"The Coming of Shadows" discussion

[ruuger]

This is the discussion post for the episode 2X09, "The Coming of Shadows". Spoilers for the whole of the series, including the spin-offs and tie-ins, are allowed here so newbies beware.

Summary:
The Centauri emperor visits Babylon 5.

Extra reading:
The article for "The Coming of Shadows" at Lurker's Guide.

Comments

[amatara.livejournal.com]

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.)

[vjs2259.livejournal.com]

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. ;)

[amatara.livejournal.com]

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.

[widsidh.livejournal.com]

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.

[vjs2259.livejournal.com]

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.