this is not the fan you're looking for

[tielan]

Holy Clockwork Angels - SPN, Steampunk AU, Jo/Ruby, but really, if you like female characters and like steampunk, I recommend this beyond all words. Unfortunately, no artwork, although there is a fanmix.

An artwork for this fic would have been awesome.

--

Last call for prompts at the sga_kinkmeme over on Dreamwidth.

I'm tempted to tell you to go over and pick a prompt for me to write, and I'll write the one with the most votes behind it. And any others that take my fancy. But definitely the one most-voted for off my Dwirclist.

--

Oh, and a short-ish meta about character morality and the way people see things:

I've been wondering a bit about this since, in my story, the team has to make some morally dubious choices within the framework of their situation.

In the show, there's enough examples: effective genocide of the Wraith in the erasure of their personal existence as Wraith (Michael), the Asuran attempt to destroy the Wraith by killing humans in the process (two birds with one stone in the Asuran perspective), John handing the corporation guy over to Todd in Miller's Crossing vs. John being fed to Todd by Kolya in Common Ground.

There are probably examples, but those are the three that come to mind.

Different people have different tolerances for moral shades of grey: there are some people who virulently objected to the idea that the Atlantis expedition would try to effectively genocide the Wraith, while others okayed John's actions in Miller's Crossing because he was doing it for Rodney, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that the Asurans (or Michael, come to that) were right in trying to extinguish humanity in Pegasus in order to end the Wraith, and no-one's going to be on Kolya's side for using Todd to torture John in Common Ground.

So where's the line? Is it "okay" to do the wrong things for the right reasons? Do good intentions count?

Is it defined by who's the victim? Is it bad when it's done to the good guys (John, the Atlantis expedition) but okay when it's the bad guys having it done to them (Kolya, Michael, the Asurans)?

Or is it defined by the narrative we're being fed? ie. Good guys doing morally questionable things isn't a problem because they're doing it for the greater good (Hot Fuzz chorus: "THE GREATER GOOD!"), but bad guys are doing it for self-interest - or, at least, against the interests of the narrative's "good guys", and so, bad.

Comments

[rhianona]

Re: Gray characters.

I like gray. I also believe they make more realistic characters. Life isn't black and white, and for characters to act as such is pure fantasy.

Having said that, I also want my characters to show remorse for actions that are morally questionable. For instance: when John feeds the corporate guy to the Wraith, I really wanted some discussion of whether it was right or not for him to do that. I wanted John to how remorse or guilt for what he did or maybe have to face consequences for his actions. Whether he did it for a greater good or not, John facilitated the death of someone. And yes, he is a soldier but soldier does not mean one can simply convince someone to kill himself so that one's friend is saved. John had to weigh the circumstances and he made a decision that I'm sure many would have agreed with. Doesn't mean it wasn't morally dubious.

I also wonder whether our reactions would have changed had corporate guy not been set up as he was: yes, we're given this sob story about his daughter and why he's desperate for the nanites and the reason for his kidnapping of Jeannie. However, he is not all that sympathetic a character until the end, when John gives him the situation, tells him he won't force him to go into the room with the Wraith but implies that he owes it to the SGC to do it.

By contrast, Kolya and the Genii were already shown as cartoonish villains so the fact that they would use a Wraith on John as a means of torture isn't that hard to believe. It's "evil" because we "know" that the Genii and Kolya are evil. We "know" this because they tried to hide their tech advancements from others, they coveted Earth tech, and they tried to take the City that "belongs" to Earth. Also, given that we "know" the Wraith are all evil because they consider humans as nothing more than prey, it seems doubly evil that the Genii are willing to use a Wraith against fellow humans.

As you've noted, there are a number of dubious actions by the expedition, actions in which the consequences aren't so much discussed by the characters, but instead are used to create further plot points and these plot points usually have the expedition acting in a self-righteous "greater" good manner. Example: the whole Michael arc. The only person who feels even remotely guilty for what they did to him is Teyla.

Even the one episode in which the people of Pegasus call the expedition to task is handled poorly. Rather than answer to the ills they have given to the people of Pegasus, the team and the expedition are aghast at the temerity of the people who have placed them on trial. It highlights the arrogance of the expedition as a whole.

In the case of SGA, the writers have already fed us a narrative where the expedition and particularly the main team, are heros and cannot do wrong. Even if they do wrong, they will show remorse only to their friends not to others. (Thinking of the Arcturus project.) Any time the characters are shown doing morally dubious actions, it's okay, because, as you noted, it is for the greater good. A greater good that is defined as whatever is best for the expedition.

[tielan]

SGA is a fairly good example of the kind of writing that is more interested in the plot results than what it the actions of the protags says about the protags as people. And I agree, it would have been good to see a little more questioning of the characters' actions and the motives that prompted them throughout the show - remorse, regret - and not just regret related to the consequences of an action, but regret of the action itself - and reconsideration.