Scarab, I'm trying to think of a way, too. Many of the characters have already been sent back, voluntarily. When it comes to those that do not wish to go voluntarily, and as the end approaches, the
Plot Thickens, to use one of
Sherlock Holmes' signature phrases.
I'm beginning to doubt that the world is at stake in the way Mr. A assumes, simply due to the presence of some fictionals. There may be complications of their presence that are worth addressing, but the main problem Mr. A refers to is fourth wall instability. Some walls exist with passageways that allow for transit, that don't violate their structural integrity, for example. Some walls between worlds, or countries, or properties, are purely a matter of convention and laws, and people (for the most part) agree to certain rules for passing back and forth (permission, passports, etc.)
When it comes to looking at the Cabal as
vile and/or
dangerous, I think it makes sense to look at them individually, and, if at all possible, interact with them, get their side of things, and get some more details of their situation, a bit like what might go on in a hearing or journalistic investigation. Such interaction is already occurring with Morgan, and I've caught up on those exchanges. I see a real character with a real situation, rather than a plot device to be solved for the quickest possible plot resolution. That "quickest fix" approach reminds me of psychiatrists that spend 15 minutes with a case, apply some simplistic evaluation and rules, and move on, without delving deeper to the person's actual background and circumstances, and potential futures that their diagnosis or punishment/treatment/solution will feed into.
Scarab wrote:But while we may not have the right to send them back, nor do we have the right to decide the fates of every living being on planet earth based on a THEORY, and that is a risk we would be taking by letting them stay.
This raises a key set of points, including about *rights,* and the question of *deciding fates* of individuals or populations. There's a lot to say on that matter, but at this point in the story, any extended discussion seems to be avoided in favor of any uncontroversial topic or game, partly under the assumption that there's no way to discuss these things amicably or productively.
Regardless of the wall issue, and certainly regardless of the fictionals, there are *many* risks to the population at large, that Mr. A and others may be discounting in favor of a wild theory. Again, Mr. A's claims have been elevated to the level of assumed truth, and used as premises for arguments, despite underlying disagreement, because it makes the decision calculus simpler and avoids bitter disagreements that everyone's looking to keep buried (until the last minute, or until they get dug up by the plot itself.)
Scarab wrote:Nobody should have to die for someone else's theories or beliefs or attitudes. All I can do is be there for the people I call friends whether I agree with them all or not. In the end that's all any of us can do.
I just hope we don't come out of all this at the end hating each other. That's the one thing I really could not take.
I very much hope the same thing. I also truly believe there are ways to discuss these things that don't result in bitter fighting, if people are willing to think of this as a *learning opportunity* and learn to shift in and out of suspension of disbelief more actively. There are ways of having discussions that avoid strife if people's underlying interests can be identified, personally and in terms of the world they're trying to influence.
In real life, I've encountered so many situations where people decide that communication is the enemy, that it will only tear people apart, that there's nothing to be learned or gained from sitting around the "fire of truth" and sharing stories, perspectives, hopes and dreams, fears and vulnerabilities. Instead, far too often, rather than believing in the stuff of
Character Development, people run from it, ignore it, devise theories claiming its improbability, and make rules and
Insurmountable Waist High Fences to keep people from it -- anything to keep the trope
Ignored Epiphany alive and well. Then, the only place to turn to deal with human problems, short of
violence and
meltdowns and
blowups and
breakdowns, are Draconian laws and prisons, and 15-minute-session psychiatrists who think only in terms of disorders, and nobody ever gains a deeper understanding of themselves, or the people they're trying to help.
Even if this is "just a game," it has the potential to be more than that, if you let it be. TV Tropes, for many, is more than a wiki of random trivia, it's more than about the world of fiction, it's about narrative structure, about personality, about situations and decisions, and about life itself. Tropers apply trope to each other and to themselves for a reason!
Robert Mnookin: Identity is a Factor in Conflict - Mediate.com Video [40s]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Yxiq3ICy7Y"I think one of the things we've learned in the last decade or so, is that apart from interests, negotiations often involve people's sense of identity. And, my own view is that we all have multiple identities. I have an identity of someone who went to college in the 60's, I have an identity as someone who grew up in Missouri, I have an identity as an academic, I have an identity as a lawyer, etc.. So, we all have multiple prisms. But, I think the issue of how identities are formed, how they're transformed and changed is terribly important, particularly given the number of ethnic conflicts we have in the world."
Ethnic conflicts are, among other things, population-level conflicts. And any population consists of a range of individuals -- unless, of course, it's a
Planet of Hats made out of
Alike and Antithetical Adversaries. It's so much easier to value or devalue whole groups at a time, or one individual at at time, but bridging those perspectives is tough. As I see it, the moral issues here aren't just about a few characters who happen to be stuck in unfortunate situations, but about how "the good of the population" is waved around in combination with "the badness of the individual" to wiggle through the moral challenges involved, particularly with Morgan raising the question of her freedom, in this narrative world, or back in the land of fiction.
I'll end this with my
last tweet to Mr. A, in a thread about ideas, knowledge, and theories:
"The Networking of Knowledge and Storytelling" http://futureofstorytelling.org/film/?id=6 "This is known as the echo chamber problem."Anyone want to try discussing any of this stuff? The role of stories in discovering who we are, and who we can become? If nothing else, it could lead to more effective stories for Morgan and the remaining fictionals, whichever world they're said to inhabit.
]