#rdr2 meta

[1899sbiggestbabygirl]

John telling Javier "this people ain't your family" in chapter 6 is so unfair. They are his family, John, the gang was all he's ever had in the US. He lets it crumble what does he have left? what will he do? In a country that is hostile to him it's the only place he's found comfort. John can say he's got his own family now, after refusing to care for it, and in the last chapters he's constantly being reassured that other folk -Arthur and Sadie- had his back.

You know who had Javier's back? Who fred him in Guarma? Dutch! sorry but it's not strange he's clinging to that man.

How can people not understand Javier's struggle? Others have been moving on for a while now, and he's being left behind, stuck in the same place. Being treated like it's his fault. He just tried desperately to hang on what little he had left of his family, he was mean and angry cause he's desperate.

[hxpefull]

You can't tell me that Javier didn't felt that lonely in the whole chapter 6. Like, that man, came from Mexico to USA because he was running from his life and now the new family he had that not only welcomed him but also helped him to feel more integrated in the society is falling apart. His people is not only feeling insecure or lost about Dutch plans but also they ARE DYING.

Mac, Davey, Jenny, Hosea, Lenny, Sean... All of them are gone. And the ones who still reminds are not able to tell the good actions from the bad cause they are afraid from the Pinkertons.

I just hate how lonely Javier ends up been and how sad his story is.

[kenobihater]

thinking about how rdr2 is about redemption yes, but also about loyalty to what matters, love of family, and the consequences of both. arthur loved dutch, loved him enough to follow him to hell and back, but not enough to remain blindly loyal when dutch betrayed him and john. he put his love of his brother above the love of his father, because his father taught him well, taught him the importance of family. if not for dutch and hosea raising arthur to believe in the importance of loyalty to what's right, if they had just raised arthur as a mindless outlaw, if they hadn't instilled in him the meaing of family, he likely wouldn't have cared about john enough to betray the man who saved him. for example, bill and javier weren't raised by dutch and hosea like arthur was, but they were loyal to him all the same. they weren't treated like dutch's children like john and arthur were. because the values of family and of right and wrong weren't instilled in them alongside the value of loyalty, they sided with dutch despite his fall from grace and remained blindly devoted to a man who no longer deserved it. but because dutch and hosea taught arthur and john the importance of thinking for themselves and choosing what was truly right as well as the importance of family, they realized that dutch was going down the wrong path and causing senseless deaths with his recklessness, and arthur and john decided they had to leave. arthur knew he was never going to get out, but he at least wanted his little brother to have a semblance of a life away from the gang. he wanted him to have a chance because he loved him, because they were raised together, and because they were raised as a family. dutch had a huge hand in his sons betraying him, not only because he drove them away and betrayed them himself, but because he and hosea raised them right!!

[cloudofbutterflies]

Arthur Morgan is a character doomed by the narrative. We know, because of the first game, that the gang that is his family will fall apart he will not be one of the survivors. But at least to me, that's not why he's so ridiculously compelling. What makes him so compelling is the fact that, even before he goes to collect a debt from Thomas Downes, before he starts showing symptoms, before he knows that he is dying, he knows that the age of outlaws and the Wild West is at an end. He knows that everything is going to go to shit, and he isn't going to be one of the ones who makes it out alive. He is not just a character who is doomed by the narrative from the moment the story begins, he is a character who is doomed by the narrative from the moment the story begins and knows it.

[moonah-rose]

"Dutch never cared, Dutch never loved them." No hate if you believe that but, for me, the reason Dutch is so fascinating is because (imo) he did care. Because he did have a heart. Because he wasn't just a monster.

Does that still make him a liar and manipulator? Hell yes. To the point that he himself bought into every bit of bullshit he said. When he says this man who is only eight years younger than him is his son, he believes that. When he says he would give his life for any of his gang in Colter, in the moment he believes that. But acting on what he believes is another story. I think Dutch is an expert at disassociating from reality. What do you mean he "ran away" and left Arthur for death, of course not, he did no such thing - or so he will convince himself as much as the others. What do you mean he didn't have a plan to rescue John from jail, of course he did....He just hadn't thought of it yet and they were only "talking" of hanging him so it's not that big of a deal - again, so he convinces himself. Even years later when John is confronting him, he still deflects with putting it on his son or how he "didn't have a choice." Dutch convinces himself that he has no active role in the awful things that happen to those he cares about. It doesn't mean he wouldn't want to save them...but he just doesn't.

Just like how Mary talks about Arthur being a good man wrestling with a giant, Dutch is wrestling with a coward and the coward wins more as the story progresses. I think this is what is meant more when he tells John that all he ever did, all his life, was fight but he can't fight his own nature, again deflecting the responsibility of his actions. Sure he kills people in terrible ways but the worst sins that weigh on him are his inability to act for those he loves. His failure to save Hosea even though the robbery wasn't his idea he does it still, his failure to do anything but run away when his sons needed saving. He even tries to run from the grief itself when his partner of over twenty years dies and it contributes to his mental instability (see the chess scene like in Lakay, c'mon, dude is clearly not with it).

