The chronicles of Project Horizons : chapter 6 · 10:26pm Oct 27th, 2018
What is this ?! Two blogposts in a row ! Is it Christmas yet or did I just need to keep up with my laziness ? Nobody will ever know. This chapter is... something alright. Let's say that it was mostly fun but I really think the ending is one of the most conceptually botched that I have ever seen. Let's elaborate together because this is actually an interesting subject to talk about.
Let's go.
The first thing I have to mention is obviously the presentation of The Society, led by Prince Splendid, which can be boiled down to royalist ponies. They pretend to have the right to rule by virtue of their ancestry and they hope to bring back peace through autocracy. Simple enough and it offered a scene where... well... we learned that P-21 is completely gay and that BlackJack would love to be bred by him. Did I mention that sex jokes are really unfunny to me because here, they're only used to say "Wow, see how much of a horny mare BJ is ?" Sure, it's not just mares like it was for Pip but really it's a distinction without a difference to me.
Something that a friend pointed out to me and damn I hate to not have noticed it myself is that it makes absolutely no sense for a pony coming from Stable 99 where roles were enforced through bloodline to be weirded out by Prince's claim to have the right to rule by virtue of his blood. She should have considered it completely legitimate, you don't break years of conditioning in a couple of days, it simply just doesn't work that way. Here, the writing is subtly showing its cracks and it's a bit saddening to witness. Remember kids, a joke is only as funny as your audience will allow it to be.
I can't even talk about the Collegiate because... well, they're knowledge-seekers. There. Nothing more for now. I hope will get to know them more because I'd love to avoid the pitfalls of having 10 factions but not have any of them be deeper than the quick rundown that Scoodles gave us in chapter 3.
Now, let's talk about the meat of the chapter : the horror sequence where BJ & co were essentially being toyed with by psychotic children who basically do everything in the creepy kid horror book : happy music to contrast with horrible events, talking about playing when they desecrates bodies, paints the whole area with blood, etc. There really is an atmosphere of dread in this part even if the elements used for horror are really try harding. I prefer subtlety over screaming "SEE ! SEE ! IT'S CREEPY !". However, the fact remains that there are a lot of dead bodies and they are essentially dismembered, maimed, skinned and all you can think about. It's a gorefest and I have to say that it's a bit dull after a while. Fun, but dull. (Like who thought for a single second that Morning Glory was actually dead when the door closed ? It's such a cliché that no writer should really do it. Make your fake-outs all you want but be clever about it.)
What is interesting however is how BJ goes further and further into a rage as she is forced to witness the utter depravity that these killers are showcasing. There really is a gradation and when she explodes in rage, we want to see how it will go down and it was fun while it lasted since she eventually gets captured through the use of the "Memory orb trick" that only works on unicorns (you throw a memory orb and since the unicorn will use her telekinesis, she'll be forced to view it. God is this item stupid.)
And the next part is only more of a gorefest with BJ having her belly open, her guts played with, spilling on the ground, intense pain being showcased that did made me wince since I have a tendency to detest those kind of injuries. Here, Blackjack should be forever traumatized : she was powerless, played with like a piece of meat and she must have felt a pain that few could actually understand but instead... she doesn't. PH is really starting to fall apart on some aspects. I'll pray that this is adressed later at least.
However, the cracks are showcasing when the moral dilemma is shown : the killer robots were controlled by 40 foals and fillies that lost their mind by being in a sort of artificial coma for 200 years and who are trapped inside pods that forbids them the relief of death while protecting them of the lethal diseases or fatal injuries they all have. The dilemma is as follows : leave them be, unable to do anything (since the connection to the robots has been severed) or shut the pods down and kill them all.
Before talking about the scene proper, how is that a dilemma exactly ? Let me try to showcase both sides with the best of my abilities :
Why should we kill them ?
-> They killed dozens of innocent, desecrated their bodies and enjoys making people hurt.
-> They lost their minds over a forced imprisonement of 200 years in pods, they are essentially already dead inside.
-> They are all in a stasis that keeps them from dying but no one will cure them.
-> Even in the unlikely hypothesis that they do get healed : they are 200+ years ponies who lost their families, friends and previous life to wake up in a nuclear nightmare with no one to take care of them.
Why should they leave them alive ?
-> Killing kids is wrong.
