Not from Martin, you're right, we've had that arc already, but I feel like we're going to get some echo or mirror of Jon's choice during his coma, to live as the Archivist rather than to die.
CEASELESS WATCHER TURN YOUR GAZE SERIES
I'm confident that the ending of the series will involve some kind of sacrifice from Jon. More important than morality is impact: what will the effect be of Jon using his powers to disintegrate other avatars? Both on himself and on the people around him. And I don't think the show is particularly interested in giving a definitive answer to that question. Was it morally right? They were both monsters who tortured and killed people. Jon exploding Peter's head or smiting the not!Them was certainly effective. We see over and over again, with characters like Gertrude, Melanie, Daisy, Basira, as you said, and the series has really refused to stand any one approach up and say "this is right". What is the morally right thing to do vs what is the effective thing to do. And that ties very well with the themes of resistance you mentioned. I don't think that the series has leaned heavily towards one "moral arc", or rather, I think that it has explored a variety of approaches to morality, and has done a very good job of not endorsing a single "morally right" stance.
But does Martin's storyline in season four carry the message that "you need to sacrifice to save the world" is far too simple and obvious to work in this reality? I'm really interested to hear your thoughts on what sort of ending would fit with the "moral arc" of the show's universe so far? So what's left? Self sacrifice? This has been shown to "work" in the show before, at least short term, with Tim, Adelard Dekker and that one Desolation statement giver who wanted to save his son achieving their goals before they died. The flooding, London Underground, and Do Not Open statements all come to mind here, as do Daisy and Melanie's story-lines to a certain extent.īut I think episode 162 (The Cosy Cabin) has already examined and rejected the idea of passive resistance in this new world. In the past, "successful" characters in the show have often modelled something like passive resistance - doing their best not to participate in the systems that control them, and denying them their fear if possible. On the other hand, what's the alternative? So I'm pretty sure that we're not supposed to be completely thrilled by this new development in Jon's fighting skills, even if he is avenging Sasha and protecting Martin. The show has actually taken a surprisingly hardcore stance in it's rejection of "things had to be this way" or "I needed to save my friends/family" as an excuse for violence - think of Julia, Trevor and even Gertrude and how things worked out for them. It's shown pretty conclusively that this is a bad thing, both for Daisy and, arguably, for Basira as well.
But (and with apologies for the long post incoming) after episode 165 I've been having a lot of thoughts about the season four Q&A - broadly about the podcast being about how people try to live within damaging systems, and specifically about Basira and Daisy being a story about people excusing bad behaviour and violence on their partner's behalf because it's them against the world.
OK, first things first, of course I know that "ceaseless watcher turn your gaze upon this wretched thing" was cool as hell.
0 kommentar(er)
