2023-07-30 0:56:20 ¶ ● ⬈

commsroom:

> i think it’s interesting what cutter’s love of westerns represents, when wolf 359 has so much focus on the ways people narrativize their lives. eiffel, hera, minkowski, and lovelace all feel, in some way, doomed to be the people they are. minkowski playing the role of commander vs. actually being in command. eiffel’s whole pop culture… everything, and the way he projects those tropes and archetypes to avoid real connection or responsibility. lovelace feeling like she’s playing the role of isabel lovelace vs. actually being herself. hera, whose character arc centers on defying her programming. there’s a repeated message in the show about being “more than what you were made to be.”

> cutter’s love of westerns: “i think i’d live in a western, if i had the choice. […] they’re about how people are connected to a bigger picture. no matter who they are, or what little quirks they have, there’s an order to how things work out.” vs. his idea of a perfect humanity: “a new kind of human, ones who are exactly what we need them to be, and do exactly what we tell them to do.”

> so much of goddard operates on this type of obedience and willingness to play a role. hilbert assumes new identities until only his work remains. kepler becomes his job. “let’s go be monsters.” riemann taunts jacobi based on the same assumption: “what, you think just because you’re trying to be a good guy, things are going to go your way?”

> i think the genius of wolf 359’s character writing is that, thematically, paradoxically, they can’t be characters as much as they are people who perceive themselves as characters. cutter loses because his worldview ultimately cannot account for humanity, in all its unpredictability and contradictions. the characters in wolf 359 are not doomed by the narrative; they’re saved by the acceptance there is no narrative, no bigger picture they have to play out some role in. they’re just people - infinitely capable of change, defying expectations, making choices.