Tragic Flaw September: Obedience

I am starting weekly posts, and every month has a different theme.

September is the start of autumn, a period of decline as the Northern Hemisphere approaches winter. To honor this point of the year, my theme for this month is tragic flaws. And since autumn is a season many enjoy, I will use character shortcomings that one would not initially view as a weakness.

However, each post will have the following criteria: I will speak about tragic flaws in stories that are neither Classical works, Shakespearean theatre, nor epics before the 1900s. All examples will come from more contemporary authors and playwrights.

This week, I will delve into the tragic flaw of obedience.

Duty and diligence are considered high virtues in organized societies. Putting some of our own needs aside to tend to the needs of others. Maintaining order to keep safe in a world of endless threats. Following our responsibilities, even if it brings difficulties and requires sacrifice.

Common archetypes are the Good Soldier, the Traditionalist, the Second in Command, and the Ideal Operative. People who believe that everyone has a place, and should strive to be the best they can to fit their purpose.

This mentality is not inherently wrong, with proper flexibility to the needs of the people and self-reflection to the effects of one’s actions.

This does become a pitfall, however, when one’s sense of duty consumes their desires and those around them. Obedience to the letter of the law, especially an unjust order, rather than what is right.

In The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien, the brothers Boromir and Faramir espouse the Good Soldier idea. Their loyalty to the Kingdom of Gondor pushes them to do whatever it takes to protect their home — even if it leads them to betray their allies, abandon reason, and risk Gondor’s safety in the long run.

Granted, the One Ring had its evil influence on them; yet it merely played off the flaw that was already there. Attempting to kill Frodo and take the Ring split up the Fellowship, and cost Boromir his life. Faramir’s drive to “show his quality” by taking the Ring for himself delayed the quest and nearly returned it into the hands of the enemy.

Their reckless sense of duty jeopardized the safety of Gondor and the world at large. They endangered their goal with their methods of pursuing it.

The novel Watership Down by Douglas Adams has a strong negative iteration of the Traditionalist, with General Woundwort. The rabbit warren of Efrafa follows strict regimentation, with the General limiting his subjects’ time on the surface. This is under the guise of avoiding predators, yet rabbits who flout the system are torn to pieces by their leaders.

Woundwort’s authority stands unquestioned, until the main characters arrive the challenge him. Few would think a war between rabbits could be as tense as the one in Watership Down, yet the novel pulls it off with the General’s totalitarian influence. With his brutal executions and attempts to murder the heroes, this bad bunny becomes more of a predator than the beasts he claims to protect Efrafa from.

Similar ideas are Orwellian novels, like Animal Farm and 1984, alongside other dystopian stories.

Disney movies are full of Second in Command antagonist characters, whose blind loyalty to the villain prevents them from acknowledging or stopping the harm they cause. Mr. Smee from Peter Pan, LeFou from Beauty and the Beast, Kronk from The Emperor’s New Groove, and many others fulfill this purpose.

Characters like these teach children from an early age that you do not have to do what someone tells you if that order is questionable, or if your superior is only looking out for themselves. It encourages young minds to consider who they are working for — and if that person has their best interests in consideration.

One my favorite examples is the Ideal Operative, the perfect agent to carry out tasks, to the point of disregarding all else. Few demonstrate this better than the Hal 9000, the computer from 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke.

As artificial intelligence, Hal is designed to do what it takes to finish the mission. So much so, he is willing to murder the crew he is assigned to protect and help. Indeed, like many of the above examples, his dedication to upholding the letter of the law leads him to betray the purpose of the law.

It could be easy to write Hal off as a mindless machine, but considering some of the listed characters, he simply shows the bare-bones of the tragic flaw of obedience. People who abandon their critical thinking and sense of what is right, following orders in a way that sabotages what they strive to achieve.

It is frightening to think of human beings acting on command like machines, an idea too close to reality than we care to admit. The Milgram Experiment at Yale University demonstrated how willing people are to put their conscience on the back burner for the sake of compliance.

It is a flaw not only within a person, but in an organization of people. The downfall of fiction and history alike, blind obedience is part of what makes tragedies occur in and out of literature.

What are some of your favorite examples of this flaw, or the archetypes listed above?

Note: all works and characters are the property of their respective owners. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, commentary, and or parody. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.