prompt: party playlist for my chosen character (le vesconte). so: slow, stoned and occasionally sexy. all the picks are vaguely triphoppy. dundy makes sense to me as a 90s electronic enjoyer who spent a lot of time dropping acid at raves. triphop is a softer, melodic cousin to what he might've been exposed to there, and a more tolerable one for his poor partygoers, who would not enjoy five hours of jungle (hi fitzjames). also I just like triphop.
artist spotlight: I literally can't pick between six of them, so I'll just mention the two least known of those six — red snapper and thc.
obligatory fitzconte commentary: I think they would BOTH be music snobs (dundy definitely doesn't think he is, but he is; fitzjames is and knows it) just in different directions (opera versus fucking gabber or something).
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
prompt(s): 'canon ambient' or inspired by the 'natural phenomena seen in polar regions'. so I chose ambient for polar phenomena: midnight sun. there's something about the midnight sun that's incredibly beautiful, yet disorienting and slightly haunting too. the tracks I've selected, I hope, reflect these contradictions, like anxiety, peace, isolation, and awe. it's structured by the feelings one might have watching the sun sink to its lowest point before starting to rise again (the closing track, which also features on one of the davechella hickeylists, so make of that what you will). and it's only half an hour :)
event: @cold-boy-tapes (with kind regards and continued thanks extended to the mod)
artist spotlight: any enjoyer of dark ambient and breakcore (the 90s stuff!) should listen to christoph de babalon's 1997 'if you're into it I'm out of it', especially 'opium', 'what you call a life', 'high life (theme)', and 'my confession'. and the dead texan's self-titled (and only) album is a relaxing, slightly forlorn listen for anyone.
if you only listen to one track: 'when I see scissors I can't help but think of you' (the dead texan). one of my favourite tracks for staring at walls, ceilings, and my good mate the Chasm.
prompt: 'commute home playlist'. for a blue collar sol, maybe he works construction, and his commute home via train or maybe a mate is giving him a lift. could be he's an ex-marine, or he hasn't joined up yet but thinks of it when his life's at its most monotonous and isolating. the playlist's lively but has a bittersweet streak, and is mostly made up of tracks he remembers fondly from growing up in a 90s uk. slide away (oasis) is like a false ending to me, after which the last two tracks are a collapse in energy as sol nears his home then shuts the door to an empty life, where such horrors as Thoughtâ„¢ and Feelingâ„¢ lurk... as per usual.
event: @cold-boy-tapes :)
artist spotlight: manic street preachers aren't that popular overseas, elbow is pleasant ('the bones of you' for something upbeat, 'powder blue' or 'some riot' if you're allergic to that), ARAB STRAP!! a scottish duo with many wonderful songs about terrible sex.
favourite lyric: 'I suppose it's more glamorous out at sea under the moon instead of pissed at a party while they laugh downstairs' (the long sea, arab strap). if you listen to only one of these songs, it should be this one.
*into the scourge pit by thou is not available on spotify, but free on bandcamp here.
prompt: 'crying alone in the dark/bathroom', but because it's hickey it's more 'dissociating in a dark bathroom before going out & acting like (his version of) normal' than crying. would he really listen to these or is it just easy for me to associate them with him? up to you. also, I say 'him', but this playlist is equally relevant, if not moreso, for a girlnavy hickey.
event: @cold-boy-tapes modded by @bell-swamp-fitzjames — thank you for your work!
artist spotlight: anna von hausswolff, whose album 'dead magic' I'd recommend to anyone here irrespective of personal music taste.
favourite lyric: 'the grace of god is infinitely kind / even though he left the door ajar' (an angel of great and terrible light by uboa).
