#crozier gets a headache just imagining it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

annecoulmanross · 4 years

Photo

The premise: AMC’s The Terror (2018) is almost perfectly set up to be a structured as a classical Greek tragedy, or, ideally, a series of three tragedies.

Three requirements of a classical Greek tragedy:

The play is performed by only three actors and a chorus.

The three actors perform all of the dialogue roles between them.

All of the action of the play takes place on a single day (in the space of no more than twenty-four hours), and always in the same physical place.

Obviously this last requirement is the hardest to achieve with the events of the show sprawling over two years or more, but with a trilogy of three tragedies, you could narrow the action down to three key days: (1) Franklin’s death, (2) Carnevale, and (3) The day the mutineers lure the Tuunbaq and everyone but Crozier dies. I could focus on the structural elements that would allow for these three days of “action” but I’m more interested in the implications of the first two requirements: basically, can you stage a version of The Terror with only three actors? The answer is that – barring action sequences which would never be staged in a Greek tragedy anyway, because all true action happens off-stage – yes, yes you can. So, let’s talk about logistics.

Core Casting Divisions:

ACTOR 1 = Franklin (also: Goodsir, Blanky, Little, Bridgens, Tozer, etc.)

ACTOR 2 = Fitzjames (also: Lady Silence, Hickey, Jopson, Peglar, Stanley, etc.)

ACTOR 3 = Crozier (also: Collins, MacDonald, Hodgson, Gibson, etc.)

Beneath the cut: how this casting breaks down, scene by scene; and the implications of these casting divisions, complete with a lot of rambling thoughts about – among other things – gender, masculinity, and (amusingly) Rome.

(Also, I want to thank my dear friends, fellow terror-classicists, and everyone who has so patiently talked terror-meta and terror-thoughts with me, including, but in no way limited to, @kaserl, @catilinas, @rhavewellyarnbag, @paramaline, and @endofvanity – your wonderful thoughts about this show have been enormously helpful as I’ve played with the narrative mechanics here!)

Casting, Scene-by-Scene

A basic outlay of all major dialogue scenes in every episode (a “major dialogue scene” is a scene with more than one character, minus “fight scenes” because action never happens on stage in a Greek tragedy), with the roles of the three actors listed in 1-2-3 order, and an “x” to mark when an actor doesn’t appear in a scene.

01x01 – “Go for Broke”

Franklin – Fitzjames – Collins [Discussing the ice]

Blanky – x – Crozier [Crozier complains, part 1]

x – Jopson – Crozier [Crozier complains, part 2]

Strong – Hickey – Young [Young’s illness revealed]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [Fitzjames’ storytelling]

Goodsir – Stanley – Young [Treating Young’s illness]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Collins [Collins’s dive]

Goodsir – Stanley – Young [Young’s autopsy]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [Franklin’s decision]

Tozer – Hickey – Manson [Burying Young]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Gore [The pack has arrived]

(Notes: This is an incredibly cleanly written episode, and the casting is correspondingly clean. Franklin and Fitzjames almost always appear together, as do Goodsir and Stanley; both pairs are “leader and subordinate,” but the roles shift, with Actor 1 as Franklin and Goodsir, and Actor 2 as Fitzjames and Stanley. Actor 3, meanwhile, plays three characters with foresight: Crozier, who foretells the pack ice through his knowledge and by listening to Blanky; and Collins and Young, through their more supernatural visions.)

01x02 – “Gore”

Franklin – Fitzjames – Gregory [Checking the engine]

Bridgens – Peglar – x [“Here comes the lending library”]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Gore [Gore’s sledge party departs]

Goodsir – Peglar – Gore [Gore’s sledge party]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [“Repairing bonds”]

Irving – Hickey – Gibson [Irving’s discovery]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Hodgson [Hodgson’s sledge party returns]

Blanky – x – Crozier [Remembering Parry’s expedition]

Irving – Hickey – Crozier [A shared drink]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Crozier [The death of Silence’s father]

Goodsir – Fitzjames – Crozier [Goodsir explains how Gore died]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [Franklin discusses how Gore died]

Blanky – Lady Silence – Crozier [Lady Silence’s warning]

(Notes: As the show adds complexity, so does the casting. Irving appears as a new role for Actor 1, paralleling Franklin in his religiosity; Gibson appears as a new role for Actor 3, paralleling Crozier in being a person with whom Hickey.... uh, flirts.)

01x03 – “The Ladder”

Hartnell – Morfin – Weekes [Preparing Lady Silence’s father, part 1]

Goodsir – Morfin – Weekes [Preparing Lady Silence’s father, part 2]

Hartnell – Lady Silence – Hodgson [Returning the totems to Lady Silence]

Goodsir – x – Des Voeux [“Burying” Lady Silence’s father]

Little – Jopson – Crozier [Little’s worries about the Inuit]

Irving – Hickey – Gibson [Gibson asks for Irving’s counsel]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [The sledge rescue party proposal]

Blanky – x – Crozier [Crozier’s mutiny plan]

Irving – Hickey – x [Irving’s warning]

x – Hickey – Gibson [The break-up]

(Note: The sequence in the hunting blind is nigh-impossible within this casting, since it features predominantly three separate characters all played by Actor 1 – Franklin, Goodsir, and Tozer. Imagined poetically, one could say that this is an omen of the violence so soon to come in the physical space of the hunting blind, since violence cannot be depicted on stage in a Greek tragedy. Conceived practically, one might argue that this is because the hunting blind is a hotbed of toxic masculinity, where the masculine Tozer baits the patriarchal Franklin into remaining with the marines, and teases Goodsir for his “feminine” caution.)

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [The death of Franklin]

Chambers – Morfin – Weekes [“Silver swan”]

Blanky – Fitzjames – Crozier [“It’s technically not mutiny if I’m in charge”]

(Notes: This episode mainly functions to round out the first third of the show’s narrative, so the main parallels are familiar. We do, however, have a range of important sequences featuring the new-to-us characters Morfin and Weekes; we begin to get to know more of the men, rather than just officers. Morfin is played by Actor 2, which could be evidence to argue that Morfin was once lashed was for sodomy – cf. “Actor 2,” below for more.)

01x04 – “Punished as a Boy”

x – Jopson – Crozier [“You hear everything, Jopson”]

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [“Does not one bring one’s habits to Terror?”]

Goodsir – Stanley – MacDonald [Tending to Heather]

Tozer – Hickey – x [The idea to kidnap Lady Silence develops]

Little – Fitzjames – Crozier [The plan to “get” Lady Silence develops]

Hartnell – Hickey – Crozier [Questioning the kidnappers]

Johnson – Hickey – Crozier [The lashing]

x – Hickey – MacDonald [After the lashing]

Goodsir – Morfin – x [Morfin’s headaches]

(Note: The scene “Morfin’s headaches” is really interesting to me, because it causes overlap problems all over the place: Morfin MUST be played by Actor 2, because his death scene must have Goodsir (1) and Crozier (3) in it, but Actor 2 also plays Fitzjames and Stanley, both of whom are also in this scene; this is the scene in which Fitzjames and Stanley have their one significant conversation, in fact, which it hurt me desperately to lose. I think there’s something in this scene about thwarted connections – Morfin reaching out to Goodsir, Stanley reaching out to Fitzjames – and that may be why it all tangles up here, why the casting system breaks down and fails here, as it does.)

Irving – x – Crozier [Men shifting to Erebus]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Des Voeux [Feeding Lady Silence]

(Note: Goodsir sure does have a lot of scenes with Des Voeux in these early episodes. I’d never noticed this, and I’m not sure what to make of it.)

