The Rydell Revevlations

Grab your AIO albums, and find a table! What makes your favorite episode the best? Have an episode you really dislike? This is the place to review and discuss AIO episodes and albums.
User avatar
Scientific Guy
Cookies & Creme
Posts: 218
Joined: September 2017
Location: On AIOWiki
Contact:

Re: The Rydell Revevlations

Post

What if Morrie Was Right? From AIO Audio News:

Please comment on this and share it with every Odyssey / Rydell fan you know. I really want to hear your thoughts on it.
User avatar
Bob
Caramel Crunch
Posts: 115
Joined: October 2016
Location: The Metroplex
Contact:

Re: The Rydell Revevlations

Post

I haven't yet done an in-depth analysis of the source material, but I have to say that I don't think I buy it, and I'd be more inclined to say that what Whit does is wrong (because there are episodes, past and present, where I think that is honestly questionable) than to believe that what Morrie does is right.

Whether Morrie's schemes 'bring out the good in people' is debatable, but it's also somewhat beside the point. As Whit has probably pointed out himself in the past, how you get to a result is as important as the result itself. Sound doctrine isn't just about objectives, but procedure. In almost every episode he's in, Morrie is involved in manipulation, lies (whether by commission or omission), and deceit. Those things are inherently wrong, and the excuse that maybe somebody will react to it in a noble or sacrificial fashion doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have had to be in that situation in the first place.

The Bible says, "You shall know them by their fruits." The fruits Morrie left, above everything else, are that he isn't trustworthy. (Even Whit, who claims that he knew the general outline of what was going on all along, didn't trust him not to be pulling some kind of trick.) Emily is bothered by her traumatic experiences, but what's just as serious is that she can't feel like she can trust Morrie, Suzu or even Mr. Whittaker. The former two actively worked to stir up problems in her and her friends' lives, and Whit sure didn't help things any (as she is well aware of).

Finally, for a touch of common sense: in this sort of situation, do you think Jack would be okay with all of this? Or Tom?

The whole gist of Jack and Jason's argument in Darkness Before Dawn is broadly over the same sort of issue. Jason (acting in the role of his father's dynamic, adventurous side) says that 'nobody was permanently hurt', and it was worth taking risks to see what good could come out of it. But Jack (as Whit's 'conscience') says that they're endangering children (not even their own children, at that) and it isn't their right or responsibility to do so. It's obvious in retrospect who was right. The fact is that Whit here is the mouthpiece for essentially the same sort of argument as his son once employed, and it's only because we trust Whit and expect that he has more moral authority than Jason that it is made to seem palatable.
A classic never goes out of style.
Post Reply