The Mysterons: Not evil

[Marion]

What I mean by the situation I described is that, when Black fired on the Mysterons (NCS), it didn't really do that much damage. The Mysterons were able to rebuild their city. The situation wasn't that bad really, was it?

I don't think the crux of the problem is the amount of damage Black did, but the fact that he fired at all. In both series he acted without asking what the Mysterons were up to - he assumed they were attacking.

[chrisbishop]

But likening to the spilling a drink on the bride senario, spilling a drink on someone doesn't do any damage, but for a bride, she turns into bridezilla; she over reacts

Quite frankly, seeing the amount of money AND preparation put into a wedding ceremony, if someone should spill drink onto the bride's dress BEFORE the actual ceremony, I think she would be entitled to some retaliation!

Oh, the plot bunny... Imagine if that should happen to Symphony?

[Intensity Angel]

Argh! Bunny plots are attacking me again! Noooo! Why are they doing this to me? I have several fics to finish off already!


Symphony as Bridezilla....take cover!!

Sorry, off topic, I know.

I've had a think, I personally believe the NCS Mysterons over reactted for sure.

[Marion]

I am not an expert on NCS - but it seems to me that the Mysterons in both series overreact by threatening to wipe out all life on earth.
However, assuming the NCS Mysterons were not attacking the Martian explorers - and we won't ever know if they were, whereas in OCS we're told they were just having a look - I think they'd be entitled to retaliate against their attackers. After all, they had just blown up their city and at the time, the humans had no idea the Mysterons could recreate it.
Where they go too far is in judging that one attack is enough to condemn everything on earth, and refusing to negotiate or listen to any apology thereafter.

NCS Mysterons do seem more vengeful in the way they attack; maybe because the absence of a weekly threat that gives Spectrum a chance to fight back eliminates the possibility that they are 'studying' us. OCS Mysterons do seem to concentrate rather more on individuals too, whereas NCS Mysterons go for mass slaughter more often.
At least, it seems that way to me, although I am not that familiar with every NCS plot.
We are told more about the NCS Mysterons - in Achilles Heel, for example - which shows that maybe not all of them are in favour of such draconian retaliation.

[Skybase Girl]

Absolutely, Marion.

NCS tells us more about the Mysterons themselves, but does little to explain their reasons for war without negotiation.. As has been said in other threads, in the absence of a proper "threat", there seems little to support Colonel White's theory that this is a 'War of Nerves'.

In OCS, the War of Nerves was mentioned on several occasions, not least being the fact that the "threat "was announced at the beginning of every episode. From a viewer's point of view, the fun part was trying to figure it out before Spectrum did !

In NCS, the action scenes are so paramount, the viewer has no idea who is doing what to whom, or where Spectrum has got its information from, until at least halfway through the episode, ( Remind me, someone, why I love this show so much )

It depends very much on how separate you think the two Capt Scarlet series are, but it seems to me that neither Mysteron incarnation is a cold, implacable machine ( as in the Borg Consciousness in "Star Trek").

In OCS, you have instances where they do not kill, even when the opportunity arises - for instance, Black showing Symphony Angel some 'mercy' in "Manhunt". There are more frequent occasions in NCS, and maybe this is where Chrisofedf's "mustache twirling" comes in. I don't think this necessarily applies to other Mysteronised characters, but NCS Captain Black is, on occasion, a very entertaining ppantomine villain !

My view is simply this - they are an alien species. They do not have the same terms of reference as us, neither should they be expected to have the same moral code. The suggestion that they have been observing us for ages implies they are an older civilisation than we have on Earth, so they should have learned a thing or two. However, none of that means that they have the same conception of 'good' and 'bad' in the way we do.

Perhaps 'evil' is a word they do not understand ?

[Intensity Angel]

Then the question could be asked what is evil?

Good and evil are just words, it is how you interpret them that defines them.

In the eyes of the OS Mysterons, the attack by an earth craft, that the attack is symbolic of human nature, that is will always be, despite anything, violent. Like you have said, Skybase Girl, it is implied that they're an older civilization, that they have been watching Earth.

Well consider this. The Mysterons have been watching Earth, come to an understanding of it and its creatures and earth craft then attacks them. The Mysterons then go about destroying Earth with Spectrum trying to stop them.

What if the Mysterons do see Earth as a threat? Not to them, but the galaxy? That Earth at a later stage of evolution would be a formidable enemy? In our history, how has peace been settled? We've had the slave trade, 2 world wars, the cold war, assassinations, we've destroying our on planet. What does that say about us?