01x05 – “First Shot a Winner Lads”

Little – Fitzjames – x [Sending Lady Silence to Terror]

Goodsir – Stanley – Des Voeux [Goodsir asks leave to go to Terror]

x – Fitzjames – Collins [The requisition of spirits]

Goodsir – Hickey – x [Hickey’s wounds]

Little – x – Crozier [“How fares the raft of the Medusa?”]

(Note: Little and Blanky almost never interact, so the fact that they are both Actor 1 rarely causes problems. Losing Blanky in this scene is tragic, though, BUT this does create an interesting parallel between Crozier’s failure at being a mentor for Little, and MacDonald’s greater success(?) at being a mentor for Goodsir, below, since both are Actor 1 as mentee & Actor 3 as mentor scenes. )

Goodsir – Hickey – x [“Does that really work with anyone?”]

Goodsir – x – MacDonald [Doctors bonding over teeth exploding]

x – Hickey – Gibson [The proposal]

Irving – Hickey – Manson [Storing Hornby’s body]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Crozier [Interviewing Lady Silence]

Blanky – Fitzjames – Crozier [The punch]

Blanky – Jopson – Crozier [Blanky’s amputation]

(Note: Jopson is holding Blanky’s hand during the amputation. That’s my justification for having him here. I just like it, that’s all.)

Little – Jopson – Crozier [Crozier’s detox plan]

(Note: Obviously, there are additional important people in the “Crozier’s detox plan” scene, and one is loath to ignore Fitzjames, for example. But this is the beginning of Jopson’s core arc, so he takes priority, and Little receiving Crozier’s gun is weighty.)

01x06 – “A Mercy”

Irving – Fitzjames – MacDonald [The provisions remaining]

Blanky – Fitzjames – x [The Fury Beach™ Scene]

x – Jopson – Crozier [Tending to Crozier, with Jopson’s backstory]

Hartnell – Hickey – x [Hartnell’s new charter]

Little – Fitzjames – x [Carnevale as a “last hurrah” before the walk-out]

x – Stanley – Collins [“Flurried thoughts”]

Bridgens – Peglar – x [Xenophon’s Anabasis]

Goodsir – Stanley – x [Goodsir’s discovery re: the tinned goods]

x – Jopson – Crozier [Going to Carnevale]

(Note: We’ve just had seven (7!) entire 2-person scenes of either (a) Actors 1 and 2, or (b) Actors 2 and 3, bouncing back and forth – this would keep Actor 2 very, VERY busy. Actor 2 also plays no less that five (5!) different characters in here, almost their entire core repertoire of Fitzjames, Hickey, Jopson, Stanley, and Peglar, omitting only Lady Silence, who will also show up later in this episode. There’s a lot more to be said here, but I’ll just note that we start and end with scenes of Jopson caring for Crozier – a classical ring structure – with Stanley failing to care for Collins placed at the center.)

Blanky – Jopson – Crozier [Crozier arrives at Carnevale]

x – Hickey – Des Voeux [“Unless you want that ripped off?”]

Little – Fitzjames – Crozier [Crozier’s speech at Carnevale]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Crozier [Lady Silence returns]

x – Stanley – Crozier [The fire begins]

x – Hickey – MacDonald [MacDonald’s death]

Goodsir – Fitzjames – Crozier [After Carnevale]

01x07 – “Horrible from Supper”

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [What the men have packed]

Tozer – Hickey – Gibson [The mutiny plot begins]

Goodsir – Morfin – Collins [Morfin stumbles]

Blanky – Jopson – Crozier [Goodbye to Terror]

Goodsir – x – Collins [“Terrible from supper”]

Goodsir – x – Crozier [Goodsir wants hunting parties]

Tozer – Morfin – Crozier [Finding Fairholme’s fate]

(Note: For casting reasons, Fitzjames doesn’t appear here, though he’s very much present in the show’s version of the discovery of Fairholme’s remains. One might derive some AU scenarios for this (what if Fitzjames didn’t know about the destruction of Fairholme’s rescue party?) or one might contemplate what it means for Fitzjames to be present or not, when, notably, the numbers of how many men have died that Fitzjames writes on the Victory Point Note addendum in the next episode ONLY tally if Fitzjames forgets – or purposely omits – Fairholme and the men of his sledge party.)

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [The Hand Touch™ Scene]

Little – x – Crozier [“The men deserve every gold thing there is.” ]

(Note: Crozier and Little will have to also discuss Tozer’s recommendation to arm the men as a past event, since Tozer can’t be in this scene with Little already there, when they’re both Actor 1; more on this in the next episode.)

Goodsir – Morfin – Crozier [Morfin’s death]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – x [Goodsir gets comfort-cuddles]

Hartnell – Jopson – Crozier [Hartnell is a good boy.jpeg and so is Jopson]

Little – Jopson – Crozier [Jopson’s promotion]

Tozer – Hickey – Hodgson [Bringing Hodgson into the mutiny]

Irving – Hickey – Koveyook [Asking for help]

01x08 – “Terror Camp Clear”

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [Victory Point Note addendum]

(Note: The scene where Crozier questions Hodgson poses some problems, since both are Actor 3. The details may simply have to be elided into other scenes. This episode has several such issues, including, tragically, Hickey and Jopson’s scenes (Actor 2), and, unfortunately, Little and Tozer’s scenes (Actor 1). What this does show us is some new dynamics in the overlaps – Hickey and Jopson are Crozier’s “prodigal son” and the obedient elder son, respectively; Little and Tozer are what happens when leadership goes wrong, in two very different ways.)

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Crozier [Discussing Irving’s mutilation]

Little – Fitzjames – Crozier [Leaving Little in charge]

Bridgens – Peglar – Collins [Bridgens the doctor]

Blanky – Hickey – Crozier [Interrogation at the scene of the crime]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – x [Mourning friends]

Tozer – x – Des Voeux [Noises in the fog]

Little – x – Hodgson [Hodgson’s worries about the Inuit]

Blanky – Fitzjames – Crozier [Realizing the camp is armed]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Crozier [Sending Lady Silence away to safety]

x – Hickey – Gibson [Mutiny planning]

Little – Fitzjames – Crozier [Arresting Hickey]

Little – Hickey – Crozier [The hanging]

Diggle – Hickey – Gibson [The mutiny sledge leaves]

Tozer – x – Collins [Collins’ death]

(Note: Even before Goodsir is kidnapped by the mutineers, like Penelope ambushed by the suitors, this episode gives us none of the Goodsir – Fitzjames – Crozier dynamic that stabilized the end of Carnevale; Bridgens has, in many ways, already taken over for Goodsir in becoming the “doctor” for the crew, and he will bloom into having two vitally important and devastating Bridgens – Fitzjames – Crozier scenes in the next episode. For now, Goodsir has three major scenes with Lady Silence: the last they will ever have together.)

01x09 – “The C the C the Open C”

Bridgens – Fitzjames – Crozier ["Blank pages now”]

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [“More than god loves them,” part 2]

Tozer – Hickey – Hodgson [Hodgson joins the mutiny]

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [Fitzjames falls]

x – Hickey – Hodgson [“Veal Cutlets Tomata”]

Goodsir – Hickey – Gibson [“(Tr)eating” Gibson]

Little – Jopson – Crozier [Little proposes leaving the sick behind]

(Note: The last time we saw these three together, it was Jopson’s promotion, and the time before that, it was “Crozier’s detox plan,” and Jopson was promising “I got you” to his captain; now it’s the other way around. Little acts as a pivot around which circumstances turn, rather than an agent in and of himself in many ways. Like fellow Actor 1 character Franklin, Little is thrust into a position of leadership for which he isn’t truly ready, and then his choices are slowly cut off from him – but where Franklin’s choices are cut off by fate, and the ice, Little’s are largely cut off by the opposition of others: first his captain, in vetoing the plan to leave the sick behind, and then by the men, in voting to leave the captain in Hickey’s clutches.)

