#aithuzah

Let’s start with Arthur. He, when looked at through the lens of the orignal narrative (that being BBC Merlin) and how the writers seemed to want him viewed, was a great man, and a great king. He was a bit of an ass at first, but over time you grew to see that he cared deeply for his friends, his family, and his kingdom. He was the Once and Future King, and he would unite Albion and bring magic back to the land as he repaired the mistakes of his father. He was the good. 

Except… he’s not. Not really. Not if you look at him through a less biased set of eyes, anyway.

Arthur’s father may have ingrained the ‘all magic is evil’ stigma into his son from birth, but one of the main instances of any teenager and young adult’s journey is questioning the beliefs and ideals their parents have exposed them to throughout their life. We hardly ever witness Arthur questioning his father’s magic ban and persecution of magic users, or any attempts to change them. 

There was the one instance in which he made peace with the druids, but we never actually got to see any kind of lasting effects come from it. In addition, of course, there was his acceptance of Merlin’s magic, but I don’t feel like this can be counted, as Merlin very well could have simply been an exception to the rule- after all, he’d spent a decade by Arthur’s side. He was Arthur’s best friend. Of course he’d want to find a way to forgive him. Of course he’d see Merlin as good, even if it took him some time. Merlin was Merlin, he was Arthur’s Merlin, and while he may have been the most powerful sorcerer ever to walk the earth, in Arthur’s mind he probably didn’t represent the magical community as a whole. 

We never see Arthur accepting magic and the community that comes with it. For all we know, had Arthur survived the events of The Diamond of the Day, he would have upheld the magical ban and made Merlin continue to keep his magic a secret or something of the like. Unfortunately, we will never know for sure what he would have done with the information, but it doesn’t change the fact that even though his hatred of magic wasn’t truly his own, there isn’t enough evidence to support Arthur casting it aside. He spends all five seasons persecuting magic users. There was plenty of good to Arthur, don’t get me wrong here, but there was just as much bad. He was not evil, but he was not an innocent, and (to me, anyway) he wasn’t on what I would ever consider a ‘right side’. He was morally gray.

What about Morgana? By the end of the series, the writers attempted to portray her as the main villain. She had become something ruthless, a stark contrast to her innocence and goodness in the beginning of the series: dropping bodies left and right, without a second glance, all with the intention of taking Camelot from it’s rightful king. But that’s not all there is to it, despite what the writing may try and sway you into believing.

If you don’t think Morgana had trouble sleeping from the moment she realized that she had magic, you’re wrong. If you don’t think she was terrified day in and day out as she walked the streets of Camelot, just waiting for the day she was discovered and executed, you’re wrong. If you don’t think that what she was trying to do, that what she wanted more than anything was to make a better world for magic users, you’re wrong. Most importantly, if you think Morgana is nothing but pure evil, you are wrong.

From the very beginning of the series, when we’re introduced and allowed to explore her character, it’s easy to see that she has a good heart, how headstrong, and stubborn, and utterly brave she is. Morgana, as far as I can remember, was the only one with the courage to stand up to Uther multiple times, and let him know exactly what she was thinking when what he was doing was wrong (which, of course, was a lot of the time.) As the series progressed, and Morgana discovered and had to deal with the fact that she was the very thing Uther wanted wiped from his kingdom, her view of him changed from what I can only seem to describe as ‘problematic’ to ‘hatred.’ 

In my head, I envisioned that the change was gradual. Maybe at first, she thought she was the problem, rather than the man who’d played a huge hand in raising her. Maybe she hated herself for being what she’d been bred to despise. Did it ease her fears somewhat when that hatred turned outward, or just increase them? Was she torn over Arthur, knowing that he’d been raised just as she had and didn’t know any better? That he was her brother and he loved her, but he’d never strayed from his father’s side and probably wouldn’t start now? I wish I’d gotten those answers. Just another thing on my long list of ‘Things the BBC Merlin Writers Could Have Done Better.’

