saves Arthur from all the time, and as a result, by season 5, he's much more cynical and, shall we say, pragmatic, than he was at the start.

It's just a cool way to do it.

Now, that's not to say that the execution of this plan doesn't have a few flaws. For instance, Merlin's main storyline of whether/when he tells Arthur he's a sorcerer has been dragged out long past its due date - it only comes out at the very end of the series, which is about three seasons longer than it should really have taken. Not to mention that, at times, the abuse that Arthur inflicts on Merlin and is played for laughs is sometimes... not all that funny. I mean, you can only watch him hurl something at Merlin's head so many times before it starts to get kind of old. It's only fun if Merlin gets to reciprocate, which isn't always the case (given that it's, officially, a master/servant relationship), and that's what turns it from a playful friendly hassling to, like, bullying.

So, yeah, there are some flaws in how the relationship is written, which is a shame, because this relationship is the main driving force of the entire show. But the thing is... it still works.

The reason it works is because Arthur isn't a mean-spirited human, and even when he does bully Merlin like he does, that sort of comes across. He's not mean-spirited, he's honestly just oblivious. He's never hung out with anyone who isn't a knight, where they haven't straight up fought as part of their friendship, and he's never really hung out with someone who wasn't a nobleman. It's this awkward mixture of him trying to maintain a friendship while still trying to maintain class superiority over him. Merlin's his friend, but not his equal.

Does... does that make sense?

Actually, I think that gets addressed in a season 2 episode. Arthur says something (paraphrased but) along the lines of: "I know we can't be friends because you're my servant, but if I wasn't a prince... I think we'd get on."

But Arthur, as he grows as a character, begins consistently defying all these class restrictions - by the fourth season, most of the knights weren't noblemen beforehand, but rather, were extremely loyal and competent commoners who Arthur found to be worthy. By the fifth season he's married to Guinevere, who was a serving girl for the first four seasons. And it's pretty clear that, while he and Merlin do have a banter going, they consider each other friends - he especially starts to trust Merlin in the fifth season, I've noticed, and it's really making it wonderful to watch. But the reason it's awesome is because it took them time to get there, so for that reason, I think we can cut them some slack on how the Arthur/Merlin relationship was written. (This doesn't, however, excuse the fact that the growth of their relationship we experienced through season 1 gets reset at the beginning of season 2. As in, they appear to have regressed. Uncool.)

One of the other major flaws with this show is that they have a habit of assigning antagonists before the they've really done anything antagonistic. It works a little bit, at first, with young Mordred (who, if you've read the Arthurian legends, eventually kills Arthur in battle. Also, in some legends, he's Arthur's bastard son, but they seem to be steering away from that, which is probably for the best) near the beginning of the series. It works because it gives Merlin some emotional turmoil - how can destiny possibly be right about condemning a young boy who Merlin sees himself in? That was a decent storyline.

But they continue with this habit for a long time. When Morgause shows up, she seems like a perfectly reasonable person, for a sorceress, and a kick-ass fighter to boot. She's also the only one who told Arthur the truth about the circumstances of his birth (long story). I thought she was going to be important.

And she is, but her remarkable intelligence and fighting skills get drastically reduced. And the reason they do that is because they pit her against Merlin all the time, and Merlin can't be allowed to lose. The other thing is, while she is a villain.... you kind of see her point? I mean, she's trying to kill Uther, who hunted everyone in the magical community, brought about the near extinction of multiple species, and executed many an innocent bystander for "consorting with sorcerers". He's a paranoid lunatic with a lot of power, and... killing him seems kind of like an understandable course of action at this point.

And I realize that perhaps we're supposed to be looking at it from the perspective of "killing is never the answer, killing in itself is evil, don't become the monster," etcetera, which would be valid, if not for the fact that Merlin has a huge body count himself. I mean, people get angry at Merlin for poisoning Morgana that one time (which was a time where he was actually, legitimately left with no other choice, and the narrative makes it very very clear - it was a breaking point for Morgana and Merlin both), but as the actor points out in the DVD commentaries, "I kill loads of people! I kill at least one person per episode." And the reason the audience/writers lets him get away with that is because the people he kills are evillllll, but, like.... define evil? If Uther isn't evil, then who is?

(Not to say that Uther isn't, at times, a sympathetic character - Anthony Head plays the complexity of his extremism very well - only that, well, we're meant to believe that Morgause is evil for attempting to kill Uther by putting everyone around him to sleep in an extremely non-violent fashion, after episodes that have had Uther execute children for being druids or sorcerers. Like...?)

The point being, we're supposed to think Morgause (and then by extension Morgana) are evil because that's the role that they've been assigned in the story. The problem is it's really hard to buy that if you're someone who wouldn't shed any tears over Uther's death, since that's pretty much their main goal. And no one would shed tears over Uther's death (except maybe Arthur, but eh, he'll get over it).

