Newcomer majiii started it. (You’re the fall guy here. I’m “blaming” you for starting this. lol) He/she wrote:
I cant hate Cheong Sin for his character! His twist as a love deprived child was countering with the evil inside him. It was portrayed well and somehow realistic. Im feeling so sorry for him.
I agreed:
I agree. For some reason I can’t seem to hate this Cheong Sin. Must be because I pitied him when he was ordered to buy his half-brother a mango cake for his birthday and kill the old man who was being a nuisance to the Mayor. What a weird set-up. That would really warp his soul.
Nrllee informed us of a hiccup in the production:
Urgh…so apparently the latest news is that the original writer has left the series, citing differences of opinion with the PD. I don’t like it when that happens, it usually means the flow of the show is interrupted and plot holes happen.
https://www.allkpop.com/article/2021/01/the-writer-of-the-uncanny-counter-gets-replaced-mid-series
Aha! So that’s the reason that the release of Episodes 9 and 10 was pushed back a week! The reason stated was “internal production circumstances.” Now we learn that the writer and director had creative differences. We suspect that they could not come to terms with:
the treatment of the evil guy CheonSin (redeemable or irredeemable?), and/or
the format of the season finale (cliffhanger or a closed ending?).
Well, we just have to wait and see, right? But hopefully the “evil spirits” are contained in the script, and do not leak into professional lives.
LeeDale9198 opined:
I bet the disagreement of writer and PD is on what to do to Cheongsin.
I love how Cheongsin has this affinity for orphaned children and how he wants these kids be protected from evil, and so he was protected by the child in return. But his character shift feels a little jarring to me. Kudos to the team as they are able to complete the whole Cheongsin background story in one episode, still it is so sudden.
Also if Cheongsin is that hellbent on having his revenge to his first father, I think he could’ve done it earlier. He’s already been killing people for 10 years or longer. What made him wait to do his revenge?
Another thing, Cheongsin must have struggled fighting to have control on himself against his evil spirit, especially after becoming level 4. The evil spirit would’ve no qualms killing the children after he killed CS first father. But we don’t see him struggle at all. Instead it was after he ate his companion’s spirit when he’d desire to eat/kill the child, which ended quickly.
Cheongsin’s end is bittersweet. If only the child had known what’s going on 😢. CS would’ve been alive, serve his sentence, maybe get his parole and then begin fresh working at an orphanage or something. I’m never been so sad of the villain’s demise 😞. Also goodbye my villainous ship 😭.
As usual, GB gave the calm, conciliatory response.
It’s interesting our comments here. We are so far in agreement that although he’s a ruthless, self-seeking and evil killer, Ji Cheong Sin is the character that we want to believe redeemable and that he deserves a chance at a happier life. Strangely, despite being fully subsumed by the evil spirit(s), (or so we are told) we see that Killer Sin still has his own faculties and makes decisions that are not demon-like. He appears to have retained some smidgen of humanity, because he relates with the ill-treated children.
I expect that with the shut down of the Barrier, the evil spirits will quickly revive and heal Killer Sin, so that he returns, up and about before too long.
Cleopatra chimed in:
Okay this episode was unexpected. We got to see more about Cheong Sin’s past. @GB you are right, we all have sympathy for this devil.
You know what they say: An abused person can become the most ruthless abuser.
Cheong Sin didn’t find love, he found abuse instead. For that reason alone, he believed that doing that to others (e.g. beatings and later on killings) was okay!
His ahbujji would be proud of him, if he cooperate with what he wanted.
CS wanted validation and assurance from the paternal figure. He wanted to feel accepted from him and loved.I love how Lee Hong-Dae encountered his character. It was a nice touch to see that even when CS became 4 level Demon, his humanity was there, even though slightly in the scene with the kiddo.
Then, Juriel wrote this:
So the first screenwriter has stepped down, and the director stepped in to write Episode 13.
