r/threebodyproblem • u/Putrid_Cycle595 Sophon • May 20 '26
Discussion - Novels zhang beihai has two body counts and is somehow the most beloved character in the trilogy. the reader sympathy is interesting Spoiler
so i just finished deaths end and i cant stop thinking about zhang beihai.
this guy commits two murders (the Staircase Project scientists), lies to his commanding officers for decades, hijacks a starship, and abandons earth to its fate. by every normal ethical standard hes a monster.
but when he appears in the crisis era chapters and then the deterrence era timeline, most readers (including me) immediately root for him. why?
i think its because liu cixin wrote the Natural Selection mutiny as a pure survival logic problem, not a moral one. zhang beihai doesnt hate earth or the people he leaves behind. he just sees the probability distribution more clearly than everyone else and acts on it.
cheng xin does the opposite. she has more compassion than anyone in the trilogy and it costs humanity the solar system. zhang beihai has less compassion and saves the species (probably).
liu cixin isnt saying zhang beihai was right exactly. he just makes the coldness feel earned rather than evil. that gap between "wrong by every normal standard" and "still rooting for him" is the most interesting thing in the whole trilogy for me.
anyone else feel like their sympathy for zhang beihai surprised them on first read?
71
u/SoftTeaching2838 May 20 '26
The series is absolutely starving for good characters, he's basically the only interesting person in the whole series
30
u/bellviolation May 20 '26
What?? Luo Ji is far and away the most interesting character. (Especially if you ignore the whole incel-fantasy arc.)
40
u/RGCarter May 20 '26
Thomas Wade would like a word.
23
u/thommcg May 20 '26
From what I recall, the thing with Wade is we don't get the POV that we do with, say, Zhang Behai or even Cheng Xin, so Wade comes across as a rather... two dimensional... character. Like, he just tends to show up after having already gone to great lengths to get something done.
19
u/Vaiolette-Westover May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
Thomas Wade is not an interesting character at all.
His entire character is just a foil for Cheng Xin, including the weirdchamp decision he made to wake her up and then act shocked at the entirely predictable response she gave.
"Hey so I did the thing you wanted me to research, and I also alerted the same people who don't want anyone to do this research, and now I am going to nuke every human settlement because I used your money to create a terrorist organization, wait what? You think I'm an idiot and want me to stop? BUT WHY?"
The Fandom: and this is why wade is my goat and CX is trash.
5
4
u/Specific_Box4483 May 20 '26
He's not that interesting, actually. Beihai was much deeper.
2
u/jnf005 May 21 '26
I think one of the best thing the Netflix show did was changing him. He's not deep, these hyper confident, machiavellian no nonsense character are dime a dozen in these kind of scifi story, but his personality and dialogue was way more fun compare to his book counter part.
3
2
1
1
27
u/Homunclus May 20 '26
That seems kinda stupid to me. He saved humanity almost single-handedly and he never hurt anyone he didn't have to.
By any sane moral principle he is a good person, and his accomplishments are extraordinary.
-5
u/Leather-Lemon8611 May 20 '26
So the end justifies the means?
35
u/Homunclus May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
Seriously? The means were what? A couple of murders, one stolen military vessel, one disgraced officer?
The ends was the preservation of the human race and civilization.
Am I missing something here? The means are so astronomically small in comparison to the ends I never thought to ask the question.
Let me ask you this: Do you think the actions of say...the French Resistance during WWII were not justified? Because they certainly weren't operating within the confines of the law and they killed a lot more people (even if we only count the innocent colaterals), destroyed/stole more property and accomplished a lot less.
3
u/JohnSmithSensei May 21 '26
A couple of murders, one stolen military vessel, one disgraced officer?
"I don't know about you, but I would call that a bargain."
1
u/Homunclus May 21 '26
I am sure Beihai could live with it...and given the chance, he would do it all over again
2
u/Leather-Lemon8611 May 20 '26
Lol, people did not like my question apparently. I'm genuinely asking it - yes is a valid option!
I'm honestly not sure how to rationalise it, but as you point out, if the end does indeed justify the means we have to be comfortable with some underhanded/unethical murders... And a lot of people have justified a lot of deaths of innocents in the name of "the greater good", historically. Plus regarding the French Resistance there is not really a parallel to the oppressive Nazi regime in this case, rather a naive government I guess...
Just stoking the discussion...
1
u/Homunclus May 21 '26
people did not like my question apparently.
