![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
So, one of these days I'm going to write one of those useful "what is ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lorimt actually doing these days. Today is not that day. Today I went to see "The Old Law" again For those of you in the Boston area, it is quite well done and worth the effort to get to. If you do, you might want to skip the cut text until after the show.
On psychopath princes and morality, a long-winded response to "The Old Law":
Background:
The premise of the play is that there is a new law that old people are to be killed "for the good of the state" on a particular birthday (80 for men, 60 for women) since they're old and useless and so forth. This also lets their children inherit and gain power sooner than otherwise, since they don't have to wait for their parents deaths.
In the play, this works out so that most young men (particularly one extra-villainous guy) turn in their parents so they can get their inheritance and party wildly what with the lack-of-restrictions and massive wealth. Others do their best to get rid of spouses and otherwise act like scum. The exception is a young couple who, after much angsting, help fake their father/father-in-law's death to hide him and keep him safe.
Much plot and development follows. (Interesting and entertaining plot, but not vital to my points) Eventually, just as the hero (who was found out) is being sentenced to death by the villain, the prince steps in to say it was all a test. The prince claims it was a test of human nature to see if his subjects will obey an evil law or do the right thing and rebel. Oh, and he didn't really kill the old people, it was just pretend, sorry about all that angst and woe, Mr. Hero. Villain makes speech about being tempted into badness and blames the prince. Unlike your stereotypical villain, he doesn't apologies or die horribly. At the end of the play, the prince summarizes things by asking who is responsible for people's behavior, the ruler who makes the laws or the subjects who choose to follow them.
Objection:
The first time I saw the show, I muttered to myself on the walk home about false dichotomies and that the real question was something else and so forth. It wasn't until the second showing that I figured out a coherent argument about it.
So the way I see it, there are two aspects to things. One, the prince has done wrong. His job is to make good laws, not test people by torturing folk. He made a law that shouldn't be obeyed, which is wrong regardless of whether people obey it.
The obvious second thing to say is the various bad people were wrong to obey the law. It isn't particularly valuable, though, since these were fairly obviously immoral and amoral folk. While it is conceivable that a good law would hold them in check, they are quite happy to do bad things, given a chance.
What I wish the playwright had shown as well were loyal subjects. In the beginning of the play, the prince makes any number of arguments about why the Old Law (ie: killing-people law) is a good one, and necessary and valuable. Most people then respond with "hooray, personal gain!". Some characters defy tyranny, but to no effect and only after they're doomed. You don't see anyone who decides that their moral duty lies in obedience despite the cost to them of a loved relative, nor those who are persuaded to believe the law is just. This is the bit where I think the really interesting questions and the dangers come up. In a way, even the hero who rebels does so for his own benefit. (Well, the father of the hero does a little of this, but the option is barely put forward before it is brushed past by the hero)
This to me is the one shortcoming of the script. It argues that the laws of nature and conscience outweigh those of law, but all it shows is two sets of people obeying their own nature and conscience or lack thereof. None of them really care about the law, one breaking other rules throughout the play. This one merely provided another opportunity to be mean.
This was my real objection. The play simultaneously assumed that people were bad and only the law could keep them in check, and that the moral thing to do was rebel against the law if it was bad.
Response:
As for me, I think that law is an important and valuable thing, and at the same time, hope that I'd break any law I considered truly wrong. More than that, work to change it, though this is much harder to follow than I'd like it to be.
On a less analytical note, I really liked the technical aspects of this show as well as the acting. The set was particularly well-done. I've seen much bigger productions whose sets don't do nearly as much for the show. The adaptation of the play was also remarkable. They managed to semi-modernize certain aspects in a way that made the show easy to follow and connect to, while keeping the proper time and setting. This was partly a well-written script, and partly actors who lived their lines rather than reading them. This doesn't sound like much until you realize that parts are in iambic pentameter and the language was *not* modernized aside from a few interjections. I'd like to see more Shakespeare productions handled this well. It was an excellent show with a story that did get me to think, if not exactly along the lines of the original author. I strongly recommend it if you can make it next weekend.
lorimt actually doing these days. Today is not that day. Today I went to see "The Old Law" again For those of you in the Boston area, it is quite well done and worth the effort to get to. If you do, you might want to skip the cut text until after the show.On psychopath princes and morality, a long-winded response to "The Old Law":
Background:
The premise of the play is that there is a new law that old people are to be killed "for the good of the state" on a particular birthday (80 for men, 60 for women) since they're old and useless and so forth. This also lets their children inherit and gain power sooner than otherwise, since they don't have to wait for their parents deaths.
