ext_186248 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
morgulq.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
cap_ironman2008-09-15 12:14 am
morgulq.livejournal.com) wrote in cap_ironman2008-09-15 12:14 am
Entry tags:
Machiavelli, Watchmen, Hero and Civil War OR Intertextual Ruminations on Civil War
I've finally made myself start on Civil War but, being me, I can't concentrate on one thing at a time. So I'm halfway through CW, have just finished Watchmen, rereading The Prince...just because...and watching Hero on the side. For some reason, probably because all of them explore the idea of holding the good of many above the good of a few, they're mixing in my brain in a very odd way. I think that the Civil War writers were either referencing or, at least, seriously influenced by, The Prince. Particularly in terms of Tony's actions and characterisation.
(That, and I'm utterly convinced that Civil War is Marvel's attempt to recreate Watchmen but, ya know, without Rorschach.)
So...to bring this back on topic, I give ye various quotes from The Prince (And a bit of dialogue from Hero) that fit the Civil War Happenings scarily well, not just as justifications but as motivations.
To reconstitute political life in a state presupposes a good man, whereas o have recourse to violence in order to make oneself Prince in a republic presupposes a bad man. Hence very rarely will there be found a good man ready to use bad methods in order to make himself Prince, though with a good end in view. Nor will any reasonable man blame him for taking any action, however extraordinary, which may be of service in the organizing of a kingdom or the constituting of a republic. It is a sound maxim that reprehensible actions may be justified in their effect, and that when that effect is good, it always justifies the action. For it is the man who uses violence to spoil things, not the man who uses it to mend them, that is blameworthy.
A Prince should therefore disregard the reproach of being thought cruel where it enables him to keep his subjects united and loyal. For he who quells disorder by a very few signal examples will in the end be more merciful that he who from too great leniency permits things to take their course and so result in chaos and bloodshed; for these hurt the whole state, whereas severities of the Prince injure individuals only.
It is essential, therefore, for a Prince who desires to maintain his position, to have learned how to be other than good, and to use or not use his goodness as necessity requires.
Everyone sees what you seem to be, but few know what you are.
This is totally my favourite quote. I love it like I love pie. I wish I had found it long ago while I was still at school. One of the problems of Catholic schooling, or at least my Catholic Schooling, is that you are constantly told that the ends never justify the means while nearly everything you are taught about history, about the bible itself, contradicts that statement. The ends never justify the means but it's OK for GOD to murder an entire army, all the first born children of a country and destroy its crops and, therefore, its livelihood as long as the JEWS get out OK.
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
Many have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather bring about his own ruin than his preservation.
And the lone Hero quote *grins*:
"He said, One person's suffering is nothing compared to the suffering of many. The rivalry of Zhao and Qin is trivial compared to the greater cause."
"The person who really understands me is my most feared enemy. Alone, I have endured so much criticism. So many attempts on my life. No one understands my intentions...But I never imagined that Broken Sword, my arch-enemy would truly understand and appreciate my real motives."
I swear, if you haven't seen this movie, go find it and watch it ASAP. It's beautiful and tragic and complicated and morally ambiguous and just so PERFECT. It just moves along at its own pace, without the rush of Western Cinema or a driving NEED to provide a self-contained, dumbed down story so that everyone, even the ones nodding off, can follow.
(That, and I'm utterly convinced that Civil War is Marvel's attempt to recreate Watchmen but, ya know, without Rorschach.)
So...to bring this back on topic, I give ye various quotes from The Prince (And a bit of dialogue from Hero) that fit the Civil War Happenings scarily well, not just as justifications but as motivations.
To reconstitute political life in a state presupposes a good man, whereas o have recourse to violence in order to make oneself Prince in a republic presupposes a bad man. Hence very rarely will there be found a good man ready to use bad methods in order to make himself Prince, though with a good end in view. Nor will any reasonable man blame him for taking any action, however extraordinary, which may be of service in the organizing of a kingdom or the constituting of a republic. It is a sound maxim that reprehensible actions may be justified in their effect, and that when that effect is good, it always justifies the action. For it is the man who uses violence to spoil things, not the man who uses it to mend them, that is blameworthy.
