b5_revisited | "The Coming of Shadows" discussion

"It’s interesting that when Sheridan talks to G’Kar at the reception, G’Kar says he “makes no promises, but I will hear what he has to say” – when his contact on Narn had advised he assassinate the Emperor before the speech. Had G’Kar already decided to at least delay his attack until after the speech?"

Dude, he was lying. When you're set on assassination, who quibbles at untruth?

"Londo, I feel, seems to be as much motivated here by a desire to look cool in front of Refa as an actual desire to see the Narn crushed. He admits he’s just as uncomfortable as Vir, but he’s not willing to back out and look like the weaker man when this is his chance to be recognised as something other than a joke by the powerful."

I give Londo more credit for agency. Uneasy he is, but he does not hesitate to offer up the solution provided by his previous deal with Morden. This solution is not suggested/instigated by Refa. The attack is also the mirror image to the Narn's attack on Ragesh 3 which starts the series, and which didn't end well for Londo's nephew.
I also found Vir's involvement questionable as well; he grows during the series, and deals with his guilt. But he is guilty. There may well have been nothing he could do; but nothing is exactly what he chose to do.

"The Rangers – man, I’d forgotten they were introduced here too. I wonder, exactly what sort of human heads to Minbar and agrees to join a new secret intelligence/paramilitary organisation there? Later on, once the Shadows are striking fairly openly, sure, but right now? You’d kinda have to be some sort of nut, yes?"

Sinclair is a nut. He's obsessive and suffering from survivor guilt and PTSD. He needs a purpose, a reason he's alive when so many others are not. When his 'connection' with Minbari souls and the reason for the end of the war was revealed to him after Santiago's assassination, I rather think he jumped at the chance to pursue his destiny on Minbar, and as leader of the Rangers.
I myself am fascinated by Garibaldi's balancing act, as an officer of EarthForce, and loyal supporter of Sinclair and his new agenda.

(Don't have the s2 DVDs at home right now, so everything said here is from memory...)

A question I've been asking myself is: how would Centauri emperors be 'elected' (not sure if that's the right word, but you get my meaning)? Turhan, if I remember correctly, succeeded his father, but had no heirs himself; neither had Cartagia (or, at least, none he admitted *g*) and Londo. So in that case, is it always the Ministers who choose a new emperor - or claim the throne for themselves, by assassinating their rivals? Nothing democratic about it at all?

I also found Vir's involvement questionable as well; he grows during the series, and deals with his guilt. But he is guilty. There may well have been nothing he could do; but nothing is exactly what he chose to do.

You know, I've never looked at it like that, but you have a very good point there. Of course, knowing that Vir's main motivation for being silent is his loyalty to Londo, it's quite easy to forgive him (which is, I guess, why I've never thought about him as guilty in the first place). But yes: at that moment in time, G'Kar's later accusation in Londo's heart-attack-induced dream ("It doesn't matter if they'd listened! You had an obligation to speak out!") applies to Vir as well.
Of course, he makes up for it later, first in a small way by apologizing to G'Kar, then by freeing 5000 Narns from a work camp. Interestingly, this is the exact opposite order in which Londo makes repairs later: he first frees Narn, and doesn't apologize until much later.

Sinclair is a nut.

Whoa. This is Valen we're talking about, dude! Shouldn't we show a little more respect? *g*
But seriously: yeah, he is, if you think about it. Bonkers, totally.

I would imagine the Centauri are a sort of constitutional monarchy; hereditary emperor if there is a clear line of succession, elected (or selected emperor if there isn't a logical successor (or a regent if the appointed emperor is underage or unable to serve at that moment). Sort of like England post the Stuarts. Centaurum members might be elected, or they might inherit their seats. Vir is a Senator when Londo is Emperor; sounds more like elections. I never got the impression Vir's family was that well-situated.

You know, I really love Vir as a character, but excusing his silence in the face of mass murder due to personal loyalty is a little tough for me. Silence because of feeling helpless and overwhelmed and uncertain seems more Vir. And who knows if at this point he really thinks of the Narn as fully human? Most Centauri don't seem to. Refa tries to make the point that this outpost is a military one, but I don't think that's proven by any means.
Vir comes to understand that we all have choices, even when we don't think we do, and he works his way back from his personal abyss. None of these characters is pure and innocent, and that is why I love B5.

My apologies to those who worship Valen! (But Sinclair is still nuts. And a good thing too. Sometimes you have to be crazy in order to get done what needs done.)