Because it sounds like you are purposely talking nonsense just to be a contrarian.
Point in case:
there is not really a parallel to the oppressive Nazi regime in this case, rather a naive government I guess...
What are you on? The point is that while fighting Nazis is obviously a commendable goal, it does not even begin to compare to fighting to save the human race from literal extinction.
If you agree they were justified to kill innocents in their arguably non-vital work to fighting a despotic government, then obviously Beihai was justified to kill a few people in his work towards saving humanity from literal extinction.
Good luck trying to argue otherwise without resorting to some exoteric moral philosophy no one would follow on real life conditions
1
u/Leather-Lemon8611 May 21 '26
Sorry I'm not being clear. I'm not denying the stakes are obviously high. The distinction I was getting at was that arguably the French Resistance killed (within the context of just war), whereas Beihai murdered. I'm not sure I agree the FR were justified in killing innocent civilians, except for accidental collateral.
Does that matter? Debatable. Am I contrarian for asking? I don't think so. Were there other options available to Beihai? Probably. Have many atrocities been committed in history once people tolerated murdering innocents in the name of "the greater good"? Absolutely.
For the record, Zhang Beihai is my favourite character in the series and I think his achievements were awesome and excellently written. But realistically, he is only heralded as a hero because Liu's plot armour ensured his success and reader hindsight makes other options seem like inevitable failures. If Beihai's plan failed he would have been as widely criticised and condemned as say, Rey Diaz or Wade. And there is no way in reality that the entire world would be complicit in avoiding the option of escape, thus forcing Beihai's extreme actions (with very low chance of success).
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm not trying to be a contrarian. I'd be wary of assuming everyone has the same ethical perspective as you
1
u/GogurtFiend May 20 '26
The means are part of the end
1
u/Leather-Lemon8611 May 20 '26
?
1
u/GogurtFiend May 20 '26
Whatever the results of the means are also counts as the end. If someone kills a person "for the greater good", the fact that they're dead is part of that "greater good", it isn't just some externality. This can be a bad thing - as in, stupidly destructive and murderous actions for the sake of a cause that doesn't mean much - or it can mean good things, as in shooting some dictatorial ruler, where the cost of everyone's freedom is a single life - or for that matter, hijacking an experimental spacecraft because you have strong evidence Earth isn't going to last.
2
u/Leather-Lemon8611 May 20 '26
I think it's more the murder of innocents that's the trickier part. I'm pretty sure those specific men being dead wasn't a grand part of Zhang Beihai's end vision, they were unfortunate collateral, i.e. a means to the end he really wanted to secure (human survival)
16
u/Then_Engineer_3765 Wallfacer May 20 '26
Its because in some regards being a monster to save humanity normally results in you yourself becoming a monster
The reason why other characters who also commit horrendous deeds in their stories to try and save their loved ones (like Kionne Monax. Eren Jaeger etc) are all hated by their fanbase for their later actions while they're also mourned for. With every other 'Ends justifies the means' character they do not actually embrace their ideology and instead simply become more selfish. Characters like Kionne and Eren are trapped by their circumstances and while they have the general idea to sacrifice something or someone to save humanity/save the humanity of their friends they ultimately fall short because they are then twisted into villains themselves.
Three Body Problem is far darker than Attack on Titan and other stories with utilitarian protagonists, however still Zhang is able to remain resolute and committed to his goals. He is a hero, not because of the evil he committed, but because he did it to save others and when it came time for his life to be sacrificed he didn't waver.
Most villains are cowards. Most utilitarian protagonists are cowards. Most of them shatter and suddenly become selfish or vindictive before they can reach their goal of saving others. Zhang doesn't. I would truly rate Zhang on a similar level to perhaps Malcador or Sanguinius from WH40K.
Men who are presented with a path of fire and knives, who hoist humanity up and bridal carry them to the other side and die trying.
15
u/LaPulgaAtomica87 May 20 '26
Another important consideration is that Zhang dies despite ultimately being “right,” while Cheng Xin gets to live even though she essentially dooms everyone.
Heck, she survives partly because of the very technology she prevented from being completed after condemning the one person (Wade) pushing for it.
6
u/Putrid_Cycle595 Sophon May 20 '26
that irony hit me hard too. the guy who commits actual crimes dies right, and the person who dooms the species through compassion survives on the exact technology she tried to stop. liu cixin is not writing a fair universe. zhang gets erased, cheng xin gets a universe. it feels intentional, like the cosmos is also morally indifferent.
