(L) Yūkoku no Moriarty (Moriarty the Patriot)

[Tenzen12]

Originally Posted by bakato

Well, emotions tend to get in the way of intelligent work. He's supposed to be a detective for goodness sake. If you wanted sympathy, hire a crying woman for the funeral.

Again we are talking about bipolar opium addict and if it hindered his ability investigate, it wasn't enough to stop him from becoming deservedly most famous detective in the world. Being unstable might just be handicap to not make it too easy.

Also why are bringing sympathy into it? Noone expect it nor is willing to give.

[SeijiSensei]

In the novels Sherlock was something of a misogynist. His being led around by a bunch of women to perform parlor tricks is out-of-character.

[Anh_Minh]

5 minutes into ep 6, and this latest noble may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The sense of entitlement and belittlement of the commoners is one thing, but does he intend to grow his own food and shovel his own shit? Because what else does he think would happen without commoners?

[Cloudedmind]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

5 minutes into ep 6, and this latest noble may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The sense of entitlement and belittlement of the commoners is one thing, but does he intend to grow his own food and shovel his own shit? Because what else does he think would happen without commoners?

You'd be surprised how many people don't think that far ahead.

[Guardian Enzo]

The cartoonish mustache-twirling of William's victims is definitely a weakness in the writing so far. Basically the anime version at least is as subtle as a sledgehammer to the nuts.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

The cartoonish mustache-twirling of William's victims is definitely a weakness in the writing so far. Basically the anime version at least is as subtle as a sledgehammer to the nuts.

Not really trying to defend the show but the point of Moriarty's operation is to target these "special" people in the first place, right?

In other words, Moriarty is targeting "the worst of the worst". So, logically, we are shown "the worst of the worst" as his victims. I mean, why would this iteration of Moriarty target the "relatively good" nobles in the first place?

[Guardian Enzo]

He wasn't targeting the dude in Durham or the child killer - it just so happened he lucked into them.

It's lazy writing, sorry. Trust your story - and your audience - and use a little subtlety.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

He wasn't targeting the dude in Durham or the child killer - it just so happened he lucked into them.

Wha? Moriarty was actively looking for the child killer in the first episode. How can you forget the events of just five episodes ago?

Also, the Durham lord was shown precisely because he will be one of Moriarty's targets in the story. It's a character setup. And I don't think the story is meant to be subtle at all when comes to that bloke.

It's not like the show never shown us good nobles before. Lucian and his pal, Tate, were good nobles. And the show never state that the majority of nobles are deplorable people. Albert hates the system more than the people. Even Will Moriarty back in the orphanage taught the kids that there are plenty of good nobles.

I'd say we shouldn't mistake the highlights with the majority.

[Anh_Minh]

The problem is that none of those guys really feel like characters. They aren't evil for their own reasons. They're evil because Moriarty needs a target.

The only exception, I think, is the guy that fell off a bridge. That guy had a plan - exploit the vulnerabilities of rich young men to increase his own wealth and power. It was sociopathic, but it was understandable. All the others, though? It was pretty much "just because".

[bakato]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The problem is that none of those guys really feel like characters. They aren't evil for their own reasons. They're evil because Moriarty needs a target.

The only exception, I think, is the guy that fell off a bridge. That guy had a plan - exploit the vulnerabilities of rich young men to increase his own wealth and power. It was sociopathic, but it was understandable. All the others, though? It was pretty much "just because".

Their evil is explained by the time period. This level of greed, corruption, and vanity was the norm for Victorian England. Isekai may have conditioned you to roll your eyes at this sort of cartoon villainy, but that junk was inspired by this real life era. The explanation here is that a corrupt and highly flawed system with no accountability or regulation has raised a generation after generation of nobles with no compassion or incentive to helpt the lower class.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by bakato

Their evil is explained by the time period. This level of greed, corruption, and vanity was the norm for Victorian England. Isekai may have conditioned you to roll your eyes at this sort of cartoon villainy, but that junk was inspired by this real life era. The explanation here is that a corrupt and highly flawed system with no accountability or regulation has raised a generation after generation of nobles with no compassion or incentive to helpt the lower class.

I could understand despising the lower classes, sure. And having no concern for their well being. But they just spend an inordinate amount of time and energy thinking about them, and that's what I don't get. That's the difference between eating meat and spending half your time loudly supporting animal cruelty, and the other half actually torturing animals.

[Cloudedmind]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The problem is that none of those guys really feel like characters. They aren't evil for their own reasons. They're evil because Moriarty needs a target.

The only exception, I think, is the guy that fell off a bridge. That guy had a plan - exploit the vulnerabilities of rich young men to increase his own wealth and power. It was sociopathic, but it was understandable. All the others, though? It was pretty much "just because".

While I agree they don't feel like characters, I don't think it's because the show hasn't gone out of it's way to explain why they did what they did. I think most of these guys motives are easy enough to surmise. An embedded disgust towards people who they see as lesser then and expendable, a power trip, and a need to relieve some kink with some of them is reason enough. A lot of people's motives aren't anymore complex then that.