Imagine what we could be capable of. The Mysterons, in both OS and CG, after the respective Blacks attacks, might have considered all of this and decided to destroy Earth whilst it was young and weak, before it had the chance to become a major problem.

This is a just a theory but why do we always assume we are doing the right thing? Maybe in the world Captain Scarlet, Earth is truly the evil, and Mars and the Mysterons are the good.

[chrisbishop]

How can EArth - a mere speck of dust in the universe - can proove to be a threat to the whole Galaxy? Comparing them to the Mysterons, that would seem improblable. A meteorite could destroy the planet. If not, in thousands and thousands of years, our own sun will probably do the job... And I'm not mentionning other possibilities.

The Mysterons might see Earth as an eventual potential threat TO THEM. To the galaxy? I doubt it. And would they really care that much? They seem to be more concerned about their OWN survival than that of the universe.

In that respect, maybe THEY could be a threat to the Galaxy. Remember: "They do have powers we cannot hope to comprehend..."

[Marion]

It is unusual in Sci Fi - as far as I know, which I admit is not that far - for the Earth to be cast in the role of aggressors. But in OCS, Black - the Earth's representative - is undoubtedly the aggressor.
That may well colour the Mysterons' perception of how dangerous we may become, although if they've been watching us for as long as has been suggested, they'll realise that we're unlikely to stop fighting each other for long enough to be a danger to anyone.

The Mysterons have a case to punish Black - I simply think that extending that punishment to 'ALL LIFE' on earth is going a bit far. I mean, my two little bunnies can be a handful, but they're unlikely to pose much of a threat to the Galaxy any time soon. Same goes for 99.99999% of life on eath, I'd have thought.

[Intensity Angel]

It's only a something I thought up. I do not stand by it. And just to say Chris, you brought up that quote, about them having powers beyond our thoughts. It is human nature to fear what we don't understand, that we consider supernatural.

The Mysterons are unlike us from what we can work out, but what of their history? What if they were once solid lifeforms, perhaps carbon based, perhaps not. There is so much left unsaid about them, that we as fans are left to guess. What if an alliances can be forged with the Mysterons. That could be a possibility, a near impossible one many would argue with me, but still a possibility.

Who knows what will happen in the future. We can try to predict it, but who knows.

I have been taught to look at other possibilities, other view points. We can hardly say that humans are perfect from our pass record, but in light of them, there are many who are good hearted, and developing on what I said in my previous post. The Mysterons proclaim war to destroy Earth in its early days, but what if they just can't see the good through the bad. Good and bad or just points of views and anyone can be both.

[Clya Brown]

Speaking personally, I feel it's futile trying to apply absolute concepts of good and evil, because it's so easy to find situations - of which this is one - that don't fit into such a clear-cut framework. One only has to look at other times and/or other places to encounter difficulties - for example, the authorities in the Middle Ages had no problem at all with the idea of burning people at the stake, and as recently as the early 19th century public execution by hanging was considered not only perfectly normal but was regarded as a form of public entertainment. During my own schooldays small children were caned for relatively minor misdemeanours: if that happened now the teacher who administered the punishment would almost certainly be prosecuted for assault and/or child abuse. We tend to dismiss such radical changes in our own attitudes to what is right and what is wrong on the grounds that our society has moved on and that we've "grown up" in some way, and then recoil in horror when the same punishments are applied in other societies around the world, and loudly condemn them as the actions of barbarians.

On the strength of the above, I'd submit that we're far more parochial in our usage of the concepts of good and evil than we'd be prepared to acknowledge even to ourselves, and that contemporary experiences and expediency are both substantial factors in determining the moral fabric of our society, which we prefer to think of as being above such ephemeral considerations. Does condemning all life on Earth to extinction constitute an unreasonable degree of retribution on the part of the Mysterons for an act of aggression perpetrated against them? Well... we'd say so, obviously - because we'd argue that it isn't right to punish someone for somebody else's actions*. But the Mongols might have seen things rather differently: one of the main reasons they were so phenomenally successful as conquerors in the 13th century was that they offered cities to which they laid siege a simple choice: either submit without a fight, in which case everyone will be spared and life will go on pretty much as before under the new regime... or every man, woman and child in it will be butchered when the city falls. Genghis Khan would probably have argued that many lives were saved by this policy, once a few examples had been set**. And before anybody indignantly argues that Genghis Khan had no business laying siege to anybody else's cities in the first place, it's worth remembering that the Romans weren't all that dissimilar with regards the severity of their retribution against anyone who opposed them - and Western Europe between the 1st and 4th centuries was probably a more peaceful place in consequence (at least within the empire's borders) than at any time since. We instinctively resist the notion that government by threat of apocalyptic-style reprisals against enemies works, because it runs contrary to everything we're taught while we're growing up about how nice people like us ought to behave - but that isn't to say that it doesn't. (Mind you, Davros - creator of the Daleks - once observed that the best way to ensure everlasting peace throughout the galaxy was to wipe out every other life form in it. That's great if you're a Dalek, but not such a desirable outcome otherwise: another example of the difficulty of characterising the good/evil conflict in absolute terms.)

