[spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3)

[Byatil]

I find Harry's character interesting because he seems comfortable with "playing God", so to speak. Of course, the job of the security service is to determine who should live and who should die for "the greater good". But for the greater good of whom? Well, Britain, of course. But is that really a just morality? Murdering others to heighten your own sense of security?

Murdering Katchimov was, many of you suggest, the "right" thing to do. What would have happened if Harry had not killed him? More interestingly, what gave Harry the authority to kill him? It is arguable that Katchimov posed no real threat towards Britain, but only to Lucas and possibly Elizavyeta. Why then, does Harry have the authority to value one life above another? Why does he have the "right" to "play God"? It's an interesting question. We, as the audience, watch Harry murder people, and consider it to be "the right thing to do". I wonder if one day someone will decide that murdering Harry is "the right thing to do", and how people will feel about that?

Harry is a fascinating character because he constantly raises that question of morality. He is, in some ways, a "Godfather" figure within Section D. He calls the shots; he defies his superiors. Is Harry somewhat a "rogue agent"? His rapport with whomever the current Home Secretary may be seems to be the only thing keeping him employed sometimes; remember how Andrew Lawrence told Ros he wanted to get rid of Harry and put her in charge because he "reminded [him] of [his] father"? I thought that was an interesting observation on the Hom Sec's part, actually. Harry being the father figure from whom one can never attain pride or approval.

I wonder if Harry actually believes in his cause, or if he's just been in the job so long that he accepts it as something he "has to do". Some of you have commented that he seems to "lose a piece of his soul" every time he murders someone - implying that he feels he has done something "wrong" that is worthy of guilt.

I fear I may be incredibly biased as I tend to believe that Britain is fuelled by incredibly selfish motives. It's a question of morality, more than anything, which seems to be ingrained and displayed so clearly through Harry's character. Obviously, his most recent moral dilemma was Albany. He happily gave it away to save Ruth's life, but I wonder if he would have done the same if Albany had been functional? Does Britain always come first for Harry?

Well, I feel this post has been long and rambling enough, so I'll finish there I look forward to any responses!

---

(31-01-2011 09:19 PM)Tea Lady Wrote:  I don't think Harry is a murderer. A killer, yes. Some may argue there is not much of a difference, but Harry deprived these people of their life in revenge for what they had become, and for what they did to those Harry loved. In a friendly way he loved Adam and Ros. His actions were not evil, but necessary to keep the equilibrium.

I think Harry believes they are all soldiers in a war, therefore killing on both sides happens, and that's that. I also believe this also has something to do with the horrible death of his friend Bill in Northern Ireland. Harry did nothing, for whatever reason. He can no longer live with doing nothing.

This is interesting, the emboldened passage in particular Harry was a soldier before he joined MI5, correct? It does therefore make sense that he should still have some of that old combat-mentality. He may not necessarily like killing, but he feels it necessary to achieve his aims. Does that make Harry an inherently selfish character, or just a man doing what he believes is "right"?