![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.