Inuit Leader – Lady Silence – x [Not enough food to share]

Bridgens – Fitzjames – Crozier [The end]

Little – Golding – Crozier [The funeral]

Blanky – x – Crozier [Forks]

Bridgens – Peglar – x [“Can we sleep?”]

Tozer – Hickey – Armitage [Making mutiny camp]

Goodsir – Hickey – Hodgson [Feeding mutiny camp]

(Note: So technically Tozer is visibly in this scene, and Hodgson’s not, but in a Greek tragedy he would be visibly on stage, so I’m calling that fair play.)

Goodsir – x – Hodgson [Hodgson’s Eucharist monologue]

Tozer – Hickey – x [Tozer’s plan to return to the ships]

Bridgens – Peglar – x [The C the C the open C]

Tozer – Pilkington – Armitage [Discontented mutineers]

x – Jopson – Crozier [Foley’s cow]

Little – Golding – Crozier [A false report]

Hartnell – x – Crozier [“Go be with your brother now”]

Little – x – Crozier [“We will live”]

01x10 – “We Are Gone”

x – Hickey – Crozier [A Wednesday]

Little – x – Le Vesconte [A vote]

(Note: For you Dundy fans, this is literally the first time I’ve found a place for him; I could perhaps have gone back and put in the short “benjo” scene, but alas, some things aren’t meant to be – the primary people listening to that announcement are Hickey (2) and Gibson (3) and Le Vesconte clearly can’t be Actor 1, since this, his star scene, is with Little (1). Dundy really does come out of nowhere, narratively speaking, even more so than Hodgson in many ways.)

Goodsir – x – Crozier [“This place is beautiful to me”]

x – Hickey – Crozier [“I forgive all of them”]

Diggle – x – Crozier [Escape plans]

Tozer – Hickey – Crozier [A doctor a day keeps the doctor… well]

Tozer – Hickey – Des Voeux [Next steps forward]

Tozer – Hickey – Crozier [“You could have just joined up”]

Little – Lady Silence – Crozier [Captains losing ship and crew]

Inuit Leader – Lady Silence – Crozier [“Silna”]

Inuit Leader – Translator – James Clark Ross [“Aglooka”]

(Note: Working chronologically such that James Clark Ross appears only at the end but not also at the beginning, as per the rules of Greek drama, our Actor 2 ends the story in the role of the Translator. Something very poetic about that.)

Implications of the Casting System

Basically, my argument here is that, in a pinch, you can retell the narrative of AMC’s The Terror (2018) using only three actors, with relatively minimal problems of overlap, and that’s FASCINATING.

In part, these core casting divisions (Actors 1, 2, and 3) are purely pragmatic – we have scenes that require, e.g., Franklin and Fitzjames and Crozier to all make important statements, so those three have to be played by different actors. And it fractals out from there – e.g., Blanky and Crozier have numerous significant scenes, so they can’t be the same actor, and you can’t lose the “Sir John Ross Never Knew How Close He Came” Fury Beach scene, so Blanky and Fitzjames can’t be the same actor, which means Blanky and Franklin MUST be. But sometimes these spiraling casting necessities make for very cool accidental overlaps as a result of the pragmatic necessities of so small a cast.

(Also, for the classicists in the room, I first mapped this out while watching a production of the Bacchae, so that tells you something about my headspace.)

So, interesting things about what parallels these actors might play out:

– Actor 1 predominantly plays very masculine men in very traditional masculine roles (Franklin, the paternal leader; Blanky, so rugged and grounded in himself; Little, the stoic with depressive tendencies who’s bottling up his emotions; Tozer, who is, um, Tozer). The exception in many ways is Goodsir. The thing is, Goodsir is one of most feminized men in this show, given his role as a medical care provider, his warm softness, his initial apparent lack of physical courage (it’s an abundance of reasonable caution, Tozer!), and his Penelope-like role in later the Odyssey narrative. But Goodsir has to be played by a different actor than most of the other characters in this show with a dubious relationship to Victorian British masculinity (Actor 2, see below), because he shares scenes with them! Goodsir and Hickey MUST be played by different actors (not to mention Lady Silence). So here we are, with Goodsir amongst the “manly men.” Even Bridgens is fairly traditionally masculine, if only in his physical appearance and his classical education.

Other interesting parallels: If I had to give a real, classical answer to the “why is Goodsir with this bunch” question, I think it has to do with the shift from the Franklin & Fitzjames & Crozier “First Triumvirate” of the early episodes (brief Roman digression, but the Roman “First Triumvirate” would be Franklin = Pompey, Fitzjames = Crassus (well… Cicero), Crozier = Caesar? …hilarious) to the Goodsir & Hickey & Crozier “Second Triumvirate” of the later episodes (Goodsir = Lepidus (I’m SORRY), Hickey = Antony, Crozier = Augustus). Basically, Goodsir has to take Sir John’s place as the representative of (or spokesperson for) the brittle British empire and its hapless inadequacies, once Franklin is gone (more on this is “Actor 2.”)

Also, you know, re: Blanky and Sir John, both men lose a leg. Do with that what you will. (“Good one leg man” and “Bad one leg man” indeed.)

– Actor 2 predominantly plays figures whose masculinity is either queered, problematized, or non-existent. (Fitzjames, who crossdresses, who carries his legacy like a woman’s beauty – easily lost over time; Lady Silence, who is rarely if ever treated like a woman within the narrative, but, in fact, is one; Hickey, whose queerness and violence are intertwined; and Jopson, whose life is defined by dedication to a career that places him in feminized roles.) Peglar, despite his sexuality, is one of the more traditionally masculine characters this actor plays, but what can I say, Peglar is fragments, and fragments, as we know, are gay-coded. Stanley is also, on first glance, a more masculine outsider, but the gender binary of live men and dead men prevails in this show, and Stanley’s been dead inside since long before he ever set foot on Erebus. This is also where one might argue that the flogging to which Morfin alludes is a punishment for sodomy, and that mentioning it to Goodsir is a specific attempt to find a kindred soul, and/or an attempt to flirt.

Other interesting parallels: Fitzjames and his masks, both literal and metaphorical, and how those masks are desecrated by Hickey along with Fitzjames’ body and boots; Hickey and Jopson as the opposite ends of the spectrum for father/son relationships with Crozier (I know this means we can’t have that Hickey & Jopson scene – I can’t account for it, I’m sorry too!). But back to Fitzjames and Hickey, this parallel also makes interesting sense re: the two “triumvirates” in show (Franklin & Fitzjames & Crozier and later Hickey & Goodsir & Crozier) because, in contrast to Franklin and Goodsir who are representatives of the British empire, Fitzjames and Hickey are places where the British empire is most visibly broken, Fitzjames because of the lies he’s had to tell about his origins, and Hickey because he’s the eternal outsider, literally trapped outside the tent. (Well, and the lies Hickey’s also had to tell about his origins! Though that’s his own damn fault in many ways.) Also, Fitzjames is technically “Crassus” in his triumvirate, and he does play on tropes of wealth and privilege and inane military campaigns in the east, but he’s mostly, actually Cicero, mutilated by Hickey/Antony, who also steals his mask – aka boots/severed head – to prove his cruelty and co-opt power.

This actor has to do A LOT of work, as a friend of mine once said. But also they play all three of my favorite characters, so I adore them.

– Actor 3 predominantly plays Crozier. (Crozier is the main character of this narrative, we can’t avoid that; he’s part of both triumvirates, and a vast number of the significant scenes include him, so his actor is stuck playing just Crozier much of the time.) Apart from that, however, I love that one of the natural overlaps is for this same actor to play Collins, whose connection with dreams and visions parallels so interestingly with Crozier’s foresight and foreknowledge.

Note: Because of the tragic structural limitation of “one setting only.” I’ve not included any of the characters back in England, apart from James Clark Ross, since he does eventually make his way out to the Arctic. If I were to include the contemporary England scenes (omitting the flashback scenes), it would have basically this set up:

ACTOR 1 (overlaps with Franklin) = Lady Jane, Barrow Jr.

ACTOR 2 (overlaps with Fitzjames) = Sophia Cracroft

ACTOR 3 (overlaps with Crozier) = John Ross, James Clark Ross, Dickens

Actor 3 is potentially the most interesting of these, because Crozier doubles with James Clark Ross re: life experience (Antarctic hand tremors!) and with John Ross re: being a harbinger of things to come. Actor 1 is intriguing also, though – less, I think, for doubling Lady Jane with her husband, which I do ultimately like quite a lot, but also for the other parallels offered, e.g. Lady Jane and Goodsir. (Did you know Lady Jane once dissected a giant squid? Goodsir would have loved it!)

This has been your “a Terror-obsessed classical scholar tries to make a tv show into a Greek tragedy” hour – thank you for joining me!

#look I know this is insane #but it was a lot of fun #the terror #the terror amc #terrorposting

111 notes · View notes

amisssunbeam · 4 years

Text

A Little Response to Rhavewellyarnbag's latest Review of The Terror's "Horrible from Supper" (the italics are me)

Being another look at The Terror, episode 01x07, “Horrible From Supper”. But first, the characters in The Terror to whom I own an apology for the things I said last night when I was drunk, in ascending order of how vile it was: Francis. Yes, what I said was true, but I should not have said it. Goodsir, on general principle, because he is a nice man, and doesn’t deserve to have the likes of me talking about him that way. Author’s note: Only daily do I apologize to Harry Goodsir (fictional) for the things I say about him, and to Harry Goodsir (nonfictional) for the things I say about a fictionalized version of him. I like to think that the former would forgive me, but I think that the latter might not. I painted him from the few photos made of him; he has a delightfully reproachful look. Resting bitch face, even.

In the 1845 photos, his eyebrows come together in a way which could be interpreted as judgmental. But, when we think of the trials of sitting for a daguerreotype at that time (not nearly as jolly and pain-free as depicted in “The Ladder” –forgetting about the subsequent Tuunbaq attack) Goodsir’s reproachful look might merely result from the tedium of having his picture taken (or that fatal tooth was beginning to hurt). Tozer. Though, again, I meant it, and, like, look, I defy you tell me that he doesn’t look absolutely stunning when he’s afraid for his life in “Terror Camp Clear”.

“The Terror” certainly broadens the parameters of handsome-ness. Tozer, while listening to Morfin singing “The Silver Swan”, is more attractive than, than, than the Moon! Or the Pyramids! He’s supernatural.

The ship before it weighs anchor, before it, in some fundamental way, becomes a ship. Not yet having fulfilled its function, it is more like a theatrical set. The notion of limbo is a fitting one: the men descending the ladder, coming from the bright, noisy world above, could be entering the afterlife.

Who’s the cat who does the words about utter existentialism? Rod Serling, was that his name? Did everyone see his episode of “The Twilight Zone” about the toys in the Salvation Army barrel? Yikes.

Nothing is working as it should, logic is suspended, and the topsy-turvy world of the carnival will become real.

The movie “Topsy-Turvy” is a great favorite of la famille Sunbeam. Even so, there are useful parallels between that film and “The Terror”: class clashes, pretense and pageantry, and mainly ripping away the fine lace mask of the Victorian era. The attitude of the servants in both shows is strikingly craven.

“Any tips, sir, for a first-timer?”

In the super-heated world of fandom, “any tips for a first-timer” sounds like the sort of pick-up line EC would use on the true Cornelius.

Poor Morfin.

Morfin is “The Terror’s” equivalent of the Victorian Little Nell. Headaches, bad teeth, song-forgetter, probably a once-in-a-lifetime sodomite but nevertheless flogged for it. When he and Tozer go out on that exploratory mission, he falls flat down and Tozer says something like “Don’t volunteer if you don’t have the bottom for it.” (More heat for the fandom). And he gets to be the first to see the severed heads. (Who thought Tozer and Morfin would make a good team for this task? Did they draw names?) “Gently with that one, please.” It’s a little bit insensitive of Goodsir to express concern for his luggage before he does, Morfin, after Morfin’s just collapsed from pain, only looking like the living dead. That trunk, though, is Jacko’s tomb.

Harvey, your theory about Goodsir’s, ah, class-related selfishness is confirmed here.

“Are these our choices, Cornelius, or are they being made for us?” Gibson seems to falter, which is interesting. His idea to separate from the larger group doesn’t seem to be his own, which suggests that Hickey understood that it couldn’t be seen to have come from him. Gibson looks like death warmed over, but Hickey is just as perky as ever.

Gibson seems to get on-and-off injections of great intelligence, but his death-warmed-over look is consistent through the series.

Hickey is also under-dressed, not even wearing a hat.

This is perhaps a very English-major thing to say, but there is a suggestion of a climate change (or a massive change in consciousness) occurring after Carnivale, as if the trauma of the fire left living dead who can no longer feel the cold, or, having felt so much fire, the survivors have had the idea of cold burnt out of them.

He does sometimes dress more appropriately, as in “A Mercy” when he was helping Hartnell transport supplies for the carnival. Suggesting that, in this scene, Hickey means to maximize his attractions. The obvious beneficiary is Gibson, but I think Hickey sees some value in displaying himself for Tozer, the one Hickey is really after, and has been since at least “Punished As A Boy”.

A sexy thought; how much nudity the men would crave. When Hickey is flogged, he is completely exposed to the men present, and I think the sexuality of his having his pants pulled down really hits the sailors hard. Francis alone looks like he’s going to climb out of his skin with the ferocity of his feelings (I won’t say desire, but that’s what I mean). Was it you, Harvey, or someone else who discussed how strong the thirst for touch must be among the Franklin Expedition? I imagine the thirst to see bodies is just as powerful.

Then, I was immediately resurrected by the peek at Collins’ suspenders. He is... built like a cement outdoor commode. There is a lot of Collins to love.

The suspenders become iconic. Collins is one very alluring sailor, even in his bulky sea-diving outfit with that great furry head sticking out. Yet his sexuality seems neutered, compared to the other significant sailors (Still, if Hollywood decided to make a chubby “Wuthering Heights”, Collins would make the perfect pudgy Heathcliff.) Author’s note: I don’t think Francis thinks very much of Goodsir, and the feeling is mutual. Goodsir has to obey Francis, but it’s duty without devotion, without deference, Goodsir having seen very little that would indicate to him that Francis has reformed himself. Francis may have stopped drinking, but he’s up to his old tricks, dismissive unless he wants something, ingratiating when he does. This is the way that Francis behaved toward Hickey, which gives an interesting contrast between Goodsir and Hickey: once Goodsir understands Francis’ motives, he’s no longer taken in; Hickey must understand that Francis was only drunk and trying to get into Hickey’s pants, but Hickey continues to try to make Francis like him.

Francis might resent Goodsir’s place in society, so settled and unique, while Francis himself has to maneuver around Sir John and James and all the rest. But Hickey he can control. (In a way, it’s a shame that Irving, the stupid old king of coitus interruptus, has to bust in again. It would be in vain, and yet interesting, to consider what might have happened if that seduction had been consummated. Think of the bickering harem Crozier could assemble: Hickey and Jopson and Gibson and then Irving, etc etc. (But this speculation, that a captain would handpick a seraglio of sailors, is ruined by the knowledge that, despite all the porn stories and movies, there is no one a teacher would want less to seduce than her students.)