In the play, this works out so that most young men (particularly one extra-villainous guy) turn in their parents so they can get their inheritance and party wildly what with the lack-of-restrictions and massive wealth. Others do their best to get rid of spouses and otherwise act like scum. The exception is a young couple who, after much angsting, help fake their father/father-in-law's death to hide him and keep him safe.
Much plot and development follows. (Interesting and entertaining plot, but not vital to my points) Eventually, just as the hero (who was found out) is being sentenced to death by the villain, the prince steps in to say it was all a test. The prince claims it was a test of human nature to see if his subjects will obey an evil law or do the right thing and rebel. Oh, and he didn't really kill the old people, it was just pretend, sorry about all that angst and woe, Mr. Hero. Villain makes speech about being tempted into badness and blames the prince. Unlike your stereotypical villain, he doesn't apologies or die horribly. At the end of the play, the prince summarizes things by asking who is responsible for people's behavior, the ruler who makes the laws or the subjects who choose to follow them.
Objection:
The first time I saw the show, I muttered to myself on the walk home about false dichotomies and that the real question was something else and so forth. It wasn't until the second showing that I figured out a coherent argument about it.
So the way I see it, there are two aspects to things. One, the prince has done wrong. His job is to make good laws, not test people by torturing folk. He made a law that shouldn't be obeyed, which is wrong regardless of whether people obey it.
The obvious second thing to say is the various bad people were wrong to obey the law. It isn't particularly valuable, though, since these were fairly obviously immoral and amoral folk. While it is conceivable that a good law would hold them in check, they are quite happy to do bad things, given a chance.
What I wish the playwright had shown as well were loyal subjects. In the beginning of the play, the prince makes any number of arguments about why the Old Law (ie: killing-people law) is a good one, and necessary and valuable. Most people then respond with "hooray, personal gain!". Some characters defy tyranny, but to no effect and only after they're doomed. You don't see anyone who decides that their moral duty lies in obedience despite the cost to them of a loved relative, nor those who are persuaded to believe the law is just. This is the bit where I think the really interesting questions and the dangers come up. In a way, even the hero who rebels does so for his own benefit. (Well, the father of the hero does a little of this, but the option is barely put forward before it is brushed past by the hero)
This to me is the one shortcoming of the script. It argues that the laws of nature and conscience outweigh those of law, but all it shows is two sets of people obeying their own nature and conscience or lack thereof. None of them really care about the law, one breaking other rules throughout the play. This one merely provided another opportunity to be mean.
This was my real objection. The play simultaneously assumed that people were bad and only the law could keep them in check, and that the moral thing to do was rebel against the law if it was bad.
Response:
As for me, I think that law is an important and valuable thing, and at the same time, hope that I'd break any law I considered truly wrong. More than that, work to change it, though this is much harder to follow than I'd like it to be.
On a less analytical note, I really liked the technical aspects of this show as well as the acting. The set was particularly well-done. I've seen much bigger productions whose sets don't do nearly as much for the show. The adaptation of the play was also remarkable. They managed to semi-modernize certain aspects in a way that made the show easy to follow and connect to, while keeping the proper time and setting. This was partly a well-written script, and partly actors who lived their lines rather than reading them. This doesn't sound like much until you realize that parts are in iambic pentameter and the language was *not* modernized aside from a few interjections. I'd like to see more Shakespeare productions handled this well. It was an excellent show with a story that did get me to think, if not exactly along the lines of the original author. I strongly recommend it if you can make it next weekend.
no subject
There are at three levels to this statement. First, what do you mean by "reasonable?" I read it as similar to "realistic" as you're using it in this context; is that what you meant? Second, presuming you do mean "realistic," why do you think this? (I don't necessarily disagree with you here, but it's an important point to make.) Third, where I do disagree with you, is that the statement seems to derive ought from is: that a tyranny is unavoidable is does not make said tyranny any more legitimate. This is similar, in my mind, to confusing the moral statement, "There ought not to be murders," with the factual statement, "It's not possible to create a society with no murders," and using a form of the naturalistic fallacy to derive from the latter, "Therefore some murders must be permitted."