The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
Bitter Seeds
2010 Reads
>
BS: *Spoil?* Blurred lines between good and evil
date
newest »
newest »
*No more question mark. This comment has spoilers*I'm not sure I agree with the premise of the question. That is, both characters know they're doing terrible things, and both think they're in the right. Perhaps the real difference between Marsh and Klaus is the motivation for their actions. The duty of the former is the defense of his home, the duty of the latter is an ambition to cull "weakness" from humanity.
In that case the more evil person has to be Klaus. I'll admit that Marsh's actions lead to a lot more suffering than Klaus's. He gets his company killed in a reckless act of revenge, for example. In that one scene he's inadvertently killed more people than Klaus would ever hope to. But that's the point. Marsh stumbles into it and he feels remorse. Klaus is a narcissistic tool. Yes, we do sympathize with him, but ultimately he is spineless and self-centered.
An even tastier comparison than Marsh and Klaus could be made between Klaus and Will, I think. They are equally perceptive of themselves and others. They are both products of their abusive and manipulative father figures. Neither is particularly keen on his job, each is willing to blame others for his choices, and they both do as much as they can to limit their involvement without actually walking away. They find their reason in another person. Will wants to please Marsh, and Klaus wants to please the Doctor. Who do you find more evil out of these two?
*Spoilers*I'm not sure that either Will and Klaus thought they were in the right, or even that there was a balance of good and evil. They just plain tipped over the edge.
First Will. (And notice the play on the name, "will" and "willenskrafte" and "Will"). A strong will is the one thing he lacks. He knows that what he is doing, from the first, is wrong, but agrees to go along as a willing participant -- to please Marsh? To please Stephenson? To give his life some direction (after all, what is he doing at the beginning of the book? He's sort of a drone, really.) How does he end? Giving up control of his life to the morphine. Even though he lambasts Aubrey for not doing what he did for the war, did Will really do it for the war, or to fill some emptiness and lack inside himself? I don't think he really knows.
Klaus. Klaus does have a redeeming moment when, on the recruiting trip, he discourages the young girl from joining the Reichsbehorde, and then removes the applications to the group from the envelope. But his motivation for the rest of the book - he doesn't ever go on about the glory of the Reich or the Fatherland, he mentions that maybe once or twice, but, doesn't he seem like a regular soldier? He's doing his job for his country. And, I don't recall him doing anything as objectively evil as Will. Klaus mainly kills enemy soldiers. Also, this is the only life he knows.
Marsh is almost the opposite of Will. He doesn't care what he has to do to get the job done. Will cares, but doesn't act on his caring. And notice that Marsh doesn't remove himself from the conflict -- Stephenson (essentially) fires him. (I think that Marsh's temper, his overabundance of "will", was not as believable as it could have been -- the young boy whom Stephenson befriends was very calm and composed -- how did he become that adult Marsh?)
Notice that the only normal people are Liv (at least until after the end of the book) and Aubrey -- and their choices in the book are not based in a "will to power" for whatever good end it might be, but of care for family and loved ones. (Yes, a stretch for Aubrey; but he takes care of his brother.) And the only person who seems to be in control of her own life, even though she objectively is not, is Gretel.
This is a fun book.
Reading this from the perspective of an American, I found myself quick to place the evil label on the Germans. At first I thought this was going to be just another war story. However, I was shocked by the part that the English played in the story. The more I read it the more that I got uncomfortable because I started thinking about how easy it is to place a label of hero on a really evil person if you take the side of the ends justifying the means.When I got to the part where the English were killing their own people to tap into the power of the Eidolon, I was repulsed by the idea that it would be very easy for our own government to sacrifice our own people for the "greater good." This is the idea behind the conspiracy theorists view of 9/11.
This is in turn made me question who the good guys really were in the story; this being the hallmark of a well written book. Having completed the book, I look at Klaus who served his country like I did when I was younger. Is it evil to serve your government when you have been raised, and in this case tortured in service, when the government has evil purposes? I don't think so. While Klaus was not always likable, I am more likely to place the evil label on someone like Will who willingly killed his own people in large numbers. I know that's the label that I would use if I had been in that bar he blew up.
Mod
I'm not sure I agree with the premise of the question. That is, both characters know they're doing terrible things, and both think they're in the..."
I was talking about Will, not Marsh. Though, Marsh certainly has his own demons.
Mod
Exactly... I totally agree with you here. The ambiguity of the whole thing really leads you to question what you would do in the same situation.
Veronica wrote: "I was talking about Will, not Marsh. Though, Marsh certainly has his own demons."Oh, you're right. I misread it the first time. Forgive me.
I agree the for the most part good and evil were a bit blurry in this book. Neither Will, nor Klaus were evil. Klaus' motivation was always to please the doctor, (not his country, just the doctor). To become number one in the doctor's eyes. Which was hard to understand at first when you consider that everyone around him considered him a gypsy mongrel. Until you read about the torture he endured from an early age as a victim of von Westarp . Psychologically, having that done to him at such an early age would cripple him from being able to break away from his torturer, and even create a sense of dependency. It was only after he was away from the doctor's influence that we see him acting in a way that suggests a will of his own, when he saves the girl from signing up.
Will wasn't evil either. He might have begun his warlock career with the ministry on a whim, to assuage some curiosity, but I believe he continued on in a belief that he was helping his country. He didn't have the will to stand up at the end and refuse to take part (or try to stop) the horrible measures Stephenson and the warlocks were taking was from his own lack of will (so to speak). He was more weak-willed than evil. And that's why he turned to drugs in the end.