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
silna and hickey as twin victims of imperialism: harm done without and within. I’ve been thinking over how that frames the violence done to them, how that violence reflects their different kinds victimisation, and, in hickey's case, how that circles back into violence.
we see three wounds dealt to silna on-screen*; all are grief. her father, the hunting party, then tuunbaq. and it's a pattern of escalation, from smaller systems (father = interpersonal/familial) to mid-size (hunting party = community) and larger still (tuunbaq = culture).
harm is not so much done to her physical body as the relation of that body to its context. it's representative of violence as inflicted upon a whole people, their ties with each other, and a collective identity. it's about being severed from that identity, watching those that share it and its cultural practices (e.g., shamanism, hunting), slaughtered.
*her kidnapping & glossectomy, we see the effects of or build-up to, not the actual scene. but we DO watch her grieve her father, the hunting party, and tuunbaq.
compare hickey's punishments: the flogging, the (near-)hanging, the mauling. each is enacted on his body, in response to his autonomous decision-making (kidnapping, murder, ritual). all are also preceded by what increasingly takes the form of a monologue...
as a result, hickey is placed (and places himself) at the centre of the harm done to him. it's about him, the individual, a matter of personal identity and where that's situated in his own culture — the context of the hierarchical british empire. it's about trying to carve himself from this culture (a response to first feeling abandoned by it), rejecting a collective identity for the self; or, trying to, and failing.
the irony there is clear. silna's collective identity is stripped from her, quite literally by the finale, considering her fate sees her left to grieve alone, in exile, cut from the whole. meanwhile, hickey might perceive himself as unique and alone amongst his peers, an exception, yet he isn't the only person lashed or meant to be executed, and ultimately finds himself mauled the same as anyone else by tuunbaq**.
the character whose wounds are tied to violence against others is left as an individual in isolation, a 'failed' shaman with nobody to practice her culture with. the character whose wounds relate to the self, body, personal identity, is denied individuality in death, now an anonymous part of a collective he never identified with.
**the fact hickey perceives his experiences as unique amongst his peers also reflects how the working and underclasses don't necessarily find allies in themselves. there's an element of intraclass violence too, with jopson being the one to put the noose around his neck.
but these are more than parallel experiences; they're entwined. it's relevant that hickey's implicated in two of silna's losses (the hunting party and tuunbaq), that the two punishments crozier deals him are tied to the netsilik (kidnapping silna, manipulating violence against the hunting party), while silna neither reciprocates harm nor perpetuates it elsewhere.
her victimhood is blameless, while hickey's is inextricable from a simultaneous role as perpetrator. the first act of imperialist violence might not come from him (read as the character or as metaphor for the victorian underclass), but his contribution is inevitable, if only because of the structure he's part of and is used to uphold.
that makes it all the more interesting to watch how hickey's violence against the netsilik evolves over time. it starts physical and hands-on with the kidnapping, but is indirect for the hunting party. in a way, it's been outsourced; not executed by himself, but evoked from a system he's manipulated into acting in his own interests.
what does that reflect but the empire's violence against him? or, who does that mirror but crozier?
crozier never harms hickey directly. his rank in the system empowers him with hands to inflict that violence on his behalf. after his flogging, hickey attempts to transcend that boundary, from killer to conductor, kidnapping to coercion, and uses that against the hunting party.
irving, though, he has to kill with his own hands. this coercive power, then, he only has against those beneath him in the empire's hierarchy. it takes the mutiny, which jettisons the old hierarchies, before others are willing to kidnap crozier, for example, on his command, by which point he's ascended to the top of his own hierarchy. the violence and power accessible to you depends on class and rank. but, whether it's crozier against hickey, or hickey against the netsilik, it's always about punching down while appealing to those above (for hickey, it's crozier then tuunbaq; for crozier, maybe it's sophia and what she represents for his assimilation, both culturally and class-wise).
naturally, crozier is disgusted at hickey's mobilisation of others' fears, desires, and beliefs for his own ends. yet that's what kept crozier in power aboard terror. that's any kind of coercive power system: a sequence of implied threats and promises.
by blaming hickey and his mutiny for imperialist violence, crozier is scapegoating hickey for the empire's evils. that ties his victimhood to scapegoating, which isn't new, but who else is scapegoated? silna. by hickey, at first, considering his justifications for her kidnapping, but honestly by crozier as well.
