User blog comment:Fimber/When family is what destroys you/@comment-4640114-20121125233511/@comment-5102537-20121128111506

For example, when Merlin didn't help Gwen when she was banished by Arthur after kissing Lancelot. While Merlin and Gaius always research and investigate to help others they totally didn't do anything to help Gwen. When she left, Merlin gave her a sad glance and that was it. Arthur's actions were also questionable here because it wasn't dealt with within the show to state out that no matter how hurt he is, he just banished and also threatened his girlfriend and she was left alone. He had the right as King and also as someone living in the dark ages, but it wasn't made clear to the viewers well enough. The way they showed it, it seemed to be something that's not so bad on Arthur's and Merlin's side. A moral and ethical question about this should have come up one way or another (for a family show).

Another example, and it's the key-example because it was supposed to be the beginning of changing the style and direction of the show, is when Merlin abandoned Uther in The Wicked Day and didn't want to heal him until Arthur decided to use magic. Merlin could have helped him but refused to. He only helped when he saw an advantage for himself. If it hadn't been for Arthur's request, Merlin would have just stood by and watched Uther die. Same with Gaius, Uther's long time friend/confidant who tried to hold Merlin back when he wanted to give in Arthur's wish, even though they had helped Uther several times before at the risk of getting caught. The one who was about to die was unimportant and not worth to be saved all of a sudden, instead it was about Merlin's attempt to bring back magic. Even when Uther was dead, Merlin didn't regret the death of someone at all and didn't feel for his best friend but was most of all devastated because his plan had failed. When the so called hero of the show doesn't want to help a suffering and dying person and neither his desperate best friend, it has nothing to do with ethics and the right thing. It was all selfish and indifferent but a lot of viewers didn't see it because what Merlin does is always right.

Then Merlin killed Agravaine, Arthur's uncle. Not that I was sad when he left because I think they wasted this character that actually had great potential. But actually, whether Aggy was a good or a bad guy, he was Arthur's uncle and yes, I know, Merlin didn't have much of a choice. But Aggy was forgotten, totally forgotten after this. Arthur didn't even mention him again. Merlin's action wasn't questioned by just anyone. They could have stated out that even though Aggy was a threat and Merlin acted most of all in self-defense, that he didn't like it, that he killed one of the last family members of Arthur (the brother of his mother), that Arthur felt something about Aggy's death or whatever. There was nothing. Aggy was evil, Merlin is good, therefore he had to die.

In The Death Song of Uther Pendragon, Merlin clearly enjoyed throwing into spirit-Uther's face that the whole time he was king that magic was right under his nose. He enjoyed telling him what he thought of him even though Merlin knew that Uther wasn't evil and that he had suffered enough, was still suffering after his death. I get it, clearly, Merlind didn't exactly love Uther but as someone who has a bit of experience with souls (Lancelot/druid boy/dorocha) and knows that angry souls can't find peace, he should have tried (at least tried) to give him the peace he needs. I have no idea why they brought back Uther as an evil psycho, but Merlin acted very unsympathetic when he tormented Uther even more by telling him that magic was in his kingdom and very close to Arthur instead of reassuring him that he was in Camelot to help and to protect Arthur. Merlin and Arthur helped the ghost of the druid boy to find peace, Merlin helped Lancelot when restoring his immortal soul, so why not Arthur's father? It was clear that he suffered in the afterlife, in whatever way, otherwise he wouldn't have returned as a vengeful ghost. Yet neither Arthur nor Merlin cared at all. Instead we saw them banter and having fun again in the end after Arthur sent his father back to the  afterlife without even wondering about his father's peace of soul.

In The Disir, Merlin was willing to let Mordred die. Aside from the fact that it was illogical anyway because he could have told Arthur that magic should come back to Camelot and then could have taken care of Mordred later, he relied on a blurry vision he had and wanted to sacrifice Mordred without knowing all the facts. So far so good, I thought that something would come up to show us  "wait a sec, Merlin will be questioned for it". But no. Gaius asked him what happened to the young man who came into his chambers back then - and Merlin answered "he grew up". Well, this tells the viewer that growing up means to let people die, that only young and naive fluffy kids and teens want to save and rescue others and care for them while adults have to kill and let others die in order to reach their goals. Growing up means to become wiser and to think of various solutions for problems, not to become crueler.

I think that the show is deceiving with this false feeling of harmony and this childish humour when the characters behave like teenagers. It constantly downplays the cruelties that are actually shown and gives the viewer the feeling that it's all not so bad and that the misery of others is alright as long as Arthur and Merlin banter and tease each other and as long as Merlin and Gaius care for each other and having supper in Gaius' chambers. I'd rather calm a twelve year old down when they watched a horror movie (no, not that I think it's alright when they do)  than letting them watch a show that torments its characters while presenting it as a fluffy thing that lulls us in a false feeling of order and harmony and explaining them in detail afterwards what was right or wrong.