However, there were no blurred lines when it came to Von Westarp. Now, he was evil.
Mod
Yeah, he was a straight-up dick.
What about Stephenson? Just as straight-up-dicky as Von Westarp? Or does he become him in the end... for the greater good?
I read Stephenson as more empathetic towards Marsh than Dr. von Westarp ever was with his charges. Where he ends up by the end of the book is potentially even worse.The real mind bender is this: What if Gretel is the one doing the most "good" in these books?
Will explained that for the Eidolons, finding us is like finding one ant in the whole of England. Well, what if the blood map creates the equivalent of an ant hill? Spill enough blood and the anthill is easy to spot.
Could it be that Gretel is directing everyone down a course that spills the least amount of blood and gives the world a chance to survive?
Of course there is the distinct possibility she is just a crazy, petulant child in an adult body, but it is something to consider.
Oh, and on the actual question - I view both Klaus and Will as "good". They actually consider the impact their actions have on others.
I'm not sure about my opinions on Klaus. He seems to be along for the ride sometimes. Everything he tries to do to one-up Reinhardt seems to either backfire on him or be proven to have been useless to attempt.As far as the evils within the book. von Westarp, definitely - but we don't see his viewpoint at all. I would also peg Stephenson as evil - although he didn't start out that way.
Will just seems to have been the guy who did what he had to do initially, but then realized what he was doing was monstrous and attempted to make up for it by attempting suicide by morphine addiction.
Marsh is in a similar spot as Will, but further down the path (not as far as Stephenson though), and I think truly wants redemption.
Gretel - I think when she gained her pre-cog powers she saw the way the world was heading and then decided to change things. I don't think she is evil at heart, but is using the ends justify the means to rationalize her actions. The fact that we don't see her viewpoint complicates analysis of her actions, however. I do think that there is a cruel streak to her - as evidenced by her little jokey "incoming" remarks.
Michael wrote: "As far as the evils within the book. von Westarp, definitely - but we don't see his viewpoint at all. I would also peg Stephenson as evil - although he didn't start out that way."The interesting thing is you can see how an evil man like von Westarp could arise based on what happens to Stephenson. His decline into evil may have been just like von Westarp's. Kill one person for the greater good of all. Then 10 to save your country from destruction. Then a pub here, a train there. Next thing you know you are raising babies as if they are nothing more than lab rats. We never knew the Doctor before the experiments began. It would be interesting to see a backstory on his descent into evil.
Although I do not disagree that Stephenson has made a "descent" into evil, I do not think that there is really a backstory to that. He is wonderfully bureaucratic; a government official; a man just carrying out his job. I am reminded of Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem -- where she proposes the "banality of evil" -- that is, more or less, functionaries just doing their darned job. Stephenson, the government official. von Westarp, the government scientist. Neither caring at all about the broader implications of their actions, but rather concerned with just doing their job. (Sort of, "Yes, I know that's not right, but we really need to get that mission carried out, you know. Pip, pip.")
That of course is why most of the things that happened to characters in the book are believable. The actual evil that both sides committed on their own people as well as their foes in WWII far outstrips anything we see in the book.Of course if the warlocks end up bringing the Eidolons to Earth and end all life - well that would be worse.
Its interesting some people regard Gretel as less than completely evil. She sacrfices people to her personal ambitions as well as arguably betrays her country. She manipulates the blond to kill herself, mostly it seems out of jealousy, and finally fails to warn anyone the final attack is coming. If Will and Klaus are arguably behaving morally to their culture and are loyal to those they have been taught deserve loyalty, Gretel is loyal to none beside her brother, and it unclear whether that is due to love or simply the fact that he remains useful to her.
Halbot42 wrote: "Its interesting some people regard Gretel as less than completely evil..."That assumes you know her motivation for doing everything. If she is doing everything for her own personal benefit, then I would guess that you are correct. But consider that she may have done what she did to limit the scope of the warlock sacrifice and keep them out of the hands of the Germans.
What if she is doing everything she can to prevent the Eidolons from finding Earth? What if she is acting to prevent a fate only she can see? That hardly makes her blameless, but no character in this book is wholly blameless.
Gretel is the ultimate sociopath. She's the little girl from "The Bad Seed" all grown up. You get the first indication of her sociopathy at the very beginning of the book when the children are brought to the farm and she smiles when the sick boy is taken away and killed. I don't know what her motivations are, but they are only for the good of Gretel, not the good of humankind.I think Will and Klaus are much more complex. Neither wants to be doing what he's doing. Will goes along with the program, but Klaus finds little ways to rebel. The fact that Klaus has a conscience at all is absolutely remarkable given his upbringing. The fact that he acts on his conscience is even more remarkable. He ended up being a much stronger character than Will because of this rebellion.
Interesting argument that Gretel may be acting to prevent a worse fate Skip. However it seems unlikely that someone so pathological on the small scale would be so altruistic on the cosmic scale, though it would be consistent with self preservation. The way she manipulates others to their detriment would suggest that if she is acting to ward off the eidolons, its merely to preserve herself and saving the rest of humanity is less consequential.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (other topics)Bitter Seeds (other topics)
Two characters in the book straddle the line between good and evil with a very delicate balance: Will and Klaus. Both are sympathetic characters in their ways, both fight on opposite sides of the war, and both commit horrible atrocities.
Who do you find more "evil" in this scenario? The person who knows he's doing horrible things, or the person that thinks he's in the right?
Bitter Seeds