Forum - View topicMaria the Virgin Witch (TV).
|
Goto page Previous Next |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ChibiKangaroo
 Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||
I've been trying to limit my commentary to context similar to what we are dealing with here, so I've sprinkled my responses with terms like "usually" or "in this context." I try my best not to deal in absolutes, though sometimes I can fall prey to that just as anyone else, but I am saying that in the context of these types of shows (i.e. involving battles of sorts between "good" and "evil") the way nuance is generally used for the antagonist is that they have "evil" means but are trying to accomplish some kind of end game that might be beneficial to more people than just him/herself. Whether you want to describe it as good might be based on your perspective, but that's generally how nuance is introduced. Sure, you could come up with other contexts where nuance can be done in different ways. If we wanted to talk about romantic comedies, maybe a nuanced character is a bishie bastard with a heart of gold, though I personally find that type of "nuance" to be annoying. I'm really trying to focus though on shows like Maria, where there are larger conflicts going on and we have a "good vs "evil" type of set up. Here, there is no question that Maria is being set up as the ultimate good. Some have already compared her to Jesus Christ. (That particular comparison, by the way, is another thing that I think anime does VERY poorly.) On the other side, we are having people like Galfa and Bernard, primarily, as the villains. As I mentioned before, I think the Christian God is also being set up as a villain, or at least antagonist, in this show. In this type of show, nuance is usually brought in by indicating that maybe the end justifies the means. So, let's look at the Church for example. The means are as follows: - forcing townspeople to suffer death and disease rather than be cured by Maria - threatening to kill Martha and Anne and their family if Martha doesn't renounce her friendship with Maria - contracting a mercenary to beat and rape Maria - attempting to burn Maria alive Okay, so this is all some pretty dastardly stuff. These "Church" guys all sound like extreme, evil psychopaths. Hmmm, how do we get some nuance in here? Well, maybe there is a side story about how Bernard witness evil witches killing innocent people in the past, so he is trying to get rid of Maria to stop that from occurring again? No? Hmmm... How about once Maria is burned as a heretic, God has promised that all of the soldiers on France's side will survive the next battle and not be maimed either? Thousands of people will live because Maria died! Sounds good right? Ohh... no? Not that one either? Hmm... Maybe Maria's death will impart some new knowledge to Bernard which will allow the Church to save thousands more innocents. He will perform experiments on her and it will give him cures for all kinds of diseases? Eh? No? You can see where I am going. The Church isn't being presented in a way that would generally create nuance. They are just being presented as bastards who murder and rape innocent girls. I could say similar things of Galfa. Again, we could see nuance if he was trying to reach some goal that was partially sympathetic. Like maybe he has a love child somewhere, a daughter perhaps, and if he doesn't get enough money to pay back his debts then some ruffian will kill her off. So he does all these dastardly deeds to get the money. But there's none of that. Nope. He's just a worthless drunk who loves sex and money. He wants as much sex and money for himself as possible, so he'll kill and rape anyone he can to get those things. How is that nuanced? I just don't buy it. So to answer your question - in the most abstract sense, no, larger goals are not absolutely required for nuance. In this context, however, it is the best way to achieve nuance, and this show has both ignored that method and failed to come up with anything just as good. @ Key It's true Maria is the only witch the story has focused on, well for the most part (which as you recall was another of my criticisms!) But I'm not looking for an explanation about why the antagonists are so laser focused on her. I am instead commenting about how the fact that they are so obsessed with debasing and killing her to the point that they would commit such depraved acts, yet don't seem to have some larger goal which would create nuance (such as the examples given above) makes them seem more cartoonishly evil. That is why I find it so bizarre to see people saying these are truly nuanced villains. As far as Michael interfering with humans, he is interfering by stopping Maria from using her powers. I suppose you could question whether Maria is a "human" or not, but even if you assume for the moment that she is not, since when did God actively step in to stop other forces from exerting their influence? Again, this is a form of interference. It means God is taking sides of sorts, and actively participating in battles. That's not non-interventionist. And as for the "dignity" of allowing Maria to be raped by Galfa, I don't frankly see the difference between God stepping in to stop Maria from saving villagers from being raped by mercenaries on the one hand, and God stepping in to stop Galfa from raping Maria on the other hand (as far as interference is concerned). Obviously, the fact that God would directly interfere with Maria preventing rape but stand idly by as Maria is raped doesn't make God look very good here. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
jroa
Posts: 542 |
|
|||||||||||
Michael is definitely an antagonist. However, he is not a villain. Based on what I've pointed out before, God, as an entity, is arguably neither. This story isn't really going to end with Maria going up to the heavens and defeating or killing God, regardless of whatever happens with Michael in the final act. Evidently, it's hard to discuss the motives of a deity, especially when God is a character that hasn't physically shown up in this story. But I would submit the idea that God may have put the virginity restriction on Maria as a test of her beliefs and intentions, perhaps indirectly including those of Joseph too, in the face of a world that's more complicated than either of them think. In that sense, even if they somehow manage to overcome Michael, that wouldn't necessarily be a case of God "losing" or being proven wrong.