This isn't me defending Dutch in any way, I just finished a second playthrough and spent every second he was on screen cursing at the tv again. But I do think he was a man who genuinely did believe in his philosophy, who tried to be a better leader to his gang than someone like Colm - a father even - and I do believe he loved Hosea, Arthur, John, Jack, Tilly, Sean, Lenny and maybe some others. The scenes with "the old guard" laughing, fishing and reminiscing seem pointless without there being a real foundation there. The scenes in chapter six where Arthur and Micah are positioned like an angel and devil either side of Dutch as opposed to just Dutch and Micah on the same side all the time, as well as the performance itself, show Dutch being pulled and struggling to decide what is right, he just always picks the wrong one. Dutch's broken reaction to Arthur's final words only make sense if you believe there's a heart in there to be broken, if there's a man inside who is aware - even just partly - that he's done wrong and failed. The only reason he'd have to kill Micah and leave John the money is if there was some part of him that has spent the last seven years being haunted by his actions and wanted to find some way to make up for them. A truly evil, heartless person would have killed John there and then and taken the money. All of this only works if there was love in the first place.

The problem is, and to quote His Dark Materials, love isn't always enough. It's not enough to fight against an obvious mental illness, it's not enough to stop you being a coward and letting those you love suffer for the sake of your own survival. Dutch is obviously a narcissist but narcissists are not incapable of love, it's just their view of the world is very inward, and those that they love are seen as extensions of themselves (often parents with children). The reason Arthur could win his internal struggle is because he was able to see a world beyond his own life and needs; Dutch couldn't, as much as he probably liked to believe he could be capable of doing so even if just to be the hero the gang saw him as. He wanted faith but I don't think he truly had any in himself as much as the rest of the gang did by the final chapter, and with Arthur's death it breaks any last delusions he had about himself, to the point that seven years later he can no longer give a big long speech to justify himself, he just "ain't got much to say no more". If those aren't the words of a broken man then I don't know what is.

(Please don't confuse "broken man" with "poor little meow meow", tumblr, I see you).

[sushisocks]

Okay, another Sean and Lenny meta post, this time also featuring some stuff about Javier. I wanna talk about why I think Sean and Lenny would side with Arthur at the end of RDR2, and bring forth all my reasoning as to why I will die on this hill.

Rant under the read more to spare my mutuals. (Fair warning this is a LONG one babes, there is so much meta)

So, to start, I don't actually think the story of RDR2 would look the same, if at all, were Sean and Lenny not to die their scripted deaths. Even in a version of things where they survive and they go to the same camps, the unfolding of events would by necessity be different due to the impact their personalities and frames of thinking would have on the people around them. However, let's for arguments sake say that in this hypothetical, things are mostly the same, and we're down to that last scene in Beaver Hollow, the last showdown, with Dutch and Micah on one side, and Arthur and John on the other. We know where Javier and Bill go, but where would Sean and Lenny gravitate?

I've already made my stance on the matter clear, so let's really get into why I think Lenny and Sean would choose Arthur's side over Dutch's.

First off, I think it's important to remember that it isn't JUST Dutch vs Arthur, in this scene. In its essential form, it is Dutch & Micah vs Arthur & John. Arthur points at Micah as the rat, and Dutch believes Micah over Arthur. John arrives and accuses Dutch for leaving him to bleed out and die, and Arthur believes John -- not that Dutch denies it.

The point here is, though, that it's not JUST Dutch or Arthur, they're choosing. It is also the people who side with those individuals, whom we must take into account.

Sean and Lenny are canonically Micah-haters, if you will. There are several instances throughout the game, while the two are alive, where they loudly proclaim their dislike of Micah. Sean calling him an 'oily turd' and getting offended at being compared to him, is a near and dear line from the game, for me. And I doubt I have to explain why Lenny isn't besties with the most outwardly racist member of the gang.

"Oh, but Teki!" I hear you say. "Javier is also shown to dislike Micah, and yet he sides with Dutch in the end!" And, see, now you have activated my trap card, so let's really take a look at Javier, before going any further.

Javier is among the most loyal members of the gang -- Arthur literally says this as a camp interaction with him, long before chapter 5 or 6. The fact that Arthur is the one saying it, should tell us something -- this is coming from the man whose loyalty is such a strong character trait it turns into a flaw, and ultimately leads to his demise. And if you think about it, Javier being exceedingly loyal - to the gang, to Dutch - should not be surprising!

When Dutch met Javier, Javier didn't even know English. Javier was starving, on the run, with no safety or know-how, in a country he didn't know nor understand. Javier's story with the gang literally STARTS with Dutch saving him. He is brought into the gang, and in the four years he's there, he is taught English and also shown more respect and compassion than many other places in the US at the time. There are many examples of how Javier is treated as a Mexican in the US, throughout the game, and he, like the other POC in the gang, is allowed to stand up for himself and punish other gang members who slight him (Micah and Bill, in particular). In many ways, Dutch provides through the gang a safety net Javier probably didn't even dream of achieving when he crossed the border.

And then Guarma happens.

I, personally, cannot overstate enough how much I think Javier's experiences on Guarma reinforce his loyalty and blind faith in Dutch. He is tortured, ridiculed, and humiliated, and who is it that opens that cage door and literally pulls Javier out of it all? Carries him over his shoulder out of a compound of Cubans that would rather see their heads on pikes?

You guessed it, it's Dutch. Yes, Arthur does a lot of the heavy lifting, but let's be real - Dutch is the one who gets the credit, as usual. He made the plan, after all, and notably, he IS actually the one grabbing Javier and hauling him out of there.

That means, that the two times we know of, where Javier has been at his absolute worst, Dutch is the one who has saved him. Javier, who is so loyal even Arthur acknowledges the immensity of it. So who is then surprised that he doubles down even harder, when they return to the US, and things take a turn for the worse in Beaver Hollow?

