I was having a conversation with someone (most likely LaT) about how Chloe's actions follow a similar track to Giles' when he kills Ben in "The Gift". The hero is, by nature, heroic and morally upright and all of those things but I also think that the hero (Clark or Buffy or whoever) needs someone focused on them so they can be focused on the world. Heroes are often too morally righteous to be able to truly protect themselves. They need someone who will put their welfare above their own moral code. Chloe can do that because she doesn't have Clark's powers.
If she had the kind of powers that Clark had and she was willing to elevate one person over the entire world or over her entire worldview, it would make her deeply problematic, a selfish or villainous character. But she doesn't have that kind of power, a lack which limits her ability to do both good and evil. Her limited powers make her decision to place Clark above all others morally nuanced instead of morally indefensible. Every hero has a blind spot (to use a football term) or an Achilles' heel (to use a more mythic metaphor) and he/she needs someone protecting that blindspot.
Clark's blindspot is his selfless devotion to humanity and the innate goodness of humanity. Chloe seems to have positioned herself at that blindspot. In the moral quandry of "saving one vs saving one thousand" Chloe knows that saving one will save a thousand. Clark can't put his life above anyone elses. A decision like that would make him less than what he is. It would be unheroic and immoral and corrupt. But Chloe can put Clark's life above any other life. Because she, alone among the people who still surround Clark, know how important Clark is and know that one of the things that makes Clark so important is the fact that he couldn't (and shouldn't and *wouldn't*) make the kind of decisions about Clark's value that Chloe makes.
Okay, I have officially rambled way too long in your journal.
no subject
If she had the kind of powers that Clark had and she was willing to elevate one person over the entire world or over her entire worldview, it would make her deeply problematic, a selfish or villainous character. But she doesn't have that kind of power, a lack which limits her ability to do both good and evil. Her limited powers make her decision to place Clark above all others morally nuanced instead of morally indefensible. Every hero has a blind spot (to use a football term) or an Achilles' heel (to use a more mythic metaphor) and he/she needs someone protecting that blindspot.
Clark's blindspot is his selfless devotion to humanity and the innate goodness of humanity. Chloe seems to have positioned herself at that blindspot. In the moral quandry of "saving one vs saving one thousand" Chloe knows that saving one will save a thousand. Clark can't put his life above anyone elses. A decision like that would make him less than what he is. It would be unheroic and immoral and corrupt. But Chloe can put Clark's life above any other life. Because she, alone among the people who still surround Clark, know how important Clark is and know that one of the things that makes Clark so important is the fact that he couldn't (and shouldn't and *wouldn't*) make the kind of decisions about Clark's value that Chloe makes.
Okay, I have officially rambled way too long in your journal.