Stede & Violence
I’m currently chewing on Stede’s relationship with violence vs. the-narrative-voice-of-OFMD’s relationship with violence. I’ve definitely seen a lot of people lauding Stede’s non-violence, but I’m not sure the narrative voice of the show really agrees with Stede on the matter. But then, I’m also not sure what the narrative voice is saying about violence.
I can’t really think about violence in this show without thinking about this excellent meta on Ed’s trauma by @fuckyeahisawthat, in which they say “I think this is one of the show’s core thesis statements: that violence fucks you up even if you come out on top.” And initially I was like ‘YES!’ but the more I spend weeks thinking about this show with excessive intensity, the more I’m like ‘…or maybe not?’ Unquestionably, with both Stede and Ed’s stories, the show tells us that killing fucks you up even if you come out on top. But violence in general? I’m not sure.
I wrote Reasons not to be a Lighthouse recently, a meta in which I argued that Stede has a tendency to impose his own worldview on others, which is a trait I see as shaped by toxic masculinity (frankly, a specifically white and class privileged form of toxic masculinity). And seeing @wellwhiskey’s post of quotes pulled from an earlier script of the pilot only made the narrative voice’s criticisms of Stede on this front clearer to me. The narrative of the show criticises what it frames as wrong by mocking it, and the pilot is clearly mocking Stede for not listening to or learning from the crew. For example, when Stede asks Lucius what a captain’s most useful instrument is, then responds like this when Lucius guesses ‘a compass’:
STEDE
No. Incorrect.
(touches his ears)
These. Ears. For listening.
(then)
Write that down, Marcus.
LUCIUS
Again, my name’s Lucius
Given how critical the show is of Stede not listening to his crew and instead imposing his perspective on them, I think it’s clear that the show is also criticising Stede in episode two, when he instructs the crew to take vacation time. He explicitly states both "Your time is yours to do with as you please" and "Look, there's literally no way to mess this up", and then these exchanges happen, in fairly quick succession:
ROACH
Can my vacation be torturing the hostages?
STEDE
I was thinking more along the lines of relaxing activities.
ROACH
Oh, I do find torturing hostages relaxing. Particularly this lot.
(beat)
I’ll just take them to the brink of death. I won’t go all the way.
STEDE
Let's say no to torture, I think. For now.
And not that long after, when Stede spots Wee John Feeney and The Swede hitting each other:
STEDE
Hey guys! What on Earth are you doing?
THE SWEDE
We're doing vacations.
WEE JOHN FEENEY
We're unwinding.
STEDE
(annoyed)
That is not what I was talking about!
The narrative voice of the show seems critical of Stede being critical of the crew’s violence. Perhaps in the case of the roughhousing Wee John Feeney and the Swede are doing, we can call that a different thing. Playful and consensual violence perhaps doesn’t belong in the same category as the violence the show frames as harmful. But it’s interesting to me that Roach is neither condemned by the narrative nor shown as particularly suffering. Feeling relaxed by torturing is hardly a case of violence fucking you up even if you come out on top.
In Reasons not to be a Lighthouse I made the case that Stede starts being more willing to listen to and learn from his crew from episode four – which also features Stede explicitly deciding he wants to learn from others, when he’s excited to agree to getting piracy lessons from Ed. The narrative voice approves of Stede (by letting him succeed/be happy) when he is willing to learn from others, and disapproves of Stede when he isn’t. Which makes it interesting that a lot of what Ed is shown teaching Stede at the beginning of episode five is explicitly how to be violent and aggressive (perhaps implying this is a direction of character development for Stede?). Stede clearly feels unsettled by going along on a raid or by Ed demonstrating how to threaten a captive, but Stede isn’t just frightened, he’s also excited to learn. In the raid scene Lucius is clearly too scared to think clearly, but Stede’s desire to learn is more powerful than his fear:
STEDE
Isn’t this terrifying?
(then)
Note the gusto, Lucius!
LUCIUS
(yelling with fright)
That what?!
STEDE
The gusto! Why aren’t you taking notes?
The episode ends with a moment of triumph for Stede, with the French ship ablaze. Which certainly seems like a celebration of violence to some extent, even if Stede delivers the violence in question indirectly.
When Ed confesses to Stede that he hasn’t killed anyone since his father in episode six, Stede, Ed and the narrative voice are all clearly taking Ed’s trauma pretty seriously. There’s no question that, while Ed is not in the wrong for killing his father, the act harmed Ed. But consider this dialogue:
ED
If I’m honest… I haven’t killed another man since.
(beat)
Not personally.
STEDE
I mean… I have seen you maim some people.
ED
Maiming’s different. Love a good maim.
Yes, for the audience this is a joke, but for Stede this seems to be an attempt at being comforting. And what’s interesting is that it does seem to, to some extent, work. Maiming isn’t traumatising for Ed. He love a good maim. The way the narrative holds this moment reminds me a lot of Roach saying he finds torture relaxing. The narrative isn’t presenting these particular acts of violence as traumatic. Nor is the narrative condemning Ed for ‘loving a good maim’. The maiming and the torture are okay within the narrative frame. And unlike the torture exchange, the in this scene Stede is alongside the narrative voice, treating the maiming with acceptance.
In the Pilot draft script, when Stede presents Badminton’s body to the crew, it’s described like this:
Badminton’s body hits the deck. Stede stands over it. Hornberry screams, Shaw cries. The crew’s impressed. Stede takes this in. He’s never been feared before. He likes it.
Stede can like being feared. Stede can be accepting of maiming. Stede can be excited by violence and want to learn how to do it himself. And I don’t think the narrative voice thinks he’s wrong for these things or thinks that they are necessarily tragic.
The show is certainly more likely to frame violence against oppressors as neutral or celebrated (Jim throwing a knife though the hand of a British navy officer who’s throwing around racist abuse, Stede leaving the French ship to burn) but violence against oppressors can be framed as more fraught and traumatic (the scene where Ed tells Fang to skin the sailor who calls him a donkey certainly feels more emotionally fraught than it feels celebratory, and both Ed’s and Stede’s experiences of killing could go here too). Direct killing is usually framed as traumatic or upsetting, but the scene where Ed is called a donkey and the scene where Stede attacks Doug shows us instances of killing aren’t the only times the show explores connections between violence and trauma. ‘Violence is good when it’s funny and harmful when it’s not funny’ is kind of an answer, but really that just shifts the goal posts without answering the question, because then the question becomes: what violence do they choose to frame as Funny or as Not Funny and why?
I can’t pin down where the shows values around ‘when will doing violence harm you and when won’t it?’, but I have a strong feeling that the answer to that question is going to track with Stede’s character development: whether we see him develop more stomach for doling out violence when his values are threatened, or whether we see him walk hard line in sticking to his pacifistic inclinations.
34 notes
·
View notes