#thus rendering the whole Elect thing pointless

[awritersbro]

people who believe in predestination please interact i’d love to know how you reconcile that belief with the belief that God is Good.

[askmerriauthor]

If I recall correctly, your pretty anti-stormcloak aren't you? Would Marenia Ceionia Commodus be pretty anti-Stormcloak as well? She is imperial after all... through she has a lot of respect for the common folk, and Ulfric has a lot of support from the common people. So she could have a mixed view in the end.

Both I and Marenia remain firmly anti-Stormcloack, as Ulfric is a bastard man who is preying on the pride of his kinsmen to drive them into three progressively unwinnable wars.  He rails against various negative aspects the Empire has, all while having those same negatives himself that he directs at non-Nords in Skyrim.

Marenia sees Ulfric as a hypocritical warmonger who wields the traditions of his people as a weapon against them, relying on their sense of pride and honor to drive them into conflicts for his own purposes.  She 100% considers him to be a violent war criminal worthy of immediate execution and, even before being given the title of Thane of Solitude, heavily sympathized with the widowed Jarl Elisif for the murder of her husband at Ulfric’s hands.  Given that Marenia’s Atronach birthsign renders her immune to magic and thus nearly invulnerable to the Thu’um, she’d actually be willing to contend with Ulfric herself were it not that he’s younger and more battle-ready than she is, therefore more likely to defeat her in a mundane fight.  That, and an Imperial Legate who’s also the Thane of Solitude killing Ulfric would, without question, set Skyrim ablaze with an immediate civil uprising worse than Ulfric had already started.

For context, buckle in for a history lesson, because I started typing and forgot to stop.

The whole drive behind Ulfric and the Stormcloak uprising is - allegedly - due to a sense of betrayal by the Empire.  The Third Aldmeri Dominion was waging war against the Empire and was winning - had it gone on further, the Dominion would have eventually overthrown the Empire and moved on to take everything else as well.  To halt this, the Empire signed a peace treaty called the “White-Gold Concordat” that ended the war, though it was very much on the Aldmeri Dominion’s terms.  Among the various terms of the treaty was a religious ban that forbade the worship of Talos; formerly a human named Tiber Septim who ascended to godhood and was worshiped heavily by the people of Skyrim.  Given that the Aldmeri Dominion are Elf-supremacists, squashing worship a hero-god born of man rather than of the original Divines was clearly a priority on their part.

A large portion of Skyrim’s population - Ulfric in particular - took offense to this.  They felt betrayed by the Empire since they’d all fought alongside against the Dominion and saw the peace treaty as a sign of surrender.  Rather than, y’know, a last-ditch effort to ensure they weren’t all killed and enslaved by the Dominion.  This was made all the more difficult as Ulfric then took part in “The Markarth Incident”, where he used his forces to drive out a native occupation of Forsworn Reachmen from the city through violence, then leveraged occupation of the city against the Empire while holding the entire population of said city hostage.  In return for his cooperation, the disposed leader of Markarth promised Ulfric he and his forces could practice Talos worship within Markarth despite the peace treaty forbidding it.  He killed A LOT of civilians and prisoners during all this mess while the Empire scrambled to try and restore order.

To all this, the Empire pretty much said “Okay, Ulfric, seriously!  You’re slaughtering civilians and occupying an entire city.  We’ll let you worship as you please here, but keep it on the down-low, because if the Dominion finds out you’re going to trigger another war and ALL OF US, including you, are going to die.”

Needless to say, this didn’t work.  The Dominion eventually found out about the situation and the Empire quickly scapegoated Ulfric, saying they had nothing to do with the Talos worship going on there, so as to avoid aforementioned full war that would destroy everything and everyone.  This primarily inspired Ulfric to rise up as a rebel leader, demand Skyrim secede from the Empire as its own independent nation, and take arms against those parts of Skyrim that remained loyal to the Empire to drive them completely out of the region.