I'd argue that he makes both hickey and silna bear responsibilities that should be his own. he places the burden of safety or survival in silna's hands (and, by extension, the netsilik community's), being belligerent when interrogating her over tuunbaq and expecting inuit support on the shale. he might not express such overtly racist sentiment as we find in other characters, but, whether for information or supplies, crozier does view the inuit as a resource to be used.
on hickey, then, he places the burden of his men. of wrongdoing, of violence, of death. if he will not believe the system he is part of to be evil, he must exorcise that evil into a single source. hickey's response, again, is to replicate this elsewhere — scapegoating not just silna, but the hunting party (by extension, the inuit), associating his violence to scapegoating, as well as his victimisation.
crozier only takes accountability once silna and hickey are gone, with nobody left to blame his men's lives or deaths on but himself. hickey takes accountability throughout, mostly in the form of punishment. silna, however, takes the most accountability out of anyone, even when it's the least deserved***.
for the actions of an empire that repeatedly victimises her, she must hold the grief of her family, community, and culture; she takes on the burden of the glossectomy and tuunbaq even when she isn't ready, a choice I don't like to downplay her agency in, but still must point out the role of empire in creating the situation where she makes it. and, when she 'fails' tuunbaq, through no fault of her own, she accepts tradition in going into exile. her last act of community is leaving it.
***of course, I don't mean to equate the kinds or extent of violence hickey and silna endure. in some ways, they are incomparable. at the same time, intimately related.
in very different ways, silna and hickey alike end in exile. hickey dies under a different name, and, somewhere back home, ec disappears. silna leaves the cultural and community system that gives a shaman purpose. both their last on-screen acts are self-punishments: an exile done for the community (silna), self-mutilation done for the individual (hickey), each replicating violence already done upon them (culturally and bodily, respectively). both are also silenced (glossectomies), even if hickey gets the chance to express himself in a way silna never does (meaningless though it is, when his experiences go unrecorded as a person of a class not 'important' enough to be given that luxury).
hickey attempts to cut himself from his culture and dies replicating it; silna is forcibly severed from her own, with those attempts being part of the violence that does so. hickey is victim-perpetrator, clearer in no other event than his self-mutilation contributing to tuunbaq's death. silna is left to pick up the pieces. both vanish from the narrative, leaving only the structure of the glistening british empire.
… or something. what do you think?
massive, massive credit to @/fredoesque for knocking loose some thoughts on hickey and silna, sharing such fanatastic ones of his own, and unwittingly giving me the courage to write at more length about hickey — a consequence which will soon prove regrettable for everyone but myself. thank you :)
if blanky's the cool uncle, morfin's the uncle in constant crisis that's kind enough but unsettles everyone with his presence the one time a year you see him
I had been told they were doing some great, unforgivable thing. so much of hodge's understanding of the world comes from what he's been told. family, education, military; without choosing to question these systems, it's all just believing what you're told.
even while he recounts the catholic service as a near-transcendental experience, he calls his aunts 'papists', a perjorative, never shedding the derogatory language he's been taught to use. it's the crux of his character: he was shown, forcibly, that his worldview was based on prejudiced deceptions — and he hid from that. it was a chance to question Britain, as a symbol, and he turned away.
that's why he hungers for validation; he doesn't need it to be seen (unlike fitzjames, for example), he just wants the security (comfort) that comes with knowing you're in the right. you're on the good side. you understand the world. you see the truth. not necessarily because he needs to be right; because being right means you don't need to do anything. you don't have to change or challenge. you don't have to be brave. and he knows those are his flaws: I was forgiven of every poor, weak, or selfish thing within my soul.