In that moment, at the end of chapter 6, Javier cares more about siding with Dutch, than he cares about Dutch siding with Micah.

And I'll argue a similar case for Bill; he has speeches, camp events, where he straight up says Dutch saved him, saved the people of the gang. This is literally The Thing, with these two, that makes their choices at the end really make sense, in my eyes.

It's also important to note that Javier is literally the most clueless among them when he makes that choice. He wasn't there for most of the conversation leading up to it -- he literally just came from being on watch, to warn them about the encroaching Pinkertons. And, as everyone knows, he doesn't point his gun at Arthur and John, and he nor Bill are there for the horse chase scene, blah blah, those points have been done a million times, you already know them.

"Okay, but Teki," you say, trying to reason with my rambling fanatic self. "How do you know Lenny and Sean wouldn't go down similar paths, if they survived past their scripted deaths?" And I say onto you, verily; because neither of them really have similar savior stories with Dutch, thematically.

I mean for goodness' sake, Sean tried to ROB Dutch and Hosea, upon meeting them intially. They just liked his guts and invited him along, and Sean was like, 'shit why not, aint got nothin better to do!' - paraphrased, of course, but in my heart of hearts that's what he said.

All we know definitely with Lenny is that he joined the gang while traversing the Grizzlies, the year before the events of the game. Whether it was a savior situation or a mutually beneficial situation, isn't actually fully known. We can make assumptions and speculate until we're all blue in the face, but I have stronger points for Lenny's case so let's move on.

So, as I've talked about before, Lenny is acknowledged as among the smarter members of the gang, despite his youth. He is one of the only ones who intellectually challenges Dutch, and he is clearly not afraid to criticise Dutch's ideas and ideals -- when prompted.

(Side note, as I said at the start but want to really emphasize here, I really think chapter 6 is the one that would be the most impacted by Lenny's survival. He has shown himself remarkably aware of societal issues contemporary to his time, so look me in the eyes and tell me you genuinely believe he, as a black man, wouldn't attempt to intervene in some way when Dutch starts fucking with the Wapiti. That kid has balls of steel and audacity up the whazoo, and he's excruciatingly aware of how black people in the US have been royally fucked over by white men. You think he'd see the Wapiti struggling, Dutch scheming, and be like 'oh yay more white man shenanigans! lets go!' ?? bffr!)

Lenny ALSO is among the newer members of the gang; it provides him safety and respect that's hard found outside it, yes, but in my opinion he straight up does not have enough cost sunk into this fallacy, for it to fallacy properly in his head, if you catch my drift. I think if it's not for the fact that he has genuine bonds with people in the gang by the time chapter 6 rolls around, like Charles and Sadie do at that point, he probably would be smart enough to dip, like other characters do.

And that's sort of the thing, too, with both Lenny and Sean. They don't actually have daddy issues in the same way Arthur and John do.

Lenny and Sean are very similar in that they had good relationships with their fathers, and are proud of their parentage -- what wisdom and teachings their fathers managed to impart upon their sons before passing, has stuck with them. They are not in need of a new father figure, and they certainly do not seek it in Dutch(nor Hosea), not like Arthur and John do.

They find a sense of brotherhood in the gang, sure, and they view the other members as family (you can pry their little brother statuses from my cold dead hands), but Dutch is their leader, not their guardian, not their teacher, and certainly not anything close to a father, in their eyes. The fact that Lenny discusses literature with him is indicative of this -- the conversation is one of opinion between would-be equals, not of mentor and protege. The fact that Dutch only really seems interested in Sean as far as he serves as camp clown is also indicative of how Sean might feel about him, too. Dutch literally yells at Sean for taking a break from being the silly goofy distraction, in one camp interaction -- and from the way Sean talks about him, I don't think that sort of behavior has a lot of fatherly associations for the 'irish terrier'.

And that leads us to my pièce de résistance, dear fellow cowboy maniacs (you must be, if you've read thus far). Lenny and Sean are both closer, and friendlier with Arthur, than they are with Dutch. Example: Both of them poking fun at Arthur in ways they do not with Dutch. Sean telling Arthur he loves him - like an insane amount of times. Lenny chooses Arthur to go riding with, time and time again.

And guess what? When we see Sean and Lenny at their lowest, who is it that helps them out?

If you answered Arthur Morgan, give yourself a pat on the back and a gold star sticker!

We are literally introduced to Sean while Arthur leads Javier and Charles into saving him from bounty hunters. Arthur is the one cutting him down from that tree, bringing him upright, making sure he is okay. Arthur is also the one who saves him from being shot to death on the train robbery in Pouring Forth Oil. When Lenny comes to tell the gang about Micah being in jail in Strawberry, he has also just narrowly escaped being lynched, and it is Arthur who brings him away from that experience, calms him down and allows him to relax and let loose again.

Both Sean and Lenny have a deeper, more profound connection to Arthur, than they have Dutch. And consequently, if they were to survive until the end of chapter 6 and were the then much-more-unlikely showdown scene to happen, they would certainly not side with Dutch & Micah, over Arthur & John.

[skylarisaverage]

Thoughts and theories on RDR1 Javier

DISCLAIMER: A lot of this is a big mix of my own theories and actual things you see in the games and my own interpretation of things, if you have anything to add or points to raise PLS do so I love talking about Javier, he's my favourite, and I love talking about him and John's dynamic.