Already we can see how flimsy this dilemma is and how little stakes there is even if P-21 tries to tell us that "There is no right choice." However, this scene is even worse when I take into account the character of BlackJack. Remember the gradation of her rage, the fact that she was about to get killed and maimed, her intestines spilling over the floor (she got healed with the only one-used super healing stuff...) ? Well, it has been forgotten. As soon as BJ learns that she has this dilemma she is whole "Fuck you, I won't kill kids !". It's a total 180 and my most pressing issue is that... there is no discussion around this issue.
A dilemma in a team should be discussed. Why does P-21 wants X and why does MG wants Y ? What are the pros and what are the cons ? And also, why should she care ? They only look like kids for crying out loud ! It's an extremely superficial dilemma and it's really jarring to see BJ the trigger-happy pony try to tell us that suddenly killing "kids" who are worse than even raiders are now somehow above her moral judgement. Also, I'm really disliking BJ's logic to rob the dead. For crying out loud, the body of Redheart is hugging a Fluttershy figurine and BJ takes it because "Well, I killed a bunch of kids, guess I can rob the dead..." when like... four chapters ago it was supposed to be about the reason you do the stealing ? (Which was something I disliked even back then).
Closing thoughts : So yeah, forced character evolution, weak moral dilemma but the chapter at least tried to break the monotony by offering some gorefest horror.
Great observations on the fic! Especially that of the indoctrined notions of authority of the Stable compared to the Society.
Also, Blackjack's quick change from Security mare who never killed anypony to guntoting Wasteland survivor. I'm not sure if the rewrite addressed her reaction to her first kill or not(been a very long time now).
Come to think of it, just how did Ministry unicorns handle these devices? Since Tk contact activates them how did they remove them from their cases?
I'm still wondering what powers that place, considering all those robots and equipment must have needed a hefty power source. But meh, it's a Fallout fic, I guess
4959001
FO:E had tried to essentially circumvent its own stupid idea by saying that you have to focus on the memory orb for it to activate. I never understood how you could use telekinesis without focusing on what you wanted to move but we all know that it's essentially a vague semantic distinction that'll never be clear above a "It just works." Sad really.
As for the first kill, it hasn't been adressed. BlackJack is a killing machine and she does it as easily as she breathes. I personally loathe that so many writers are so casual about the first kill. BlackJack is a Security Mare who always did what she was told because it was easier that way and the only time she didn't, it was to protect P-21 from an unjust beating. Why is that kind of mare so okay with the act of killing, going so far as to say that it is fun ? (which is not an exageration, she smiles during some fights)
I don't know why people are so quick to say "Well, they're raiders, they're not humans." Killing someone isn't easy, even with such rationalization. Somber tries to fuse the bloodthirsty aspect of BJ with her overly emotional side (something very Littlepip-like in nature) and for now, it fails. Especially with that habit to graverob just to have the fucking figurines. FO:E only did it once with Pip stealing the Twilight's figurine in Pinkie's cold arms, we're already at two here for PH.
On a side note, I was asking myself the following question just for fun : How much immoral things can a reader accept the protagonist to do ? With the caveat that the protagonist is supposed to thrive for the moral good. Pip is an extreme example and shouldn't be taken as a valuable one : she's a fanatic.
Blackjack, not so much... She's extremely naive, dumb and misguided and a lot of thing are essentially skipped over in her development making her feel extremely strange to me, but she's trying to be a morally good character.
With that in mind : how much can we accept before the character breaks ?
I'm inclined to disagree with you that the choice regarding killing the kids is so cut and dried. Your basis seems entirely based on a utilitarian system of morality and ethics, discounting not only as a moral system for one's own use but as they might inform characterization virtue ethics and deontology. (Also it seems to entirely negate the possibility that some or all might if given the chance recover to lead happy, worthwhile lives.) Simply put, some degree of recoil against the choice seems appropriate, especially after the immediate threat has been negated: while either action might be supportable based on an individual's perspective, acting like there's one and only one conceivable call strikes me as incorrect. And at least in how I read it, they really are still children--if children with hundreds of years of (unusual, impoverished) consciousness--that is, the stasis pods don't allow structural neurological (or for that matter endocrine) development associated with growing up.
As to the point about grave robbery (which can hardly in an instance such as this be regarded as wrong if killing the kids is so clearly right as hypothesized, as taking the figurine has no negative effect to anyone measured against some positive benefit to Blackjack), I think you might be looking at it the wrong way. As you present it, it's the moral calculus itself that's changed--whether it was right or wrong to take it, and the original supporting argument that the reason for taking it was key. Rather, I think that what's changed is the emotional context: Blackjack feels dirty enough as a result of the call to pull the plug that the relatively small incremental wrong of taking the statuette (possibly for the wrong reasons) registers as unimportant in comparison.