With regards to Vir's motivation to keep silent: hmm, hard one.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that I'm excusing him, I do think his decision was wrong... It's just that for some reason, probably because of his inherent goodness combined with the fact he did stand up to Londo, if to no one else, I never asked myself that question - how guilty is he, and why didn't he do anything? - before.

Feeling overwhelmed must surely have had something to do with it, I agree. However, at that point Vir is no longer the silent, helpless aide he was before, and in a lot of ways (think of his encounter with the Techno-Mages) he's braver than many give him credit for. So I don't think that fear to speak out was his most important reason - not fear for himself, in any case.

I still think his relationship with Londo was his main reason for staying silent. Partly out of an "I'm the aide, you're the ambassador, so I'm supposed to do as I'm told" reflex (yep, the "just following orders" - which I am not excusing here, I'm just saying it could be a reason). But also because Londo is the single person Vir is close to at the time, and to betray that person - well, I think that, for Vir, would be a very hard line to cross. Also, isn't it usually true that people find it much easier to care about one person getting hurt than about a major disaster occurring miles away - hence it's easier to ignore said major disaster? Like many people care about famines, without doing much about it; however, when someone they know dies of cancer, that's a different story. So, for Vir, I think the immediate concern of Londo might well have prevailed over the much more serious, but also more distant concern of war... It's not an excuse, but it is very human. (and Centauri, too, I assume *g*)

Okay, I'll give you the caring for friends/your own people trumps the far away foreigner, but what is the danger to Londo? What is Vir's concern? That Londo will lose the respect of Lord Refa? That Londo won't eventually become Emperor? At this point we don't know how far these people will go (poor Prime Minister Malachi!) and I don't really think Vir was concerned about Londo's safety. His reputation and his career maybe, but then we're back to not very good reasons.
Did Vir completely grasp what was going on? Londo doesn't 'get' what happens to Malachi, at least not immediately, so Vir probably didn't either. Maybe it's a function of his goodness, his innocence, that he doesn't take it seriously enough.
And there is still the issue of whether it would have helped. Who does he tell? What does he say? Perhaps he's trapped in silence.
Later Vir seems more concerned with Londo's soul (if that isn't too grandiose a statement). He wants Londo to make good decisions and regret his prior bad decisions for purposes of his own redemption. Vir eventually cuts himself loose from Londo, but without ever throwing him over completely--he always cares, does Vir.

With that I can agree completely: I don't think Vir is concerned about danger to Londo, or even damage to his reputation, at this point. In fact, I don't even know if he has a good and rational reason for doing (or not doing) what he did. Maybe at this point, despite knowing in his heart(s) that Refa is not up to anything good, he still trusts Londo enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. And maybe he was just afraid of letting Londo down, however good the reason. And maybe he didn't see the full scope of things yet. In any case, he'd probably be regarded by a blood traitor by his own people if he talked. And whether it would have helped - no one knows, I guess. He could have told a relatively neutral party like Sheridan or the Minbari, and maybe something good would have come out of that... or, it could just have started the bloodshed faster, with the Narn out for revenge.

But, um... I'm getting a bit confused now as to what your position on all of this is, really. You think that not speaking up makes Vir guilty, right, but you believe he did it because he wasn't aware of the danger? (Sorry for asking stupid questions - it's getting late, and my brain is having a hard time keeping up. *sheepish grin*)

He always cares, does Vir.
Amen to that. And it comforts me to no end that, despite the sad fates reserved for nearly every other major character, Vir gets through all of it just fine. Sometimes the kind-hearted persons really do get a happy end. :) (More often, however... oh, Lennier. Oh, Susan. Oh, Marcus. Oh, Lyta.)

I'm sorry it got confusing; I was working it out as I went along. Plus I have a terrible tendency to play Devil's Advocate and argue both sides just for fun.

I was thinking of Edmund Burke's quotation as I re-watched the episode; 'All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.' I don't mean to put the burden of events on Vir. He does argue with Londo, trying to change his mind. But that bit at the end, when he tells Londo he'll confront him in the future about how this was a wrong decision...I started to think, 'And what exactly are you doing but going along with it, Vir?' Also I kept wishing someone would do something...which I guess shows the power of the show, that I get caught up in the story every time.