A Prince should therefore disregard the reproach of being thought cruel where it enables him to keep his subjects united and loyal. For he who quells disorder by a very few signal examples will in the end be more merciful that he who from too great leniency permits things to take their course and so result in chaos and bloodshed; for these hurt the whole state, whereas severities of the Prince injure individuals only.
It is essential, therefore, for a Prince who desires to maintain his position, to have learned how to be other than good, and to use or not use his goodness as necessity requires.
Everyone sees what you seem to be, but few know what you are.
This is totally my favourite quote. I love it like I love pie. I wish I had found it long ago while I was still at school. One of the problems of Catholic schooling, or at least my Catholic Schooling, is that you are constantly told that the ends never justify the means while nearly everything you are taught about history, about the bible itself, contradicts that statement. The ends never justify the means but it's OK for GOD to murder an entire army, all the first born children of a country and destroy its crops and, therefore, its livelihood as long as the JEWS get out OK.
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.
Many have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather bring about his own ruin than his preservation.
And the lone Hero quote *grins*:
"He said, One person's suffering is nothing compared to the suffering of many. The rivalry of Zhao and Qin is trivial compared to the greater cause."
"The person who really understands me is my most feared enemy. Alone, I have endured so much criticism. So many attempts on my life. No one understands my intentions...But I never imagined that Broken Sword, my arch-enemy would truly understand and appreciate my real motives."
I swear, if you haven't seen this movie, go find it and watch it ASAP. It's beautiful and tragic and complicated and morally ambiguous and just so PERFECT. It just moves along at its own pace, without the rush of Western Cinema or a driving NEED to provide a self-contained, dumbed down story so that everyone, even the ones nodding off, can follow.
no subject
Dearest, thank you for making me feel like less of a bastard for taking Tony's side. He was truly a good man who used bad methods, and had the good end in view, at the expense of his own reputation.
♥
no subject
And that's why I did post it. I'm doing and feeling the exact same thing and it's weird. Part of me, and I'm blaming my Professor here, is going all weird and getting how and why he's doing what he's doing and the rest of me, also the Professor's fault, is wondering if I'm feeling as weird about it as I do because SOCIETY has conditioned me to not think along those terms. ...my brain is an odd place to be.
Basically...thank you for making me feel like less of an idiot for posting! =^.^=
no subject
But in all seriousness, I can't hate Tony. The collateral damage of Cap was unacceptable, but Tony saw something that needed to be accomplished and went for it. People forget Tony was AGAINST the SHRA until the damn school blew up and the public went nuts--he'd even succeeded in staving the damn thing off. I'm a big Trekkie, so "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and all that. Earth needed protection against aliens (SKRULLS!!!) and each American state needed a superhero team because not all crime happens in New York and LA.
I knew people hated Tony going into CW, but as I read it I almost immediately went over to his side. I love the convo that Tony has with one of the senators in Road To.. where the senator says that feds and cops put their asses on the line every day WITHOUT masks. They are accountable to the people and the government regulates them, so why not superheroes.
no subject
There was another quote that I thought fit the whole Road to...thing quite well: There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.
People forget Tony was AGAINST the SHRA until the damn school blew up
I'm totally with you on that one. I can understand WHY they'd choose to focus on other aspects, this whole thing is very morally ambiguous (which is fun for me. I love examining my own reactions to certain things.) and a lot more difficult than Marvel has been up to that point.
And, honestly, the whole Registration idea makes sense. Vigilante: it's a description, not a title.
no subject
That should be an icon.
no subject
*adds to list of things to do after exams*
no subject
I've only read bits and pieces of Civil War, but from what I've seen and heard, I can't really agree with most of Tony's actions. I can understand why he wants registration, especially after his experience in Execute Program, but the end scene where he thinks, and I paraphrase, 'Superheros can be used as weapons, just like handguns, but handguns need to be registered,' really chills me. The End is to build a world that is safer for regular people and superheros both. The Means is to treat superheros as dangerous weapons regardless of innocence. In my mind, the end does not justify the means.