---- I've noticed that a lot of people seem to think Javier didn't give a damn about John or anyone else but himself/was genuinely a piece of shit guy/etcetcetc because he 'lied' about Dutch's location when confronted, saying Dutch was in Colombia when we learn later on that he's in Cochinay in Tall Trees, dangerously close to John, Abigail and Jack in Beecher's Hope.

We do know that Javier helped Bill flee into Mexico after John confronts Bill for the first time and he gets placed in the protection of the Mexican army along with Javier. Javier and Bill, although their relationship rocky, were good enough friends in the events of rdr2(there's a random mission where Bill gets caught by bounty hunters and it's Javier who tracks Arthur down to save him), so of course it'd make sense for rdr1 Javier to do a solid for a friend. Also, Bill obviously has a disdain for Dutch by rdr1, saying, 'Now I'm in charge! No more Dutch, and no more you.' and It'd make sense that Javier and Bill perhaps share the same thoughts on Dutch after his mental break and the downfall of the Van Der Linde gang and they further bond over that. But then John finds him, and he panics. He says, 'I can give you Bill, and Dutch is in Colombia.' I have a theory that Javier thought that maybe John wouldn't find him, but he did, and in that moment he had to choose. Bill, or his former best friend, John? Of course he'd pick John, so he throws Bill under the bus. He knew there was no way he could attempt to reconcile with both Bill and John all together, John had already been shot and left for dead by Bill's men at one point earlier in the game.

And regarding Dutch, I have two theories; 1. He genuinely didn't know where Dutch was and just threw out the first random distant location he could think of so John would go far away and be safe from him and the Mexican army(both the Pinkertons and Mexican army wanted John at this point, dead or alive). 2. He DID know where Dutch was and wanted to get John as far away from him as possible to keep him safe because he knows what Dutch is capable of after all that's happened, and wanted to get him as far away from Beecher's Hope as possible. (Javier doesn't know the Pinkertons have Abigail and Jack, so this would have all been in vain anyway) Also. when John accuses him of leaving him for dead and Javier says 'We thought you was dead, brother. I promise. I'm telling the truth.' Honestly? I believe him. When John gets shot and falls off the train in Chapter 6, Dutch, Micah, Javier and one of Micah's goons go to get him. I have a theory(although far-fetched but LET ME HAVE THIS), that Dutch and Micah got to John's unconscious body first and pronounced him dead, and they convinced Javier that it was so and wouldn't let him near the body for his own 'mental health', and because the army patrol was quickly approaching. Perhaps Javier went into a state of shock, given that he had saved John's life before, but this time, he couldn't save him? Perhaps Dutch promises Javier that they'll go back for his body and bury him properly once the army disperses because the army is now also on their tail after the robbing of the train and they have to leave the area quickly. It is only Dutch and Micah who confidently announce that John is dead, and that the army patrol killed him.

The next time we see John is when he returns to Beaver Hollow, and Javier sees this after the confrontation has started when he runs over to alert the gang that Pinkertons are coming. He's in shock, he doesn't have time to act or think hard about the situation. After the stand-off in which he points his gun in the air, he flees with Bill. Both aren't seen pursuing Arthur and John with Dutch and the remaining members of the gang.

Back to rdr1. At the end of their 'conversation', Javier pushes crates on John and jumps out the window, yelling at him to go back to his farm. If he really wanted to kill John, he could have shot him when he pushed the crates onto him. But he didn't. Javier only starts shooting when John pursues him on horseback.

If you take him alive, that's when Javier gets angry and starts cursing and swearing at him and honestly? Fair enough. If I was in a gang with my best friend and did illegal, bad things with him and then that guy comes to find me years later to take me in for the bad guy things we did together? I'd be fucking pissed too. And heartbroken. (credit to @pinkysberg for this thought, this came from their Javier analysis on TikTok I believe? A v good point and I love it)

I will always lie awake at night wondering how the heck he ended up working for the army when he fought against them so hard he ended up having to flee to the US for his family's safety. I have a thought, maybe they took the remaining members of his family and forced him to work for them to take down the rebels he used to work with before fleeing to the US. Like a Pinkertons and John situation, but in Mexico. Idk. It just sucks. John is fueled by the rage, heartbreak and betrayal of being left for dead by Javier and the gang, but then Javier is also fueled by similar rage, heartbreak and betrayal because he still has love for him, but John won't believe him. Long story short, hurting John is the last thing Javier EVER wanted to do and although he's a bit of a shithead who ended up in the army, he is not a bad guy at heart. He was taken advantage of by Dutch and possibly the Mexican army, and probably had multiple mental breakdowns between the events of rdr2 and rdr1. He cut off his hair. He doesn't seem to have as much pride in his appearance as he used to. I can't imagine him playing much music at all. He's a shell of his former self.

ANYWAY I'm done rambling for realsies now sdjghff;ldghsdlf;

[arthur-kilgore]

I had a Deeply Upsetting Realization a few weeks ago and it has plagued me ever since

Have you seen the very first teaser for Red Dead Redemption 2? The one where the world heard Arthur Morgan speak for the first time but didn’t see him or know his name? This one:

That music, at the very beginning. It sure sounds nice, doesn’t it? A bit melancholic perhaps, but still very lovely, yeah?

Do you know what it’s from? Well, let me tell you: It’s the music from a mission called “The Wheel”. The very first mission of the epilogue. You know, the mission where John and Abigail argue on the way to Strawberry as you’re still crying your eyes out after watching the most traumatic video game death you’ve ever experienced.

Rockstar was literally foreshadowing his death from the very first time the world met Arthur. They were always telling us what he was going to do for John, how this story was always going to end up being about him.

