Jim Doherty wrote:
> This is allowing a murder to occur, when
> he's already decided that this murder is
unacceptable
> morally or ethically, and, further, when he has
the
> means at hand to prevent it. By deciding not
to
> prevent it he, in effect, becomes an accomplice to
the
> very murder he's already decided is
immoral.
I agree. It really does taint the morality of the supposedly
moral character. I see this kind of moral sleight of hand
frequently, not just in sidekick/protagonist relationships,
but in dealing with other minor characters as well. In the
only two Hiassen (okay - not hard boiled) books I've read, a
cop character named Al Garcia masquerades as moral, meanwhile
abetting the protagonist's brutal murdering sprees. But after
Al has to kill someone in self defense, he is plagued by
visions of the man's death.
I think the honorable guy/sociopath ploy only works once. As
soon as the sociopath acts against the honorable guy's
morals, the honorable guy either has to discontinue the
relationship, or be tainted. Mark Blumenthal pointed out the
Bill Denton's Grofield/Parker example was bad because both
characters are immoral. I think the same argument applies to
all of the other examples given in the sidekick discussion.
both are immoral; it's just a question of how much more
immoral the
'bad' one is.
--Stewart
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 14 Nov 2001 EST