We’re just going to pause here for a second and focus on “The Markarth Incident”, because it’s pretty telling about Ulfric’s motives.  Throughout his time as the leader of the Stormcloaks, he goes on about things like wanting independence for the rightful people of Skyrim, and how they should drive out the invasive Empire that’s infected their home.  He rails on about the injustices of the Empire ad nauseum and holds their being forced to cooperate in religious oppression as a primary cause for his hatred of them.

Remember those Forsworn Reachmen?  The ones who took over Markarth and who Ulfric violently slaughtered to assume control of the city?  Yeah, those guys are the original natives of that region, while Nords (the “true sons of Skyrim”, to hear Ulfric tell it) are immigrants who settled there in ages past.  The Reachmen were involved in a civil war with the Empire-controlled Skyrim because their land, people, and religion were being crushed underfoot by the Nordic expansion.  They overthrew The Reach region and assumed control of Markarth to hold it as an independent nation for two years of relative peace, while making strides to be recognized as their own kingdom by the Empire.

So what we’ve got here is a group of religiously, culturally, and socially oppressed native people being crushed underfoot by a greater empire rising up to reclaim their land and secede as an independent nation.  They are summarily obliterated by Ulfric and his forces, all while Ulfric claims that he is part of a religiously, culturally, and socially oppressed native people being crushed underfoot by a greater empire rising up to reclaim their land and secede as an independent nation.

And, no, he does not appear to be even remotely aware of the hypocrisy.

He does all this, mind you, while literally holding the people and city of Markarth hostage and figuratively holding THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE EMPIRE hostage.  Because in his demands of being allowed to openly worship Talos, he is openly and knowingly defying the peace treaty between the Empire and Dominion.  He knows for a fact that the Dominion would take that as an act of war and begin another campaign, which he wants because he’s a hardcore nationalist warmonger.  Consequences be damned.

Back to the main thrust of the history lesson.

After the signing of the White-Gold Concordat peace treaty, Ulfric went to the current High King of Skyrim - King Torygg of Solitude - to challenge him in an honor duel.  While Ulfric claims this was a gesture to show how weak Skyrim had become under Imperial leadership, he’d been vying for position of High King himself and had been passed over as a potential among the elected Jarls of Skyrim because he constantly railed about wanting to renew the war with the Dominion and his beef with the Empire.  Hardly a suitable attitude for a king in the wake of a peace treaty having just ended the war.  As they’re both Nords, Torygg had no choice but to accept the challenge to a duel; their culture demands that such challenges be honored.  Mind you, at this point, Ulfric is capable of using the Thu’um - Dragon shouts of immense supernatural power - and Torygg is 100% aware that he cannot win this fight.  To which Ulfric promptly uses said Thu’um to murder Torygg, disrupt the unified leadership of Skyrim, and incite a civil war within the region against the Empire.

Now there is debate over whether the slaying of Torygg was murder or if it was an honorable duel to the death.  The problem here is that everyone who says it was totally fair and level is Ulfric and people who favor Ulfric, while literally everyone else in Skyrim - including Torygg’s own ghost after death - say otherwise.  There’s also the fact that Ulfric used the Thu’um to take victory; even in Ulfric’s own telling of events, he claims to have used the Thu’um in the fight.  So, no matter which side we’re looking at, the fact remains that Ulfric picked a pointless fight that he knew was going to be an absolute unfair curbstomp in his favor.  Hardly the “honorable” choice by anyone’s count, let alone the Nord’s.  He also previously used the Thu’um against the Reachmen in “The Markarth Incident” so we know he also has no problem turning that power on anyone else outside of the conditions of an honor duel.

Also, just something to keep in mind - even in the context of an honor duel, Ulfric didn’t have to kill Torygg.  The traditions of the Nords historically shows that defeating an opponent is all that’s necessary, which follows with surrender, banishment, or death based on the terms chosen at the time of the challenge.  Ulfric didn’t need to kill Torygg - he chose to.  This is very telling of Ulfric’s personality that, in a situation where he held overwhelming power and stood in a position to knowingly cause untold damage to countless lives, he specifically and intentionally chose the most destructive route.