[piddgeon]

thinking about Dutch and wanting to sob and cry. of course he went off the rails the way he did. he lost his entire family within the span of a few weeks with Hosea being shot and killed, Arthur visibly deteriorating from TB, and John (in his eyes) betraying him. in his eyes he had already lost or was in the process of losing everything that ever mattered to him. I think trying so hard to cling to the gang and preserve them (even if it ended up driving them apart even faster) was his attempt to keep some sense of control and stability and make it seem like his life wasn’t changing so drastically.

[seven-oomen]

I hate tumblr sometimes. It ate my last post....

But anyway can we talk about this?

How even Arthur's upgraded tent is so much more open than John's or Dutch?

How Arthur is barely "elevated " in comparison to them and the rest of the crew. (Literally if you look at sleeping arrangements.)

Like both Dutch and John get tents that close and beds above the floor.

Arthur's bed is elevated too but his "tent" is completely open and barely more than what the others have.

Hell Hosea sleeps in an open "tent" and on the floor. I wonder if that is by his choice.

But arthur in comparison by John is barely above the rest in terms of status. (Even though is by far the most efficient member of the gang.)

[nizzysam]

Sometimes Brothers Make Mistakes

I think about this phrase a lot. It's possibly one of my favorite quotes from the game. The emotion coming off Micah is palpable. You can see he's been brooding about it for a long while.

I believe he was thinking of Amos. Maybe during his time in jail, he thought about what happened between them and the regret and guilt he felt about it. Of course, none of us know what happened and who did what. We know Amos doesn't want Micah in his life anymore.

During "Blessed Are The Meek?" we learn that Micah knows he did wrong and regrets it. Later in the game, we can read Amos's letter in which he declares he doesn't want anything to do with his big brother anymore.

It weighs heavily on Micah. He's desperate for a connection, for someone to call his brother. He tries to reach out to Arthur, but he's quickly shut down. Some interactions between them are heartbreaking if seen from Micah's point of view. A few examples:

Micah: […] Just saying thank you, brother. I can call you brother, can't I? Arthur: I think I like you even less when you're friendly. Micah: You're the first person who ever told me this.

Micah: […] I've been worried about you, I really have. Arthur: Me? Why? Micah: Oh you know, just the usual reasons. I'm here for you, brother.

We all know things go south between them. But for a while, Micah really tried. He wanted a brother, and I think he saw one in Arthur. The whole thing was one-sided, and Micah adapted. He's a survivor, after all.

[1899sbiggestbabygirl]

I want to expand on this idea in the future:

Dutch Van der Linde is the perfect analogy for the white saviour.

He presents himself as someone who believes in equality; however, he uses his progressive stand views as long as it's rewarded with praise, his support is very minimal (basically not being overtly racist) and receives praise over it, but is willing to overlook racism if it benefits him ( him letting Micah stay in the gang), his views are literally based on a privileged man pretending to understand the oppressed (Evelyn Miller, Lenny calls him out on this), he pretends to care and empathize with the structures of oppression but is very willing to exploit them anyways (the whole thing with the wapiti tribe).

at his core I think Dutch would see himself as a saviour -but the narrative itself shows who he really is, and what every white saviour at its core is: A fake hero.

Sure, Dutch's saviour complex and manipulation is evident with all characters, but to pretend that race or ethnicity doesn't hold a big role in how these dynamics work (especially on the time period) would be willful ignorance.

[blackinquisitors]

I used to be miss grimshaw neutral but now I hate her so much. like I know EXACTLY why she is the way she is. I've psychoanalyzed her. she's deeply traumatized from her time as a working girl and from being abused by her madam, but she internalised all of that and decided it was correct and nothing bad happened to her. so now she acts in the same horrible way bc she's convinced herself that that's the correct way to raise girls up. bc otherwise she would have to admit that she was a victim, and therefore weak, which is something she would never ever agree with

i think she was a working girl until she became dutchs girl, but then he moved on to Annabelle. she had a husband but he died. and then she got too old to be a working girl at all so she ran the camp. she has obvious favouritism towards the men, and even when she's tough with them, it's not as nasty as it is with the girls. but she didn't have a lot of control in her youth I'm assuming, so all this nastiness is a way to finally have some sort of control. but I think she's also just misogynistic, she believes the men should make the decisions and are more responsible but the girls need to be kept in line to keep the men happy. maybe to rationalize the role that she's had to be in her whole life

I think she resents the girls for having more freedom than her, more opinions, more beauty and happiness. she's resentful towards their looks bc she was quite beautiful in her youth. but she went from being dutchs girl to being camp matron and I definitely think that had a blow to her esteem. also her husband dying and her never remarrying. not that she would ever admit that of course, no, she just displaces it onto the girls and makes them feel miserable for enjoying something she doesn't have

she despises Abigail for all of these reasons. Abigail chose not to be a working girl, she has a husband (sort of) and a child. I think grimshaw always looked down on Abigail bc she was just some dumb illiterate girl they brought in, but then she rejected all of that and became a mother which is the ideal for women at the time. and grimshaw does mother the camp in her own way, but she lost her husband and her opportunity to have her own kids so I think that's why she's particularly nasty to Abigail. trying to bully her back into prostitution with the threat of Dutch kicking her out is unrealistic and nonsense, and I think grimshaw realized that, but she didn't care. in her mind Abigail should "know her place" which coincidentally is the exact same place grimshaw has been kept in her whole life

to sum it up I think she's a deeply miserable person who takes it out on everyone else, particularly the girls.

