So many people have had a problem with my “Arthur isn’t actually pure of heart because he failed 1/3 trials” post and then I check their blogs and they’re like “Well I think all sorcerers are arrogant freaks and the ban on magic should’ve been enforced harder actually.”
Vague post again is crazy bro. Do you actually want to engage with literary criticism, or is that only for whining that like Arthur murdered your whole family personally and that’s why you hate him? Magic is a shitty allegory for being oppressed, which is actual literary criticism. No, just because the text says that doesn’t mean it’s good. See, I can admit I don’t like that part of the text? Magic is inherently power, and if you want to minimize power so that you don’t have to actually think about how it works, that’s your shallow analysis. Especially when that ep, the show goes outside of its usual “magic is a metaphor for being different” shit analysis for something actually interesting like “magic is cosmic ordination and needs to be wielded responsibly”
He committed a genocide, king. Stating that Camelot needs to become a surveillance state to control a marginalized group is crazy work. And I mean crazy work.
IRL, people are stereotyped as stronger or potentially more dangerous than others specifically to instate control/disproportionate policing over them. When they do have strength, such as musculature or weapons of resistance, they are condemned as dangerous and targeted, while those who meet/determine the status quo are lauded for the same power. Power and resistance among a marginalized group is always villainized, which means that magic is honestly not the worst metaphor ever. The writers’ perspective where they relegate any resistance fighter as a terrorist is worthy of criticism, but magic as a metaphor isn’t necessarily too far off from reality. Power is over-regulated by the state so that it does not fall into the hands of a marginalized resistance.
Frankly, almost anything that can be done with average magic can be done by some other non-magical means like technology or muscle. Nobody is saying that men like Percival, Arthur, Gwaine, Elyan, Leon, and Lancelot are “inherently arrogant” (in your words) the way you do about people who have magic, just because they have physical power. Well, the same applies to magic. When Merlin states that it’s lonely to be more powerful than anyone he knows and to live as a shadow, it pertains to the specific scenario where Gilli is constantly walked over and disrespected for his perceived weaknesses. Magic also typically has to be learned just as artificial methods do, and it requires balance, which is an equal limitation to non-magical methods. Merlin may have been born with his magic, but he still could not fully control it without practice.
Murder is already illegal by any means, so Uther and Arthur don’t need to ban magic to make murder by magic illegal. Magic is already regulated the same as everything else is by the standard law of Camelot. Banning magic itself just makes harmless uses of magic illegal. The goal/end result is not to prevent harm from magic but to prevent all uses of magic. Again, nobody is making Percival’s existence illegal because he’s too strong. This makes it a clear double standard. Furthermore, the idea that magic users act more dangerous just because they have the potential to cause harm ignores that anyone has the potential to cause harm by whatever means are available to them. Only magical peoples are predetermined to be harmful for the mere act of existing.
Most importantly, even if magic is ~too powerful, that will never justify the genocide. It’ll never justify all the children who were slaughtered, the bloodlines that were ended, the cultural practices that were lost forever. The fact that Uther was able to commit a genocide with such severity and for so many decades also conveys an important theme: strength does not determine one’s victimhood. Someone who is strong can be abused. Social power/inequality, expectations, and the status quo can overcome physical power.
Dismissing it as a bad metaphor in order to defend your favorite character is not intellectually honest when the fact still stands that your fave did engage in genocide based on the belief that people of a certain culture/religion are inherently prone to evil and that their practices are all violent and dangerous. Remind you of anything from real life?
I never said Camelot should be a surveillance state or commit genocide. You’re making assumptions bc I said sorcerers are all portrayed as arrogant and they need to be responsible with their power that that suddenly equates with me thinking they should be killed. Did I argue that, or did I argue that Merlin is arrogant (and other sorcerers) bc he thinks himself special for having MAGIC, SUPERNATURAL ABILITIES? My point was that they act arrogant bc the show frames magic as innate, cosmic power. Thats why i find the "magic = oppressed minority" allegory shallow. That was the point of my sorcerer shadow’s tags. read them again.
You act like me critiquing the writers' choices have anything to do with the characters. I'm not saying magic is a flimsy allegory bc i like Arthur. I don't fucking care what you think of him. Why would i defend him? He's FICTIONAL. I don't need to justify fictional characters. I'm critiquing the writing of the show by saying it undermines its own allegory by execution (the existence of vast cosmic power). That's why I dislike it. Merlin says "It's lonely. To be more powerful than any man you know and have to live like a shadow. To be special and have to pretend to be a fool" to gili. It's cosmic. Merlin is speaking from his own experience of predetermination and cosmic prophecy. Loneliness stemming from cosmic power and predetermination. Again, this undermines the marginalized angle.