In his own practice as leader of his people, Ulfric actively promotes racism and the abuse of non-Nord people to various degrees, regardless of their citizenship as people of Skyrim.  He forces Dunmer populations into slums and flat-out forbids Argonians from even entering his city, despite his own father having allowed it.  Despite his claims of wanting Skyrim freed for the benefit of its people, he openly ignores Khajit caravans and non-Nord populated towns in need of help or protection within Skyrim.  The only time he shows any tolerance or fondness for non-Nord people are when they’re subservient to him and act entirely within the conditions he sets as being “acceptable” or “honorable”.  Which, as we’ve seen so far by his past actions, are entirely subjective concepts that he happily bends to suit his desires.  One can’t even claim something as off as “well, he may be a violent racist, but at least he loves his fellow Nords.  Doesn’t that count for something?” because we’ve also seen in his treatment of Torygg and citizens of Markarth that he 100% has no problem at all turning on his fellow Nords.  All he has to do is label them as “traitors” to whatever he decides is “the Nord way” at the moment and he’s suddenly perfectly fine with slaughtering them.

[jbuffyangel]

Misfire: Arrow 5x13 Review (Spectre of the Gun)

This isn't going to be a typical review because, honestly, I don't even know what to do with this episode.  (Thanks for the gif suggestion @lipstickandwifi)

Let's dig in...

Everyone except Thea Queen

Back in the day, when television shows had "very special episodes" it served as a time out. The show would depart from their usual format and address a serious issue in present day society. For example, a "friend" would offer Punky Brewster drugs, forcing her to stop joking around and face a crisis. She would wonder what to do until Mrs. Reagan showed up at her front door to tell her, "Just say no." Mrs. Reagan would provide a concrete avenue to address Punky's problem and a solution to them as well.  All's well that ends well. We could go back to our regularly scheduled slapstick comedy routine next week.

"Spectre of the Gun" isn't that. Television has evolved past the kind of “very special episodes” I described above, but that doesn’t mean the endeavor is always successful. While I admire Arrow for attempting to address a relevant social issue, the episode fails on multiple levels for me for multiple reasons. It is uneven, contradictory, and characters acted out of character to become mouthpieces for political ideologies. I don't feel Arrow adds anything new to the discussion and, even worse, I don't think they offer any solutions as we move forward.

Is Arrow the right show to address gun violence? Well... yes and no. Certainly yes because gun violence is so prolific on the show, but also no for the exact same reason.  As James Edlund begins shooting up the mayoral office, and the camera closes in dramatically on the carnage he leaves in his wake, I found myself asking, "How is this violence any different than the violence we've seen in the other 112 episodes?"

The answer is simple. There isn't any difference, but this is a "very special episode" of Arrow, so now they are going to address it as an issue. But next week we'll go right back to dropping bodies with guns.

So, I do take issue with Oliver Queen hopping up on his moral high horse about gun control. I don't think he is the right character to voice that side of the debate. In anything it should be Oliver who is the silent character, while perhaps other characters like Felicity (a victim of gun violence), could argue for the gun control.

Why do I say this? Because I watched Oliver drop 12 men, without a second thought, with a gun last week during a flashback. He broke someone's neck in the premiere. 

Oliver is a killer and he's embraced that side of himself again. He's going to kill when necessary and he will determine the terms of that necessity. Not the law. I've had a beef with this for awhile, so anyone who reads my reviews on the regular won't be shocked by this attitude. I find this whole "gray zone" particularly frustrating because Arrow willfully ignores an easily achievable middle ground: Lian Yu and the ARGUS prison that holds Slade. 

Why can't we use that again? Oh that's right. Because we're not at the end of the fifth season. Sigh.

"That's not your call to make."

Oliver argues with Edlund that despite his anger and pain he does not have the right to decide who lives or dies. The Green Arrow finds himself in a similar moral debate with The Vigilante after he guns down a criminal Oliver tied up and interrogated.

"I'm you. The only difference between us is I use a more efficient weapon."

Here's the problem. Oliver is making life and death decisions on a nightly basis. He has elected himself judge, jury and executioner. 