4959425
I disagree, it's not an utilitarian point of view it is a realistic one and also, look at the facts : Those aren't kids anymore and BJ doesn't live in a society where those kids can be taken care of. What possibility is there for them to live happy lives ? You're giving far too much credit to an hypothesis that have no basis in reality. Who will take care of those emotionally scared kids ? The raiders ? The Finders ? The Enclave ? Do you think that this facility will survive for long after the Collegiate takes hold of it ? How long should they wait for their supposed super-saviors that will both heal their mortal wounds and their scarred minds ?
Sure, BlackJack is dumb and didn't think of it that way, the issue was just made as "They are kids and killing kids is wrong." Even though those kids killed horribly people, even though those "kids" should have traumatized (she isn't) her to the last degree she is now crying that killing them slowly is too horrible ? I will repeat it : those aren't kids, they are shells of equinity and murderers.
Blackjack is only hesitating because they looked like kids. Ask yourself the same question : Would she had killed adults in the same situation ? Perhaps she would have, perhaps not but the dilemma wasn't given proper time to be fleshed out. The whole chapter was about how grimdark it was to have killer kids and when whe discovered that they were forced into this situation, where we supposed to not wish for their death ? First, because they are murderers and second because they are victims who need to be killed because they are in a living hell. So yes, you can hesitate you, reader, because killing is never an easy choice.
And now I need to talk about the first kill : it wasn't adressed and it makes her sudden tears all the more... disingenuous. She didn't show any remorse about killing raiders and other monsters, she even enjoyed it. We never had one scene where she had perhaps nightmares about it or where she questionned herself. This dilemma could have even be the point where she could have faced the other and told them that
"You think killing is easy for me, I tried to not think about it or even justify it but the truth is that I was running away from it. You're asking me to make a decision because you think I'll kill them and that's what you want."
You can disagree that the dilemma isn't as cut and dry as I make it seem but where I think you'll agree is that this scene needed to be more fleshed out, engage the three characters and perhaps even show some sides of them we didn't know. In that state, it's just... tacked on for a quick emotional surprise.
4959429
"They are kids and killing kids is wrong" (similarly the intellectually disabled or insane) is an actual argument that is given very real weight in this kind of situation in the real world, for example in the 2005 US Supreme Court decision in Ropert v. Simmons which banned capital punishment for crimes committed while a juvenile. And I repeat: they are presumably neurologically children, having stopped development when put in stasis, and add that it is possible to be both a child and a murderer.
4959446
So as long as someone is neurogically a child, what they do is somewhat less worse even if they lived 200 years killing people for their destroyed concept of fun ? Also, let us try to not compare our own legal words to an individual decision. Laws aren't moral guardians and using a case where they condemn the act only informs us on how the crime was perceived. However, if you are a kid and a degenerate murderer, you deserve more chance of redemption than an adult in the same kind of situation. It does seem like a double standard to me.
4959477
Not saying that you should agree with that principle, just that when considering the events in the story and the characters involved the fact that it is one that many people hold and one that is broadly at minimum taken seriously should be factored in--with the appropriate distinction made between two facets of how holding a moral stance affects your opinion of them: 1) how you would feel about the characters as people--are they likable, admirable, etc., and 2) how they are constructed as characters--are they believable or consistent, more-or-less independent of whether their morals align with yours.
The referenced case, while it did concern the justice system rather than individual action, was very much about the morality of such executions--the decision rested on the basis that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Likewise, it covered the broad category of all otherwise-capital crimes committed by minors, not merely the individual crime of that defendant; it's been governing law for over a decade. You are free to agree or disagree with the ruling, but it shows that the principle "executing kids is wrong" is one that is given sufficient credence to be given the force of law in a major country. (And before that, all 50 states agreed they shouldn't execute someone for a crime committed when under 16--some had no executions at all, some had minimum ages of 18, 17, and 16.)
Yes, it is in a sense a double standard. The question is whether the separation into the two categories is one that is relevant and material to the decision, that is, if the situations are sufficiently distinct to justify treating them differently. It sounds like you believe no, and that's your prerogative; but you probably shouldn't find it surprising to see a character hold what amounts to a pretty common opinion--unless you had reasons to believe that that character in particular would not hold it, anyway.
4959553
A quick response before I write the next blogpost : Our reality here can't be a good analogy for the event presented in the fiction. Besides, I'm not a US citizen and I don't really care about rulings decided by people that lived decades ago about crimes that have no actual relevance to a post-apocalyptic hell, especially coming from a character like Blackjack but I'll tell you more about it in the next blogpost.