I think that's why he goes to goodsir. mutiny camp has its own order, its own set of norms. cannibalism is accepted as necessary. the only person whose presence challenges this is goodsir, who does not eat gibson. hodgson can believe himself 'right', backed by the majority opinion and others' behaviour, except for how goodsir's refusal to cannibalise billy confronts that norm (which is itself a breach of 'civilised', british norms).
it's ironic how it mimics a catholic confession, but of course hodgson links the experiences. the catholic service and cannibalism alike were confrontations of his prejudices, especially in relation to morality: the service was not the howling spectacle of sin I'd imagined. both times, hodgson glimpses something he was told is wrong or sinful, and both times it satiates a hunger: for cleansing, in the catholic eucharist, and for literal sustenance (and survival) with the cannibalism. both times, again, he turns away from something — he never goes to a catholic service again, and if I were a braver man I would kill mr. hickey.
it was a perfect moment in a whole, imperfect life because it was the only one where he looked through those manufactured British ideals, and he saw beautiful things on its other side. and I think it was just a moment because he was never brave enough to look again. it was a call to action he ignored in favour of his comfort.
anyway. those are just some recent hodgethoughts. they would never have existed without this reply from @/aboutyoutoo and this post by @/beecheyislandgloves, so thanks for stoking the hodgethoughts in my mind and also credit to you!
ahoy!! I've been taking ages with replies, but we've finally made it to dundy. thank you for the ask, and I think this is the longest 'ships' section I've written for one of these (befitting of the dundster).
how I feel about him:
giggling, kicking my feet. also kicking him. I love his reaction when crozier explains why they won't leave their ill. particularly, I love that it isn't quite guilt or defeat; unlike edward, he doesn't seem to regret the suggestion, only that crozier sees things differently.
maybe he's first shown as a somewhat laid-back party-goer (cookie, flashbacks, carnivale lol), but, once he shifts into survival, he's got an unexpected sharpness, which I think is first evident in that scene. on its own, it says something about his pragmatism, but more generally I like how it reflects the whole theme of people unravelling under the context of survival; humanity becomes a luxury (and, of course, the empire's sheen dulls — it cannot protect, it will not save).
I also like what getting ned to make his suggestion tells us about him: he's self-aware (of his own, reduced standing with authority) and he's aware of others (in terms of how to manipulate edward into being his mouthpiece). he's aware of the situation (at this pace, they'll die) and accepts his perceived cost of survival (that 'humanity' crozier tries to appeal to). most importantly, he seems to be the command member most tuned-in to the average man, which eventually benefits him in the half-mutiny. as terrible as it is to abandon their ill, I'm fascinated over him being the only lieutenant/captain to adapt to the new order (disorder?) of their survival situation.
then again, he ends up stewed, so what do I know?
on another note, he's my best-dressed after abandoning ship: the fraying jumper, the suspenders, the slops, belt and bandaged hand. the abrasions to the face. the wild grey hair. fashionista, honestly.
everyone I ship him with:
it's dundy. I've written him having passionless sex with a stoker we never see on-screen. which is to say: I'm slapping him with the whole roster. stanconte, jirvconte, solconte. all-conte. two dynamics interest me more, however, and the first haunts all other dundy ships for me: fitzconte, especially with some simultaneous fitzier.
I like crozier as what fitzy needs: somebody to challenge him, to strip back his performance, to starve his proclivities for 'vanity'. I think the fact crozier was never swept up by fitzjames' mask is part of why he eventually opens up to him, to the extent he lets him euthanise him.
but DUNDY? well, dundy's the prestige, the glamour; I like to think of him as part of fitzjames' persona. that isn't to say dundy's deluded by either fitzjames' mask or his own achievements, though. I prefer to hc this with him seeing straight through fitzjames, but enabling him in a way crozier doesn't. letting him remain in his comfort. bonus points if dundy's heroics are genuine, and don't come from the same place of insecurity as fitzjames, because I think fitzy would envy him that*.