Let me say at this point that Tony is my favorite character. He acts out of fear and he makes mistakes so epic that they change everything. He's human and I love him.
This paragraph struck me:
Many have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather bring about his own ruin than his preservation.
How can Tony think that rounding people up like animals will lead to the safer future he obviously wants for his friends and fellow superheroes? He ought to know the difference between reality and idealistic visions.
no subject
Civil War is...complicated. It's one that I think you either need to read all of in order or not at all.
There's several big explaination pieces for the why in the mix. I'll try an and them and post them if I can. I think the general idea is just to pick your favourite character and go.
no subject
From what I understand the SHRA was pretty much a done deal, long before Tony was in any way involved. The president didn't like superheroes (as seen in the conversation where Maria Hill is appointed as acting director of SHIELD), the public had long since stopped being grateful for the saving the superheros do and is more likely to blame them for the damage that happened and the government might as well be bought of completely by the Red Skull r any other villain/group of villains of your choice.
Where in that situation does anyone see the possibility to prevent the SHRA from happening? Stamford was just the last straw. A very big straw, granted, but only a straw. And something along those lines, maybe not as big and tagic, would have happened sooner or later. That's just calculating the odds of something going wrong once.
And the government/president/superhero haters/crazy scientists have this very annoying habit of thinking up really stupid, dangerous and effective ideas to get their will. Super Soldier Serum, Extremis, Weapon X, Project Wideawake. I'm sure there are many other examples.
You want them running amok with their ideas? Because for them it is 'the ends justify the means'. And they would run amok if there were no superheroes on the pro-reg side to do their bidding, because how else are they going to get the other heroes into line? Which, in their mind and with the SHRA, is their right. By any means. They are a potential threat, after all.
Now, throw in Tony, who knows politics, knows how to navigate in them (whether he's good at it or not) and knows what the government is capable of, and who sees that all his attempts to stop the SHRA from happening are failing. Add to that the point after which it is impossible to change sides and have any kind of influence left (in this case Stamford).
The end is inevitable. It's coming whatever he's going to do. And the people in charge of it have a 'the end justifies the means' attitude, whether he agrees or not. Those means, of course, aren't going to get any better for the heroes.
But maybe Tony, with what little political influence he still has, can keep the means from getting from bad to worse. Because he knows many of his friends aren't going to give up fighting the SHRA, which gives the government the perfect excuse to hunt them down and do to them whatever they want.
So, a shitty situation all around and the questions about right and wrong, about whether the end actually does justify the means, kind of lose their importance. At least for Tony. Because without someone to care about those questions (i.e. Captain America) you might as well forget about them. Which makes this situation more a choice between two evils, and Tony chose what he feels is the lesser evil.
Personally, I would have just told the public and government to fuck off and left the USA. Let them deal with the super villain problem themselves. See what happens then. But that's just me.
I hope this made sense to anyone apart from me. *grins*
no subject
So when fiction gets into that particular murky area that we, as a society, are trained to gloss over I find that the responses of the readers, the audience are the most fascinating part. So when I say I'm loving Civil War, it's that part I love.
So far I've found three dominant reactions:
1) is the majority, the knee-jerk 'all pro-SHRA heroes are BAD!' This is how we've be brought up to respond despite the fact that even a small moment of critical analysis proves that this view is seriously flawed.
2) ambivalence. We don't want to deal with it so we ignore, or at least gloss over, this storyline in our minds.
3) seems to be the category that the majority of this group falls under even if most of us are motivated by favouritism. We know there's more to this storyline than mere right and wrong and despite our own views on the subject cannot shake that tiny bit of guilt for, dare I say, approving the Pro-SHRA heroes' end-justifies-the-means stance.
Dear god, I am so the victim of academia! I'm making LISTS!
...it's the Professor's fault! *points wildly* His fault!