[Guardian Enzo]

It all feels like narrative convenience, that’s the problem.

This is a complex social problem the series is trying to address. It has great potential as narrative fodder but only if it’s presented with at least a modicum of nuance. So far...

[Tenzen12]

Originally Posted by bakato

Their evil is explained by the time period. This level of greed, corruption, and vanity was the norm for Victorian England. Isekai may have conditioned you to roll your eyes at this sort of cartoon villainy, but that junk was inspired by this real life era. The explanation here is that a corrupt and highly flawed system with no accountability or regulation has raised a generation after generation of nobles with no compassion or incentive to helpt the lower class.

Sorry but that's total bull. There is no time period in whole history with zero accountabilty. There is also no time period where idiocy would be norm. Even nobles knows that dead people means zero profits.

Class divide didn't come from corrupted nobility, but industrialisation which caused huge gap between rich and poor.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I could understand despising the lower classes, sure. And having no concern for their well being. But they just spend an inordinate amount of time and energy thinking about them, and that's what I don't get. That's the difference between eating meat and spending half your time loudly supporting animal cruelty, and the other half actually torturing animals.

I mean, like I said before, the featured victims of Moriarty in all episodes (so far) are extreme examples of corrupt nobles by Moriarty's own standard. These are people who Moriarty deemed deserve to be killed. So them being as bad as they are make perfect sense.

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

It all feels like narrative convenience, that’s the problem.

Can't really take your word seriously when you failed to even remember the events of the very first episode.

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

This is a complex social problem the series is trying to address. It has great potential as narrative fodder but only if it’s presented with at least a modicum of nuance. So far...

I at least agree with that point. I can even say that Rurouni Kenshin is more nuanced when adressing the struggles of the people during the Meiji era.

[bakato]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I could understand despising the lower classes, sure. And having no concern for their well being. But they just spend an inordinate amount of time and energy thinking about them, and that's what I don't get. That's the difference between eating meat and spending half your time loudly supporting animal cruelty, and the other half actually torturing animals.

Those who perceive themselves as superior will find themselves attracted to perverse and cruel arts considered taboo to public society. Ever heard of Hollywood? Humans are dumb animals to begin with and to be superior usually means picking on those percieved to be inferior.

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

Sorry but that's total bull. There is no time period in whole history with zero accountabilty. There is also no time period where idiocy would be norm. Even nobles knows that dead people means zero profits.

Class divide didn't come from corrupted nobility, but industrialisation which caused huge gap between rich and poor.

No meaningful accountability or regulation. Any noble could have an investigation into their crimes dropped. If there was any interest in solving cases involving lower class victims to begin with. A lack of foresight is nothing new and slaves by definition are expendable so why would nobles care if they lose their limbs or if their children die of illness?

I didn't blame the nobles for class divide. I blamed the system.

[Tenzen12]

Except Victorian era was heavily influenced by evangelical morality. Slavery got abolished, animal cruelity got abolished and there was big movement meaningfully cut amount of child labour.

Historian Harold Perkin described this period

Between 1780 and 1850 the English ceased to be one of the most aggressive, brutal, rowdy, outspoken, riotous, cruel and bloodthirsty nations in the world and became one of the most inhibited, polite, orderly, tender-minded, prudish and hypocritical

You could be ammoral prick all you want, but if you couldn't hide it, then you are out of noble society forever. If anything especially upper class woman would spend lot of time and family money on various charities. If you are noble you can of course try excort you power to commit crimes, but it wasn't enviroment where it would be "fine" or "normal" as you say.

It was also era rising rich bourgeoisie. Commoners that were basically equal to nobles in status. You would have pretty hard time to push noble superiority over commoners if bunch of those "commoners" could buy all of your estates twice.

[SeijiSensei]

For a good story about class conflict in Britain, I suggest episode five of the just-released season four of The Crown (Netflix). Talks about the spike in unemployment after the arrival of Margaret Thatcher (remarkably well personified by Gillian Anderson) and the gap between the royals and their hangers-on and the working class. Not the height of political sophistication but certainly better than Moriarty.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/tBZE0jWC-SI

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

I just realized that Sherlock has an ahoge .

Anyway, a neat finale for the two-parter. The bit where Sherlock pointed out that British forensics is/was behind France at the time is interesting.

[Anh_Minh]

I know he was dumb and unstable at the best of times, but what did Enders fear, exactly? That he'd find himself in a Monty Python sketch?
- "It's him, your honor, he stabbed me in the heart and threw me overboard!"
- "And now you're back on the ship and well enough to attend the ballet?"
- "I got better and swam."

Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor

Anyway, a neat finale for the two-parter. The bit where Sherlock pointed out that British forensics is/was behind France at the time is interesting.

Well, France had Vidocq, I guess.