[themastermarkus]

I just want to preface this by saying that I didn't reblog the post in the image above because I didn't want to distract from nizzysam's post about appreciating a compliment by adding my irrelevant questioning, and not because I'm attempting to hide this from either person involved. 😅

I've seen it asserted that Micah is homophobic a few times now, but I've never seen someone give an explanation of where he has been homophobic. Having looked through the majority of Micah's lines, the closest thing I've come across is a line he says in response to seeing Javier shining his boots (CW: Vulgar sexual reference to a blowjob, sexism):

But even this feels more like toxic masculinity and sexism than homophobia, specifically. Like, we never see him go after Bill for being gay. This is not to say that I rule out the idea of Micah Bell being homophobic given the time and culture he's a part of (I definitely think he's at least got some sort of internalized homophobia), but I wouldn't call Micah being homophobic something that one "forgets" was in the game because... Was it evident?

[arthurmorganwateringhole]

Opening Up the Western Pt 2: The Origins of a Misunderstood Masculinity

[Last edit August 17]

If you read my first essay on why RDR2 Cowboy game is so appealing to a non-traditional audience, then you're probably aware that a lot of this game's appeal is due to Arthur and how the game writers constructed his masculinity. When I tried to think of a proper metaphor for Arthur, really the only thing that comes to mind is a nesting doll -- he's one thing on the outside, but the moment you open up, there's a smaller, more fragile part of him to unpack. He might appear like the typical strong, rugged, masculine cowboy icon that we've come to associate with the Western genre, but his artistic sensibilities and romanticized coding show there's more than meets the eye.

So we've talked about consumption, the historical figure of the Romantic, and how both 19th-century phenomena factor into Arthur's construction as a tragic albeit sexy hero-figure. But what about real examples? Are there real individuals in history who lend themselves to Arthur Morgan, enlivening him, fleshing him out, and ascribing to him all the hurts and scars of an emotionally rich life?

In this essay, I want to talk about a widely misunderstood (thanks to the American public school system and generally people's unwillingness to read) figure of American history: the transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau.

The Unread American Hero: Thoreau and his Philosophy

If you took AP language and composition in an American high school, you're probably aware of who Henry David Thoreau is.

"Oh yeah," you might say, "that guy who ran away to Walden pond because fuck government, right? Don't libertarians love him because he hates society?"

And as you cleverly pat yourself on the back for recalling your teenage internalization of an incompetent high school teacher's lesson, you promptly tuck Thoreau back away into the annals of subconscious memory, happy to let such a toxic masculinist figure wither away with the Founding Fathers and Mark Twain.

Oh dear reader, you couldn't be any more wrong.

So who is Henry David Thoreau? Most people know him as a transcendentalist thinker and naturalist -- a branch of American philosophy that coincided and interacted with late romanticism, the European counterpart of this individualist strain of thought focused on the sublime and the incomprehensible. Less known are more trivial facts. For one, Henry David Thoreau was born in 1817 as the middle child. The most notable of his siblings, John Thoreau, would later figure in his writings and his philosophy in a really significant way.

As a teen, he fell in love with a young Ellen Sewall -- a daughter of a pastor who disapproved of her flirtations with Henry. When Henry proposed to Ellen, the father stopped their engagement and forbade correspondence due to Thoreau's aimless pursuits in philosophy and naturalism.

One thing most people don't know is that the Thoreau's were plagued, literally. None of Henry's siblings ever married or had children, mostly because they died from consumption before they could live out their lives. Thoreau would later die from consumption as well in 1862. He spent his last days in Minnesota, working with indigenous people and seeking to improve his health in the Midwest's cleaner air.

Yet the death that most impacted Henry was that of his older brother John, who died of Tuberculosis in 1842 at the ripe age of 27. Henry and John had been close as brothers. They had gone on fishing trips (one of which remains on record in one of his journals, in which they fished for sturgeon. More notably, Henry, despite loving Maine and the Northeast corridor of America, had plans to move west with his brother, as seen in one of his letters to his brother:

Transcript of the highlighted part:

"I have a proposal to make. Suppose by the time you are released we should start in company for the West, and there either establish a school jointly, or procure ourselves separate situations. Suppose, moreover, you should get ready to start previous to leaving Taunton, to save time. Go I must, at all events. Dr. Jarvis enumerates nearly a dozen schools which I could have,—all such as would suit you equally well.[4] I wish you would write soon about this. It is high season to start. The canals are now open, and traveling comparatively cheap. I think I can borrow the cash in this town. There's nothing like trying."

Note the improvisational quality of their hare-brained plan (borrowing money without specifying from whom or how; a mentor telling Henry of the greater number of schools he could start; the eagerness shared by our own Arthur Morgan to set out West in search of brighter futures). Needless to say, the brothers were the best of friends, and Henry took his untimely passing hard.

When John passed, HDT experiences a sort of vicarious death-wish. Scholar Branka Arsic describes this psychosomatic episode as such:

"The most intense challenge to Thoreau’s understanding of grief and commitment to loss came from personal experience. On January 11, 1842, his brother John died. Thoreau reacted to that death by means of the very grief Emerson thought impossible, by ravaging his body, developing symptoms of John’s illness...—as if wanting to die his brother’s death in an effort to defy the boundaries between survivor and the dead." (Bird Relics 30)

The loss was so great, that unconsciously his body began to emulate the violent death of his brother via lockjaw (a complication from tuberculosis). He began to deteriorate physically and mentally, and some scholars even note the fragmented syntax of his writings in this time.

