User blog:Fimber/The thing about magic - The Drawing of the Dark

I've watched The Drawing of the Dark, against my better judgement, and I regret it again. As a standalone episode, it would have been good. As an episode integrated in the overall plotline, it wasn't.

The main problem I'm having with it is the fact that I still don't quite get why it's so important to restore magic and to lift the ban of it in Camelot. Of course, I see the necessity to stop persecuting magic-users, based on my own moral standard that forbids me to even consider that killing and opressing people is a solution and ethically justified.

In terms of the show, there's much more to it than just "freeing" people from "tyranny". On the show, magic is not a fluffy and lovely little thing that is hunted down by evil non-magic-users but it's a dangerous and uncontrollable supernatural power, led by the Triple Goddess who is far from showing mercy, compassion or justice. As we've learnt in "The Disir", the Triple Goddess wants to reign again (as also being confirmed by Morgana) and demands people to follow the Old Ways, otherwise destruction and misery will be the punishment.

Now, when taking a look at "The Drawing of the Dark", Arthur learnt again that those who use magic are ruthless and callous, just like Uther learnt before. We also learnt that Arthur was right to punish Kara on one hand. She killed innocent people and tried to kill the king after all. As Arthur said, she wasn't judged because she used or had magic but because she committed homicide. On the other hand, we know since "The Disir" at the latest that Arthur still persecutes magic-users/sorcerers which doesn't distinguish him from Uther. Yet he emphasized again that "he's not his father". He seemed to have forgotten that he himself slaughtered two druid camps, one of them on his own will and not because Uther ordered him to do so. So what's the difference between Uther and Arthur then? As a matter of fact, after season one, we witnessed only three death sentences by Uther: when Alvarr tried to bring  Camelot's downfall and conspired against Uther, willing to sacrifice innocents in the process, when Alice was possessed by the manticore who tried to kill Uther and when Gwen was accsued of having used magic on Arthur because all evidence was against her. Alvarr nd Alice escaped and Gwen was released, so nobody was executed by Uther after season one. There was no hunting down sorcerers but only sticking to the laws of Camelot whenever someone used magic in Camelot, which was forbidden.

Arthur, according to the Disir, still persecutes sorcerers in his reign, which means, he hunts them down. However, in "The Drawing of the Dark" he gave Kara the chance to repent for her crimes, trying to show mercy, most of all because Mordred, whom Arthur had considered to be his friend, begged for her life and was willing to sacrifice his knighthood and life when trying to save her. And by doing that, Arthur learnt that mercy was senseless because Kara denied to repent for murdering innocents, showing Arthur that she didn't regret anything, would do it again if she had the chance and put her mission, initiated by the High Priestess Morgana, over her own life and her own mercy and compassion, despite the fact that Arthur was willing to spare her life and made the first step.

Arthur is still young and we have no idea if Uther ever tried to show such mercy on magic-users, but it's actually no wonder that Uther didn't in the time we saw him ruling Camelot when considering what sorcerers and magic-users are willing to do. Supposingly, if the show would continue for longer, Arthur has now learnt his lesson too and knows that showing mercy doesn't change anything.

And what distinguishes magic-users like Kara and others from Uther or Arthur when what they're doing is not better than what Uther did or what Arthur is still doing? Kara said that the death of innocents was collateral damage and that she didn't regret their death. She was willing to murder Arthur in cold blood... because of... revenge. Well, how come that magic-users seem to have a right to kill out of revenge, to be vengeful and ruthless, and Uther did not when his wife died at the hands of magic and when magic almost destroyed the land before he came to Camelot and took the throne, which was demonstrated and said throughout the show? It's simply not true that Uther started the cold and also hot war between magic and non-magic. Aside from the fact that several statements pointed out that magic was destructive and corrupted long before Uther even came to Camelot, it's also being said by Gaius in Uther's character profile on the DVDs of season one.

He says: "and ...(Uther).. banned magic from the realm forever. By doing this, he restored peace to the land after many years of chaos. He also left his kingdom and his son vulnerable to evil."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsxGvEkl-KM

It's safe to say that the war wasn't started by Uther but that he participated in it when starting the horrible Great Purge. Gaius says that he left the kingdom and his son vulnerable to evil, which speaks volumes. Of course, there are peaceful sorceres and magic-users, like the druids, Balinor and Alice, for example. However, most of the sorcerers and magical beasts that encountered Camelot, both during Uther's and Arthur's reign and even before Uther took the throne, were far from being peaceful or mercyful but caused mayhem and chaos. And the Triple Goddess who presides all, is no different, for she blackmailed Arthur, wants the ultimate power and enslave people to follow the Old ways and to bow to her.

Considering the fact that magic almost destroyed the land long before Uther's reign and considering the fact that most of them who attacked Camelot didn't do it for taking revenge on Uther, why do the magic-users and sorcerers have the right to take revenge and to kill innocents when it's evident that magic/the Old Religion started the war? How come that people like Kara have good reasons for their hatred but Uther and Arthur do not? How come that Arthur always tries to make clear that he's not his father when he himself still persecutes sorcerers, distrusts magic and sees all the time magic-users/sorcerers being ruthless and brutal, was being forced by the Triple Goddess to bow to her and to be her obidient follower, otherwise he will lose everything and his loved ones will be killed, when he himself told Merlin that the land was in chaos by magic before his father banned magic from the kingdom and when he himself defends the law?