Or then again, maybe I'm just in a cranky mood. ;)

Playing devil's advocate: no, not such a terrible tendency at all - I indulge in it myself sometimes. I just realized, there at the end, that I was probably trying to convince you of something without knowing what said "something" was anymore. That's when it got confusing. *g*

I didn't know that quotation, but yes, very true. And there's a fine line between when silence is just a bad but understandable choice, and when it's plain morally wrong not to speak out.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

That is precisely what Vir is doing, and (partly) why he is here as a character.
Here is the general decent everyman, he does see what is going on, at least enough to guess that it is no good will come out of it, but he doesn't do anything to prevent it. Maybe out of loyalty for Londo, maybe out of fear or because hefels he should do as he is told, or maybe just telling himself that everything will work out in the end.
For all our good intentions, most of us do not really know how we would react in these situation, and history tells that most people, normal, intelligent dcent people, are overcome by one or the other of these motiveation (or somthing similar). because at the end of the day it is *easier* to do nothing and not think of the consequences. No this is not an excvuse. It is merely an explanation.
Vir shows us that no later attempts at atonement can quite make up for the initial lack of action.

There is a line in the Catholic mass (and similar ones in most other Christian orders of service), where the worshippers ask to be forgiven "for what we have done and what we have failed to do". I have always found the second half the more important.

There is a line in the Catholic mass (and similar ones in most other Christian orders of service), where the worshippers ask to be forgiven "for what we have done and what we have failed to do".

Exactly. On a personal note, I have little doubt that I would have done what Vir did in that situation, or even less; and probably I would not have gone as far as he did later to make amends. He is an amiable everyman, and an entry character for a lot of people. Perhaps that's why he got the (relatively) happy ending.

You know, I really love Vir as a character, but excusing his silence in the face of mass murder due to personal loyalty is a little tough for me.

This is quite fascinating because I never thought about Vir's guilt until now. It never even occurred to me that he was guilty, but you're right, he *is*. Maybe I was too focused on Londo's obvious faults to see this before.

Anyway, I don't have anything to say that hasn't been said before, but I wanted to thank you for initiating this debate.

(Also, I understand perfectly well what you meant but it's been bugging me... Narns are not fully human. They are fully Narn. Maybe "fully sentient" would be more appropriate? I'm not sure...)

I like a very early line in James White's Sector General series, in which a Terran character is told, to avoid confusion, never to refer to himself as "human" when talking to aliens, as in a universe where everyone has magic hi-tech translation "human" is always translated to the word that means "us" in each culture's language. Which some people may interpret as a position that is "colourblind" in the bad denying-difference-to-avoid-noticing-discrimination way, but I quite like.

You're welcome, I guess! I've been trying to use the re-watch to catch new angles; sometimes it works.

Aargh, as to 'human'. It's hard to catch those humanisms in speech/writing! I have the same problem with 'man' and 'woman'. Male and female don't always work as substitutes when aliens are talking together, and making up gender nouns can be clunky.

'Sentient' doesn't quite work either. Narns are obviously sentient. (As an aside; I had to look that word up. Answers.com says it means experiencing sensation or feeling. Kind of a broader definition than I thought. I was going with a Descartes-like awareness of their own existence.) We get some hints that the Centauri consider them barbaric. And even some humans (in Season One; that goes away quickly.) Backward? Below them? Unworthy? Animals? *goes off to think*

I believe there were multiple factors in play.

In the early second season, Vir's confidence is only just emerging; though he has been speaking out more since The Geometry of Shadows (which I consider Vir's coming out episode), there is no evidence to suggest that he is at all convinced of his own agency at this point. Indeed, I'm not even sure he has good reason to be so convinced. Remember, after all, how he arrives in Midnight: by all appearances, someone has beaten this young Centauri down. Thus, I agree that here, he is frightened and swept up by events.

I also believe, however, that Vir's developing concern for the state of Londo's soul is also apparent. Otherwise, why be so visibly disappointed? Otherwise, why should Vir phrase his ardent objection in precisely the way he does - not "what you are doing is morally repugnant" (though Vir certainly knows this), but "you can never go back"? Given this concern and what he knows about Londo thus far (and in the narrative, it is Vir who knows more about Londo than any other regular character), I think it is also plausible that Vir would want to preserve Londo's growing trust in his loyalty.

In short: I believe both lines of argument are right. ;)

As for Vir's guilt, I don't think we're meant to see him as entirely innocent. I'm definitely sure Vir doesn't see himself that way. He is, after all, the first Centauri we see apologize to a Narn. Given the way JMS wiggles between portraying the Centauri as "The Declining Roman Empire - IN SPACE!" and "The Third Reich - IN SPACE!", I think we are supposed to read Vir as the decent, patriotic German who gradually - and with horror - realizes that the nation he loves has been hijacked by mass-murdering thugs and grows into heroism as a consequence of this realization. It's a very, er, human narrative - which is why I love it - and Vir - so very much.

