#instead of just writing a cool story about politics and moral grayness and how far one can go

[lord-squiggletits]

This might be bc of my personal reading of exRDI/OP bc I'm pretty sure the authorial intent was to just write Optimus as having some fall from grace/borderline tyrannical edge but like

I really kinda wish the story had been written as more of a political intrigue, almost GOT-esque thing (sorry for the cliche) where like, instead of Optimus being written as the narrative's scapegoat to be condemned both by the characters in universe and the meta narrative, he was just written as...morally gray? With more of a focus on "this is a shitty situation where no decision is good" rather than having Optimus just be some sort of white guilt stand-in of how oh, he's a Prime so that means the most important part of his legacy is how Cybertronians are awful and he's no better than the other ones etc.

Like Barber doesn't write Optimus as EVIL or in a way where he's unilaterally condemned as a person who did more harm than good, it's just imo the vibes of the story is more of a dark political/war story where no person is clean and there's no solution to the war that doesn't involve moral compromise. Instead Optimus is forced to make these moral compromises but then everyone else in the story loses their absolute shit and immediately starts calling him a tyrant or a fascist or something.

Like idk, it was partially an issue of the set-up. Because for one, it was really hard to take it seriously when the humans went "omg he's annexing Earth the Autobots were literally the colonizers all along!" (I think the dialogue was written almost exactly like that too sjdjsidn, so bad dialogue was also another issue) yet were perfectly fine working with the Decepticons led by 1. Soundwave who personally helped execute the attempted invasion of Earth and 2. Galvatron who constantly talks about wanting to kill these puny organics. I feel like I would've been able to take humanity's fears of being colonized again more seriously if like, they hadn't literally teamed up with The Colonizer Faction just bc Soundwave promised they were good guys again. So really it's just execution + plot holes + bad dialogue.

And another thing about the annexing of Earth specifically that I wish got talked about more (mostly by the fandom more than in universe) is that like. Basically the reason Optimus did that was because the neo-Decepticons were planning to invade Earth again, but since he's not actually a formal political leader any more he has no power to actually force a war to stop them/request military back up. But also, Starscream didn't give a shit about Earth and neither did the Council of Worlds, so appealing to the government for help defending humanity wouldn't work either. So Optimus annexing Earth was an absolute clusterfuck yes, but in a way it was also kind of a shrewd political move to force Cybertron to dedicate a spot in the government for humans and thus grant humans a say on Cybertronian politics.

What I mean is that in a story/with an author like that of GOT, where the setting is grimmer and every character is morally ambiguous, I feel like Optimus would've had way more room to be an interesting and compelling character. Bc then instead of the story immediately screaming "ALL HAIL OPTIMUS DID YOU KNOW OP ANNEXING EARTH TO THE COUNCIL IS BASICALLY THE SAME AS MEGATRON ATTEMPTING TO GENOCIDE EARTH," Optimus could have been played around with more as a political figure making the shitty decisions in an effort to stop another genocide. Instead of just unilaterally condemning Optimus and immediately comparing him to fucking Megatron of all people, there could've been more focus on the politics of it with maybe some sort of theme of how "being a leader in war is an inherently unethical position where every decision you make will lead to death/conflict/hate."

Like idk I just think it would've been more interesting if the narrative spent less time going "zomg Optimus is totally a tyrant now" and instead went all in on exploring the political conflicts and how far politicians (Optimus now being one, since he's declaring wars and forcefully acting as an ambassador that no one asked for) can go on manipulation and forcing people's hands for the sake of an ultimately good cause. I mean, Windblade was doing shit like covering up for Chromia who killed people in a bombing, making backdoor deals with Starscream, and conspiring with Optimus to bypass Starscream/overthrow him as Cybertron's ruler somehow. The difference of course is that Windblade and exRID were written by two different authors with genre/thematic differences, but as a reader it is really disappointing to see two different political narratives where "a hero turned politician turning to morally gray/unethical methods to outmaneuver a deadly opponent" is treated as clever and heroic for one character, but tyrannical and worthy of ostracization of another character.

Like for God's sake this narrative where Optimus gets lambasted at every turn sometimes by people who work with/are literal tyrants/terrorists themselves is so fucking exhausting. I'd rather read a story that focused more on the idea of, well what Optimus did was unethical but on a political level it was actually advantageous in several ways. Then you could write a story that really dives into a view of like, idk... Does power inherently corrupt or is it just situations like war that allow leaders to seize power and become tyrannical? Are politics an inherently dirty field where the only way to beat your competition (and secure a decent future for the nation) is to become underhanded and manipulative yourself? Is it okay to bypass or work against rightfully elected officials when those officials are turning a blind eye to things like war and invasions and historic racism?