Morgana’s writing was sloppy. Too many details were skipped over for us (or me, at least) to really get a clear understanding of everything that happened in her character arc. The shift from hero to villain was anything but gradual, and it certainly didn’t do her the justice she deserved. Morgana fought Uther and Arthur the ruthless and cruel way she did because she had learned from the master of such techniques: Uther himself. In a way, Uther created his own downfall- but that’s another topic for another post.

Yes, Morgana did horrible, unspeakable, unforgiveable things in the name of freedom. But does that make her evil? No. The thing is, you have to remember why she did what she did. You can’t take the how into account without the why, and vice versa. Is it wrong when slaves rise up against their masters? Is it wrong when the oppressed resist their oppressors? No. Morgana’s actions don’t make her evil. They make her a lost, scared little girl who was raised in a world of hate. A girl who was twisted by fear and loathing, a girl with a good heart and good intentions that was led to believe that she had no other choice. They make her morally gray.

Could her actions have been avoided? Yes, definitely. How? There were many better ways I think the conflict could have been resolved, none of them the sole reason to blame. I’m only going to mention one, however, because it will help me transition better: Merlin could have told Morgana that he had magic, as well.

As promised, that brings me to the next character I want to discuss: Merlin. 

Merlin was a murderer, not the pure good the writers portrayed him as. His on-screen body count is higher than Arthur and Morgana’s (source). Not only did he kill, but he killed his own people. He killed the oppressed. For the sake of protecting the oppressors. That’s far from the makings of a purely good character. But that doesn’t mean he was evil, either. 

I don’t know if everyone agrees with this, but I’ve always believed Merlin felt guilty for the things he had to do for the sake of destiny. Not that we’d know if he did, (see: ‘Things the BBC Merlin Writers Could Have Done Better,’) but putting that aside, he never struck me as the type to feel no remorse for his actions. Does that mean he wasn’t terrifyingly pragmatic? Certainly not. I have no doubt he was the type of person to get things done no matter what the cost, just as I have no doubt he felt guilty about it afterwards. 

You see, doing a bad thing does not always make you a bad person. I think people forget to grasp that sometimes, especially with characters that the writers of don’t do anything to help you with the task. 

Merlin did what he did for Arthur. He did these things because he was told by Kilgharrah that it was his destiny, and by Gaius because he was told never to reveal his magic, and not to try and mess with said destiny. He had good intentions. 

Just like Morgana, Nimueh, Morgause, and others, Merlin still needs to be held accountable for his actions. But he is as morally gray as they come, just like Morgana, Nimueh, Morgause, and others, and you can’t simplify his or their character(s) down to ‘good’ or ‘evil’ based upon actions alone. You just can’t. 

Sorry. 

(edit: if you’re looking for a tl;dr portion of this, i’m gonna say start here.)

And that, I think, is the point I’m trying to get at in this ridiculously long-winded post. They all do bad things for good reasons, and bad things for bad reasons. They all have some form of good intentions, just as they have evil intentions.  They aren’t the kind of characters you can place in ‘this-is-black-and-this-is-white’ boxes without damaging the story as a whole. Why? Because they’re amazing characters. You can’t simplify them down to good and evil, because they’re all made up of both. You can’t declare one side right and the other wrong, because there wasn’t a right side, just as there was no wrong side. 

This simplifying of characters and plotlines so that they fit the narrative isn’t a solely BBC Merlin problem, either. It’s been done plenty of ways, in plenty of different mediums, throughout plenty of different genres. Maybe this show’s use and allowance of it hits me harder in particular because it’s my favorite, I’m not sure.

To me, it’s the mark of a truly mindblowing book, show, movie, play, character, if you have to really think in order to decide if what’s happening is right or wrong. Based upon that, I honestly don’t know whether the show itself can be considered truly mindblowing, but I can say for sure that the characters are.