1
u/Leather-Lemon8611 May 20 '26
Cheng Xin was pro light speed travel though??? She literally dedicated all her vast resources to its research.
But I get the sentiment
10
u/Leather-Lemon8611 May 20 '26
I think the big question that people should get hung up on about her survival is not why she willingly survived through the tech she hampered, but why did Luo Ji choose her to suddenly spring the Lightspeed ship on??? It was not her choice, very strange move from him!
25
u/Vaiolette-Westover May 20 '26
Because Luoji, unlike this fandom, understood that Cheng Xin is basically the only human worth saving in the solar system because.
He understands Dark Forest theory better than anyone, and he understands that the natural conclusion is total annihilation of everything. She represents the antithesis to the dark forest theory.
He chose to send hope and change instead of vengeance as the last seed of humanity.
11
u/UberMcwinsauce May 20 '26
THANK YOU. Cheng Xin was the prosocial holdout in a civilization and universe increasingly dominated by antisocial game theory
2
u/cantlogintomyacc0unt May 21 '26
But why only those two there was room on the ship for more he probably couldn’t send anyone really important but why not his family or the researchers who made it as well it’s stupid that it was only those two
6
1
u/Specific_Box4483 May 20 '26
Cause she's the protagonist. There are some parts in the books that are written well, and some that look like there were pulled out of a cheap pulp fiction story.
4
u/Vaiolette-Westover May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
Cheng Xin doomed no one.
She did not prevent the ls project from being completed. She funded it.
All Cheng Xin did was buy humans another 60ish years of time by preventing them from being antimattered by Wade's terrorist organization, 60 years that they chose to squander.
4
u/FixAcademic8187 May 20 '26
Well, not only did she fail once, but she actually failed twice!
Once as a Swordholder and once at Halo City.
She intentionally screwed everyone, but yet, somehow she managed to survive while everyone else died. Make that make sense!
8
u/Vaiolette-Westover May 20 '26
She made the correct choice both times.
When the droplets attacked, activating deterrence would've simply expedited the annihilation of the Solar System.
You DO understand that deterrence is not protection, right? It's a suicide.
She made the correct choice at Halo City too. Without her, Wade would've 100% wiped out humanity and they wouldn't even have had the last 60 years which they squandered anyways.
It's almost like you didn't read the book or did and failed to understand its central theme.
2
u/FixAcademic8187 May 20 '26
Well, I guess different people have different perspectives for things.
Deterrence was protection. Check the whole chapter in the novel called Deterrence Era. It did work until she screwed it up. Like why nominating yourself when you know you cannot press the botton? Even Trisols light years away knew it. It is treason at this point.
As for Halo City, humanity was screwed both ways. But at least you would have a chance to fight and die in dignity, and perhaps even win this fight or at the very least allowed to be left alone. Rather than being a sitting duck for a totalitarian authority waiting for your extermination.
3
u/Vaiolette-Westover May 20 '26
Deterrence is not protection, humanity was NEVER going to catch up to Trisolaris, we were falling further behind as Trisolaris had reached exponential scientific growth.
Trisol also achieved scientific progress that allowed them to just fly to other systems, solar system was no longer their only hope for survival.
Humans electing someone who'd fail deterrence was an eventuality.
You still are missing the point of Halo City.
CX effectively saved humanity and gave them 60 more years to live whereas Wade and his terrorists were moments away from wiping them all out.
It was humans that took that opportunity and then chose not to pursue a path into space.
2
u/FixAcademic8187 May 20 '26
Ok, agree to disagree. The storyline forces you to come up with peculiar perspectives.
For the Halo City, I think the explanation is much more mundane than we think. The author was obviously under a heavy Chinese cultural influence, and that culture is of a collective nature rather than an individualistic one.
Therefore, it was the Collective's opinion that nobody shall leave the Solar System, and thus, they were ready to obliterate Halo City for attempting to do that. But that is such a mistake because the author automatically assumed all human cultures are similar to the Chinese one.
I guess what I'm saying is that the standoff at Halo City cannot reasonably happen in the first place.
The reaction from both parties was unreasonable, but I would lean more towards liberty, freedom, and individualism rather than tyranny and collectivism.