Obviously, banning magic criminalizes harmless uses of magic, but the show doesn't show many harmless uses of magic. Most of it is extremely harmful, a lot of times against fucking peasants. Once again, shitty allegory. And yes, strength doesn’t automatically protect someone from oppression, but the show never really explores that nuance. Merlin, Morgana, Morgause, and Nimueh remain influential because of their cosmic power, undermining the metaphor. The show focuses on cosmicism and prophecy. It doesnt actually examine the interaction between strength and oppression. Shallow. Instead, it mostly depicts magic as destructive, cosmic power, and the world doesn't have a similar, comparably powerful personal power, besides maybe exorbitant wealth, that can override institutional power. Except wealth also exists in the show, and its subject to influence by magic.
People with power need to be responsible with their power, aka Uther and Arthur. Uther is obviously a horrible, evil person, and I’ve said that plenty of times on my posts. But sure ignore that while vague posting about my other tags. The whole 'the ban on magic should be enforced harder' thing is just you strawmanning me bc i said you're using death of the author wrong (and you were).
Okay I dont get into these things often and sneakyboymerlin I hope you dont mind me adding my two cents. Here is why I think magic is actually a good allegory and why Arthur is absolutely not supported by canon, even if it wants to be.
At first I also didnt like magic as an allegory for oppression. However BBC Merlin asks the question, if oppressed people were actually as powerful as the oppressors say they are would they still deserve it? Cause oppressors irl say this shit all the time especially about my community the indigenous community. Our indigenous practices and beliefs are apparently very scary and dangerous to white people. They even describe magic in a similar way these practices are, of the earth, the sea, of life itself right? With that in mind I dont think magic being so powerful undermines the allegory for minorities because we are very powerful in our own way.
To say Merlin is arrogent for his power is missing the point. First he is special, he has a very important role his community expects him to fulfill that he does not have the knowledge or support to do because Uther removed those things until all that was left was one fearful old man who doesnt actually know that much about magical culture and a spiteful dragon who has his own agenda. Secondly Merlin does not think himself as special, even if he says it. He is afraid of himself and of his difference and what other may do if they knew all of him. Despite all that cosmic destrucive power he is afraid. Why? Because no matter if he did only good or bad or a mix of the two with his magic his fate was decided the moment he drew breath.
Its the same for all magic users. You say the show doesnt show magic used for good and youd be correct but you forget why those sorcerers were doing those bad things. Like 90% wanted revenge, from the first episode to the last episode its all about revenge for those who were killed purely for having magic. Arthur canonically drowned a child. A druid child. Druids are canonically pacifists. If they are drowning pacifist children what are they doing to those who acted in self defense when hunted during the purge?
Do I think the best course of revenge was targeting innocent civilians? No. However the purge barely ended and was barely a generation ago. These are the same people that watched their families burn. Its not impersonal indiscriminate killing. Not that its correct either way but you cant just write these people off as an unstoppable bloody killing force. These are people who spent the last two decades hiding and living in fear and are lashing out because they have nothing left to lose. That doesnt sound like a destructive cosmic force that sounds like a marginalized community that barely survived a genocide.
Cause the elephant in the room is that this was canonically a genocide. Barely a generation ago (cause this started at the time of Arthurs birth) magic was legal. Not only legal but in the court of a non magical king. If this is some unrelating cosmic fate why were magic users ruling the world pre purge? We know that the purge only happened canonically because Uther insisted on a very dangerous spell that he was advised against and then used it as an excuse to lash out when it went wrong. Magic is implied to be legal still in other kingdoms and they are not in ruin. So knowing all this how is this not a good allegory for marginalized communities?
If we really want to get into harm done by the magical community lets look at the main magical antagonists of the show Nimueh, Morgana, and Morgause. Now ignoring the fact they are all women and this show is not free of misogyny, truly the most magical harm is caused by Nimueh. Now its been a while since I saw the show in full but Morgana and Morgause use mostly siege tactics or normal battle tactics supported by magic in their attacks, which anyone can do with the right support. The main one that differs from this theme is the sleeping spell curse and that, remind if Im wrong, was for a noncombative takeover with the only planned kills being soldiers and the royal family who again commited a genocide. I dont agree with them but this is something only available large scale cause of magic but sleeping potions canonically exist so again its not an all powerful magic only tactic. Now Nimueh unleashes a magic plague that can only be cured if you have magic knowledge (the three elements and knowledge of the aflanc) which Uther removed during the purge. From the standpoint of marginalized power any community would jump on the idea of fighting back using knowledge their oppressors stole from them (a way to weaponize the huge amount sacred plants on the brink of extinction or all the bisons being hunted wouldve been used). Its more opportunity to exploit lost knowledge than a just cosmic all powerful superpowers. I know it seems intimidating because they shoot fireballs and throw people around but a majority of magic users cannot do that. These are incredibly powerful mages and they are continously unable to defeat non-magical combatants. They arent all mighty or anything.