Yet with loss comes the potential for change and renewal. Henry David Thoreau relocated to the remote Walden Pond, where he sought to observe and exist alongside animals partly in protest against the existence of slavery in the nation and partly to heal and mourn the death of his brother John (and later on, his sister Helen in 1848). There was no antisocial impulse; no libertarian shirking of one's civic duties for taxation. HDT only wanted to protest the institutionalization of chattel slavery and rebuild life after it had so spectacularly crumbled in the span of a few short years.

In Walden, Henry will begin philosophizing on nature, death, and the singularity of individual life that will form the groundwork for his transcendental thinking. In one of his letters to a friend, HDT writes the following:

"Soon after John’s death I listened to a music- box, and if, at any time, that event had seemed inconsistent with the beauty and harmony of the universe, it was then gently constrained into the placid course of nature by those steady notes, in mild and unoffended tone. . . . But I find these things more strange than sad to me. What right have I to grieve, who have not ceased to wonder? We feel at first as if some opportunities of kindness and sympathy were lost, but learn afterward that any pure grief is ample recompense for all. That is, if we are faithful;- for a just grief is but sympathy with the soul that disposes events, and is as natural as the resin on Arabian trees.— Only nature has a right to grieve perpetually, for she only is innocent." (Letters to Miss Lucy Brown, March 1842)

In a moment of quiet self-reflection, Thoreau beautifully structures a rich emotional life modeled after one he finds in nature and in non-human tonality (the music box). Perpetual grief -- that grief which belongs to nature -- is what he aspires, for human grief is not perpetual. It's fleeting. One day, he will move on from his brother John's death, and HDT considers this faithless (compared to the 'faithful' perpetual grief as natural as 'the resin on Arabian trees'). This isn't to say that Thoreau wanted to maintain a constant melancholic mindset, so much as he was loathe to forget his brother; to forget the singularity of his brother's soul and existence, and as some readers of Walden will suggest, he will begin to extend this sort of sympathy to other, non-human animals. Most notably, Thoreau will develop an affinity for birds, and his observations and sketches of these creatures will form the basis for his thinking.

A lot of high schools teach Thoreau by framing Walden and Civil Disobedience as libertarian acts of individual self-assertion; that freedom can only be gained by separating from the shackles of society, but in truth, Thoreau was an abolitionist who hated that society shackled a population simply for their race. He was a sweet, sensitive soul who feared the day he would stop mourning his brother and, later on, his siblings. He spent his hours sketching birds, trees, and other natural phenomena, and he constantly made visits to nearby villages, where he was often made fun of for his unusual clothing. Yes, Thoreau was ridiculed often by city folk because he fashioned his own clothes to better navigate the woods of Concord.

Arthur and Henry - the intertwined mythos

After that brief history lesson, I'm sure you're wondering... What does this have to do with Arthur Morgan, or Red Dead for that matter? As a reminder, the argument of this essay is that Arthur is based on Henry David Thoreau, and both men are equally misunderstood by society writ large in the service of using their image, reputation, and actions to contrive some artificial idea of a strong, rugged masculinity when in reality, they were both tender individuals who had a soft affinity for nature.

One thing most high school students miss out on when Walden is taught, is Thoreau's journal and sketches. Just take a look at some of these images (please don't circulate as I had my partner secretly take photos of this in a VERY exclusive archive and I don't want to get him in trouble).

(an entry from one of Thoreau's journals)

Look at this sketch of Thoreau of a sideways tree

Does it... remind you of anything at all from Red Dead?

...

...

(credit to @papaue00 for the high quality images)

Apart from superficial similarities, they were both in love with a woman out of their socioeconomic league, whose father ended the courtship; they both died from consumption; their last days were spent with indigenous groups; they have a brother(figure) named John; they both had a dream to go out west; loved nature; didn't really hate civilization so much as wish nature was more valued; wrote beautifully on the people who touched their lives...

So on and so on...

Both Arthur Morgan and Henry David Thoreau play with our idea of the iconic Man of the West. Their lives disavow the adherence to a toxic masculinist vision of the cowboy so constantly disseminated in mainstream media. Their journals hide a sensitive interiority that is rich with emotions and observations.

I believe these parallels and similarities are more deliberate than incidental. There is no way Rockstar just coincidentally made them this similar, and besides, the deliberate allusion to Henry David Thoreau (whose writing is already referenced via the stand-in for transcendental philosophers via Evelyn Miller (ironically, Miller's actions seem to mirror what MOST americans think Henry David Thoreau did with his life, by escaping university to retreat to the woods out of an inability to understand fellow man when in truth, Thoreau was just grieving). It makes sense too, given how Evelyn Miller self-destructs in search of an ideal, whereas Thoreau spent his last days attuned with others and wanting to help, sort of like Arthur Morgan.

And in the end, all this seems like a clever commentary on what America actually is: the stuff of myths, oppression, and violence; and the untenable ideal encapsulated via the gentle souls whose lives are all too brief. This tension between the ideal and the real serves to undercut what characters like Dutch believe 'freedom' or 'equality' means. The people who lived this reality died striving for the impossible, but their goals live on through the lives they touched.

[moonah-rose]

"What are you doing here, Dutch?"

"Same as you, I suppose." (RDR2)

"You're just like me, John. You can't change who you are." (RDR1)

Okay I'm currently hyperfixated on these boys and I gotta talk about how fascinating this relationship is.

