#pluribus analysis

And now Carol has *no one* except for someone who will not only let her drink, but let her pour them one, join her without fail, tell her all about the particular vodka they’re sharing that night, point out the unique alkaline taste of this one. someone who will bring her a literal fucking hand grenade if she asks for one, will sit and watch her pull the pin on both of them, take it from her hand with a smile, then her bring a another the second she asks for it.

affection delivered via yes and yes and yes and yes and yes and yes and yes and yes and yes into mutually assured destruction. absolutely peak horror imo. there are no boundaries. why would there be? there aren’t any between individuals now, so ‘no’ is no longer a concept beyond the We’s biological imperative a decided yes.

I've been hit hard by Carol's portrayal in Pluribus and this post has been sitting in my drafts for a minute, for reasons that should quickly become clear.

I'll open with a memory from high school, a conversation I had with my coach. I had apparently made a few comments to her about a few different people and how I didn't like them, so she said to me "you really don't like a lot of people, do you?" I thought about it and I responded with something to the effect of, "I don't know if that's really true, but assume that nobody likes me, so it's easier if I just don't like them first."

I think this is something that has defined so much of my life, a preemptive strike at the world in the form of feigned indifference, for fear of the pain that would come from rejection. The shame of being one's self and of showing one's genuine interests. It is hardly a revolutionary concept, but the way that Carol exemplifies this really resonates with me.

The big moment for me was the sodium thiopental trial scene. Watching Carol say that she can see her book as a movie, doing a reading with a silly voice, wearing that hat from her fan. With her lowered inhibition she is interacting with her writing freely and she's enjoying it, even admitting she thinks about the future of it. It made me think of my first impression of her. I remember being so happy to see her doing that passage reading and the meet and greet with her fans. I loved seeing the way she loved her story and cared about the other people that loved it too, even if they were sometimes a bit much. Then the door closes and she tells us that is all an act, a lie for money. I felt disappointed, but I understood. She continues looking down on the books as unserious and silly for the rest of the show, she insults her fans and acts like it's all beneath her. She is ashamed of her work.

Until she is under the effects of a "truth serum".

Throughout the show, Carol herself is not that great of an actor. We as the audience can always see through her, especially when she tries to act happy. To me this further shows how genuine that first scene of her is. It's the disgust in her "real life", born of her shame, that is the real lie and it is what is making her miserable.

I feel that Helen also saw this. That this was in part what that scene with the hive meant, when they told Carol what Helen really thought of her books. Helen had no issue with the books, she enjoyed them even though she didn't see them as "serious". To her making "even one person happy" was something, but she knew that Carol could not recognize the nuance to it, so she let Carol have all her barriers.

I am a queer woman, the same as Carol, and I think having that sense of "wrongness" put on you (from the intersectionality of woman and queer) by your community from a young age really just seeps into everything you do. Carol hid her queerness from the world, we see very specific and direct examples of her trauma there, but she also hid herself by putting on a show of hating her "unserious" books. Books in a genre that is percieved as silly fluff for women. She may have left that conversion camp still queer, but they succeeded in teaching her she was better off hiding anything inside her that was not seen as "normal" or "useful" by the world at large (a systemically sexist, racist, and homophobic world). The way that the "truth serum" is what brings Carol to emotionally and explicitly state her grief over Helen's loss, really solidifies for me the way that all the shame goes hand in hand.

I think that's also part of why she can't trust the hive while the other survivors can*. She's too familiar with the rejection of society, so any world where everyone on the planet loves and accepts her is wrong.

there are many ways to interpret the hive in pluribus, and i can understand why the ai and the conversion therapy interpretation are popular, but im surprised no one's really brought up god or religion (someone probably has but lemme yap)

first lets drop the epicurean paradox for reference

i believe pluribus sets up a pretty solid thesis on a non-creator god, who feigns free will and consent, though actively seeks to spread its condition of 'goodness' (a 'biological imperative,' it claims) in spite of humanity's non consent. when you see someone drowning, you just save them, you just do it, it claims.

it has an idea of morality and virtue, though these ideas are not at all the same with our individual-human ideas of morality and virtue, even if occasionally aligning with it. it knows all that it knows, but it does not know everything. it only knows what the collective knows. it can prevent what it can or do what it can, but it cant prevent or do everything. it is limited by resources, scale, and collective ability. it wants to prevent harm or evil, but in the effort to prevent that, it can allow it to come to pass despite its intentions being allegedly/vaguely good. it claims to love everything equally, and this can be true: its just that its version of love is not the same as our (human) version of love. it could love all of us and everything equally, without favorites, but that does not mean that it has to love us by a lot. that makes it being equal much easier.

i hate to vaguely quote saint augustine, and this is not at all verbatim, but he said something about how sometimes kids ask for things that arent good for them, and a good parent (cough.. a good god) would not give them everything they ask for because they love them. the hive is the opposite. because it 'loves' you, in the specific way that it does, it will give you what you ask for, in its passive, hollow, and manipulative way. it will give you a hand grenade; it will give you space; it will give you alcohol; it will give you heroin; it will give you an atom bomb.