It should be pointed out that you're not mentioning other elements and actions that would also be relevant to discussing the portrayal of the Church in this show. For example,the offer Bernard made to Maria back during their very first meeting. Regardless of the fact that he ended up going to some much darker places later on, the man wasn't lying to her during their conversation. In other words, that's one of various nuances. Having said that... -The villagers in the flashback, including their own priests, rejected aid from Maria. But they weren't being "forced" to do anything other than through following their own misguided beliefs. Those priests probably ended up among the dead too. Far from an inherently evil act, I think this is morally ambiguous yet nuanced enough. -You are reading an exclusively murderous intent into what was more of a vaguely implied threat of negative consequences for the family. Not a very nice thing to do, of course not, but it lines up with the Church's teachings about not associating with witches. It should also be mentioned that the Church did provide medicine to Martha as an alternative and it doesn't seem Bernard had planned Martha's sickness getting worse in advance . -No argument there. That's certainly an evil act, though ostensibly one that could have had relatively positive consequences in the long term for those who had been negatively affected by Maria's interventions. -Again, that's pretty evil. But in context, that was the end result of a slightly complex series of events and Maria's own actions contributed to making that outcome possible. I think, based on this and your statements about Galfa, that the show hasn't provided the very specific kind of nuance you wanted to see. But I believe the series has included other degrees of nuance that, in my opinion, are completely valid and make the big picture more interesting for me than for you. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||
I don't expect the show to end with Maria going up to the heavens and killing God. I do think it is highly likely at this point though that Maria will be portrayed in the end as a superior being of some kind. That's the trajectory that the show is on right now. This is becoming a traditional story of heroic sacrifice, where the main character is placed upon a pedestal as the epitome of righteousness. So in that sense, if that trajectory continues, Maria will indeed "defeat" God in the end.
I've addressed this earlier, but I did think the whole plot line of Bernard attempting to work with Maria made him an interesting character at first. However, he has since completely abandoned that curiosity and went straight back to strict orthodoxy, even going so far as to go insane in the end rather than have a constructive, intellectual conversation with Maria.
I wasn't solely talking about those early villagers in the flashback. They are an example of it yes, but even the villagers in the current part of the story are being forced by the church to refuse Maria's help and instead suffer whatever fate might come to them. This could include disease or death via mercenaries, like that part in the story where the mercenaries attempt to rape and pillage the town before Maria stops them.
This is like saying the mob doesn't have murderous intent when it tells you that "bad things will happen" if you and your family don't do what they want.
I don't agree. Maria's actions have been portrayed as saving lives numerous times. Whenever she stops a battle, thousands of soldiers are spared death. Each time, the English are forced farther back and at some points have said they would like to return home rather than continue fighting. The only "negative" effect is people like Galfa can't make extra money looting corpses. I would hardly say that that is some grand detriment from Maria's actions. Likewise, those outcomes don't somehow make her being burned at the stake partially her fault.
Yes. I just don't think a guy who murders and rapes for money, lust and power makes for a particularly nuanced character. I think people are desperately trying to claim he is nuanced when he is clearly not. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Key
Moderator
 Posts: 18269 Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley) |
|
|||||||||||
Agreed on this point. While there's unquestionably some subtle coercion going on here, I utterly disagree that there's evil or even villainous intent behind it. CK's analogy in response is not a valid one.
Gotta disagree with that being evil, actually, as "evil" implies malice and there's none to be found here. Of all of the named characters in the story, Gilbert has arguably been shown as the most purely pious, in the sense that he is true to his religion and does not seem to be acting on ulterior motives. In condemning Maria, he has gone through the Medieval equivalent of "due diligence." Accounts of Maria using magic (which the Church regards as anathema) to interfere with battles are well-documented, and one of those interferences did indirectly result in French casualties that probably wouldn't have happened otherwise. He has an accusation from the people of the village about Maria. (He does not seem to be aware that it was coerced.) Maria openly admits that she is a witch and will not admit to having been baptized, which was a much bigger deal back then than it is today. She adamantly refused to come under God's grace and steadfastly insisted on acting as she saw fit rather than as the Church taught. And the kickers are that she was witnessed being directly confronted by the holy Michael and that Gilbert has personally witnessed Bernard, a priest he respected, being befuddled by her. (That it largely wasn't her fault is irrelevant.) All of that combined makes her a danger to the authority of the Church and to Christian belief and spirituality in Gilbert's eyes, and she is undeniably both a witch and (by Church definition) a heretic besides. That's vastly more evidence against her than in any other witch-burning case you'll ever see. Now, how fair some of these points are is another story, but there's every indication here that he ultimately condemned her because he judged her to be a threat to good Christian folk. What is shown gives no indication that Gilbert resorted to torture, either (and the implements - including that wooden pyramid, which was commonly used in later witchcraft incidents - were certainly there). It's really only evil if you consider actions taken against the protagonist to automatically be evil.
Try "hundreds" of lives and you are probably being more reasonable, as only a handful of battles fought during the Hundred Years' War were on the scale of an Agincourt or a Crecy. And some of the unintended side effects of Maria stopping the battles were shown quite specifically in earlier episodes. And again, the whole "calling on pagan powers to use magic = anathema" thing was single-handedly enough for her to warrant being burned at the stake based on Christian doctrine of the time. Last edited by Key on Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:13 pm; edited 2 times in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||
You seriously think that a mob/mafia analogy is not valid? Of course it is! They are in the middle of an "inquisition" focused solely on this town, where people could be burned at the stake or have some other terrifying things done to them. This is like, the epitome of a mafia analogy. These kinds of implied threats of death or extreme violence are the most classic calling card of mafia interactions, e.g. protection rackets.
Does this really mean that his actions are not "evil?" That seems like a judgment call that really can't be made given the audience's level of knowledge. I understand the whole concept of cultural relativism and people saying that "back then, his actions might be considered correct and pious" (although I still don't see how that can really be the case given his involvement in Maria's rape), but I generally find that to be a highly flawed analysis. We aren't people living in the 14th to 15th centuries. Saying that his actions were "good" to ignorant imbeciles living in dark times does not make them "good" in the abstract. I think we are completely within our rights to say they were evil in the abstract. If you require malice, well I do think the Church as portrayed in this show has shown malice toward Maria. Like I have said elsewhere, they are directly targeting her. It's not something where they are trying to get rid of meddling witches in general. And it's not because she is doing dastardly things. Even her interference in battles has largely been beneficial to the French and the Church establishment. The only time it wasn't beneficial was when God struck her down before she could finish. Most of the Church's activity vis-a-vis Maria has been primarily due to Bernard's obsession with her. I think there is plenty of malice going on here. That being said, I will agree with you that Gilbert could be considered to have done "due dilligence" and that Maria is unquestionably a witch, and could thus be burned at the stake via the ignorance of the people at the time. I just don't think such ignorance absolves them of the evil of their actions.
Yea I already addressed that. The primary thing was that mercenaries couldn't loot corpses anymore, or would be forced to find other jobs. I hardly consider "mercenaries being forced into other areas of profession" to be a societal evil, and I doubt many people would think it is. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Key
Moderator
Posts: 18269 Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley) |
|
|||||||||||
Yes, because this isn't a protection racket. This is more of a social pressuring situation. This isn't a "comply or you will be automatically beaten and/or murdered" situation, like what you're trying to make it out to be.
And I'm fine with leaving it at that since that cuts both ways.
As I said before, the Church regards witches in general as anathema - a dangerous influence, and literally the agents of Satan (or, perhaps in this setting's case, other fell powers, since Satan's name has never come up). The threat and potential for corruption that witches are perceived to be by the Church is very deep-seeded, and the actions of the other witches in this setting only reinforce that paranoia, as using sex to spy on and/or manipulate people has long been considered the purview of witches. IOW, a much more accurate statement would be that the Church acts against witches out of fear rather than malice. In this particular case Maria seems to be getting singled out only because a) she's the main character and b) she's invited that kind of attention by sticking her neck out.
That's a pretty loaded statement. Are you sure you're considering the broad consequences of saying that?
See the episode about the mercenaries ransacking the town because they couldn't make money from fighting. Last edited by Key on Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||
Well we can agree to disagree about this one. I think it was pretty obviously implied that if Martha didn't comply with Bernard very bad things were going to happen to her family.
I understand the idea that the church, in general, has a historical problem with witches. However, that does not mean actions against witches don't involve malice. This is the same issue as before, where you are essentially relying on a cultural relativism argument to say that the Church's activities are rationalized by them and thus are not "evil" or "malicious." That is not valid logic. Just because they have reasons doesn't make it not evil/malicious. If that were valid, then all kinds of atrocities would be considered as morally ambiguous at best. Also, if you look at the definition of malice, it includes the term "ill will," so I don't think it is a very high bar to get over. I think there is little doubt that the Church is being portrayed as having ill will against Maria.