Because while Dutch and Arthur's relationship is heartbreaking, there's something even more crushing about Dutch and John over the course of both games.

To start we're told by both Arthur and Bill that John is the "favorite", that he's "Dutch's pet", "the golden boy", even Micah brings it up in chapter six. Part of Arthur's bitterness over John's return is how cool Dutch seemed to be about it, how he was welcomed back with open arms. However nearly all the interactions we see (or rather Arthur sees) between Dutch and John are very tense and grow more heated over the game until they're outright screaming at each other - and of course things get as bad as they can be in rdr1. But how I imagine things used to be, pre-Blackwater or pre-John's gap year, was Dutch did dote on John and John worshipped him in return. John seems to have been found the youngest that we know of, twelve years old, so he was as much of a child as can be, which allowed Dutch to mold him into a younger version of himself, whereas Arthur was clearly more Hosea's son. Dutch taught John to sound smart without really saying anything, while Arthur learned from Hosea to be smarter than he appeared. To compare the two, I think Arthur was Dutch's joy (the mirror of his best friend, his first son) but John was his pride (his own reflection). It's very typical narcissist parent behavior to latch onto the youngest or one that most resembles you most as they're the most obvious extension of yourself. And for as long as John obeyed and adored Dutch, that fuelled his own ego - fitting then how Dutch's mental decline runs in parallel to John drifting away and learning to be his own person, a father in his own right, and seeing who Dutch is without rose tinted glasses. And the stronger John gets, the more Dutch feels threatened, like when he accuses John of "wanting to be the General". Dutch is a loving granddad to Jack and caring to Abigail, encouraging John to be a good father, but not if it means they become more important than the gang (ie Him). I also think a lot of the insults Dutch hurls at John later on are things he could be partly saying about himself, how he doesn't have the grit, how he's always been weak or blind. The more Dutch fails, the more he targets John as a punching bag for his own failures, to the point of wanting to leave him to rot as he admits in one hidden BH scene.

Side note, this also feeds into his resentment of Arthur, firstly of also no longer being a yes man, but Dutch also notes how much Arthur sounds like Hosea - except Dutch was ignoring Hosea right from the start of the game, even if he did help keep Dutch grounded to some sense of reality, Arthur is a reminder of Dutch's recent loss and also insulted at the idea of Arthur replacing Hosea - that's not Arthur's job, in his mind, it's just to be his big scary grunt. Once he's becoming weaker, he doesn't see the purpose in having Arthur around if he's just going to question and possibly (if he believes Micah) betray him. And he writes Arthur off as dead anyway once he starts getting sick, he already lost Hosea, he's not putting himself through that again so it's easy to just leave him for dead. But despite all that, Arthur still loves Dutch enough to ride back and try one last time to convince his "father" that Micah is out to get him, he even spends his last breaths begging him to see sense - not for his own sake, but the man who raised him.

But with John it's a different, more raw tragedy that Dutch's self-loathing and insanity grow in their time apart, despite both clearly having had Arthur's shadow hanging over them, eventually pushing them to the exact same destination on the exact same day with the exact same purpose - to kill Micah. John has been haunted by guilt that Arthur had to sacrifice himself for him, while Dutch has been haunted by (imo) the guilt of leaving Arthur to die as well as allowing Micah to manipulate him. But both men are also not killing "for Arthur's sake" here, more their own, as they both know Arthur didn't agree with revenge. But they do it to try to ease their own consciences. For John it works, for Dutch it just sends him off into isolation and his eventual fate.

And the saddest thing is, John thanks him. Even after everything Dutch did to him and Abigail, he makes an attempt to reach out. There was a brief glimpse from John of the boy who loved his adoptive father, but Dutch's ice cold stare and silence remind them they can never go back to what was. And John let's him go. But this moment seems to change something in John's perspective, as earlier he had always said he believed Dutch had been hiding who he was the whole time, but by the time of RDR1 he's saying similar things as Sadie that Dutch was a good man who "went insane". He now wants to believe that there was a part of Dutch that cared, long ago, but it's now gone.

The Dutch that John eventually has to hunt down is different than the one he last saw on Mount Hagen, the one who admitted that he didn't have much to say anymore, the man who still cared enough to spare John and leave him the Blackwater money. Dutch is now a complete bloodthirsty monster who kills for sport, who openly calls Abigail a whore and Jack a whore's son - the same boy he once doted on, found a puppy with, that he rode into hell for. His disgust for John, his boy, working for the government, being the "rat" he feared him to be, is enough to get him to not hold back on shooting him anymore, but I also can't help but think most of his words are egging John on to get him. "You'll have to kill me, John!" he yells. But when it comes to just the two of them, both on a mountain yet again, they both put away their guns. It's the closest thing we get in the first game to a hint of their past relationship, of father and son, rather than adversaries. John's name, his "golden boy's" name, is the last thing to leave Dutch's lips before he falls. The speech the same one he said with Arthur at his side. As insane as he was, he spent those last moments thinking of his sons, and possibly Hosea too, before he fell, how he wasn't able to fight his own cowardly nature to do right by them, you can't change my mind.

And while John would never talk about it openly, its just awful to think how this man had to watch the father he loved and who doted on him back, to slowly become a monster, to hating each other, trying to kill each other, then to see a glimpse of what was but being unable to save him. It also adds context to his own behavior to Jack, how he tries to be a doting father but doesn't discourage him too much from having his own interests, as much as they confuse him.

And then, the final nail in this angst coffin, walking out to face his own death knowing Dutch was right, that they did just find another monster to come for.