(I have a very clear weakness for "loyal" characters of every stripe.)

Edited 2009-08-22 21:40 (UTC)

This has been a fascinating debate, and here are my two cents: aside from boringly agreeing with everyone a bit, I think we also have to factor in yet more circumstances.

On the one hand, as far as loyalty is concerned, Vir, even if he didn't object to Londo instigating a Narn/Centauri war per se (which he clearly does), could have chosen loyalty to the Emperor/Centauri Prime over loyalty to Londo; he could, when Londo tells him to fetch Morden, and after listening to Refa's and Londo's conversation which include plans to sabotage on Refa's part and going directly against the Emperor's wishes in starting the war on Londo's, report all of this to the Emperor. He doesn't. Why not? In addition to all the reasons given, let's look at what would happen if he did. Say Vir, instead of fetching Morden for Londo, goes to Turhan instead, and tells the Emperor what he just heard. If Turhan doesn't get an immediate heart attack (a risk Vir isn't aware of), his response will on the one hand prevent another Narn/Centauri war (at least for now), but it will most definitely mean the end of Refa and of Londo as far as their careers are concerned. If not their lives. We have no idea what the penalty for unsuccessful plotting is with the Centauri, but I imagine that depending on what you're plotting, and depending on who the Emperor is, you get either banishment or an urgent hint to take your own life. But okay, Turhan is a benevolent fellow, so let's say the most Vir has to fear for Londo is removal from his post as ambassador and banishment from Centauri Prime.

Not the worst price to pay to prevent a war, surely? Well, yes. Except - Vir has to fear one more thing. That such an action would mean the end of his relationship with Londo. He has seen Londo forgive Adira her betrayal, but that was a different case; Londo loved Adira, and Vir with his self worth issues probably doesn't think Londo has more than some general good will towards him. (See a few episodes later his expectation Londo will be glad to have another aide and his surprise this isn't so.) And Londo, as far as we know, is the only person Vir has as a friend at this point. The only person who gives a damn about whether Vir lives or dies, no matter how vaguely Vir suspects this regard is. And this affection would be gone from Vir's life.

In addition to all the other reasons, I think this, too, is what makes Vir decide to abet Londo against his better knowledge.

Agreed.

And here's another thought I had just now - if Vir can be considered guilty for his choices, what shall we conclude about Sheridan and Delenn? As Delenn herself acknowledges later, they were well aware of the connection the Shadows had with the Centauri government - and yet they too did nothing.

Well, to play devil's advocate, Delenn and Sheridan found out post facto (i.e. after the war had already started) and kept quiet with the goal of winning the Shadow war in mind, which can't be claimed for Vir. But I doubt G'Kar at the moment when Delenn tells him sees that so very differently...

This has just made me start wondering about Vir and Zack as parallels in a way I haven't before, although Zack is for a while actively complicit with evil in a way Vir isn't at any point.

I'd say Vir isn't buying into the Back-to-the-Stars-War being a good thing for one moment while Zack does believe Night Watch is harmless and patriotic until rather late in the game, but which of them that makes more or less complicit I couldn't say.

Speaking of Zack, though, reminds me of that scene between Vir and Garibaldi in "No Surrender, No Retreat", when they briefly talk about Garibaldi's fallout with Sheridan and decision to leave B5, and Vir says "I don't always like the way Londo is doing things - well, me and most of the universe" but that he decided to stay with Londo nonetheless, and suggests Garibaldi should do the same with Sheridan. Leaving aside Garibaldi's mind-manipulated status as irrevelant right now, this equates, on Vir's part, s4 Sheridan with s2 Londo, which is... interesting.

"this equates, on Vir's part, s4 Sheridan with s2 Londo, which is... interesting."

May I just say that I am going to go off and hug this idea quietly for a while? Because I love it?
The idea that JMS floated of the Alliance being seen as a threatening hegemony and the Rangers as jack-booted thugs/enforcers is one I would have loved to have seen worked out.

*cough The Learning Curve really makes them look that way cough*

Edited 2009-08-23 18:25 (UTC)

"The Coming of Shadows" discussion

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Regarding Vir's choice to abet Londo -

Re: Regarding Vir's choice to abet Londo -

Re: Regarding Vir's choice to abet Londo -

Re: Regarding Vir's choice to abet Londo -

Re: Regarding Vir's choice to abet Londo -

Re: Regarding Vir's choice to abet Londo -

Re: Regarding Vir's choice to abet Londo -

Re: Regarding Vir's choice to abet Londo -