Is killing only okay when Oliver does it? Is he the only one who has the corner on life and death decisions? Isn't Prometheus’ entire beef with Oliver that he cannot see his own hypocrisy? Yes, of course, and that is the problem in "Spectre of the Gun." While Oliver is willing to address gun violence, he isn’t willing to address his own history of violence. When the hero makes you think the Big Bad has a point, you've got yourself a narrative issue.

Perhaps this is intended to push Oliver towards an enlightened moral code that he embraces at the end of the season once he becomes the Green Arrow. That's all well and good, and wholly welcomed by yours truly, but it doesn't make Oliver's perspective in "Spectre of the Gun" any easier to swallow.

My second issue is the contradictions. Edlund's family is killed during a mass shooting. He believes if Star City had pushed through the gun registry it would have protected his family. So... he shoots up city hall and the hospital to make it happen. WHAT??? 

Then, in his face to face with Oliver, it's revealed the shooter bought his gun legally, so there was nothing the city could have done to protect Edlund's family. His response is, "I know." Again, I say...

Then why is he going around shooting everyone? It makes absolutely no sense. If Edlund is mentally disturbed, then no gun registry or gun control law is going to stop him either.  His motives are illogical and contradictory thus rendering them, from a narrative perspective, pointless.

My third issue is with balance. Marc Guggenheim promised a fair and balanced debate. We listen to Curtis lecture Felicity about the wonders of fair and balanced debate. Arrow committed itself to presenting both sides of the issues.

I don't love guns.  I wouldn't have a problem if every handgun, semi automatic, automatic, etc. was confiscated. However, I am also an "originalist" (the constitution should be interpreted as closely as possible to the way America’s founders conceived it. ) Even though the 2nd Amendment isn't my favorite amendment, I recognize the right to bear arms. We don't get to pick and choose which amendments we follow. I've grown up around responsible gun owners, friends and family alike, who use guns for hunting and sport. These people are also ardent 2nd Amendment advocates and they have legitimate points of concern, as do people who are proponents of more gun control. 

However, Arrow did not present the "pro gun" argument tonight. Marc Guggenheim is an admitted unapologetic progressive, which is absolutely his right, but what is presented is the unapologetic progressive's version of the "pro gun" argument. This is an entirely different thing.

Essentially, “pro gun control” Oliver goes head to head with a city councilwoman who is for 2nd Amendment protection. Oliver is concerned with doing the right thing, while the councilwoman is more concerned with the political fallout (a not so subtle dig at the NRA and anyone who argues 2nd Amendment rights). While she argues 2nd Amendment protection, she never quite articulates those concerns in a concrete way. I believe Marc gave it his level best, but this falls short of the balanced realm.

"Spectre of the Gun"  is essentially a PSA for gun control. However, I don't think Arrow added anything new to the argument, which is a massive missed opportunity in my mind. Rehashing points made in other forums isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I was hoping there’d be a little more new blood injected into the discussion.

My fourth issue is with solutions. Arrow spent a great deal of time talking around the concept of a gun registry, but they don't really delve into any details on how this limits gun violence.

The entire point of Arrow, the entire reason Oliver is the Green Arrow, is because he believes the system doesn't  work. That's why a vigilante is required. 

“It does need to stop, and if it's not gonna be the courts and it's not gonna be the cops... Then it's gonna be me.” - Oliver Queen, “An Innocent Man” 1x04

Now that Oliver is mayor he is the system. So, I was rather interested in seeing what solutions he was able to come up with.

Keep in mind this isn't "Earshot" on Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Buffy isn't talking Jonathan down while he holds a high powered rifle in the school clock tower. 

This isn't One Tree Hill when a student opens fire on the school. 

The entire episode takes place within the political construct of the mayoral office. The whole point is to see Oliver solve a problem as mayor. Marc and Wendy repeatedly said in promotion the concept is for Oliver to go an episode without wearing the Green Arrow suit. Although, he wore the suit, so color me mystified.

And then, we arrive at the climax, and what the episode has been building towards. Pro Gun Control Oliver and 2nd Amendment Defender Rene, come up with a gun control policy that protects people against gun violence, but doesn't limit the freedom of gun owners. Arrow beats its might chest because they manage to find a solution that serves both sides. Everybody leaves happy.

