I guess hell is subjective
Jan. 26th, 2018 04:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kindkitIn re The Good Place 2x11: I have to say that a room alone and a never-ending supply of New Yorker magazines is not a million miles away from my idea of the Good Place.
Also, I hope the show is going to address the moral basis on which people are sent to the good or bad place, because it's always seemed a bit thin and this episode confirmed it. Chidi's indecisiveness and Tahani's insecurity are not, in themselves, immoral! Nor were they immoral in the context of the test (and Chidi in particular seemed set up to fail, with very high stakes riding on an apparently trivial decision--of course he tried to analyze and re-analyze, looking for clues). I realize these are the fundamental problems that did cause them to do immoral things, or to do good things for less-than-moral reasons, in life, but I'm troubled by the lack of distinction between personality flaws and bad acts or bad omissions.
Jason's test didn't make sense to me at all, and his behavior during it actually seemed out of character. He's stupid, but he's also usually gentle and considerate, not the sort of douchebro who would interrupt a judge giving him instructions.
Eleanor's test was the only one that seemed like a fair measure of her improvement. But that still leaves us with the fundamental problem of hell: does even unreformed Eleanor Shellstrop, who was a pretty terrible person, deserve to be tortured for all eternity?
I trust the show, so I'm hoping all this will be addressed.
Also, I hope the show is going to address the moral basis on which people are sent to the good or bad place, because it's always seemed a bit thin and this episode confirmed it. Chidi's indecisiveness and Tahani's insecurity are not, in themselves, immoral! Nor were they immoral in the context of the test (and Chidi in particular seemed set up to fail, with very high stakes riding on an apparently trivial decision--of course he tried to analyze and re-analyze, looking for clues). I realize these are the fundamental problems that did cause them to do immoral things, or to do good things for less-than-moral reasons, in life, but I'm troubled by the lack of distinction between personality flaws and bad acts or bad omissions.
Jason's test didn't make sense to me at all, and his behavior during it actually seemed out of character. He's stupid, but he's also usually gentle and considerate, not the sort of douchebro who would interrupt a judge giving him instructions.
Eleanor's test was the only one that seemed like a fair measure of her improvement. But that still leaves us with the fundamental problem of hell: does even unreformed Eleanor Shellstrop, who was a pretty terrible person, deserve to be tortured for all eternity?
I trust the show, so I'm hoping all this will be addressed.
no subject
Date: 2018-01-27 04:22 am (UTC)My idea of a great time as a kid was lying on the floor behind my grandparents' couch reading endless out-of-date Readers Digests, and the New Yorker is more interesting than those, so it doesn't sound too bad for me either!
no subject
Date: 2018-01-30 11:30 am (UTC)Totally agree on the room with New Yorkers, assuming demons don't have bodily functions.
Yay for Janet! I do live Janet and I'm so glad she survived (maybe not the right word for someone not actually alive) with Michael.
I timed it right: more eps coming soon! This is such an inventive show.