Again, that is just a rationalization. Mercenaries rationalize raping and pillaging by saying "Maria forced them" to do it by taking away their ability to earn money looting corpses or being swords for hire in a lengthy war. Do you really think Maria is to blame for them raping and pillaging in such circumstances? Say you were a venture capitalist who came in and bought a tobacco plantation and then got rid of that business in order to build wind farms in its place. (Maybe you, like Maria, are a bright eyed dreamer who wants to make the world a better place.) If the former field workers from that tobacco plantation decide to then rape and pillage a local town rather than trying to switch to a new job, is that your fault? Can you be blamed for the raping and pillaging? |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Gina Szanboti
Posts: 11451 |
|
|||||||||||
The whole Christian message sounds like a protection racket to me. Give God your love and obedience or you'll automatically be cast into the fiery pit to be tortured for eternity. The "social pressure" applied wasn't something as benign as just losing friends or business (and even that would be pretty dire, considering how dependent people were on community for survival). If you managed somehow to escape the guilt by association rap and not be accused of being a witch yourself, at the least you'd be not only shunned by the entire community, but most likely excommunicated, which to them was tantamount to an eternal death sentence. Losing favor in the eyes of the church was no small thing to them. At least as far as that analogy goes, I gotta side with CK here. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Key
Moderator
Posts: 18269 Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley) |
|
|||||||||||
And congratulations: You just got me to totally ignore the rest of your post. I've said before (don't remember if it was in this thread or another one) that I would cease to read or respond to any points in your post if you resort to this. You do this way too often when you get caught up in semantics.
This is an incredibly loaded statement, and I'm absolutely not going to go there. (And, for the record, I'm a secular humanist, so it's not like I'm personally offended by it.) |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Blood-
 Bargain Hunter Posts: 23909 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Secular humanist, eh? I'm a sexual humorist, but close enough, bruv!
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||
Oh my God. Come on Key this is so childish. You declare that a specific term, malice, is required in order for something to be evil, and so I say "Okay, well let's figure out a common understanding of what malice means so I can at least address your demand." I find a definition which ONLY HAS 2 DESCRIPTIONS, ONE OF WHICH IS CIRCULAR, and I simply tell you that one of them (the non circular one) is "ill will," and you go and say WELL NOW I WON'T READ ANYTHING ELSE! 
(Do a Google search for malice, and Google - which apparently has its own dictionary - gives you this result)
I don't expect you to resort to that. Others maybe. 
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Key
Moderator
Posts: 18269 Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley) |
|
|||||||||||
|
And I don't think you appreciate how utterly, completely irritating and pathetic I find "here's the dictionary definition" arguments, which you resort to a lot. Admittedly, I used them myself a couple of times in the past, but I stopped that once I realized that resorting to them is a sign that semantics have become more important than the original point. Hence any argument dependent on them now has no merit to me unless there really is a complete misunderstanding (rather than just an interpretation issue) on what the word means.
And Blood-: Damn. . . I don't really have a good comeback for that.
[Edit: Corrected grammar error.] Last edited by Key on Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Errinundra
Moderator
 Posts: 6542 Location: Melbourne, Oz |
|
|||||||||||
|
I was at a wedding once where both families contained a high % of evangelical and fundamentalist christians. The bride and groom, while christian, were more intellectual & less fundamental than their relatives. Anyway, one of the speakers gave this long spiel on how secular humanism was the greatest evil the world faced. He wasn't all that bright so it more funny (even sad) than confronting.
I'm an athiest by the way, with a full-on Catholic education - Christian Brothers, nuns and all. Probably accounts for my atheism. What's that about the twitch upon the thread? |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Blood-
Bargain Hunter Posts: 23909 |
|
|||||||||||
Well, gosh, that certainly sounds like fine wedding speech material... |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
ChibiKangaroo
Posts: 2941 |
|
|||||||||||
Well it certainly seems to me like we were having a misunderstanding about the meaning of malice. I have always thought it meant intending to harm someone (either physically or emotionally) but you seemed to be insisting that it was something other than that since you were indicating that the Church officials weren't showing it toward Maria. I was trying to create some kind of common understanding of what the word meant, not play semantics games. I'm very precise in what I say, and I found a description of the word that had 2 terms, so I didn't want to misrepresent and say it only means "ill will." Like I said, there was another term that said intention to do evil, but since we were trying to describe evil, that was completely circular. So I said the definition "includes" ill will. That's just me trying to be accurate. But really, I think "malice" meaning "ill will" is pretty obvious so it should have been clear I wasn't trying to play games. And as far as "here's the definition arguments" in general, I don't resort to them "a lot." I only do that if someone is disputing the meaning of a word (including implicitly, which was the case here), which rarely happens. I don't think either of us could come up with more than a few examples of me having to resort to that in the last few years even, and that would be with some extensive searching. I don't know how else you think people are supposed to resolve that kind of debate. If everyone can just say that they have their own personal definitions of words then it becomes impossible to resolve such an impasse. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group