Humanity can be loving, kind, caring but at core..

We are very selfish creatures. I’m not trying to say being selfish is a good thing, but rather it’s such an inherent flaw when it comes to humans. We have all, at one point or another, been selfish - perhaps not to the extreme, nor as much as others, but we have.

That is what separates us from the Hive. That is what seperates Carol.

The hive strives to Join everyone, not for their (The Hive’s) sake but because they believe it is genuinely the best thing for everyone.

It’s not a case of choosing one over the other. It’s both or it’s neither. La chica is Zosia, the real Zosia. Still in there. And saving the world means saving Zosia and everyone else that has been subjected to the hive mind “virus”. The only alternative to that, is to destroy the world, meaning everyone. And the thing is Carol doesn’t need an atom bomb to do it. She killed… what was it, around 12 million people just through being angry. She and Manousos could just get angry at them constantly and send them all to their deaths. In which case, they would need to evolve thicker skin to deal with that anger, and that’s such an undeniably human experience to have to go through. So why the atom bomb, Carol? What are you up to? And is it truly necessary?

It feels like we’re getting a lot of hints that Zosia is and will be more than just a tool used by the Hivemind to manipulate Carol. Because obviously, Zosia is a tool at this moment—as an individual, Zosia is not at the wheel. I see many arguments stating that Stursia is null and void because Zosia is dead, Zosia died with the Turning, but we have to remember that Carol has essentially confirmed through her prodding of Zosia’s mind that the Turning is reversible. If it’s reversible, if even the Hivemind knows it is reversible, why would that point to everyone who is part of the Hivemind having died and been replaced?

The reason Carol is faced with such a moral conundrum is because these individuals are not dead. Again, they’re not at the wheel, but they’re not dead. Their bodies are functional. Their memories and abilities are intact. It’s their actions they are unable to dictate anymore. That’s the space the Hivemind fills. Carol doesn’t throw up because her anger killed members of the Hivemind; she throws up because she’s killed people (which is obviously not her fault, in case my stance on that isn’t clear).

And then there’s Zosia, whom the Hivemind undoubtedly uses to manipulate Carol and attempt to keep her complacent, but Zosia the Individual is not gone. She’s dormant. The Hivemind is trying to sell the concept of Zosia’s individuality for Carol (using “I” pronouns, sharing Zosia’s personal memories, having ever used one person in the first place to sway Carol) but that doesn’t mean Zosia the Individual is not buried somewhere underneath the Hivemind’s consciousness and absorbing the reality of Carol’s touch (i.e. remember how Carol asked if the Hivemind could all feel sensations at once and the Hivemind replied via Zosia that while they knew things were happening, individual bodies remain individual and of individual sensation? Yeah.) and Carol’s efforts to reach Zosia the Individual and the care that comes with that.

Not to mention the theories that Zosia the Individual could very well be a queer woman and was chosen by the Hivemind for this convenience so Carol would feel connected to them through Zosia… it’s not unreasonable to wonder if Zosia is gaining her own preference for Carol as an individual. At the airport, she looked back at Carol sadly before entering Koumba’s plane. Despite the Hivemind telling Carol and Koumba that they could not choose between them because they could not hurt their feelings, Zosia the Individual displays an increasingly obvious preference for Carol. Preference is individuality. Opinions show individuality. Which creates a giant fuckery of a situation—the Hivemind is using Zosia to get to Carol, Carol unintentionally finds herself in a similar situation as Koumba (though it should still be noted that the Hivemind coerced Carol) by using Zosia the Individual’s body when Zosia herself is currently incapable of consent, and ultimately, does Carol really love the Hivemind or Zosia the Individual? No. She loves Helen and is trying to feel close to her wife again. She’s lonely. She’s coping. She was manipulated.

But can Zosia, who is showing a preference for Carol—who said it was “my turn” at croquet before Carol asked the Hivemind to use “I” “me” and “my” pronouns—who is developing individual perceptions of Carol likely unintended by the Hivemind—can Zosia tell that the sensation of loving touch comes from a place of confusion for Carol? No.