*this is less based in text than sheer hc but I like to add an extra dash of angst where dundy's mr. 'numbed-out-of-his skull' to the extreme. fitzjames thinking dundy takes things well but it's only utter apathy... his sensation-seeking, party-going, any recklessness all come from a different place to his friend's: from a need to escape indifference and boredom. maybe he even wishes he were as easily affected as fitzy, which makes his admiration of how effortless dundy's cool seems relatively angsty. that's just something extra for flavour, though...
but yeah, I like this dynamic where fitzjames is striving for somebody else (higher) but leans on dundy when he needs an ego boost. dundy as a safe space, where fitzjames can believe he IS what he says he is. dundy, in my head, isn't particularly possessive, just indifferent. we're on again, we're off again, whatever. he'll fuck anyone in the meantime and go where he wants. also... I love fitzconte even more if fitzjames thinks he wouldn't accept the 'real him', whereas dundy's seen it all along (ugh look at me being a romantic; foul).
okay that was a lot of fitzconte, a ship I had 0 feelings about until two weeks ago. these things take root quickly. but, my thoughts on them are part of what makes hickonte compelling — whose lone fic on ao3 was penned by yourself (a phenomenal read). two opportunists, two pragmatists, two mutineers (in a way); both lose (and are willing to either kill or leave behind) their loved ones.
oh, what they could've been in a combined mutiny! I do think I enjoy them best as a could-be dynamic rather than an Actual Relationship one, though (like your own tag: 'the unfulfilled potential of slash' lol). half-lovers for the end of the world — post-billy, post-fitzjames, odd, leftover parts that share a mutual understanding of survival. really interesting stuff.
non-romantic otp for him:
cookies and passionless sex. no, it's fitzconte again. lovers, friends, a mix of both or something else, their dynamic is always fun to me. two smug bastards that people hate to see coming. the kind of thing that you enjoy if you're one of them and hate if you're not.
I'll also throw hickonte in here again, since I don't think that dynamic has to be romantic for it to be interesting.
unpopular opinion:
funny that we both asked each other about dundy (snap), and I am so cheaply going to bandwagon on your answer: 'his distrust of crozier is pretty much justified'. absolutely. from his behaviour at the start, how he acts with fitzjames and franklin, his withdrawal, the lies, etc. there can't be much love lost between them. with fitzjames dying, dundy's lost the sole person he might trust to champion him or his interests with crozier too. so, dad captain he might be, but not to dundy.
something I wish happened in canon:
if there's a moment I can think up that wouldn't have detracted much from anything (while fitting the tone): a shot of dundy looking at the tent where fitzjames is dying. no words, no longer than just a few seconds.
other than that, I'm happy with dundy as the 15-minute-screentime'd stranger. he's whoever you want him to be — how much fun!
thanks again for the ask (and answering mine in turn). I apologise for both the delays and the fact that this is so long! I would say 'I'll keep things short next time', but the next ask is for hickey. so, you know. time to crash the site. anyway, here: a sad dundy for your troubles
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
i am humbly requesting jopson for the character breakdown
and I sincerely thank you for your request!
how I feel about him:
eyeing him affectionately, though with suspicion, from a distance... why suspicion? look, I love jop, and he remains one of few characters that I've dedicated a solo post to here. but... 'I've shot smaller hawks than you' — I believe him. his steadfast loyalty to crozier makes him utterly intimidating to me, and I genuinely don't think I'd like to be under him on the rank ladder.
that aside (or included!), he's a prime chew toy for analysis; he also makes me sad. as I mentioned in my tommy ask, the stewards share this willingness to perform necessitated by their role. of our stewards jopson is the one most defined by his role of service (and is basically always seen around command, with few exceptions). where does his professional veneer end? who is he when he isn't around command? there's also the tragedy of his self-denial, but, of course, I've talked more on that here.
then there's the more or less only scene (with dialogue) where he isn't around command: keeping watch over a soon-to-be-hung hickey. oh, the intraclass violence of it, baybee!! two sides of the same coin, one cosying up to authority for survival and the other pushing it away... I think jop's internalised this idea of 'good' and 'bad' poor — the 'good' hard-workers that neither complain nor ask for more versus the 'bad' skiving malingerers (thanks to @/beecheyislandgloves for amazing back-and-forth on that). working on a post that touches on this...