Perhaps the Mysterons aren't the only ones watching the Earth. Perhaps we're being made an example of for the benefit of someone else.

[* From my own schooldays, I recall an instance of the entire class being put into detention because one little idiot refused to own up to throwing a paper aeroplane out of the window, hitting one of the senior boys on the nose. We all knew who'd done it (and he knew we knew) but "telling" was an absolute no-no in that society - it simply wasn't done. So we all turned up at the appointed hour to suffer in silence - none more so than the culprit himself, who was very soon sweating on account of what was awaiting him afterwards from the rest of the class if he didn't come clean. It didn't take him long to realise that he really had no choice but to own up and accept the lesser punishment that awaited him, which he did: an interesting case of a perverse system of justice producing a just outcome.]

[** Marion - you made a similar point in a related discussion a few years ago: << Edward, the Black Prince, was considered the most chivalrous man of his age - the Chevalier par excellence. This was despite the fact that having told a French city to surrender - and they refused to do so, when the city did finally fall - he ordered the massacre of the entire population. No one in the 14th Century thought that was at all extreme... nowadays he'd be wanted as a War Criminal. >>]

[Marion]

It is difficult to think yourself into the mind-set of any other age, but at least the 14thC was peopled by humans, Doc! The Mysterons are aliens and so there’s even less chance that I’d be able to second guess their philosophy of right and wrong. I merely meant to suggest that I could see why the Mysterons were angry after the attack on their complex – especially in OCS, where we know they were friendly, even if Black didn’t.

For me, the scale of their anger and desire for vengeance is excessive by the only standard I can apply – the one I have developed over my lifetime. It may well be that the Mysterons consider they’re being very merciful by not simply wiping us out in one quick blast, and giving us a chance to ‘fight back’ and defend ourselves. I don’t pretend to know.

Right and wrong/good and evil, are – as Intensity says – all a matter of how you interpret them. Maybe the Mysterons have more in common with the Black Prince and the 14thC than they do with ‘modern’ society, at least, when it comes to philosophy. In that respect, they might have something in common with elements of the military of 2068: remember that in ‘Avalanche’, General Ward is out to fire his rockets at Mars and has a big sign on his desk proclaiming that ‘ Might is Right’, although Colonel White is not very impressed.

[Skybase Girl]

Good post, as ever, Doc.

It got me thinking again. The examples you gave of historical violence that may have been considered acceptable at the time had one thing in common. The deeds were perpetrated for a reason and that reason was power. Ghengis Khan, Hitler and the Black Prince used whatever means they could get away with in order to dominate, rather than just to destroy for the sheer hell of it.

So why do the Mysterons want to destroy Earth? I know this may be getting away from the title of this thread, but when I watched a couple of the NCS episodes, I was struck by the conflicting messages that are given.

"Instrument of Destruction" states that they are fed up of watching man's violence towards fellow man (which does suggest they have some sort of moral code) and, having found themselves on the receiving end of it, decide we need to be taught a lesson. This smacks of 'throwing the toys out of the pram', but suggests that if they get sufficiently annoyed, they will think nothing of obliterating an entire planet ( maybe the moral code doesn't stretch too far).

However, in "Circles of Doom", they state that Earth has 24 hours to surrender, or be annihilated by technological disaster. Surrender to what ? That seems to imply that they wish to control, rather than obliterate, something which had not been previously suggested .

In "Achilles Messenger", Astrid Winters contradicts herself more than once. Firstly, she states that the Mysterons are millions of years ahead of us in development and that we are just "spores in a lab experiment". No threat there, then ! She confirms this by saying that a breakaway faction does not consider that Earth poses a significant problem to the Mysterons,. However, the main 'Mysteron conciousness' apparently does not agree. She then offers to give Spectrum a means of destroying her own species, which, while very self-sacrificing of her, does not seem very logical ( back to the moral code again).

None of it makes a great deal of sense and probably originates solely from the fact that different scriptwriters were involved and perhaps didn't confer as much as they should have in order to ensure there would be a common approach.

This is, of course, the problem throughout the whole of "Captain Scarlet". Nothing was sufficiently well thought out! Then again, if it had been, there wouldn't have been such interesting debates !