And the new gun control policies are...? And they achieve both by doing what...? 

No details are given. 

I read all the interviews before I watched the episode. I know Marc and Wendy were going for a nondescript, even debate, without providing any solutions. "Spectre of the Gun" is our Rorschach test.

Umm... or it was a freaking cop out. 

When the entire episode is built towards finding a political solution and then you fail to offer that political solution, that is an EPIC fail. 

This is a fantasy world. Make it up! If there is an easy way to achieve BOTH (gun control that protects 2nd Amendment rights) then PRESENT IT. Let some good come out of this. Throw it in the debate mix. Let's get it in front of Congress. Let's use this vehicle we call television to actually DO SOMETHING.

Here's why Arrow didn't present their mystical "everybody gets want they want" solution. It's not easy to achieve both. That's why this issue is so controversial. That's why this war rages on and on and on. At least when Punky Brewster said no to drugs, you understood how she was going to do it. Mrs. Reagan gave her the road map.  Sometimes she even brought visual aids. Arrow wants the neat bow, and feel good wrap up, Mrs. Reagan provided without actually showing the visual aids. Nope. 

If the audience isn’t meant to receive any easy answers, then neither should the characters. Instead, Oliver & company find the answer, but we don’t get to know what it is.

Perhaps, Arrow's intent is to simply spark the debate. This ties in closely with Curtis' lecture to Felicity about the necessity of healthy debate. I agree with Curtis. Healthy debate is a necessity and is the life blood of a democratic society. However, I don't agree that we've stopped talking to one another. I don't think Arrow needed to jump start this debate again. This debate has been waging for decades now. Talking isn't the problem. The problem is... we've stopped LISTENING to one another.

I didn't see a lot of listening on Curtis' part in that "debate" with Felicity. Rather, it is Felicity being lectured to. I don't necessarily think Felicity is the right character to represent the "talking about politics is impolite" group. A strong stance about gun control would have made a little more sense to me coming from Felicity, the person who uses weapons the least on Arrow, rather than Oliver.

However, Felicity can, on occasion, shut down and retreat. So, I didn't find it wildly out of character, but it is frustrating. Instead of being talked to, it feels like she was being talked at. Once again, it feels like Felicity is being silenced to prop other characters. The reason why many get particularly upset about Felicity is because she is the female lead of Arrow. We heard from Dinah, who has all of two episodes under her belt. We heard from random councilwoman. Yet, we didn't get a clear view on Felicity's perspective. She is the front and center female character on Arrow. Her silence feels a little illogical. In an episode that's all about characters' viewpoints, we'd like to hear from the primary leads.

That's not to say Felicity didn't have some legit points. She did. Healthy debate is all well and good, but it also has an appropriate time and place. That's not always the workplace for some people, or other environments in which they don't feel comfortable discussing something as personal as political views. This doesn't suddenly make them a problem. It doesn't suddenly make them less American either, which I felt Arrow implies by Curtis' lecture.

This debate is also prohibiting actual work from getting done. The work is more important than Curtis and Rene's differing views on guns and Felicity calling attention to this fact doesn't make her any less engaged or concerned about the issue.  

Diggle is also conspicuously silent too. He is too busy finding Dinah an apartment with a garden. Well, that is a crisis. Best get on that. 

I found this shocking as well. Most military people I know have strong opinions about guns. Does leaving two of three members of Original Team Arrow out of the discussion feel odd to anyone else? It felt odd to me. Perhaps this is a protective technique? They don't want to embroil some of their fan favorite characters in such a sensitive issue and risk alienating audience members? So they offer secondary characters like Curtis and Rene as sacrificial lambs? Perhaps. No real way of knowing.

I did enjoy Wild Dog. While some characters felt like they were taking a leave of absence from their bodies to become political mouthpieces, Wild Dog did not. His attitude and perspective made a lot of sense, especially when we see his flashback. Rene going for his gun in the safe is an argument I've had with many friends and family who keep guns in the home. I've always questioned the logistical ability to get to the gun and load it, when an intruder is in the home. Arrow did a good job of showing that.