in more or less the only scene where jopson can entirely let down the steward's performance, it's because crozier's ordered him to put the noose round hickey's neck. it's maybe the sole scene where he has effective authority over someone, and the only person it's over is a fellow working-class man. fucked up, no?
so yeah, I feel both 'jop I love you' and 'jop don't look at me' in equal measure. strange, strange man. far more pressingly, I like his freaky eyes and his hair swoops make me sad. also, shoutout liam garrigan hand hair. what?
everyone I ship him with:
before we're in too deep with these asks, I should confess that I'm not even that into shipping — it's more of a lovely take-it-or-leave-it side-dish for me. that said, jopzier is very intriguing to me. mostly when it's majorly psychosexual and deeply unrequited!! also, I don't know if it's because jop seems to be bit of a golden boy in this fandom (?), BUT I think his obsession with crozier would extend to everything, and that includes a degree of colonialist prestige. by that, I mean... the sun will never shine on jopson, but if it shines on crozier then he gets some of its light. AKA, jopson will never be the face of any great expedition or discovery, but crozier might, and jopson would feel that through him.
of course, I don't mean to imply that's jopson's reasoning for being a steward (or anything in his dynamic with crozier) — he's here to earn his living. but. I still sometimes think it would be an interesting facet for their relationship. crozier gets his flowers, jopson watches on in simultaneous love, possessiveness, and hunger.
now, do I give myself a laugh by totally excluding joplittle? I could. no, I'll mention them — joplittle amuses me in its popularity, and I haven't read or engaged with the dynamic much, but I appreciate it. mostly if it's like, a proxy relationship with crozier. crozier is their ghostly third. y'know? oh, I also wonder what jopson sincerely thinks of ned. I think he's secretly judging him all the time, just silently in the background. contrary to putting me off, this interests me in them even more.
non-romantic otp for him:
eeeh, crozier again, probably. romantic, paternal, sexual, platonic, employer, all of the above — I just think they're interesting whatever you do. jop's anchored himself and his identity to crozier, yet crozier's free to move and exist without him. that binds them, however their dynamic manifests. otherwise, I love jopson and hickey's dynamic in that brief scene with them. 'guys that annoy each other' otp?
unpopular opinion:
as ever, I'm not entirely sure what's popular and what isn't, but I'll take a stab: his resolute loyalty to crozier is at least equal part survival as it is anything personal. that isn't to say he doesn't like the man! just that for a steward (especially the captain's steward), a job well done is having a job at all. but he is weird about him.
other than that, I suppose what I mentioned earlier about intraclass violence and my vague implication that he shares in the glorification of empire via crozier might be unpopular in some circles. I also think that he's just... yeah. he's possibly a meanie to the people he dislikes, and I honestly support him for that.
something I wish happened in canon:
alright, I don't actually wish we'd seen this, but: jop in a lieutenant's uniform! also, I think more interactions with other stewards or pretty much anyone that isn't command would've been interesting. I think that would've taken away from how he's constructed as a character though, so that's more of a fannish indulgence that can be satisfied through fanfic for me.
oh, and I do think everyone should get one (1) scene with des voeux, just to see how it goes. personally, I think he would be found dead with bite marks after an interaction with jop.
well, it's a goodnight from me and thanks again for the ask westerly! I hope this finds you well :)
all our major stewards being defined by their most personal, human aspects (their interests, dreams, relationships, decisions) vs. jopson being introduced in a direct act of service. continuing to be defined, throughout the entire narrative, by that role of service.
the anecdote about his mother is made in relation to crozier. the first we see him once he's bedridden is in relation to crozier. even in death, he exists only in relation to crozier. after death, too. his personal, most vulnerable moments in this show do not exist outside of their relation to crozier. his personhood does not exist outside of him.