James has to move his little pick ax from one hand to the other to reach out to Francis, suggesting that, emotion aside, he made a conscious decision (his bones not yet reduced to broken glass) to grab Francis’ jacket, right over his heart, no less, and jostle Francis in a friendly manner.

This moment is comparable, to those who might be interested, to Star Trek: The Original Series’s “Amok Time” when Spock grabs Kirk by the arms. Quite the pensee could be written comparing Kirk-Crozier (the fair-haired captains) and Spock-Fitzjames, the haughty eyebrow-waggling second. The latter’s reserve is melted, melted utterly by his realization of how much he loves his Captain.

Author’s note: I am into Edward, but conditionally: I like him in that coat that makes him look substantial. Matthew McNulty is lovely, but he’s far thinner than I thought he was, which came as a bit of a shock.

His shortness is also quite astonishing. I can’t imagine Levesconte being involved.

Levesconte is too busy lying on his little officer’s cot, reminiscing about the time he said “benjo” and everybody cheered.

“There was a fourth man.”

I know you are referring to the raid on Silna in “Punished as a Boy”, but these words put one in mind of T.S. Eliot’s notes to the “Fire Sermon” in his “Wasteland”: “it was related that the party of [Anarctic] explorers, at the extremity of their strength, had the constant delusion that there was one more member than could actually be counted”. Ah, the hypnotic potency of the top of the world.

Did Edward just grab Irving’s knee? Judging by Irving’s expression, yes, I think he did. I think he leaves his hand there for the rest of the meeting. Actually, no, he does not, but he appears to again bring it down to the general vicinity of Irving’s lower body.

I have run this scene over again and again and again (like the Zapruder film), and I think Edward does make an aggressively intimate gesture: “left and to the back, left and to the back.” Irving does not seem displeased.

Hickey begins to assume what he imagines as Tuunbaq’s character. Having already, it’s implied, eaten part of Heather’s brain . . .

It is more probable that Hickey was just tapping at Heather’s brain, mainly because a brain IS not like a pudding; a pudding can be nibbled on without anyone noticing. But if someone nicks a part of a cathedral, which is a self-contained entity, it would be noticed by, at least, Nurse Tozer. Still Hickey might have tasted the cerebrospinal fluid, just for the Hickey of it.

When first aboard Terror, Hickey appears to be sizing up his new environment, but he also looks relieved, hopeful. It’s implied that he had a lucky escape from England, which had gotten too hot for him, but I think that he really believed that he was making a fresh start. Taking another man’s name was practical, perhaps a necessary evil, but I think that E.C. just didn’t want to be E.C. anymore.

I admire the symmetry of Hickey throwing a Neptune-sized bag down by Hodgson, thus startling him far more than one think a tough lieutenant would be startled.

Author’s note: . . Silna doesn’t fall into Goodsir’s arms, because there’s no reason why she would; she might like him, but he’s merely the least untrustworthy of a group of untrustworthy men who, by the end of the series, have not just made her home almost uninhabitable, but killed her father and her friends. Her discovery of Goodsir's body, the state it’s left in, confirms it: if this is what the British do to each other, she was lucky to get away when she did.

Hear hear!

By the way, if one is in the mood, another pensee could also be written about the real daguerreotypes of the Franklin expedition. I am particularly amused by Gore and Fairholme. Gore hates Lady Jane and this stupid thing she’s making him do. just so Sir John can be further exalted. Fairholme picks up the vibe and poses just like Gore, only he has to borrow the affable Fitzjames’ jacket.

I think we’ve all been there.

17 notes · View notes

starbuck · 4 years

Text

Terror Notes: “Go For Broke”

well… I guess I’m really doing this! Some proper, bullet-pointed notes for each episode of The Terror, starting with ep 1: Go For Broke!

I wrote these out last night (and edited them this morning to make them readable - you’re welcome!) so I hope that y’all enjoy my thoughts and assorted nonsense! I tried to save my comments for points I actually wanted to make because I feel like they bring something to the table but I still ended up writing A Lot lol

I love that Crozier couldn’t even be bothered to be present in welcoming Sir John and Fitzjames onto Terror, making Little and Hodgson do it by themselves. One could argue that he had important captain-y things to be doing at that time or something but I’m not 100% sure that wasn’t the case.

idk if it’s just the angle, but I paused the episode just as the shot of the officer’s mess is coming in from above and Hodgson’s hands make me so uncomfortable. They look so bone-y and weird. (Just what you came here for, I know. Hand commentary.)

Cannot tell you how uncomfortable it is, after many rewatches, to listen to Fitzjames recounting in a casual, lighthearted manner 1) shooting people 2) people catching fire (and burning to death), and 3) their burning flesh smelling “like roast duck” (so, like something edible) and it’s even more uncomfortable to have the closeup be on Hodgson’s face as he laughs at the ‘roast duck’ comparison.

On a lighter note: I love that Fitzjames felt the need to remind everyone what size cherries are by illustrating it with his fingers. In case they forgot, I guess? As someone who occasionally speaks unnecessarily with my hands, big mood tbh.

I LOVE it when Fitzjames gives Little that affirmative tap on the arm after he compares Fitzjames’s injury to Lord Nelson’s. My friend Eli and I refer to it as The Fitzjames Arm Tap. I would like a Fitzjames Arm Tap, pretty please.

God, Sir John loudly setting his hands on the table to try to dispel the tension from the ‘birdshit island’ debacle as he attempts to change the subject is so funny. I’m gonna stop just pointing out things I find funny soon, I swear, but I just cannot handle this scene.

Between Hodgson looking horrifically embarrassed by Crozier’s outburst at Fitzjames and Little looking nervous when Crozier shoots him a look as Sir John says that there’s no reason to be concerned about the ice, it really does seem that they were having to ‘manage’ him even back in ep 1 when his alcoholism wasn’t completely out of hand.

Personal sidenote about this: My Pop-pop is often rude to workers in stores and restaurants (he doesn’t drink thank goodness but he has Alzheimer’s coming on which has worsened his temper) so I very much understand the feeling of being on-edge that an outburst is going to occur and trying to deal with the fallout when it does. Just going by my own experience, I can imagine Little apologizing to Fitzjames for Crozier’s rudeness as soon as they were out of Crozier’s earshot (not that anything Little could say would heal the deep psychological wound that Crozier created but hey, it’s something).

The way that Sir John brushes aside Dr. MacDonald’s and Crozier’s concerns about moving Young when he’s in such bad shape never fails to upset me but also ~foreshadowing for hauling the ill on boats oooohhh~

I said I was done pointing out random things that amuse me but the speed and agility with which Des Voeux pops out of the hatch and onto the deck after Orren falls into the water is just so funny. I could watch that two second clip on repeat all day. Might gif it so I actually can.

Is this a good time to point out that there’s also a scene in Moby-Dick where someone falls from high up on a mast and drowns? It’s in a chapter all about bad omens experienced by the crew of the Pequod and The Terror definitely has some similar vibes going on with the sun dogs displayed in the establishing shot of Erebus in that scene and David Young, a “warning of things to come,” on his way over.

The second(?) time I watched the part where Young tells Stanley that he didn’t think anything of getting headaches since he’s always gotten them, I had this thought pass through my head that was like “oh god, I had chronic migraines for years so I’d never have known if I had lead poisoning either!” but then I realized that this probably was not a relevant concern I should have.

Not sure I have any deep commentary on this but as Gore informs Sir John and Fitzjames about the blocked propeller, he’s standing in the same spot, in the same room as Goodsir will stand next episode to tell them about his death.

