I'd personally rather someone play it fast and loose morally to eliminate Katherine than try and walk the line of being a good guy.
I think that attitude makes sense...but the reason Katherine must be eliminated is that she's an amoral, destructive force. I thought that was why Stefan (formerly) wanted to eliminate Damon, too--or at least, that was why he was considering whether he'd "have" to kill his brother.
If Stefan becomes an amoral, destructive force, what's the difference between him and Katherine?
Doesn't his moral right/imperative to kill her then go right out the window? At that point, when he's no longer her moral superior, would he just be killing her out of spite or jealousy or for fun?
Not that he's totally amoral now, or even particularly destructive. He just seems *a lot* more comfortable with it than he used to be, and to me, where that really shows up is in his laissez faire attitude toward Damon's misdeeds.
And though Damon can't be counted on for much, he can usually be counted on to give Stefan a different, less flattering take on Stefan's own behavior...what with the Katherine mind-f*ck going on with him at the moment, though, he seems to be pretty much ignoring Stefan/lost in his own head. And Stefan's not exactly probing for his brother's POV.
I'm not sure that the blood-drinking is a good idea--isn't that what made him go off-track before?
Anyway, something interesting about that is: Damon actually USED to be fairly moral-minded, I guess, in that he decided not to fight for the Confederacy. I'm going to go out on a limb and fanwank that it wasn't ACTUALLY because of Katherine. I mean, he'd known her like a day at that point, and he was giving up his relationship with his father, his standing in the community, and basically all his career prospects in Mystic Falls by deserting. He could even have been killed. Even now, he's not wantonly killing--he's still killing with purpose.
Maybe it's sort of like, the brothers have to be in moral balance? The more depraved one is, the more moral the other has to become? So as Damon grew more depraved in the last century-odd years, Stefan became vegetarian, tried to live as human, etc...and now that Stefan is going back on human blood, is becoming more laissiez faire about killing, is becoming more brutal/hardened generally...maybe Damon will grow more moral? Despite being insane, he's still more moral than he was when he first got to Mystic Falls, already.
Anyway, just a thought :)
Maybe it's not just a moral balance, either--maybe it's a strength balance, too. When Damon first came to town, he was by far the physically stronger and more wily of the two brothers--but he doesn't actually seem to have much bloodlust anymore (he seems to be killing out of pity and bitterness more than anything--he didn't even try to suck Mason dry). Meanwhile, Stefan is going back on human blood specifically for greater strength, and has been more into scheming and seems physically stronger than he did before, too.
Maybe in a way, the two brothers are two halves of a whole? Or like they are on either side of a teeter-totter, and the more of something one has, the less the other does? Is this wayyyy too abstract? Ok, I'm going to eat dinner and quit with the lit crit. :P
Edited by rue721, Oct 24, 2010 @ 12:24 AM.