Actually I noticed a change in the basic logic of the story in Episode 13. Why, oh why does the guilt-ridden child appear? Is there really a possibility that Cheong-sin can feel regret for the past and that he is available for redemption? Not, I think, the Level 4 Cheong-sin. I’m sorry to disagree with my respected blog-colleagues on this one, but it’s too late. John Milton knew how to write true evil villainy, and I hope humans haven’t totally lost the touch. Cheong-sin has become a monster, and the remaining episodes should be showing how the Yong/Counters coterie sees to his ending. After all Don Giovanni gets hauled down to hell at the end, without option; he’s earned it.
We’ll see what the in-coming screenwriter has to say. It’s a task I wouldn’t take on, but I do hope (expect) that some contact between So Mun and his parents is achieved, and that So Mun’s future as a Counter and protector/ethical developer of human-ness is assured.
I think Juriel raised a good point.
The portrayal of evil has been one consistent subject of my discontent in Hollywood movies, Oprah Winfrey recommended books, animator Hayao Miyazaki’s perspective on evil, and in some kdramas.
Speaking from a Western sensibility, I grew up looking at the world through the prism of Brothers Grimms’ fairy tales. The good fairy and the wicked stepmother exist at the same time. The long-suffering heroine gets her happily-ever-after. Good people do good things; bad people do bad things. Conversely, good things are done by good people, and bad things are done by bad people. The bad folks get their just punishment. Evil is always vanquished. Good is the only absolute force in the world. Love conquers all.
That’s how it is from “our” world, Juriel. That’s the general worldview of the Brothers Grimms, Shakespeare, John Milton, Dostoevsky, Goethe, Camus, Tolkien. We grew up identifying and studying evil. We knew how it looks, how it operates, how it feeds. And we fought against it because we thought it could be conquered.
But I think that’s no longer the current mindset. There’s been a shift in the way the storytellers view evil.
And I’m sorry I don’t have time to discuss this in-depth. Nor do I have the expertise because I’m not a Literature Major. But I’ll cite Hayao Miyasaki’s two often-quoted statements on good vs evil. He succinctly captured this evolving worldview — better than most philosophers, I should say. lol.
He said these:
“You must see with eyes unclouded by hate. See the good in that which is evil, and the evil in that which is good. Pledge yourself to neither side, but vow instead to preserve the balance that exists between the two.”
“The concept of portraying evil and then destroying it—I know this is considered mainstream, but I think it is rotten. This idea that whenever something evil happens someone particular can be blamed and punished for it, in life and in politics is hopeless.”
We all understand what he’s trying to say, right?
Although I don’t subscribe to this worldview, I do see the trend to make evil relatable.
Often, when screenwriters make a “compelling” antagonist, it means creating a “sympathetic” guy. Evil is no longer Iago, Emperor Palpatine or Sauron. Characters are no longer “evil incarnate.” They’re pseudo-evil or quasi-evil now. Even being a “psycho” is okay, remember?
In kdramas alone, we’re observing more and more screen writers make a conscious effort to rehabilitate antagonists. Previously, the evil Second Female Lead (SFL) could simply snap and slap the heroine’s face with money, water, kimchi, or an open palm. Nowadays, this kdrama trope is no longer acceptable. Note, however, that the trope has become unacceptable NOT because the malevolence of the SFLs has been tempered, or because physical assault scenarios have fallen into disfavor among viewers.
Instead, this trope has become unacceptable because the evil SFL is now required to have “layers.” The viewers must be given a reason to excuse her bad behavior. If the SFL bitch-slaps the heroine in the script, the writer must have a defensible reason or a good provocation for it. The writer is now required to provide nuance to evil.
Case in point: Look at “Mr Queen.” SoYoung was face-slapped by her body-snatcher BongHwan, and nobody got upset with THAT. It’s because BongHwan was painted as a sympathetic character trapped in her body.
Some acceptable “layering” of these villains are:
1. Orphan-hood. Orphans are sacrosanct nowadays. If the villain was raised in an orphanage, then nine times out of ten, he’d get a “Get out of Jail” in the end.
2. Victimhood. Same with victims of parental abuse, sexual abuse, bullying, racism, poverty, etc. If the villain was a victim himself, his sins are forgiven.