Also regarding this scene, I love how Gore waits for Fitzjames to give him the go-ahead to leave before actually going. I know that Fitzjames is his superior officer too but, since Sir John already dismissed him, it seems like waiting for Fitzjames’s approval isn’t really necessary, yet a nice thing to do. Perhaps this is a legitimate formality, but something similar happens later in this episode in the command meeting when Crozier asks Gore how many sun dogs he’s seen; he looks to Fitzjames and waits for his nod before answering Crozier. He doesn’t look to Sir John, he looks to Fitzjames. I know that we know essentially nothing about Gore but like.. underrated ship???? Just saying…

Ten nights ago, I was unable to get to sleep for at least an hour because I started thinking about David Young’s saying “I want to go to my grave as I am” and, of course, that ultimately doesn’t happen for him but also, this, like all things about him, is a “warning of things to come.” I’m pretty sure that no one else was properly buried until, arguably, Fitzjames and ironically, that was explicitly not what he wanted done with his body (and, since his grave was later looted by Hickey, similar to the way that Young’s autopsy ultimately achieved nothing, it didn’t really matter anyway).

I know that this happened exactly ten days ago because I forced myself to wake up and write it down in my notes app, lest I forget, which only prolonged my sleeplessness. I suffer for my analysis.

Ah yesssss Tozer’s lesbian haircut. We love it! Why does my hair not look like that when I take a hat off? I’d like to file a complaint.

Was just thinking the other day about how Hartnell being the one to notice that there was something up with the ice in ep 1 is followed up on with Blanky complimenting Hartnell’s ability to read the ice to Crozier in ep 7. I wonder if Blanky ever gave him like. ice-reading lessons after becoming aware of his interest and natural talent at it in ep 1? That makes me happy to think about.

The two people who we’re shown awoken by Young’s screaming are Sgt. Bryant and Morfin and like. Do I even have to explain why that’s an Oof?

The way that Goodsir hesitates before knocking on Stanley’s door and Stanley irritatedly closing his book before answering the knock in an exasperated voice would be comedic in any other context. If I’m being honest, it still makes me laugh. As does Stanley’s “As if that weren’t plain.”

I’ve pointed this out before but mmmmm... that shot of Stanley in profile with the open candle flame in the background… the foreshadowing in this ep is thicker than the smoke at… Oh alright, I’ll stop.

God, the autopsy/dive scene…. Collins being lowered down and entering the water paralleled with Goodsir’s initial cutting into Young’s corpse, the breaking up of the ice paralleled with the cutting of the bone-saw. But most significant to me is the parallel of what is seen/not seen and the long-term effect that this has. Collins sees Orren’s corpse (and then presumably never tells anyone about it), reinforcing his guilt over Orren’s death, the beginning of his mental health decline. Goodsir doesn’t see the cause of Young’s death in his autopsy and this not knowing about the lead poisoning until it’s too late to do anything about it is the cause of many of Goodsir’s later problems as well. And, to finish it all off, both the autopsy and Collins’ dive were ultimately for nothing (considering a spinning propeller is useless when your ships are frozen in).

Crozier and Blanky’s simultaneous face journeys as Sir John rambles on about how there’s nothing to worry about and they’ll find the passage any day now are truly legendary.

I wrote some pretty extensive tags on this already but man… Crozier’s comment about how not all of Sir John’s men returned from one of his previous arctic expeditions is just so nasty and awful. Like, yes, Sir John is wrong to undersell the danger they’re in and Crozier is advocating for the correct position here, but that was completely uncalled for and horrible to say, particularly in a command meeting, in front of so many people. And Sir John looks legitimately upset by it too. He gets over it quickly, at least on the outside, but I still feel really bad for him (and I NEVER feel bad for Sir John so this is weird for me).

“But of course we will not be abandoning Erebus, or Terror…” Let’s check back in six episodes and see how that’s going!

Crozier slamming his fist on the table to prove he’s not being melodramatic reminds me of this one post (that I sadly can’t find rn) about Jesus Christ Superstar that’s like “‘CUT OUT THE DRAMATICS’ Judas hollered dramatically.” It’s such an Overall Mood.

I don’t have a developed commentary on this at the moment but it’s an interesting reverse-parallel that Sir John had no concern for Young’s well-being when he was alive, ignoring Crozier’s concerns about moving him from ship-to-ship when he was in such poor health, yet now that he’s dead, Sir John is the one to recommend that Young be buried which Crozier is surprised by, and seems to feel is unnecessary.

There’s been so much amazing commentary already made about Young’s burial scene so I’ll skip it except to say that Hickey’s irritated sigh when he hears footsteps coming towards the grave is SO funny. That’s exactly how I feel when I know that someone is about to tell me something that will annoy me.

Goodsir was really getting into the emotion of Sir John’s “eulogy”/motivational speech before he remembered the promise he made about Young’s ring. Also, what triggered his memory was Sir John saying “We shall earn our loved one’s cheers and embraces,” so no doubt a reminder of the traumatic “Your loved ones will be there in Heaven to welcome you! :)” “I never knew my mother or father” exchange (or maybe just a reminder of the fact that he was supposed to get Young’s ring to his sister but just let me scrape a little humor out of this. God knows I need it).

The shot of Bryant praying in his hammock the night before they get completely frozen-in is honestly deeply upsetting to me. Especially considering he’s a marine so he Did Not Ask To Be Here, yet there he’ll die.

According to Melville, ship’s compasses occasionally spun round-and-round when a ship was caught in a severe storm and this was an incredibly upsetting thing to behold because of how disorienting it was. So, considering that, Fitzjames keeps his composure pretty well but he clearly has some reservations about how things are going and Sir John has no comforting-sounding remark about ‘Magnetic North’ to offer him now.

The bit where Sir John “sees” Crozier, on Terror, turn away from him with a half-smirk on his face is interesting because there’s no way he could have possibly seen Crozier’s expression at that distance and I’m doubtful that he’d even have been able to make out the identity of anyone he might have been able to see on Terror’s deck. So really, it speaks mostly to Sir John’s mental state; his seeing their getting frozen in as a loss against Crozier and imagining that Crozier would see it as a victory for himself.

Ugh the final shot is making me think about @catilinas’s post comparing a shot of the two ships stuck in to the shot of the ink drops from ep 3 and I am LOSING IT but I was losing it anyway because it’s 2AM now and my entire body feels like gelatin.

THANK YOU AND GOODNIGHT!

SEE YOU NEXT TIME!

#the terror #i'm REALLY proud of these!! this was so fun to do!#i definitely intend to do this for each episode #no promises for the timing on that but i legitimately have nothing better to do so lol hopefully ep 2 will happen soon!#hope y'all enjoyyyyyyyy #feel free to add comments if you like or you don't have to! whatever is good - i just appreciate anybody slogging through this lol

27 notes · View notes

entwinedmoon · 5 years

Text

John Torrington: Sacred to the Memory of

(Previous posts 1, 2, 3, 4)

This is the part of the story people usually know.

In 1845, the Franklin Expedition left England and sailed into the Arctic. The families of the crew eagerly waited for the day their loved ones would return.

And waited.

Years went by and soon people started to realize something had gone wrong. Franklin’s wife, Jane, was chief among those who demanded rescue missions be sent to find the missing ships. Eventually, rescue missions were sent but with little luck.

In 1850, five years after the ships had left England, various rescue crews had converged on Beechey Island, a tiny triangle of frozen land, where signs of Franklin’s expedition had been found—the harbor for their first winter in the Arctic, it would be discovered later. The rescue crews, which included Robert Goodsir, brother to Harry Goodsir, the naturalist on board Erebus, scoured the small piece of land for any indication of where the ships had gone.

Then they found the graves.

(WARNING: Pictures of mummified bodies beneath the cut)

Three members of Franklin’s crew had been laid to rest on this far-flung Arctic island as long ago as 1846, less than a year into the expedition. The bodies of these three men lay buried in a desolate place their families would never be able to visit, never to lay flowers on their graves. For Robert Goodsir, it was a brief sigh of relief to read the names on the wooden headboards and realize his brother was not among them.