Isn't it total double standard? Arthur even tried to align with Sarrum, the one who tortured Arthur's own half-sister for two years, something for which Uther would have killed Sarrum on the spot, yet he tells people that he is not his father? I was already wondering for what he apologized for when he told Morgana in "Arthur's Bane" that he's sorry for what Uther did to her. What exactly did he do to her other than almost sacrificing his kingdom for her when she went missing, reassuring her of his love and in the end giving up everything, including his own life only because she hated him? He can't have meant the one time when Uther locked her up in the dungeon because she conspired with someone who tried to kill Uther. He can't have meant the fact that Uther didn't acknowlege her as his daughter for good reasons, because this wouldn't be a reason for Morgana to become insane and to kill everyone. So what in the world was Arthur referring to and what in the world is so different about him? And what right do the sorcerers have to continue the war between magic and Camelot when Camelot isn't the only kingdom that forbids magic and when the magic-users themselves are ruthless, brutal, mercyless, seek revenge and when magic started it all in the first place?

I understand, from Arthur's point of view, that he doesnt lift the ban of magic. But I don't understand why he constantly betrays his father's honour and blames him for his own doings when Arthur himself does the same and experiences the same all the time.

The question is: why is magic so important, why is it so important to allow it in Camelot again? Why are the magic-users  considered to be the victims even when they are being shown mercy, when magic almost destroyed the land and when they are doing the same and sometimes even worse things than Arthur and Uther did?

Then there is Merlin. What exactly has he done so far to save his people, to convince Arthur that magic should be brought back? Nothing. Why does he love Arthur so much and why do Mordred and Merlin think that Arthur is a good man when Arthur still kills sorcerers like his father did? I wonder what difference exactly Merlin sees between Uther and Arthur. Is it only the Round Table? Hardly. Merlin supports Arthur and watches his people die at Arthur's hand, yet he believes in Arthur and loves him like a brother whereas he (suddenly) considered Uther to be a bad man and bad king. How come?

Merlin has never considered to talk to the Disir, the ones who are directly connected to the Triple Goddess, the master of it all, the goddess of the Old Religion, the very thing that Merlin is a member of. It makes no sense that he never tried to talk to the Triple Goddess in order to either find a solution, a compromise or to find out what the heck is going on with the Old Religion whatsoever. She's his goddess, after all. His boss. The one who knows, sees and presides all.

Instead he relies on blurry visions and is willing to let Mordred die, only to save Arthur who kills Merlin's own kind. He betrays a druid girl because he sees that she's not one of the good people, then speaks up for her but otherwise does nothing to save her. Instead he sides with the one who persecutes sorcerers and bans magic from the kingdom. And instead of talking to Mordred, he observes him and wants him dead as soon as possible, all only based on a vision he had, a happening that had betrayed and misguided him before in The Crystal ave when he learnt that he can't alter the future. So what does Merlin want? Freedom for his people or saving Arthur? Does he want the Old Ways even though he told Nimueh in season one already that he doesn't want to have anything to do with those of her kind, and even though he sees that the Triple Goddess is ruthless and mercyless? Merlin seems to to be working only for himself rather than for peace and his people, because if he did, he would try to do something about Arthur's opinion and also about the Old Religion continuing to destroy men. But how is he supposed to change Arthur's mind when he sees for himself that most of those who use magic or who are members of the Old Religion are far from being good people and far from wanting peace?

Mordred is another example for a vengeful character who wants death and misery upon those he has started to hate. Just like Uther did when his wife died, like Arthur did when his father died and his mother before, just like almost every sorcerer does, just like Morgana does. It's all only about giving in personal emotions, turning into brutal killer machines (and yes, even Arthur with persecuting sorcerers), only because they lost someone or felt personally attacked and betrayed in their honour (Morgana).

The only one who had at least partly a good reason was Uther - because it wasn't only all because of his personal loss like it is with others who seek revenge, but also because of the almost destruction of the land by magic before he restored peace and stability. Every other character acts out of personal revenge only (and Uther did it too, yet additionally to the danger and corruption of magic), as if personal loss and grief was a reason for killing and hurting others. And the viewer is supposed to believe that this is enough to justify the hatred up to mass murderer, that they should feel sympathy for those who seek revenge and/or follow their personal agendas (Merlin)

How come that Mordred has now all sympathies on his side when turnting to evil and seeking revenge for the loss of the woman he loved whereas the same thing happened to Uther when Igraine died at the hands of magic, yet he is supposed to be a selfish tyrant who is not supposed to have feelings of revenge? Kara was a cold-blooded murderer, Igraine was innocent. So why is it understandable and alright for Mordred to now try to kill Arthur and Merlin and participating in a war that brings Camelot's downfall and will kill thousands of people when Uther suffered the same back then and when magic was the reason for it?

Isn't there any other way to show mature people dealing with harsh and dramatical situations, do they always have to fall into hatred and brutality, like children who have no idea how else to deal with difficult situations? Could the show please finally decide what it wants to tell and why magic is so very important and what Merlin actually wants? Could it please finally not always show only one character to be the evil itself (Uther) when on numerous other occasions it demonstrates that he actually was not so wrong and when Arthur does the same but is loved and protected by Merlin, the great sorcerer that is destined to bring magic back for whatever reason?

What, for goodness sake, is going on here?

As long as magic-users/the Old Religion continue to try to kill innocents, to seek revenge even though magic started the destruction and is dangerous, there is no chance for peace. It's all like a blood feud, a stupid, unintelligent and ruthless vendetta because the characters tend to fall from one extreme into another, changing their minds all the time, answering brutality with brutality. It's a game for power only and it has nothing to do with freedom for those who want peace and who want to cause no harm. There were people who wanted and want peace on both sides, including Uther, yet on both sides people have lost the view for the greater good and for what is really important. Even Merlin has lost his goal and no one is better than the other. And behind all, there is the Old Religion. If anyone had had the power to prevent this all, it would have been the Triple Goddess. However, the Old Religion started it all in the first place and obviosuly has no interest in true peace but only in power.