3. Backstory. When the viewers see that the villain could have been virtuous person but was corrupted by an outside force (or “systemic” evil is what they call it nowadays) beyond his control, then the viewers’ hearts go out to him. Somehow, the viewers can identify with his evil because they see themselves in his shoes.
“There by for the grace of God, go I.”
4. Morality. I know, right? How can evil be moral?
But if the writer gives the villain his own set of morality and his morality is depicted as normative, (e.g., rational, logical), then the villain becomes less evil. For example, in “Start-Up,” the Second Male Lead JiPyeong verbally bullied his mentees. But his harassment was approved and cheered on by his misguided fans because:
a. the actor had dimples (roll eyes) and
b. this abuse was “normal” business practice.
Mental health be damned.
5. Intelligence. If the villain is intelligent, then his odious behavior is tolerated. In fact, it makes him a worthy anti-hero. Viewers see him as a “champion” because he can beat the hero in his own game. And some viewers think they’re being edgy when they root for the Bad Guy/Second Male Lead (roll eyes here).
6. Beauty. Because handsome guys can’t really be all that bad. People don’t know the story of Lucifer.
And the list goes on.
I sometimes wish writers would write a truly bad person, an irredeemable villain. There’s nothing as cathartic as seeing evil crushed and good overcoming all. But I believe that more and more writers nowadays show an affinity for their antagonists. They’re creating villains who, if given a different set of circumstances or given an alternate world, could have been the heroes of their own story.
This is my “short” note on evil.
@Packmule 3: I admire this response. It’s so well-considered and balanced. Thank you, and thank you particularly for mentioning Lucifer. I do look forward to the BoD discussion threads.
Hey @Packmule3,
I really enjoyed your take on Evil. Thank you for this post and to @Juriel for starting this conversation.
Philosophically speaking If only we read Socrates, Aristotle and Kant, we would have a answer about morality, good and evil and what to do with it.
To live your life with “Arete” as it is portrayed in Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” and with Kant’s Categorical Imperative made me realize a lot about one should / could live their lives.
But this is not an easy road. The more I read, the more I understand I know nothing as Socrates said. The only thing I know is that I am responsible of my actions. That makes me moral conscious to live with “Arete”.
This is not an easy subject to talk about. You are right that these days the writers are trying to make evil sympathetic. I am not okay with this.
Everyone has a responsibility, even in story telling. Creating worlds and characters in Sagas or Epic Songs that were sung long ago, was humanity’s way to say how to behave in the first societies. So their meaning was important.
I will again say how blessed I am that I have found BOD and we can have so meaningful conversations.
P.S. You are making me start writing a piece on my blog that I am procrastinating for this past week.
*I’m writing this with SHINEE’s “Lucifer” as the OST for this post haha
I struggled with Cheong-Sin’s treatment of the kid in episode 13. Supposedly he had leveled up so much that his personhood fused with the demons, making them both one. That’s evil. So, I couldn’t grasp his sudden softening at that moment. I was sympathetic to him earlier, when he had less demons. However, the sympathy was not because of his backstory, per se, but because I could see how that much abuse could have opened him up to demon possession from a spiritual perspective. (I also feel the same way about the mayor’s kid.) However, with Cheong-Sin fully locked and loaded as a pure, immortal demon, the writers should have gone full bore on his 100%-no turning-back evilness.
I agree with your comments regarding evil,I am tired of reviewers or bloggers giving an evil person a pass simply because “he really is too cute”. I think Kdrama did write a truly evil and irredeemable killer in Come and Hug Me, there was nothing that said this man would ever be anything other than what he was yet I still saw people go on about his abs etc. In that same show the other person of interest was the female journalist who lost her moral compass a long time ago, would have been interesting to see how much further down the dark hole she was willing to go for a story, I found her almost more frightening than our serial killer.