tommy dies a marine, trying to play the hero. gibson dies in his lover's arms, and is figuratively taken with him via cannibalism. bridgens dies in heartbreak and after carrying his lover into death, as if he's going to meet him there. they all die as something else. jopson is the only one that dies a steward, still crawling towards his captain.
love how hickey slaps a dead dog in front of hodgson then recruits him to Super Mutiny Squad only for him to later go 'dibs armitage & pocock no returns :)' when the hunting parties split up. yes yes john, you'll be very safe I'm sure! I sense zero threat from this hickey fellow, whom I just thought brought me a human corpse to eat. godspeed :D
was thinking about stanley & goodsir too much so it's exorcism time:
initially, they're set up as opposites in every way. stanley is blunt, jaded, experienced, prejudiced; goodsir is tactful, optimistic, naive, tolerant. stanley does his job and nothing more, but goodsir is seen continuously going beyond his purview to be a good surgeon and, more broadly, a decent englishman*.
what is a decent englishman? an idealised image sold in papers to excuse colonialism: the civilised, well-mannered, christian brit. and goodsir is the epitome of this lie. he's polite, peaceful, considerate to others, yet adventurous, approaching the netsilik people with curiosity (albeit through a colonial gaze).
this introduces themes of truth, denial, and idealism that apply to stanley and goodsir alike. what stanley says may be cruel ('[franklin] can praise your loyalty as he buries you') but it's more honest than goodsir's optimistic platitudes ('a great peace descends').
within this line of thought, stanley's overt racism (refusing to even touch the shaman and disdainfully pushing silna's care to goodsir) can be viewed as a truth underlying goodsir's idealised attempts at cultural sensitivity (trying to save silna's father, although by forcing british medicine upon him, and putting effort into learning inuktitut to communicate with silna).
in other words, is there any tangible difference between stanley's overt racism and goodsir's proclamations of for the economy and the goodness of the english people? both harm the netsilik people by their presence alone, and, in fact, goodsir arguably causes more harm than stanley through his nonconsensual attempts to save the shaman plus his role in killing tuunbaq (poisoning the flesh of others).
this idea that stanley and goodsir are more similar than they first appear unfurls across the narrative. by the end, goodsir embodies stanley, in a way; he's pessimistic, so blunt as to be cruel (as when telling gibson how painful his death will be), forgets david young's name (abandoning that attentiveness that characterised his early appearances) and allows his prejudices to become overt (via class discrimination when talking to hickey).
these similarities run deeper in how both have seen their medical roles bastardised. upon learning about the lead poisoning, stanley knew his role had shifted from healing the living to holding vigil for the dying. meanwhile, goodsir has shifted from surgeon to butcher of corpses (as per billy's body). in both instances, a role (physician, surgeon) that once held hope within it, or at least the possibility of some 'future', is twisted into one concerned only with death.
which leads us to their suicide. it's firstly ironic for medical staff, whose role is to preserve life, to die in an act of suicide. moreover, these suicides were also intended as murder. crucially, stanley kills others as a mercy (almost inviting them into the flames), while I'd argue that, for goodsir, it's punishment.
then there's what fire and poison represent. fire is cleansing; its associations with the abrahamic god instil a sense of truth within it, symbolically, and it holds a connotation of activism or sacrifice from a modern context. it also burns bright; it is visible. it is, in a way, honest.
poison, meanwhile, deceives. it goes silent and unseen, corrupting the body, bearing greater likeness to a snake or something unclean than anything holy. this is emphasised by the way goodsir also slits his wrists to uphold the deception that his body is clean (having done so to cover up the fact he died by poison).
circling back to that earlier idea of truth, then, stanley commits suicide in a flame of almost holy honesty. furthermore, the despair implied by his self-immolation acts as confession of the internal torment he has no doubt kept hidden thus far.
by comparison, goodsir, who was defined in life by his perceived 'honesty' (but, in reality, his denial to face the true violence of colonialism) dies in deception.
all in all: goodsir is 'the goodest sir' aboard this expedition. but, when that 'good englishman' is no more than an illusion, of course goodsir can't die a 'good' man. that idealised vision of colonialism he represents cannot translate to reality, because the only reality colonialism takes root in is one of exploitation, domination, and assimilation. goodsir must be corrupted to prove the lie (or, in typical goodsir fashion, not 'lie' so much as idealised truth).
hence, goodsir not only dies by his own hand, but, in a way, he doesn't even die as himself. alternatively, perhaps he does, but as the self he's always denied existed (and the man he rejects as representative of england).