Even looking at this from an oppressors standpoint, isnt is a bit wild to think that these people are horribly dangerous when you see just how scared they are? Arthur struggles with it the whole show and while we never get a final answer for him for how he lands on this topic can you really walk away from this show saying these people arent marginalized and deserve the hatred they get?
Anyways to end this, I do understand that BBC Merlin is not one for actually showing nuance in topics however while a large part of the show is cosmicism and prophecy, especially in later seasons. A very large part that I think you missed was the loneliness of being hated for who you are, how everyone suffers when one group is oppressed (gwen and other dying or almost dying because theybwere accused of magic), and how oppressors will always excuse your pain with their own which again happens up till the very last episode.
1) you should reread my mutant tags. I'm going to assume you're unfamiliar w marvel bc you clearly misunderstood. My tags aren’t that mutants are a more acceptable point for oppression bc of quantity. it's not about numbers; it's about mechanics. My point is that the existence of mutants and mutates (non-mutants but humans who have vast powers bc of some experiment or accident or something. Mutants have the x gene. You are BORN a mutant) better does these nuances bc humans in marvel are not scared of mutates. They are scared of mutants, bc more and more people are having kids w mutant genes. Mutates have the same vast cosmic power, but humans are scared of mutants bc more mutants means less people born without the x gene. It’s rooted in scarcity and social panic that mimics real life prejudice (and that’s not to say this is an infallible allegory).
2) you are making these arguments for why it's a good allegory. my argument is that the show does not explore these arguments. it’s a writing critique. It wants to talk about magic being a metaphor for being oppressed but doesn’t want to actually do the analysis that the allegory requires bc that would acknowledge that Merlin is holding up a oppressive society by his undying loyalty to the prince. the writing repeatedly undermines the message by writing other sorcerers as evil and extremist, and then that as WRONG. You're not supposed to root for nimueh, morgause, or morgana. I really need you guys to understand this is a WRITING critique. You are making it about the allegory itself. The allegory is already flimsy bc you start with vast cosmic power and mysticism that is REAL and INFLUENTIAL in this universe. The writers are already at a disadvantage from the START. Colonizers historically thought indigenous communities had magic, but colonizers also thought themselves superior and more powerful bc of science and their own ideas of "valid" religion. It’s not an equal comparison to the enormous, inalienable power of sorcerers in the show. Therefore, you need to now explore the nuances, as writers, and compare experiences on the show for the allegory to land. You need to then examine the intersection between power and oppression, which the show does not do. Bc the show does not do this, the allegory doesn't land. that makes the conversation about magical power vs non-power. bc the oppression allegory sucks.
Idc that morgause and nimueh attacked civilians personally. I care morgana did it, bc morgana was a wealthy royal and she weaponized that, but other than that i dont really care about them being extremists. the SHOW cared. the show invalidated their campaigns by making them callous and cruel. it was purposefully done to invalid their crusade; therefore, the show doesn't want to examine at what point is violent resistance valid. it says never, these sorceresses are evil, they went too far, look at how they tortured the civilians. there's a POINT to making characters do things.
also to say calling Merlin arrogant is missing this point is absolute nonsense. this is a canon characteristic that you want to ignore. like you want to ignore him thinking himself special. merlin repeatedly calls himself special bc of his destiny. this is a show. if a character is saying something they don't believe, you need to show that somewhere else. This is not done. Merlin repeats the idea, in private and in public, that he is special. Merlin believes this, bc he believes Arthur is special. It's contingent. There's an entire episode dedicated to Merlin's arrogance, naming it EXPLICITLY (4x11). It makes the argument that interfering or ensuring COSMIC DESTINY is arrogant. And the 5th season has Merlin do this x1000, and merlin is no longer the goody toe shoes. It's a much easier and logically sound theme; therefore, it doesn't require enormous and laborious examination for it to land. and its not an allegory.
you acknowledge that the text doesn't explore these nuances but then argue why its a good allegory despite that. good job if the show did them, but it didn't; therefore, i don't have to take those into account with my writing critique. allegories have to do more than point and say allegory. idc if you liked it, or found it resonant, or anything. you can love that shit allegory all you want. sneakyboymerlin vague posted about me saying 3x11 actually was interesting for explicitly bringing up the theme that cosmic power breeds exceptionalist ideology. also i said merlin is lonely. him being arrogant doesn't negate loneliness. that's juvenile. part of the reason merlin is lonely is BC he thinks himself special and he wants to have a friend that's special like him. he also is lonely for feeling ostracized. writing treats him more as an outcast than as oppressed. the other two arguments about "how everyone suffers when one group is oppressed (gwen and other dying or almost dying because theybwere accused of magic), and how oppressors will always excuse your pain with their own which again happens up till the very last episode" are not theses of the show. you can make that argument using textual support. the show wasn't interested in doing it.
