whatever process of moral progress we got it from, having heroes who shared it started seeming more compelling. Is this whole convoluted process really easier than just telling people from the start to fight essay on quality management for their own side and not betray it? In contrast, the whole point of modern good-vs-evil is that you should choose sides based on principle rather than loyalty. Villains (as opposed to monsters, or beings that are evil by their very nature) seem more modern. But Harry Potter fights for Dumbledore and against Voldemort because the one is good and the other evil, and the Christian worships God and resists the Devil because the one is good and the other evil. Hercules, which reimagines Hades from to classic-cartoon-villain is a striking late-20th-century example (I forgot that it ended with Hercules punching Hades so hard that he falls into the River Styx and gets pulled under by his own damned souls, not the most Hellenic of conclusions).
A second theory: this is just part of widening moral circles of concern. If nationalism didnt drive the (possibly) increasing prevalence of good-vs-evil stories, what did? This is not exactly a scintillatingly original observation, except that the article claims youll almost never find an example of this before 1700. Avatar, the main character decides his entire species is wrong and joins weird aliens to try to kill them, and this is good. The whole point of the, mahabharata is the whole theirs not to question why, theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die philosophy that makes for effective nationalist soldiering. Like the original Grimm stories, theyre a political tool designed to bind nations together. The author sweeps this under the rug by saying that the Israelites dont seem much more virtuous than the Canaanites, but one could argue that theyre just not more 2018-virtuous; maybe 1000 BC-virtue was worshipping God and smashing idols.
Eureka (Series) - TV Tropes
Identifying thesis activity, Good thesis statement for ptsd,