![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Okay, so I just watched Warriors for the first time (I'm very behind on Season 1). And ... I really don't like Gregory Magnus. Um. At all.
Mostly because ... Gregory experimented with the artificial creation of abnormals? How? The same way the Cabal did, by the alteration of existing living creatures, while they're alive? It seems likely, since the Cabal seems to be using his work, and all. That ... kinda skeeves me the hell out, unless his subjects were willing, and given ...
Okay. He created an artificial abnormal, which he refers to as 'it'. That ... really, really worries me. You don't call a willing subject 'it'. And that abnormal was subsequently put down. Yes, after it (he?) had become violent and killed, which does fit Victorian treatment of violent criminals, but still. 'It'. Worries the hell out of me.
And just as an aside ... If Gregory created a humanoid abnormal by altering an existing creature, and that abnormal was an 'it' to him ... what the hell did he think of the Five? Helen, Helen's different, she's his daughter and he obviously does love her no matter what (if at times he shows it in incredibly odd ways), but the others?
Maybe that's part of why he disliked Nikola so much. An artificial vampire, bloodlust only medically under control. How close was Nikola to being an 'it' that needed putting down, to Gregory? The others at least still looked completely human. Nikola was the only one with an inhuman face at times. Might be part of why Gregory designed the Bhalasaam test the way he did. Nikola had to move twice, through something that had every potential to kill him. And he had to simply endure until he couldn't, unlike the others, whose tests were designed to allow a way around the danger. No-one had to get hurt, except Nikola. I wonder why, on Gregory's part.
But that aside ... I don't like Gregory. I don't like how he seems to view abnormals. Or did, at least. He seems to have gotten somewhat better by the modern period and Praxis. But still. He still thinks of that first artificial abnormal as an 'it'. And back then ... he was willing to alter a living creature, and put it down when it didn't turn out to his liking. Shades of Frankenstein aside, that does not speak well of his views of abnormals as living, feeling beings. How did he reconcile that with his ideal for the Sanctuaries? Did he not see the contradiction, there? Were the Sanctuaries originally more or less just zoos and labs with a prettier name? (Are they still? I know Helen doesn't believe so, but Helen also apparently had no problems with what her father was doing, and the actual functioning of the Sanctuaries at times seems rather more ... nature reservation than home and sanctuary).
I ... don't like Gregory Magnus. After that, I'm actually inclined to nearly agree with Nikola. Gregory seems to have started the Sanctuaries not out of idealism, but because he was a crappy doctor, or at least one with very low appreciation for living creatures. The man ... worries me. And Helen's devotion to him, and mile-wide blind spot where he's concerned, also worry me.
Suddenly, I'm not at all surprised Gregory fits in so well with Praxis. *grimaces faintly*
Okay. He created an artificial abnormal, which he refers to as 'it'. That ... really, really worries me. You don't call a willing subject 'it'. And that abnormal was subsequently put down. Yes, after it (he?) had become violent and killed, which does fit Victorian treatment of violent criminals, but still. 'It'. Worries the hell out of me.
And just as an aside ... If Gregory created a humanoid abnormal by altering an existing creature, and that abnormal was an 'it' to him ... what the hell did he think of the Five? Helen, Helen's different, she's his daughter and he obviously does love her no matter what (if at times he shows it in incredibly odd ways), but the others?
Maybe that's part of why he disliked Nikola so much. An artificial vampire, bloodlust only medically under control. How close was Nikola to being an 'it' that needed putting down, to Gregory? The others at least still looked completely human. Nikola was the only one with an inhuman face at times. Might be part of why Gregory designed the Bhalasaam test the way he did. Nikola had to move twice, through something that had every potential to kill him. And he had to simply endure until he couldn't, unlike the others, whose tests were designed to allow a way around the danger. No-one had to get hurt, except Nikola. I wonder why, on Gregory's part.
But that aside ... I don't like Gregory. I don't like how he seems to view abnormals. Or did, at least. He seems to have gotten somewhat better by the modern period and Praxis. But still. He still thinks of that first artificial abnormal as an 'it'. And back then ... he was willing to alter a living creature, and put it down when it didn't turn out to his liking. Shades of Frankenstein aside, that does not speak well of his views of abnormals as living, feeling beings. How did he reconcile that with his ideal for the Sanctuaries? Did he not see the contradiction, there? Were the Sanctuaries originally more or less just zoos and labs with a prettier name? (Are they still? I know Helen doesn't believe so, but Helen also apparently had no problems with what her father was doing, and the actual functioning of the Sanctuaries at times seems rather more ... nature reservation than home and sanctuary).
I ... don't like Gregory Magnus. After that, I'm actually inclined to nearly agree with Nikola. Gregory seems to have started the Sanctuaries not out of idealism, but because he was a crappy doctor, or at least one with very low appreciation for living creatures. The man ... worries me. And Helen's devotion to him, and mile-wide blind spot where he's concerned, also worry me.
Suddenly, I'm not at all surprised Gregory fits in so well with Praxis. *grimaces faintly*
Tags: