4

In the penultimate episode, it is revealed that

Hwang Jun-ho's brother

is the Front Man, the leader of the game. He becomes so dedicated to the game, in fact, that he is willing to kill the aforementioned character with nary a flicker of hesitation.

He would have many reasons not to join: after all, he won the game, so he would have been given more than enough money to survive (although he could possibly have spent it all). Furthermore, the game organizers would have put him through a number of lethal competitions, giving him more reason to dislike them.

It is true that a potential hint is given when he kills a corrupt guard, saying that the game is pure because everyone competes under equality of circumstances. However, it is hard to say how disingenous this statement may have been: the players are manifestly not equal in their chances of winning, since the organizers give them games where certain individuals could have a clear advantage, such as tug-of-war or impromptu battles royale (not to mention the first game, where faster individuals and individuals with good self-control had an enormous advantage), nor are they exempt from interference by the organizers, as we see, for instance, when the Front Man manipulates the penultimate game in real time.

So then, why did the Front Man join the game and become the practical leader of an organization that he had every reason to loathe?

7
  • 2
    How pure or impure the games are, is subjective. A football game would be impure if the referees were favoring one team when giving penalties, etc., but it wouldn't be impure just because one team was better. However, it doesn't matter what we believe about the pureness of the games, it's enough if the Front Man believes it.
    – vsz
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 20:00
  • Well the circumstances are indeed equal, even for games like tug-of-war. You seem to have mistaken equality to equity. "Equality : each individual / group is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity : recognizing each person has different circumstances and allocating the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome". The organizers gave the same resources and/or opportunities but did not consider the abilities of each individual.
    – Sandun
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 22:13
  • @Sandun - I use the word "equality" because "equal" is the typical translation of "igual," which is the word that the translator chose to translate some Korean term. I don't know whether that term implied one thing or the other.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 22:21
  • 1
    Also, the term equality is sometimes used for both "equality of outcomes" versus "equality of opportunity." Regardless, my point was that game does not have either. If they care only about equality (of opportunity), as you say, then why does the Front Man modify the game in the middle to eliminate the glass-factory worker's skill advantage? If, on the other hand, they care about equity, then any game of skill or strength should be right out, not to mention that "everyone dead except one" is far from equitable.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Oct 8, 2021 at 22:28
  • @Obie2.0 : your (or my) subjective opinion about what we consider to be "equal" does not matter in this question. All that matters is what the Front Man considers to be equalily.
    – vsz
    Commented Oct 9, 2021 at 1:27

0

Reset to default

This site is temporarily in read-only mode and not accepting new answers.

Browse other questions tagged .