Amy (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
brightknightie) wrote2013-02-23 01:14 pm
brightknightie) wrote2013-02-23 01:14 pm
Reflections on Vampiric Hypnotism
As you may know, my interpretation of Forever Knight considers the power of hypnotism perhaps the most insidious, corrosive temptation of Nick's vampirism. Unlike his supernaturally enhanced strength, endurance and agelessness, hypnotism requires an active decision each time he uses it. Unlike flying, which is also an active choice, hypnotism is by its nature an assault on another person's free will. Now, often, the storyline unleashes vampiric hypnotism strictly on the dangerous and depraved, or makes hypnotism the only choice to save a life in a certain situation; sometimes, it is employed on a smaller scale, to cause sleep or dull pain; occasionally (as with Tawny Teller in "Unreality TV"), Nick even gets permission before hypnotizing. Other times, however, he succumbs to the temptation to force people to do his bidding against their wills for no good or sufficient reason (as with Schanke washing the Caddy in "Close Call"). Of course this is tragedy. It demeans them and further corrupts him.
Each time the opportunity to use hypnotism arises, Nick should consider whether there is another way to achieve his goal, and, if not, whether his goal is truly worthy of the use of such a power. Naturally, inured by long habit, Nick more often acts first and thinks later, if, on hypnotism, he thinks at all. And that's part of the wonderful story of his Everyman struggle for redemption and whether — "Last Knight" aside — he (and we) may finally achieve tragedy or triumph.
This came to mind in response to an essay by Colbert King in today's Washington Post, which linked to an old (1992) essay in the Acton Institute's Religion and Liberty: "Power Corrupts" by Ben Moreell. Moreell writes:
Above, I suggest how this recurring temptation harms Nick. Lacroix, though, is surely an even better illustration, from generalship through vampirism, of the effects on its wielder of the power to bend and break others' wills. "As he possesses power, he must also possess wisdom," Lacroix concluded of himself ages past, and never looked back. Nick is still fighting to distinguish between the right and the expedient. Lacroix long since ceased to recognize the distinction, if ever he did. (It's easy to suppose that Janette, as usual, would fall somewhere between, but instead I submit that we have too few instances of her hypnotizing people to place her firmly in comparison... except perhaps to float the hypothesis that she may hypnotize less often than Nick or Lacroix.)
To deny someone the freedom to think and remember as he wills is a horror. Even a slave has his thoughts and memories, surely? Such hypnotism is non-con/dub-con through a fantasy/sci-fi metaphor.
(Each to her own when it comes to squicks, of course! This just happens to be one of mine.)
Each time the opportunity to use hypnotism arises, Nick should consider whether there is another way to achieve his goal, and, if not, whether his goal is truly worthy of the use of such a power. Naturally, inured by long habit, Nick more often acts first and thinks later, if, on hypnotism, he thinks at all. And that's part of the wonderful story of his Everyman struggle for redemption and whether — "Last Knight" aside — he (and we) may finally achieve tragedy or triumph.
This came to mind in response to an essay by Colbert King in today's Washington Post, which linked to an old (1992) essay in the Acton Institute's Religion and Liberty: "Power Corrupts" by Ben Moreell. Moreell writes:
"When a person gains ... power to force other persons to do his bidding when they do not believe it right to do so[,] it seems inevitable that a moral weakness develops in the person who exercises that power. ... [H]e eventually concludes that power and wisdom are the same thing. And as he possesses power, he must also possess wisdom. ... At this point, he begins to lose his ability to distinguish between what is morally right and what is ... expedient."
Above, I suggest how this recurring temptation harms Nick. Lacroix, though, is surely an even better illustration, from generalship through vampirism, of the effects on its wielder of the power to bend and break others' wills. "As he possesses power, he must also possess wisdom," Lacroix concluded of himself ages past, and never looked back. Nick is still fighting to distinguish between the right and the expedient. Lacroix long since ceased to recognize the distinction, if ever he did. (It's easy to suppose that Janette, as usual, would fall somewhere between, but instead I submit that we have too few instances of her hypnotizing people to place her firmly in comparison... except perhaps to float the hypothesis that she may hypnotize less often than Nick or Lacroix.)
To deny someone the freedom to think and remember as he wills is a horror. Even a slave has his thoughts and memories, surely? Such hypnotism is non-con/dub-con through a fantasy/sci-fi metaphor.
(Each to her own when it comes to squicks, of course! This just happens to be one of mine.)
no subject
On a different note, there's a show called Lost Girl (which you may have heard mention of) about a succubus who also has the power to compel obedience using supernatural means. One of the things that bothers me most about that show is that I have never seen them address of the ethics of the protagonist going around controlling people against their will. (I haven't seen all of the show; perhaps they do so later. But certainly not in the first season. And I don't think they did it in the second. So if they plan to, they're taking their time about it.) There are situations in which such an action might be the lesser of two evils, but it should still be recognized as wrong. It's really quite a horrifying concept.
no subject
Which, if you've never watched Torchwood, is a drug that memory, as far back as you need. Men in Black has the neuralyzer, does the same thing. Erasing memory can erase some of the building blocks of who you are -- it's terrifying.
~
no subject
no subject
Mind-Altering Powers vs. Ethics
In recent months, I've become really aware how truly terrifying some psychically-based powers are in fiction (especially anything involving the manipulation of one's emotions, thoughts or memories). I guess it's because I've only recently learned how to assert control over my own mind, and realizing how little control I had before is scary to contemplate.
Being forced to surrender that control I've gained, then, is truly horrifying to me.
I also felt like I was slapped in the face when Ger and Jim commented in the Season 2 bonus features that mesmerism is a power they "rarely" use. I'd like to know what their definition of "rare" is, because I'm pretty sure the dictionary doesn't state "about once per episode, except when we've found something else to do."
Repeated re-watches made me realize that mesmerism is the one power that Nick leans on the most, and the most dangerous of the lot. Flying, like you said, doesn't hurt anyone. But mesmerism has the power to rip someone's entire identity away.
That our hero has that kind of power and doesn't stop to think of the consequences is disconcerting (I'd take even a momentary frowny "why did I do that?" face!).
As silly as I find True Blood, I think this might be the one thing they did right. The vampires of that series refer to their power to influence others as "glamour," but the mechanics are essentially the same as in FK.
However, in TB, they have one human woman who's been "glamoured" one too many times, and she's been reduced to a hysterical, Renfield-like mess, completely terrified and simultaneously completely dependent on her vampire masters. The vampires continually glamour her with impunity, not realizing (or perhaps not caring) that, if they continue to treat her like this, the poor girl will eventually become a drooling vegetable.
The TB vampires and their powers are depicted, almost without exception, as dark and dangerous. Only newbie vamp Jessica's character was comparatively lighthearted, though she's gotten much darker as the seasons have progressed.
Even in Harry Potter, though, manipulating a Muggle (non-magical person)'s memories isn't considered a big deal. Only the Aurors (wizard cops) are supposed to wield the Memory Charm, but Hermoine uses it to wipe her existence from her Muggle parents' minds, ostensibly to "protect" them from possibly being attacked by dark wizards. But the Memory Charm essentially alters who her parents ARE, and she does this as a Hogwarts 7th-year... with no knowledge of how/if the Memory Charm can be reversed.
And, needless to say, other Muggles routinely have their minds wiped in the event of seeing any suspiciously "magical" activity.
It's disturbing that so many creative types use it as a "neutral" ability, all the while failing to see how easily such a power over another's mind can be perverted into something downright evil.
TL; DR: I totally agree with you. It squicks me out too.