ExRID did somewhat touch on these themes to be fair, but I feel like in Optimus' case they were either poorly executed or just thrown away in favor of having every other character talk shit about him and how he's the worst person ever. Bc like goddammit, I do think Optimus' polarizing and sometimes bad decisions as a character DO make him skirt on the edge of tyranny and shouldn't be downplayed, but on the other hand, I feel like no one (fandom or in-universe) ever tangles with the OTHER side of the story, which is just... Would it have been unethical for Optimus to NOT have done anything? Cybertronians literally put a colony on Earth, injected Earth with alien technology and sleeper agents, used Earth as an incubating ground for dangerous elements like Ore-13, invaded Earth and killed 1 billion people-- after all the shit Cybertron did to Earth, is it not fair (even morally obligated) for Cybertronians to clean up their shit and help Earth defend itself against a crisis that Cybertronians caused? And if Cybertron's government/the individuals within are racist enough that they don't care about Earth, don't see it as their problem, and don't even see human life as meaningful since they don't live that wrong anyways... is it not, in a way, a good thing for Optimus to have overstepped his authority and forced diplomatic relationships between the two planets? So that humans had an actual political channel to go "fuck you, we're in your Council so you'd better ally with us" and so that Cybertron would be forced to go "welp can't write off these humans as Not Our Problem, guess we have to help them." Doesn't forcing Earth to be part of the Council in a way legitimize Optimus' fight to help Earth, since without a formal political office he's just a rogue general fighting an unauthorized war, but with the government involved, defending Earth now becomes a politically sanctioned act?

Like idk. I guess exRID and OP did get into some of this stuff, but as a whole it felt like the story underutilized its political elements and got bogged down in shit like pointless crossovers, and constantly pausing the narrative to have Side Character #2847 talk about how Optimus is a fascist, and having Optimus go on white guilt-esque monologues about how maybe all Cybertronians should die and are unworthy/unable to ever have a peaceful society because their society colonized other planets.

Just so much wasted potential honestly. ExRID/OP as written felt like it was going way too hard into "omg Cybertronians bad and Optimus is actually a tyrant" instead of just writing a complex story and letting readers come to their own conclusions. And also lambasting Optimus for doing things that other characters did (or characters who did even worse things), but letting those characters exist in peace while Optimus has to just be some allegory for colonialism that has to be torn down at every turn because that's Deep and Intellectual.

I just like the kinds of stories about politics that play around with the ethics of it all, like, "this politician is a shitty person but their policies actually prevented some sort of disaster from happening" or "this person did something illegal and defied the law but they did it because no one else was doing anything" or even "everyone hates this person for forcing them into a political deal they didn't want to be involved in, but the fact that they were all forced to become allies actually allowed them to cooperate and save themselves in a way they wouldn't have been able to alone" (which is pretty much literally how the annexing of Earth ended up going).

Like man I don't want to sit here being lectured/having my favorite character be lectured about how much tyranny is bad. I want my favorite character to do shitty things and then go "whoa that was shitty...but also kind of smart...but also caused a lot of problems...but also solved some other problems that could've turned awful if he hadn't forcefully resolved them."

[cornbreadcrumbs]

The Three Musketeers; Or, How I l Learned to Stop Worrying and Love My Friends

So I recently finished reading Alexandre Dumas’ famous and beloved novel “The Three Musketeers” and honestly, it’s incredible and funny and fabulous and everyone should go read it right now. Like, right the fuck now, cause I’m about to gush hardcore on this book and you could better spend your time reading the actual story. That said, if you want to be sold on why this book is so awesome, then join me my friends. Let’s. Get. Dangerous.

First off, let me give all the accolades I can to the author, Alexandre Dumas. Talk about black excellence, Dumas was the son of Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, aka The Black Count. A brilliant general in the service of Napoleon Bonaparte and the highest ranking officer of African descent in a European army, he died tragically when his son was only four years old. When he came to adulthood, young Dumas would find his fortune as a prolific writer, authoring thousands of manuscripts that included travelogues about various countries, romantic and historical plays, and of course the swashbuckling adventure novels that make him a household name to this very day. A man who lived life to the fullest, known for his warmth, boundless generosity, affable humor and womanizing adventurousness, he straddled the 19th century as a gentle giant of literature. All of his best personal qualities can be found in his works, including “The Three Musketeers.”

 “The Three Musketeers” tells the story of a young impoverished nobleman by the name of D’Artagnan as he matures and gets himself into adventure and mishap, making a close bond of friendship with the titular three musketeers along the way.

What blew me away about the book is how not like any of the movie adaptations it is. If you’re like me, you’ve probably seen at least one movie version in your time. While it’s true that D’Artagnan and pals are the protagonists of the novel, Dumas is faaaar to clever to tell a simple tale of good and evil. 