But for the families of those three men, who after five years of praying for their loved ones’ safety now discovered they’d already been dead for four years, there was no relief.

John Torrington has the notoriety of being the first known member of the Franklin Expedition to die. It’s possible there may have been deaths before him, but considering the amount of effort put into the burials on Beechey, there probably would have been a grave or at least a memorial somewhere to honor anyone who died before reaching Beechey, none of which has yet to be found. Therefore, Torrington is assumed to be the first.

Torrington died January 1, 1846, a little over seven months into the expedition. He was followed by Able Seaman John Hartnell, from Erebus, a few days later. Marine Private William Braine, also from Erebus, joined their private graveyard in April.

Torrington’s headboard contained the inscription:

Sacred to the memory of John Torrington who departed this life January 1st, A.D. 1846, on board of H.M. ship Terror aged 20 years

The earliest known photograph of his headboard, complete with black and white paint that has long since faded, is shown below.

Elisha Kent Kane, one of the rescue explorers, noted that Torrington’s grave wasn’t as well decorated as the other two, calling it “more grave-like” in appearance. Hartnell and Braine also had Bible verses on their headboard inscriptions whereas Torrington did not. There are also some differences between the burials beneath the surface. I think the differences between Torrington’s grave and the graves of Hartnell and Braine are due to Torrington being from Terror while Hartnell and Braine were from Erebus. Torrington’s burial arrangements most likely were overseen by Crozier, captain of Terror. Franklin would have overseen that of Hartnell and Braine, possibly with the assistance of Fitzjames. Franklin was a very religious man, so it makes sense that he would have chosen Bible verses for the headboards. Crozier seemed not as evangelical as his superior. He comes off in his biographies (all two of them) as an understated sort of man, someone who faced dangerous conditions at sea with utter calm—on the outside, at least. I can definitely see Crozier selecting a basic approach to the burial, something efficient and respectful without any frills. It also would have been a very serious moment for him. He was responsible for his crew, and the first fatality was on his ship, something he probably felt guilty about.

Three deaths—and less than a year after leaving England—was an ominous sign for the rescue crews. What had happened to cause such a tragedy so early on? Was something wrong on the ships? Illness? Lack of food? What had happened?

The rescue missions continued in earnest, desperate to discover the final fate of the expedition, but for three families, the fates of the men who mattered had already been determined. The grief they suffered can only be imagined.

Eventually, thanks to John Rae, an Arctic explorer who brought back relics from the expedition and stories from the Inuit about a large group of white men dying on King William Land (now King William Island), some of them even resorting to cannibalism near the end, the Admiralty of the Royal Navy considered the entire expedition lost. The crew was officially discharged as dead in 1854.

This meant, in practical terms, that the families of the men would stop receiving allotment payments. But the families of the men buried on Beechey Island would have stopped receiving payments years earlier, because as soon as the Admiralty discovered the death dates of the three men, each one was retroactively discharged as dead on that date. However, the families of Torrington and Hartnell had already received allotment payments for the four years during which the men had already been dead, (Braine did not allot any of his pay to anyone, as far as I can tell). Hopefully the Admiralty didn’t try to get their money back from these grieving families.

It doesn’t quite seem fair, though, that the rest of the crew’s families received an additional four years of allotment payments, even though many of the men had probably died by 1850 anyway (it’s now assumed that the majority of the crew perished in 1848, shortly after abandoning ship). But those families also had to contend with not knowing the exact fate of their loved ones. Some consider the men buried on Beechey the lucky ones. They died before the situation turned dire, before the death march along the coast of King William Island, where the men abandoned the ships, starving, suffering from scurvy, hauling impossibly heavy sledges in a last-ditch attempt at reaching salvation, only to die one by one, eating whatever was available, even if that meant their recently deceased comrades.

No one survived from the Franklin Expedition. But why did they all die? That’s the question that has haunted people for almost two centuries. It’s the question that drives people from archaeologists to armchair enthusiasts to try to find any little clue that could finally fit the pieces together.

One person who tried to fit the pieces together was anthropologist Owen Beattie.

Beattie used modern forensics techniques on the remains of the Franklin Expedition members to determine how they may have died. He began his research on bones found on King William Island. Chemical analysis showed unusually high lead levels, which got him to thinking. Lead poisoning can cause a wide variety of negative effects—from weight loss and headaches to convulsions and death. It can also affect cognitive functions. Had the Franklin Expedition been hobbled by a lack of reason, making questionable decisions that led to their demise, thanks to lead poisoning?

That was Beattie’s hypothesis, but bones only show a person’s lifelong lead levels, which means these poor victims could have gradually been exposed to lead all their lives. The entire crew wouldn’t have been affected, just these individuals. Recent exposure, however, would indicate a problem on the expedition itself, where everyone may have been exposed to large quantities in a short amount of time. But to prove recent exposure, Beattie would have to look at hair and soft tissue samples.

Soft tissue preserved in permafrost would work perfectly.

Beattie figured the men buried on Beechey Island would have been preserved enough to be able to take samples from them, so he obtained the needed permissions to perform exhumations and autopsies, bringing an archaeologist and pathologist with him to discover just what caused the deaths of Franklin and his men.

In 1984, Beattie and his team went to Beechey Island. They would exhume and autopsy Torrington, and briefly exhume Hartnell (there wasn’t enough time to autopsy him—they would return to do so in 1986, when they would also autopsy Braine), then rebury them.

They approached Torrington first. First to die, first to be exhumed. His wooden headboard had become severally worn by 138 years of arctic conditions and would be replaced with a bronze memorial years later. The team began digging, hacking their way through the frozen ground. It took hours before a mahogany coffin emerged, covered in dark blue wool with white linen tape lining the edges. Brass handles were bolted to the sides—right and left, the right one still pointing up, as if a pallbearer had only just placed it in the ground. Brass rings were bolted at the foot and head of the coffin. Interestingly, Hartnell and Braine’s coffins had faux handles, outlined with white linen tape, rather than real ones like Torrington’s.

On top of the coffin was a marker pointing to true north as well as a dark blue-green plaque, roughly heart-shaped (or guitar-pick-shaped, according to my sister), which read:

John Torrington died January 1st 1846 aged 20 years

They removed the coffin lid and began to thaw the frozen contents. An outline of a body draped in blue wool slowly emerged. Finally, they were able to peel away the fabric and came face to face with John Torrington.

Torrington was remarkably well preserved, looking as if he’d only just been buried. However, his face had been darkened by the blue wool covering him, and his eyes were half open, revealing blue irises. His lips had curled up, revealing his teeth in a rictus grin. Desiccation and decay can cause the lips to curl back, and there’s even a special term for when the mouth falls open and the tongue sticks out—mummy gape. However, the level of protrusion of Torrington’s lips is more extreme than I’ve typically seen in my time as an amateur mummy enthusiast. I want to say that it wasn’t just desiccation but possibly ice freezing between the lips that caused that degree of protrusion. The most comparable mummy I’ve seen so far is a desert mummy from the Tarim Basin:

But Torrington’s lips are pulled out even farther than that. I’m not an anthropologist, though, and while I love studying mummies, it’s just a hobby, so take any of my opinions here with a grain of salt.

Now let’s move on to the most important topic—his hair. According to the autopsy report, Torrington had long brown hair, but it’s hard to tell that from the photos that have been released. He’s lying on top of a bed of wood shavings, and some people have mistaken the wood shavings for his hair, thinking he was rocking some Roger Daltrey curls. Honestly, when I first saw the pictures of him when I was a child, I thought he was bald because I couldn’t tell where his hair was (his hair had separated from his scalp, so technically he is bald—now). On closer inspection (and yes, this is a very important topic), you can see wisps of his hair in certain areas around his head, particularly in the upper left corner of the picture above (or at least I think that’s his hair). It does indeed look brown, perhaps with some lighter highlights (but that could just be the lighting). But how long is long, exactly? Are we talking shoulder length? Shorter? Longer? These are the things people need to know.