In fact, the villains in general. Like I said, Morgause started off great. She was smart, resourceful, graceful and kick-ass. Then they started directly pitting her against Merlin, and she gradually degenerated until she became the equivalent of, like, a Batman villain, sitting in their lair and wringing their hands while they fail yet again to kill Batman when really they should've just shot the guy instead of tying him to a conveyor belt that moves ever-so-slowly into a chopping machine. (Is this the end of the dynamic duo??? Tune in next week! Same bat-time! Same bat-channel!)

And don't even get me started on Morgana. Her arc was great up until season three. Before that, they had her struggling with the fact that she had magic and had to hide it in the center of the lion's den, so to speak. They had her meeting Morgause, and struggling with the decision to finally overthrow the tyrant who raised her, but would kill her if he ever discovered her abilities. Then they had Merlin poison her, which was a nice catalyst - a nice confirmation for her of the fact that she can't trust anyone in her own home.

And then in season three she comes back. You'd expect them to play with her a little more, right? Play with the idea that she's trying to be the hero, but by more questionable means, and gradually becomes the villain without hardly realizing it. What an interesting conflict that would have been.

 Nope. She comes back and she's just straight-up Batman-villain evil. I'm talking, evil smirks literally every six seconds. It's cartoony. It's often enough that it makes you wonder how no one (besides Merlin) notices that the king's ward smiles to herself like a nutjob every time something bad happens to anyone.

And she doesn't talk about her reasons for becoming evil, and only vaguely and briefly what her ultimate goals are - and even those end up getting distracted. "Assassinate Uther to free the magic community" somehow gets turned into "kill Arthur for some reason" somehow gets turned into "kill Gwen... I don't know, she just sucks". (Oddly enough Merlin never gets a plot directly against him, at least, not until season five - odd because he was the one that poisoned Morgana to begin with). (Also, to be fair, killing Arthur is sorrrrrrrrt of logical, because he's next in line for the throne, but if he's gone then she is. So alright, I'm down with that. But Gwen. Like. Why are you killing Gwen. You know what would be a good way to stop Gwen from becoming queen? KILLING ARTHUR YOU KNUCKLEHEAD. Not to mention Morgana apparently does not know the difference between a queen regnant and a queen consort, but whatever).

There were a couple good villains, though. Agravaine, for instance, was watchable. He was working for Morgana, but he was infinitely more crafty and competent than her (understandable, given that by this point Morgana is steadily descending into madness driven by obsessive hatred) and, significantly, didn't smirk every five seconds. The thing about him though was that, while Morgana's plans were hazy but her motives were clear enough, Agravaine was exactly the opposite. His plans were executed well, but I'm kind of hard pressed to tell you why he was working against Camelot to begin with.

But you see, in spite of these various flaws, I still really enjoyed this show.

I enjoyed it because the thing about Merlin is that, while the over-arcing plots are generally pretty flawed (and only impact things on an erratic basis), the episodes themselves are usually really enjoyable. This is not a show where you should be looking at the big picture all the time, and I'm okay with that. There are so many shows these days that you can only enjoy by looking at the big picture, and that's just annoying, because it usually results in the plotlines per episode being disjointed and not really lining up thematically. One thing you have to give to Merlin - whether or not they do a good big picture, the plots per episode do line up well, and the scenes within those plots are usually extremely well done.

Seriously. While granted, a lot of the character development has been inconsistent (and off-screen to boot), the individual scenes are beautifully acted. (Except, as I've mentioned, Morgana's tendency for Vaudeville villainy, which is a bit jarring in comparison to the rest of the cast's more subtle acting, but hey, nobody's perfect). So many thinly written moments have been made quite profound because of smart acting choices made by very capable actors.

I have to give special mention to the dude who plays Merlin here, because while all of them are pretty great actors who bring a lot to the characters, Colin Morgan's Merlin is just... he stands out. I love that his Merlin actually cries instead of that stupid One Manly Tear trope. I love how incredibly expressive he can be in scenes when he doesn't even have lines. I love the subtle stuff he does in some of his line deliveries - slight voice crack here, a defensive whine there. It's really convincing acting. And on top of all that, he changes his accent for the show to boot (he has a really obscure Northern Irish accent. His Merlin is definitely not Irish). Not to mention that he has kind of this... magnetic, captivating quality, that's hard to define but easy to notice. He's the kind of actor where I could watch a video of him watching paint dry and I probably wouldn't change the channel.

And it has nothing to do with looks (though his cheekbones... damn, son). He just kind of has this quiet charisma thing going on. But, like I say, he's an amazing actor - it's pretty much what sold me on the show to begin with - and so that charisma is kind of just an extension of his talent as far as I'm concerned. I really admire him as an actor.

