January 28, 2009

• (Fringe) Liv vs Peter & "Wrong Action with Right Consequences"

  

  Intro:

  I've been watching the Fringe TV show (full episodes can be found here, btw) and would like to express my thoughts on a particular moral dilemma (in the recent episode, "The No-Brainer") brought about when a mysterious woman from Walter Bishop's past (he's the "mad scientist" of the show) wants to confront Walter about something.  I think the characters got things way wrong even if it turned out right in the end.  Or rather, the character Peter had it correct up front and then his better argument was overcome by a weaker argument from Liv. 

  ---

  For back story, Walter has a history of performing all sorts of amoral scientific experiments on people and animals (and whatever) and was in a mental institution for 17 years afterward.  He has been newly released (just in the last 3 months) and is now under the supervision of his son, Peter.  Walter is as a result "not all there" and is an idiosyncratic element of the show that is just capable of focusing on the crazy work they have him doing and little else.  Liv is an FBI agent who has recruited this small band of misfits to help her solve various paranormal cases.  Anyway, apparently there was a fire in Walter's old lab 20 years earlier and a lab assistant at the time died.  The woman's mother has since discovered that Walter is out of the mental hospital and has been trying to get in contact with him (through Peter, apparently).  She writes a letter, calls the old phone in the lab (the lab has been "dusted off" for new usage) and seems rather persistent.  When Peter confronts her, she will not say what her specific business is with Walter.  She just insists on seeing him. 

  Peter at first (and I would argue correctly) believes that she has no business seeing him and that there's no telling what it could do for him to let her just rip into Walter blaming him for what wasn't Walter's fault.  Given that she did not let on exactly what her business was (and given the probability of misplaced blame), I would say it would be smart to not rock the boat of Walter's rather precarious psychological frame of mind with unnecessary risk.  It's not that Peter knows for certain what might happen, it's that he doesn't know and he does rather have the responsibility not only for his father's basic care, but also to allow him to focus on their FBI work (which is already quite the stretch).  That's why he's out of the crazy house in the first place.  This woman is at least one step removed from the ordeal and the need for whatever closure is probably her own, so if Walter has not been making anything of it himself, I would say let it alone.  Better safe than sorry. 

  In a previous episode ("The Equation"), they had to call upon Walter to infiltrate the nut house to get important information from someone he once knew there, but that was necessary because someone's life was on the line.  This instance doesn't qualify at all.  Even if Walter could "handle it" there's no reason for him to.  Who knows what crap he has all up in the labyrinth of his mind and you are just as likely to do harm as good and upset whatever balance is keeping the status quo going.  Why risk it if you don't have to?  Surely there will be necessary struggles ahead that can't be avoided and therefore the current instance is gratuitous.  Liv banks on her intuition apparently and sentiment.  What's more important?  "Believing" in Walter (whatever the hell that means) or being responsible for his long term well-being?  Peter should not have given in, but he does.

  Incidentally there are positive consequences.  In decision theory this is "bad decision with a good outcome" in my estimation.  The mother of the long dead lab assistant merely wants to know something positive about her daughter from the last person who had seen her alive and it's a warm touching moment.  Fair enough.  But one, that doesn't excuse her from having been irresponsible and not telling Peter up front that this was all it would be.  Then there would be no dilemma at all (*tear* no drama).  Two, Peter didn't know it would turn out this way.  He had no reason to apologize to Liv at the end of the episode for being clairvoyant apparently and in touch with the writers' sensibilities.  It was a blind hit.  That's bad decision theory and it is totally validated by every character on the show as though there is no other way to look at it. 

  That irritates me, because the moral of the story is: make bad decisions for the sake of having faith in people.  Wrong.  You make well reasoned good decisions so that the people you care about are taken care of.  Then you reap what you sow and have good faith in a strong relationship that has been well tended.  Faith is the by-product of justified confidence.  It is earned, not given.  To earn it, you work for it.  And when you've worked for it, you have it.  A positive attitude is not a substitute for rational thinking.  They should be friends, not enemies.  Team work in this case is thinking about how well Walter will do in the long term by avoiding unnecessary risk and how they can trust in him to overcome the necessary bumps in the road that will inevitably be ahead.  It is not wasted on sentiment. 

  ---

  Outro:

  Peter gave in partially because he likes Liv, much like the rogue and scoundrel Han Solo softens up for Princess Leia.  The writers likely have their own ideology in mind that has to do with an a-rational tempering of all the cold hard science involved on the show.  No one likes the pure physicalist boogey man.  Not that this particular example in pop culture is any grievous crime against humanity, but I find all of this a tad irresponsible given that the writers are obviously smart enough to know better.  Peter is portrayed as being over-protective, but that's bullshit given the obvious circumstances.  If he would have filed a restraining order against this woman, a reasonable person that just needed a little sense snapped into them would have reasoned, "Oh, he's just protecting him.  All I have to do is tell him what I want to confront Walter about."  Peter would have made the right decision and the incidental happy ending would have worked out just as well. 

  Ben       

  • 2:26 am
  • 4 Comments