But aside from a conceptual standpoint, don't you agree that this scene was botched ? That we didn't get to see P-21 and Morning Glory's reasoning that made one ask for their death and another for their survival ? Don't you agree that this scene should have been elaborated above something a bit more subtantive that "They are kids so they could have killed half the planet, it would be wrong to kill them" ? I'll try to elaborate more on how stupid BlackJack's philosophy is in the next blogpost.
Yes, it is something to take into account but should I also remind you that for Blackjack raising foals to be breeding studs is also something that she was made to consider normal ? That killing them when they are passed their prime is something normal ? We're not in an universe where you can selectively apply your own sensibilites. If killing kids is wrong does that mean that Blackjack would let herself be killed by Crusaders should they become her enemies ?
A monolithic : killing kid is wrong without any context doesn't have any hold on me morally. I don't say it's easy but saying that it is enough to generate drama is really cheap. Context is everything and context made so that these kids dying was devoid of any emotional attachment by how rushed it was and how superficial it was both for the character of BJ and the reader.
4959570
No, it's not a direct analogy, but it definitely informs it, as basically the source of both FiM and Fallout. And looking at the moral instincts of the characters, the wasteland is less relevant than a stable or the part of the Enclave Glory came from.
Not especially. An extended discussion on this (which it would probably have to be, given a three-sided argument) would not have served the purpose of the scene as I see it and might have been a problem for the pacing of the chapter. As to the argument or not, I'm fine with the summary, with the basic feeling being that neither of the others really wants to be responsible for the choice. As to the "kids" argument, a feature of the scene was explicitly that Blackjack felt she might be more able to do it if they were released and crazy, but had more difficulty with them in stasis and without any ability to affect the outside world. The breeding/removal point is potentially relevant, but it's worth bearing in mind the reasoning behind that: it's how they work, and more to the point is about their role in the stable becoming redundant, not punishment for anything or to prevent them specifically from being a threat to anyone. And no, she explicitly says, in this scene, that if they were crazy--extend that to if they were trying to kill her--she thinks she could kill them.
4959649
Come on, Icy. You were the one who thought it was forced when she said she found it fun to kill raiders and now you're literally taking a thought she isn't even sure about in context (she is visibly shaken) as gospel that she could perhaps do it. Also, the fact that you don't seem to have an issue with BlackJack being possibly okay with killing kids if they were to attack her shows a clear double standard about the problem at hand. BlackJack either thinks killing kids is justified or she doesn't, and from what I've witnessed she clearly doesn't think it is.
As for the pacing of the chapter, I'm sorry but you know this is a non-argument. We could have done with less creepy horror house and more about the actual depth of such a moral choice. It's a character defining moment that have a bit more weight than just BlackJack singing angrily to an opponent she cannot see. If the pacing of the chapter is an issue then it's a scriptwriting issue. There's nothing stopping Somber to put two thousand more words to give a form of closure and weight to a scene that was obviously meant to be something deep.
You can be fine with it being short, I personnally think that it lost all weight by just being... a summary of a scene actually. My root issue is that BlackJack has no core set of values as I said in the next blogpost. Why does she do what she does ? What are the strong moral principles that makes her what she is ? Protect ponies is all I can muster for now and she isn't really doing a lot of that, is she ? She just kills people and just happen to help others while she does it : the Crusaders ? Killed everyone and eventually got Scoodles killed. The FInders ? Well, she killed some raiders and they were thankful. P-21 is the only pony she consistently protected with Morning Glory not even counting seeing at how she almost died during the whole Chapter 6 sequence.
As long as BlackJack will be unclear about her motivations and goals, all potential moral dilemmas will be obfuscated unless given proper context.
4959669
There is a massive difference between being willing to kill someone who is an active threat and someone who isn't. That's been, just about everywhere so far, the distinction she's made--from P-21 in chapter 1 to the raider in 2 or 3 who ended up biting her in the back to (possibly) the kids now and then the slaver in 7 now that you've got there. Kids was an element of emphasis there, and one that may or may not be decisive.
4959670
Yes, there's a difference but all of your examples are of non-kids. They are special citizens so to speak, they don't get the same treatment as raiders or slavers no matter their genders so yes, while I agree there is a difference. I cannot say for sure that BJ would have killed kids to protect herself. I personally think she wouldn't unless there was no other way to preserve herself but I'm sure you know more than I do about future events.