*disclaimer that goodsir is technically scottish, but I use 'englishman' in the sense of the british ideal plus, of course, paul ready is english!
#LOVE these two and the way they parallel each other #there's an ancient post somewhere on my blog about goodsir being more capable of cruelty than stanley. bc stanley will not act to help #others when he doesn't think them deserving of help. but he never acts to harm those he thinks deserving of harm either. and goodsir does #that feels sort of related to this. goodsir's staunch belief in (a victorian framework of) goodness is what allows him to conceptualize evil #as something that it is righteous and necessary to punish. it allows him to justify violence !! as it does the empire #idk if that make sense i just love goodsir he's such a good example of how insidious beliefs that are well-intentioned and admirable on the #surface can be when they are built on an underlying imperialistic worldview
fantastic tags by @fredoesque that I just had to add, and I will be searching for that ancient post. highlighting an important part of 'righteous punishment' that I overlooked in the original post, too.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
to piggyback on existing posts about edward and uniform: dundy being the first lieutenant we see ditch the jacket? perhaps then the earliest to recognise that hierarchy means nothing when faced with starvation? the first to start allying himself more with the 'everyman' over command, knowing power exists only in the collective now?
he helps fitzjames upright when he collapses, yet it's HIS suggestion to leave the sick (even though that includes his own commander and friend). to me, that was the second mutiny. using ned as vehicle for it, his reaction to crozier's dismissal? he's lost faith in command for three things: to keep them alive, to hold the men's loyalty, but also to listen to him (hence using ned). and, of course. he's a lieutenant alone. the captain of his ship died, his fellow lieutenants died, his commander, imminently, is going to die. crozier doesn't like him, softly-spoken when addressing ned or jop, but harsh when addressing dundy.
aka, at this point in the narrative, dundy's closer to the working men than the prestige of command. he knows this. forsakes what remains of those privileges — the illusions of humanity granted to the rich and the clothing that signifies his superiority over the men. he's amongst them now. he's more adaptive than ned, who stays rigidly uniformed and clutches onto a mirage of authority; he's assimilated to survive, foreshadowed from when we first see him stripped of his jacket.
it's part of why I love that penultimate scene with terror camp. almost everyone is sat on the same level, in the same space, stripped of their top layers. and that's the main way we've been able to tell rank/class here: designations via who's sitting/standing, where, the detailing of uniforms. it's all gone, except for ned, still grasping onto authority, therefore onto the false, unnatural 'order' instated by the british empire/navy. and that's why dundy has a more real, democratic authority amongst the men, while ned's is undermined.
that makes ned's clinging to uniform especially ironic: the only fully-uniformed man in the scene is being shown he has no authority.
maybe there's an acceptance of vulnerability that's tied to stripping oneself of rank that dundy can stomach but ned cannot; maybe it's a degree of acknowledging that empire's meaningless at the end of the world, or a plain matter of adaptation. whatever the case, ditching his jacket foreshadows dundy's vaguely mutinous actions and distancing from command — but also, in a way, acts as a sign of allegiance with the working men (albeit for his own survival).
it's also just a spectacular outfit where can I find me that shirt/jumper/waistcoat/suspenders/slops combo?
#I would say it is not about class cause it is a heavy word #but about the situation of finding yourself an outlier #when suddenly you are out-group because all of your team members who valued your opinion are dead/dying #it's a logical thing that when found out of command dundy turned to his crew mates probably #who probably knew him as a lieutenant better than they knew edward #being the last year on erebus #a lot to think about