So the acting's really good, but also, the cinematography. Is really good. And of course, I've identified myself as one of those people who will continue watching something regardless of story if it happens to be shot particularly artfully, and Merlin definitely fits in that category. And there was probably good stuff happening from the beginning, but it becomes especially noticeable in the later seasons. Sometimes I just sit there with my jaw hanging because the shots are so pretty.

I love how the shape of the staircase forms this shot, and how it spirals down to Merlin. I love how small Merlin is. Beautiful.

I love this. I love that Excalibur is this huge thing that Arthur is, like, looking up to, and that they've represented it visually as well.

I'm not usually a fan of lens flare but I just think it works here. The sun, pulling Excalibur from the stone... it's all just so pretty. 

LOOK AT THAT SCENERY. LOOK AT THE LITTLE VILLAGE IN THE BACKGROUND. LOOK HOW FAR GWEN AND ELYAN ARE FROM EVERYTHING. LOOK HOW BIG THEIR FATHER'S GRAVESTONE PILE IS IN COMPARISON TO THEM. EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS SHOT IS PERFECT.

I love this so much. The shadows from the barred windows, making it look like the prison that it effectively is. The mandrake roots hanging in the shot but not quite reaching Gwen. Amazing.

To be honest I'm just a sucker for this lighting. Damn. But I'm also appreciating the shape of the shot - the road they're walking actually looks treacherous, which is unusual to be seen in a silhouette shot, and it looks almost as if the camera is tilted a little. Also the whole silhouettes thing is just... my eyes like that.

I LOVE THIS SHOT SO MUCH. I LOVE HOW MERLIN IS LITERALLY SURROUNDED BY MAGIC. I LOVE THAT THEY'VE CAMOUFLAGED HIM INTO HIS SURROUNDINGS BECAUSE HE IS MAGIC, BUT HE'S ALSO SHARP AND CLEAR AND NOT FADING INTO THE BACKGROUND. (And you can't tell with this particular screencap, but they've set it up so that they have just enough space for you to follow exactly where his eyes are following, and it's a blue butterfly that flies up in the opposite direction. It's a beautiful shot). 

I noticed near the end of the series they were really experimenting with centering people in shots - you see it a whole lot with shots of Mordred, which I haven't included here - and that's unusual, because closeups generally are framed so that the person is either on the left or on the right, like the previous one. It's generally more appealing to the eye, which is why centering someone is such an interesting choice. I can only imagine that it's meant to convey that the character is in a position of unusual power (or to represent that we're viewing them from a separate character's P.O.V, but that doesn't apply in this case), but because people's eyes aren't drawn to the center, they'd have to work the shot so that the person in the center commands the frame. They seem to have done that here by the stark contrast between Merlin's cloudy grey background and himself - interestingly, Arthur almost manages to fade into the grey with his armour on, but he is visible enough to provide something to give Merlin pause. It's a cool framing, and an interesting one.

I love this shot so much. It's just beautiful. The green in with the grey and island and the lake and the man's profile and I just really love this shot a lot it's so pretty. 

I love how they've done this iconic image (because let me tell you it's an image that wasn't invented with wide screen in mind). The dark waters, the dark background, and the golden sword and the pale hand... the contrast just works perfectly. Even though there's a lot of space there, there's no doubt where you should be looking. It's awesome.

(I, uh... I took a film class one time. I don't suppose you can tell.)

There's more, of course - I was trying to find a shot from Season 2 where Merlin's shot from through a chain link, it's quite poignant - but these are just a few of the shots that stand out in my mind. Hopefully it gets the point across that this show's cinematography is really beautiful, and, especially when it's in the context of the show, can be kind of breathtaking.

There are also some interesting themes discussed on the show, of course. I've touched on the class distinctions thing, which is always present, and (at least after Season 1) the show makes a very big point of representing that aspect of things in multiple ways - and makes an even bigger point of it when the class distinctions are being defied. For instance, things are often shot with Arthur being literally higher than Merlin - he's standing and Merlin's sitting, for instance, or when Arthur's sitting, Merlin is always doing labour and chores and servant-like things for him. But after the Round Table was first introduced, at the very end of the show, Merlin and Arthur are both sitting, on the same level, and filmed from the same height, implying that, at least for this moment, they are equal.

And, of course, possibly the most importantly: it's genuinely entertaining. Leaving aside the unfunny Arthur's-a-bad-boss gag that they like, the show can actually be very funny. When the show gets dramatic, I feel it and care about it. The protagonists, even at their worst, are all interesting, if not downright lovable. And it can actually be surprisingly thoughtful with the plots it explores.

In conclusion: Is it the best show ever made? Of course not. Is it still pretty good? Yeah, it is, and I love it a lot. I concede its obvious problems, but the fact is, it has a lot of redeeming qualities too. It's one of those shows that turn out better than the version that was put on paper.

Here's the thing. The good things it offers? They don't erase the problems. But getting caught up in the problems kind of narrows the things you get to enjoy, doesn't it?

Long story short: I love BBC Merlin in spite of myself.