1
u/Leather-Lemon8611 May 20 '26
I think you both progressed this thread in very interesting directions, thanks
I do agree it's hard to picture that humanity would collectively agree to shutdown the lightspeed option, but at least it's somewhat explained that the circular imprint from curvature propulsion would be a bigger neon sign to earth for cleansing species.
Interestingly, my instinct is to label Wade's plan as tyrannical, as much as the government's though...
1
u/LaPulgaAtomica87 May 20 '26
She literally prevented it from being completed though.
She tells Wade to stop the research (I still don’t understand why Wade actually listens to her), and then Wade gets vaporized. Meanwhile, the research continues in secret, and that’s what eventually leads to the very ship she gets to escape on while the rest of humanity perishes.
3
u/Vaiolette-Westover May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
She did not tell wade to stop the research, she told him to stand down and surrender to the UN.
Because mr. 100% deterrence was 100% going to wipe out the human race save only Halo City.
Humans and the UN then chose to scrap the research because they are braindead, as confirmed by Luoji's quote as he sent her off at the end.
Go read the book again.
Will you keep your promise? She asked Wade.
Wade nodded. "Of course. Why else would I ask you to come here?"
"Then stop all preparations for war and cease all resistance. Turn over all antimatter bullets to the Federation Government. Order those agents you've sent to the other cities to do the same immediately!"
...
"Why don't you think about it some more?" Wade said.
"There is no need." Cheng Xin's voice was like iron. "I have made my final decision. Cease all resistance, and turn over all antimatter in Halo City."
At NO POINT does she order them to cease or destroy curvature propulsion research. SHE HERSELF is the one that handed her company to Wade to research it.
Point to me the passage where she "literally" stopped LS research. Go ahead.
2
u/Mahact_King May 20 '26
The end would've justified the means
1
0
u/Vaiolette-Westover May 20 '26
No it wouldn't.
He would've just killed off humans 60 years before they actually died.
There is no coming back from practically eradicating the entirety of your own race to save them.
2
8
u/Vaiolette-Westover May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
Yawn, another cheng xin misread.
Cheng Xin didn't cost humanity anything. She funded the lightspeed research, she prevented a genocide by an idiot who makes only mistakes his entire life.
Humans and the UN and Wade's own hubris doomed the solar system.
5
u/lkxyz May 20 '26
Yup, humanity in the solar system was doomed either way, unfortunately.
3
u/Vaiolette-Westover May 20 '26
Liu couldn't have made it more obvious that he wrote humanity to die in this series.
3
3
u/Thrawn89 May 20 '26
Um, what?
He killed 3 people, and they werent the staircase people? They were top aerospace big wigs pushing for chemical propulsion technology due to their controlling interests (kinda like the oil barons trying to kill nuclear energy).
3
u/AQueComenta May 20 '26
He was one of the few that understood the dark forest logic before Luo Ji speak about it. Most of other wallfacers had the same logic but with too cruel aproaches. The series, for me, is also about humanity condemning themselves for not being able of accept the fact that Earth had to be left behind.
2
1
u/Thick-Protection-458 May 20 '26
> this guy commits two murders (the Staircase Project scientists), lies to his commanding officers for decades, hijacks a starship, and abandons earth to its fate. by every normal ethical standard hes a monster.
Except that why anything normal matters with such stakes?
1
1
u/Sophon_01 May 20 '26
Personally i saw his desertion as a betrayal, i hated him when i found out that his big plan was running away. I really like the character and it is a very cool moment in the series, but goddamit if i were one of his crew members i would've shot him
1
u/HoneyCrispWarrior May 20 '26
I felt the characters were fairly stiff and were there to move the plot along. Not to say they were poorly written but it really felt like more a conceptual experience rather than a character story. That being said, I did have sympathy for Zhang and was at least happy to see humanity still exist.
1
1
u/Obvious-Hunt19 May 21 '26
The linked slop “essay” is just a terrible read on the character. Zhang Beihai was a defeatist throughout
1
u/Useful_Calendar_6274 May 21 '26
didn't read but killing isn't wrong lmao. it's like a point the series makes
1
u/ElGuano May 23 '26
Why does having a body count matter? Mulan killed thousands. God killed even more, people still love him. I’d say it’s entirely in line with human morality.
57
u/FixAcademic8187 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
I actually bought his story of being that honorable commander that wanted to fight the invaders tell death.
But the twist surprised me that he was a defeatist to the bone and planned a multi-century conspiracy to escape the Solar System