This discussion is so profound. The variations of evil in current media are mind blowing. But the normalization of evil should be strongly resisted. I believe that our villain’s background rationalizes bad behavior. And how does that impact viewers-perhaps impressionable teens who lack filters and self-control. That’s why my hope is that this character is unredeemable. It just gives excuses for bad behavior.
In our “modern” world beginning in the early twenierg century, evil has been manifested in numerous examples of,genocide from Armenia to Germany to Rwanda and Cambodia to name a few. After the Holocaust(Shoah), Hannah Arendt commented on the banality of evil-think about concentration camp guards goingnon picnics or to the movies. In our context, I think thatbis what the writers may do bynrationalizing our villain’s behavior. And if you think aboutbit, look atbthe corrupt mayor who is gettingbhis comeuppance. Our villain is so much worse because he is employed by numerous evil doers. Myconclusion-I hope the substitute writer/director resists guving him a redemption arc. Young viewers, especially,need to see that there are consequences for bad actors. The endingbI want to see is SoMun’s happy reunion with his parents’ souls where he gets meaningful closure….
Just to add a randomer’s view to the mix, if the two souls are fused than is it not possible that a shred of Cheong-Shin’s humanity remained at the moment?
Based on the shows, two spirits were merged into one, so is it not possible that certain character flaws could also still be present if they were so integral to a person’s being? When the evil spirit enters their host they cannot manipulate the person’s looks or actions. What’s to say they do not also gain certain character flaws when they finally reach Level 4. A trade of sorts.
I do not condone his actions but to look at it another way. At that moment while Somun was distracted by the child you see Cheong-Shin go to shoot only to hesitate. Could it have been that a decision was made that Cheong-Shin’s had outlived his usefulness as a host and by killing himself they were achieving each other’s individual aim, the evil spirit was free to find a stronger host and Cheong-Shin did not have to hurt a child… I’m not sure if this sounds plausible but it’s just a different POV.
I’ll pass.
I’ll let the others answer this bec I haven’t caught up. 🙂 Too many kdramas to watch, I had a decision-paralysis and watching a French movie right now. 🍿🍿🍿
Welcome to the blog.
Isn’t it the post modernist view that there are no absolutes? Therefore no “truth”, no “good” or “bad”. Everything is just relative. You do you and I’ll do me. The shift towards “self rule” – autonomy. Where the individual decides what is right or wrong. If the frame of reference shifts towards that of the individual, then all the circumstances that got the individual up to that point of evil doing mitigates the act, so it’s no longer “evil” because there is no absolute to weigh it up against. It’s just shades of grey.
Right now, in regards to the drama, I would just blame this to inconsistent writing, with what happened to the internal production and all.
I think this trend of these villains having redemptions is because it comes to modern consciousness that not everything is pure black and white. Like there’s a grey area, or a spectrum, or rejecting the binary norm.
A reminder to myself: I should read all the comments here carefully 😂
Basically agreeing to @nrllee.
Okay I’d like to comment that it’s disorienting when somehow the hosts of level 4 evil spirits have stronger influence than when they’re still on the lower levels. I don’t know. I think when one is on the ultimate level of evil, he should’ve been stripped off his morality. Instead, we get Cheongsin and Myeonghwi, who are being possessed by the strongest of evil spirits, be able to control the urge to kill people who matters to them.
Argh, why do I even care to understand this drama’s illogical nonsense 😩.
Given the synopsis of TUC, I was not totally bought in on the premise of evil spirit getting attracted to evil people and making them more evil. It’s a cop-out that “the evil spirit made me do it”, “I have to kill because the evil spirit is hungry”. Being evil is a choice. And everyone should be accountable for their choices and actions. I do like the counters though and their smack down of the bullies and corrupt people – I do not condone violence but I have to admit that it was satisfying to watch.
It’s true that more and more stories in drama (and unfortunately even in real life with fake news and misinformation) tackle evil as nuanced and relative, subject to interpretation. And if people do not have strong values and ability to draw a line of what is good and evil, then it will be a hot mess.