Instead of bland Good Guys vs Bad Guys, Dumas paints a world of ambition and excitement. The King of France is an idiot, so naturally he defers to his chief minister Cardinal Richelieu for matters of state. The various denizens of France scamper and peep about to try and find their place in a land of spies, secrets, intrigue, and opportunity. The good guys sometimes act like assholes, the “bad guys” are often just trying to do their job. There is a definite grayness to the morality of this world. Virtues in Dumas’ book are ingenuity and loyalty, personal bravery is always presented in the best light and it’s the smart characters who earn the reader’s respect.

The novel was originally published serially, so its very dialogue heavy with many chapters ending in a cliffhanger. There is a certain episodic feel, but the book blends each episode into the next with relative ease. There isn’t one overarching plot, instead we get to learn about our characters and see them interact. Through this, we get to know them, grow close to them, and in the end we’re left feeling like we are a part of this world.

The musketeers themselves are different flavors of awesome. There’s the noble and mysterious Athos, always cool under pressure and possessed with self confidence that marks him out as the Ultimate Badass. He drinks all the time, but never demeans himself. His history is shrouded in tragedy and mystery, but he proves to be more capable of love and generosity then any other character.

Then there’s the blustery Porthos. All of us have met a Porthos in our time. He’s big and tall and boisterous. He laughs a little too loud, eats a little too much, and is a bit of a dumb blowhard. On the downside, he’s a greedy SOB who’s not afraid to con hapless inkeepers and besotted widows alike. But on the upside, his heart is far greater then his appetite, and generates most of the laughs. He’s endearing and you have to love him.

My secret favorite has to be Aramis. Discreet, polite, well dressed, and consistently the wisest and most mystifying. He has connections everywhere, and through clever textual clues, he’s indicated to be the true ladies man in the group. Not that he would ever engage in “locker room talk,” Aramis is the master of discretion and polite chivalry. He’s also a sweetheart who’s always threatening to become a priest whenever he believes his secret mistress no longer loves him. He blushes a lot too.

Finally there’s D’Artagnan. Bold, hot-headed, and a great swordsman, D’Artagnan is capable of great acts of nobility and kindness to those he loves. Sometimes he blusters his way into massive misfortunes, but his bravery and personal accountability never waver. He’s an HUGE asshole a couple of times in the book, but Dumas doesn’t make excuses for him. He’s young, still learning, and deep down a good kid. Even if he can be temperamental and stupid at times, he also has a good head for strategy and a spirit that leaps out of the pages. I love D’Artagnan and I will FIGHT YOU if you try to hurt him.

Outside of our protagonists are a whole host of vividly pictured and colorful characters. All of the musketeers have lackeys, all the lackeys have cute little backstories, and ultimately they emerge has heroes in their own right. Historical personages make their appearance, Kings and Dukes and Lords and one very lovely Queen help to fill out the world and lend an air of credibility to Dumas’ little world.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the villains. Cardinal Richelieu usually emerges as the Big Bad in most adaptations, but here he comes off more as a perpetually pissed politician. It’s not his fault the King is a moron, someone has to run the country after all. He’s something of a 17th century J. Edgar Hoover, he knows all and it stresses him the fuck out. Sure he sometimes employs skeevy methods for personal ends, but he’s not an evil man. Rochefort, his agent, is more of a specter then a fully fleshed out character, and just like his boss he’s not evil so much as an employee.

The Big Bad of this book is the delicious Milady de Winter. Milady is everything, she drives the plot of the book more so then any other single character save D’Artagnan. She is a brilliant actress, an ingenious plotter, a career criminal, and maybe a demon in human form. Seriously, she is compared to satan multiple times. She SCARES our heroes, they are intimidated by her. It would be too simple to make her just another femme fetale, instead we spend a good portion of the book watching how her mind works. You cannot help but admire how much of a badass this woman is, even if you despise her deeds. She feels no remorse, but she does feel things. Anger, fear, joy, and ambition, she is a cavalcade of emotion that destroys and terrifies. Milady is awesome.

So I’ve spent most of this post gushing over the specific characters and why I love it. Are there any drawbacks? Well, yes. It’s not a flawless masterpiece. There are a few strange shifts in the story, certain characters appear and then are dropped, besides Milady there is a considerable lack of female characters, which is a bummer. Sometimes it feels like Dumas changed his mind halfway through about how he wanted certain characters to be. On top of that, the constant dialogue can be tedious to read through at times.

Still, it kind of fits that this book is flawed. Like it’s characters, it’s not perfect. What matters is the book’s heart, which is strong and beautiful. I can’t force you to love this novel, but please give it a try. You can see shades of George R.R. Martin and other contemporary authors in Dumas’ writing. There is so much comedy, so much love and humor, so much life in this book, please don’t pass it by.