Needs Help (New Crowner 11 April 2021): Moral Event Horizon

Looks good. I think it might work if we make it Objective too.

I just don't want someone like Bob Ewell from To Kill A Mockingbird not having crossed the MEH due to racism and scapegoating being commonplace back then. I'd say the moment would be when he rapes his daughter.

Fair warning: I can get pretty emotional and take things too seriously.

Sounds good to me. It'd work regardless of the outcome of the current crowner.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Sounds like the best combination of what we talked about. Maybe we don't need to go too overboard focusing on specific criteria wording.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Things like that are why I pushed so hard for "evil by in-universe standards." The vote to make it objective has failed, but that doesn't mean examples like Bob Ewell are free to be shoehorned in.

Bob was evil by in-universe standards though. He was an incestuous rapist. The only reason he wasn't arrested was because Maycomb was full of racists, and that was the point, but it doesn't mean him raping Mayella wasn't a MEH.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I'd say Ewell's MEH was trying to kill Scout and Jem to get back at their father, as that's where Atticus (who had previously been trying to forgive him) states that he can't believe anyone would sink that low.

Fair point.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Yeah, I wasn't gonna argue about it as it's more for the cleanup than here, but that's when the narrative solidified Ewell as a horrible person as opposed to somebody just exploiting the values of the time period. (Raping his daughter was bad, obviously, but he lost all humanity in the narrative when he tried to kill the kids.)

Though I think he was also inebriated when he tried to kill the kids. Are we strict about that sort of thing? I don't think it should count unless they're literally brainwashed/possessed/etc. You still have some autonomy when you're drunk or high.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

In Vino Veritas, after all. Being drunk showed the real him. I think it counts.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

One of the criteria is "Must be willfully crossed by those with moral agency." Does being drunk rob someone of their agency?

Like I said, I believe so. Your judgment can be clouded by inebriation, but it's still typically there, and characters often have to face the consequences of what they do under the influence. Plus, like Jay said, In Vino Veritas sometimes gives more credibility that being drunk shows the "real" person. I think that criteria should refer to Brainwashed and Crazy characters and the like, when it's not even them making the decision.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

My original intent for MEH was to provide a central place to discuss a conscious, irredeemable act, without any reference to how much abuse specifically was being performed against a doggo. The MEH uses an analogy to black holes because matter doesn't escape one. That said, the MEH is specific only to one work under consideration. You can't apply it as some universal truth about a character who appears in sequels, especially written by other writers, and so forth. And that is why, apart from real world implications, you can't logically really apply it to real people, because a life is not a succinct story inside one piece of media. Darth Vader is definitely an interesting case, because he is presented this way in universe in Star Wars, with the killing of the younglings being a critical decision that made him who he was. However, the most interesting thing about him is that Return of the Jedi presents him ambiguously. The presentation is that he crossed the MEH but came back through basically a miracle. But I don't think the question is answered whether one redemptive act stopped him from being a monster, or just allowed his soul to rest, having addressed his evil. So I think Darth Vader is worthy as an example of ambiguity. The definitive example for me is the Joker is the Killing Joke saying it's too late. There isn't enough decency in himself to redeem. In my original conception, this was mostly an objective trope, not a subjective. Characters in the universe and real world critics in general agree the character has done something so indecent they can't come back. If they could even grasp the moral weight of what they had done, they wouldn't want to live, they would not view themselves as worthy of forgiveness. You can argue about whether subjectively kicking a dog or murdering someone or robbing a senior citizen or whatever is "worse." But with the MEH, you can identify the character is without reservation "bad." They are evil, and only condoned by others who are themselves succumbing to evil. If you wanted to make it specific to an act, the trope would be called Crossing the Moral Event Horizon, which sounds great as a redirect but I don't think adds anything IMO. And I am here in part to comment that MEH is a trope that has been incorporated into mainstream culture, there are thousands and thousands of hits. Insofar as one of TVT's original goals was to improve ways to talk about media, I would say MEH is a success story.

In "your" original meaning? May I ask who you are? You have no edits and this is your first forum post ever, so it's safe to say I'm very confused right now.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

My guess is this is the original creator of the Moral Event Horizon page back when it was called Rape The Dog. It might be a new account or their activity might predate the edit history system.

Edited by mightymewtron on Mar 3rd 2021 at 3:12:24 PM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Might be, indeed, if ~pawsplay36 and ~pawsplay are the same person.

Beyond this, any more considerations on my previous description? Note that it deliberately understates the "change in portrayal" criterium since I think it's the most problematic part of the previous crowner.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

That'd make sense. I didn't know who "made" it in the first place, so the post threw me for a loop. But if you're the OG sponsor, that's pretty neat, Paws.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

>The presentation is that he crossed the MEH but came back through basically a miracle.

"Miracle" is a good word for something that shouldn't be possible but happens anyway, actually. "Redeeming this character would take a miracle" might be easier to agree upon than "redeeming this character is absolutely 100% impossible forever".

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

Nah, it's much easier to say "He was redeemed, so he didn't cross the MEH in the first place".

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

There's a debate to be had if Anakin and Vader technically count as two separate characters, and if so, which of them was redeemed. But that's too complicated for us to worry about right now.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Maybe what we're missing is a clear definition of "redemption." Does this involve the character regretting what they've done? Or do the other characters also have to forgive them and give them a chance to be good? Can a character who regrets their MEH still be considered to have crossed it?

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I require the narrative to portray them as heroic/morally good. Redemption Equals Death is reasonable evidence.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

What about if the narrative forgives them, but the in universe characters don't? Like Kokichi Ouma from Danganronpa V3 is considered having crossed the MEH by manipulating Gonta Gokuhara into killing Miu Iruma, the characters hate him and he is seen as an Asshole Victim by the survivors, HOWEVER, the game itself says Kokichi wasn't evil due to not being the mastermind and trying to thwart them.

Edited by Klavice on Mar 4th 2021 at 5:30:01 AM

Fair warning: I can get pretty emotional and take things too seriously.

That sounds like "Umbridge wasn't evil because she isn't Voldemort". Because one character isn't a specific evil character doesn't mean they aren't an evil character.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Does the game actually portray Kokichi as non-evil, or could this be an Evil Versus Evil situation?

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

If the narrative says a character isn't evil, that seems to fail the "Must be intentional by the narrative and only applies to intentional villains (if they weren't clearly intended as clear-cut villains before crossing they are afterward)" criteria. I know absolutely nothing about the game, but that's what I have to say about this matter.