I try to watch movies and TV series with my kids and discuss the characters, especially the “gray” ones. I often say to my kids that having a backstory is fine but that should never an excuse to be a bully or a mean person. I would prefer to see more blatant conclusions in these stories to say what was wrong and what was right to clear up the gray in the end. But alas, these do not make cinematic value that they are skipped or swept off most of the time.
And so it irks me that Han Ji Pyeong was never reprimanded for his toxic mentorship and debasement of his inferiors. Or that he never apologized and admitted he did wrong to Dosan. Other people continue to think those were fine and acceptable! 😔
One other “layering” I often see is the referencing that the character is “flawed”. We are all flawed and not perfect but to suggest that the antagonist is more “flawed” than normal is a cop-out excuse to me.
Happy Monday! Today is Martin Luther King Jr holiday in the US. What a timely reflection this post is for me. And so I leave with one of his quotes.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
— from Dr. King’s speech at the Washington National Cathedral on March 31, 1968.
Here’s a more appropriate MLK quote in relation to what Motak said to the rookie police officer in ep14:
“Not taking action when you witness an evil deed is another form of wickedness”. – Motak
“To ignore evil is to become accomplice to it” – MLK
Thanks @pkml3 and everyone for your comments and thoughts. I agree that evil is evil (and there’s no nuance to it), and where there is knowledge and intent, there’s full culpability and it cannot be excused. It is indeed a choice.
The character may be nuanced, but he chose to do an evil deed rather than to not do it or to do something good instead. He is accountable for it.
I suddenly thought of Soo Jin in True Beauty. Show has made her a figure of pathos, given her backstory, shown that she can be good, noble and perfectly reasonable. Now we see that she has chosen to not be good, noble or reasonable. Where she could have done nothing, she has done something in order to hurt, to cloud the truth and to betray one who regards her as friend. So she will be considered a flawed character, but her wicked actions cannot be excused.
To add to the comment on people who fail to stop the evil that they see, I wonder at those who go the step too far… the many minions who carry out the evil will of their ‘masters’. They look like mindless automatons without a shred of humanity or independent thought.
– from “The Charge of the Light Brigade”. At least the military are called to arms for a higher purpose and they cannot question commands or there would be chaos in battle. But minions do not have the high calling of soldiers and in choosing to support evil, they are evil as well.
BTW @pkml3, I notice that I did not get any email for this thread. I checked my Spam folder and other folders, and would have missed this entirely if I hadn’t read the list of Recent Posts. I just thought I’d alert you to this, in case something at your end has changed, because I have not received email from this blog in the last 2 days, except from the threads I already commented in.
Thanks, @ GB. I appreciate you telling me of any glitches.
I haven’t done anything “new” to the blog… except renew my WordPress services/ subscription for three years. lol. Maybe WordPress was dismayed that I was planning to stay? lol.
Hmmm…maybe it’s an app that I updated?? I’ll check. Thanks.
Thanks, GB. Agree.
I just want to put this here. According to the “previous” writer, the bad guy was bad on his own. The spirit picked the body as host because the individual was already wicked.
In Ep 3 at 22:04, while they were watching the victims wheeled into the ambulance, MaeOk explained to SuMon, “It’s not that he became a bad guy because of the evil spirit. Evil spirits only go into people who are already wicked.”
Hana added, “There’s a frequency to bloodthirstiness. Evil spirits look for that sound to find a host.”
Let’s see if the new writer/PD will shift away from this “rule.”
This discussion reminds me of a book I read when I was doing homeschool literature research called “A Landscape with Dragons.” In it, the author, a Catholic scholar, states that common “evil” imagery has been reconfigured. I want to make sure I’m quoting correctly, so I’ll quote another reviewer: “Just as Scripture uses images of the dragon and the serpent to represent Satan, some classic tales incorporate similar images to create battles between good and evil. Good literature becomes a morality tale.
In contrast, some modern children’s literature (as well as movies) have corrupted spiritual symbolism. Dragons are now heroes, and serpents have been “unreasonably maligned.” Such literature can undermine spiritual truth by creating fictional falsehoods.”
I’ll need to revisit this book soon.