Beattie and his team had noted the coffin was rather small, more like a child’s, and now they realized why. John Torrington was only 5 feet 4 inches (163 cm) tall. Friedrich Engels would probably blame this lack of height on a hard life in Manchester. He dedicated part of The Condition of the Working Class in England to a discussion about how short, pale, thin, and feeble Mancunians looked thanks to factory work. He said men from Manchester almost never reached 5’8”, usually only reaching 5’6” or 7”. Average height for Victorian men was actually around 5’6”, but the working class did tend to be shorter. While Torrington would be considered vertically challenged by today’s standards, (I’m an inch taller than him, for instance), he may not have stood much shorter than his working-class peers. (It does not help, though, that both Hartnell and Braine were around six feet tall—this makes Torrington the runt of the litter.)

Torrington weighed less than 88 pounds (40 kg), part of which may have been due to postmortem desiccation—mummified bodies tend to look a bit shrink-wrapped—but there were signs he may have lost a significant amount of weight before death. The lack of calluses on his hands also seemed to suggest a long illness that had rendered him unable to work, although as I discussed in my last post, he may not have had much to do on board ship anyway.

A kerchief, white with blue polka dots, had been tied around his head to keep his jaw shut. Was this a favorite kerchief of his, or just one they had to spare? A sample of the kerchief was not taken by Beattie, in order to minimize disturbance of the body, but samples of his other clothes and bindings were.

He wore a white cotton print shirt with thin blue stripes, and plain grayish-white pants made from linen. Analysis of the pants suggested that they had rarely been worn, if ever. It’s odd that he had been dressed in unworn pants. Had these pants recently been made for him, but he’d never had the chance to wear them? This is particularly strange when paired with the fact that neither Hartnell nor Braine were found wearing any pants at all. No pants versus never-worn pants. Why was Torrington the only one buried in them, and why such new ones? This is a bizarre quandary, but perhaps not the greatest mystery of the Franklin Expedition.

Torrington’s shirt, on the other hand, showed signs of significant wear, including stains and a few tears. Unfortunately, when the body was being lifted out of the coffin, part of the shirt was still frozen to the bottom, and the back part tore off. Beattie and his team took the large, irregularly shaped piece as a sample. For some reason, the idea that he’s wearing only half a shirt bothers me. It’s cold up there! Would it be inappropriate to knit him a sweater?

Probably…

Moving on…

There were also unbleached muslin strips tying his limbs to his body for ease of transport into the coffin. The strip binding his elbows was taken as a sample, and it contained light colored hair caught in the knot. Whose hair was this? Was this Torrington’s hair, perhaps a lighter strand having gotten caught on the strip? Or was this from whoever tied the fabric around him? One of the doctors on Terror probably prepared him for burial. Was it their hair? But if it was one of the doctors, which one? I don’t know what Dr. John Peddie looked like, but Dr. Alexander MacDonald had red hair. The only description given of the hair found in the knot was “light colored.” Ginger hair is light colored. Was this MacDonald’s hair?

After Torrington was thawed and removed from his coffin, Beattie and his team began the autopsy. However, unlike with Hartnell’s and Braine’s autopsies in 1986, I have been unable to find any pictures from Torrington’s autopsy. That might sound like an odd thing to complain about, but I’m curious as to why there aren’t any. In fact, I haven’t been able to find any photos taken from after he was removed from the coffin. There are a limited number of photos of Torrington in circulation, and they’re all of him still in the coffin. Why is that? Pictures were taken during the autopsy, but were they lost? Were they not released out of respect for Torrington? If so, then why have a documentary crew film parts of Hartnell’s and Braine’s autopsies? It’s a weird difference between the two exhumations that I don’t understand.

Despite the lack of pictures, there are thorough descriptions of the autopsy, both in the official report and in Beattie’s book, Frozen in Time, co-authored with John Geiger. The autopsy revealed that Torrington’s lungs were completely blackened—a prominent symptom of black lung, the notorious disease common among coal miners. Since Torrington was raised in Manchester—Coal Smoke Central in the Victorian age—and he worked as a stoker and it’s assumed that he smoked, this isn’t too surprising, but for his lungs to be completely black at only age twenty is disconcerting. Just how much coal and smoke was he exposed to? His lungs also contained scar tissue from previous lung disease. It seemed he suffered from emphysema, which can be caused by black lung, but it’s something that usually doesn’t strike until later in life. His heart had shrunk, which could have been caused by the emphysema but was probably due to post-mortem cellular decay as there was nothing else noticeably wrong with it. There were also signs of tuberculosis and pneumonia. Basically, Torrington had a lot of health problems. Did he know he was sick? Or did he just think everyone had a hard time breathing sometimes? In Manchester, that may very well have been true…

While there were no conclusive findings as to what caused his death, it was determined that pneumonia, brought on by tuberculosis, was the most likely culprit. He would have suffered a long, slow illness, wasting away until the pneumonia struck and mercifully cut his agony short.

Samples were taken from Torrington’s bones, hair, fingernails, and organs to be examined further in a lab. He was then redressed, placed back into his coffin, and reburied, but I wonder exactly how much care was given to putting him back together again after the autopsy. His kerchief wasn’t removed because they didn’t want to disturb the body too much, but they cut open his skull—did they slide the kerchief off and then back on again, or did they remove the skull cap only a little? They removed it enough to see that his brain had decayed into a yellow granular fluid, that’s for sure. Pieces of him were taken—some of his hair and nails, part of his radius (but from which arm? I’ve never been able to find that out). Seeing the pictures of his body looking so well preserved, it can be hard to think of the fact that it no longer looks the same. I’ve wondered many times what he looks like now, leading to the creation of a Word document on my computer titled “Things I know are missing from John Torrington,” a very normal type of document to have. I try not to think what climate change and the thawing of permafrost in the Arctic is doing to him now. Even though he’s long dead, it feels like another death to think of his body decaying and falling apart. But that’s a discussion for another time.

Beattie tested the samples he’d taken from Torrington when he returned from Beechey. Chemical analysis revealed elevated lead levels in the bones, but the levels were lower than those from the King William Island samples. Torrington’s hair, however, had lead levels of over 600 parts per million, indicating acute lead poisoning. Beattie theorized that the lead came from the tin food cans taken on the expedition. This changed the conversation about how the Franklin Expedition met its end, with lead poisoning being a perfect explanation for some of the confusing decisions the officers seemed to have made.

However, the level of lead in Torrington’s hair was much higher than in Hartnell’s or Braine’s, which suggests that he was exposed to more lead than either of them. Beattie didn’t offer an explanation for this discrepancy, but I wonder, did he eat more of the tinned food? Or was it something else? Coal ash can contain lead, so perhaps Torrington’s particularly high levels came about in part by his exposure to coal through his job as a stoker.

There are still debates over whether or not lead poisoning actually played a role in the Franklin Expedition’s demise, especially since high lead levels were common in the Victorian era. Some people have argued that the lead came from other sources, while others insist it came from before the expedition even set sail. I’m not going to argue one way or another, but Torrington did have very high levels of lead in his system. How exactly did it affect him? Was he driven mad by it, or did it act more subtly, weakening his already weakened immune system so that he succumbed to tuberculosis and pneumonia more easily? I don’t know. But however large or small the role that lead played in his death, it was due to Beattie’s theory that Torrington was exhumed and that we got to see him, to meet him across the years.

Next: the family he left behind.

<<Back | Next >>

Torrington Series Masterlist

#john torrington #franklin expedition #tw mummies #tw corpse

14 notes · View notes