That said, they lost me at the random bullet killing his wife. The argument presented is the bullet wouldn't have fired if Rene didn't fire his gun. It's an unbelievably heavy handed commentary on keeping a gun in the home in an already heavy handed pro gun control episode. Subtle isn't Arrow's strong suit, but this was bad even for them.

They've also left room for Wild Dog's exit without having to kill him. He could get custody of his daughter again and want to leave all of this "violence" behind to give her the safe environment he craves. We shall see.

While the attempt is valiant, ultimately “Spectre of the Gun” is a misfire for me. This episode is a massive pause on all character storylines and development. Hopefully, next week we can return to our regularly schedule programming. And the next time Arrow feels the urge to do a “very special episode” let’s just... not.

Thea Queen

I pledge my allegiance to Thea because she is QUEEN. Where she goes so goes my nation. Oh my darling girl, how I have missed you. Come here to me.

I live for Thea's insanely on point snark. 

Susan was the absolute WORST to Thea. So, she is well within her rights to believe Susan is shady. Also, Susan is shady. (Quit telling me she's not Arrow because she is.)

"She's a good at her job and she's a good person. So there."

I really can't even believe Oliver ended an argument with "so there." 

ARE YOU SIX? Feels like a Stephen Amell adlib.

If we're defining "good at her job" as using her sexapades with Oliver to investigate him, then Susan gets a gold star. 

While Oliver isn't comfortable leveraging his personal relationship with Susan for political gain, she has no problem leveraging their personal relationship for PROFFESIONAL gain. These two might want to have a talk.

It's a little mind boggling to me how Oliver willfully ignores the obscene conflict of interest with dating a reporter. Though, to be fair, on the list of stupid things Oliver has done, it doesn't even rank in the top 5. I can also recognize dating the exactly wrong person occupation wise is intentional on Arrow's part. Still, it's irritating.

Thea's unrelenting distaste for Susan, in spite of Oliver's increasing anger over her attitude, is pretty freaking fantastic. Thea respects Oliver's right to date whoever he wants. That doesn't mean Thea has to like her. I am pleased Thea is holding her ground on this issue. She's not interfering. She's not actively trying to break them up. Thea is just being honest and, as I've said, she has good reason to feel how she feels about Susan.

Thea is generally supportive of anyone Oliver dates, so I think the bigger misstep here is on his part. Maybe he should be paying attention to some of those red flags Thea is drawing attention to. Will there eventually come a point when Thea needs to zip it? Sure, but we're nowhere near that point. Nor do I believe Susan and Oliver will be together long enough to reach that point. Thea is essentially the audience's ambassador. She is us. We are Thea. She is our mouthpiece, so we can swallow the remaining few episodes of this Olicity roadblock masquerading as a relationship. Bless you Thea. You are doing God's work.

Stray Thoughts

I see no problem with the term Dragon Lady. Feels on point to me. Dragon Lady it is.

Curtis being the counterpoint to Rene’s perspective is a nice continuation of their evolving partnership. It builds off their opposite personalities, and their banter/bickering, shown in previous eps well.

Feel like Quentin could have remarked on Dinah thing. Cause it's a thing.

I liked that Oliver, and not the Green Arrow, talked Edlund down. It’s a step in the right direction. 

This line is exceptionally beautiful and shows how much Oliver has learned over the years. He’s starting to realize what a real legacy is about. 

How many Canaries has Diggle rehabilitated now? He should form an official non profit and take the tax deduction.

"So, we needed to find Dinah a place to live, but can someone tell me where OLIVER lives?" - @callistawolf asks the important questions y'all.

I liked Canaries (3x13) better. CANARIES Y'ALL. That's how much I disliked 5x13.

*** I questioned whether I was even going to write a review, primarily because this is such a hot button issue. My goal in writing it is simply to critique the episode and move on. Not ignite a gun control debate on the blog. If others want to continue the discussion in the comments, please keep it respectful. I will be moderating, but this is probably where I tap out. As always, thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts.