Evidence from WC4 that Blair is a Pilgrim

What an exciting prospect! By all means let’s devote ourselves to deconstructing WC on the basis of whether its established plot elements are “necessary”.

Quoted for lack of original thought on my own part!

In all seriousness, the "Pilgrim" aspect of the movie seems a logical addition from a writing standpoint...

In terms of being written for the games, Blair occupied a very unusual dramatic standpoint -- he has as little character as possible, as the player is supposed to "project" his own personality.

That doesn't really work in a movie -- the main character needs to have some sort of conflict. I think *that's* what offends people the most... Blair was 'you', until viewed from outside. People react the same way to the 'game' novels -- 'Blair loses fights?! Impossible!' and so forth.
 
In terms of being written for the games, Blair occupied a very unusual dramatic standpoint -- he has as little character as possible, as the player is supposed to "project" his own personality.

That doesn't really work in a movie -- the main character needs to have some sort of conflict. I think *that's* what offends people the most... Blair was 'you', until viewed from outside.

Quoted because it bears repeating!

That’s an insightful point. And, as it happens, also Shakespeare’s at the end of Twelfth Night. (Kudos as well to Mjr. Whoopass for serendipitous posting!)

Much drama derives of course from how one’s expectations about oneself, others, or life in general often go awry, but Shakespeare was a master at that. What makes Hamlet, Henry IV, and King Lear, among others, such great plays is how their principal characters get “recharacterized” because of expectations suddenly foist upon them.

In the case of Twelfth Night though, and especially that song, the expectations being addressed are those of the audience. And while the song can stand alone for that very reason, Shakespeare clearly intended that it be understood within the context of the play, because his ultimate point is the relationship between our attraction to fantasy and art–as in a fictional play–and our actual experience of life.

At the end of the play, the Duke Orsino predicts a “golden time” ahead, and so the audience is invited to expect that the characters will live happily ever after. (And the play is indeed a comedy, not a tragedy.) But when the song is lastly sung by Feste, the clown, he is alone, and so he is meant to be singing to the audience. The message of the song is a gentle rebuff to the wishful thinking of a “golden time”–both as to the Duke and to us. Shakespeare is warning us that the Duke and the other characters might not have a happy ending after all, and he is thereby also reminding us that however much we might likewise hope for and spend time envisioning an ideal existence for ourselves, we all know, because we have been learning firsthand since childhood, that life is going to be riddled with disappointment and angst . . . “[f]or the rain it raineth every day”. (And a running theme in the play, besides, is how easily people can fall prey to misunderstanding and illusion.)

There’s nothing to be done about the fact of Blair’s Pilgrim heritage. To be sure, it goes against some people’s “expectations” for the character. But imagine Shakespeare smiling, for none of us can wish it away, even though it’s only part of a fictional story, for we’re not the authors of it (any more than we’re the gods of own fates).

(Ah yes, from what was intended as sarcasm to what probably sounds like . . . no, I daren’t imagine.:))
 
Nemesis are you taking some of this stuff a bit personally?? Some of the replies are quite interesting and good for a argument but it seems you take some things a bit serious.
I could be wrong but it just looks wierd from where I am reading it.
My view is that no matter heritage you come from, you make your own destiny, your fate and your future.
Our lives are created by how we choose to live it. I do not believe in pre-determine fate or calling or what nots. I believe that each person has a right to choose what they want.
This is what I see in Blair, Piligrim he may be, but a Confederation Officer he wishes to be and serve his 'nation'.
 
Isn't that the *exact* point of the movie, though? "It's not faith, it's genetics" -- Blair can make jumps because he has the skills to do so, not because he has some crazy force controlling his future. The moral is a complete *reverse* of Star Wars
 
Maybe but I dont believe the genetics of an individual would make the difference.
Sure the movie is a reverse of Star Wars, but I like to think that there are other possibilities.
 
Nemesis are you taking some of this stuff a bit personally??

No, I’m just . . . enthusiastic.:)

My view is that no matter heritage you come from, you make your own destiny, your fate and your future. Our lives are created by how we choose to live it. I do not believe in pre-determine fate or calling or what nots. I believe that each person has a right to choose what they want.

Well, Shakespeare presents a formidable counter-argument in Hamlet. One of the well-known lines from the play–“To thine own self be true . . .”–has tended to be popularly embraced as a worthy mantra for the individualism you tout. Ironically though, Shakespeare’s intent in the play is to demonstrate the stupidity of that “wisdom”. Hamlet’s dilemma is that he (and by extension each of us) has no one, true “self”. He comprises many selves–he is a son to his mother, a son to his father, a nephew to his uncle, a would-be lover to his love, a friend to several different friends, and lastly a prince in a royal family whose duty is to look after the country and its citizens. He must choose which self or selves to be true to, and which to betray. So yes, he’s got “choice”, but how “free” (not to mention “amenable” to reason) is it? And he certainly otherwise did not choose to be in that predicament; it was foist upon him by others over whom he had no control. His fate then, to that extent, was indeed pre-determined.

Blair is something of a “Hamlet” too. How “free” was he to choose not to fight in the war? How “free” was he to choose not to kill in defense of the Confederation? How “free” was he to not destroy Kilrah? How “free” was he to then establish a normal life, which he apparently wanted to have? By the looks of things in WC4, his personal life is a shambles. Was that just a failure of will or a result of depression? Or had he essentially lost that “part” of himself, having “killed it off”–and without quite realizing it–in order to be able to fulfill his duty and live up to the expectations placed upon him by others? Can we really say that he and he alone made his own destiny, fate, and future?
 
Blair is something of a “Hamlet” too. How “free” was he to choose not to fight in the war? How “free” was he to choose not to kill in defense of the Confederation? How “free” was he to not destroy Kilrah? How “free” was he to then establish a normal life, which he apparently wanted to have? By the looks of things in WC4, his personal life is a shambles. Was that just a failure of will or a result of depression? Or had he essentially lost that “part” of himself, having “killed it off”–and without quite realizing it–in order to be able to fulfill his duty and live up to the expectations placed upon him by others? Can we really say that he and he alone made his own destiny, fate, and future?

That is a good point. Some of the choices he made from my point of view was based on the possible consequences if he did not do anything about it.
He choose to kill in defense of the Confederation, if he did not then there would be possible risks of further Kilrathi incursion within Confederation Space.
How free would he be if he established a 'normal' life? Blair could have a normal life if the Kilrathi incursions did not occur or he did not join Confed and work for something else.
In Wing Commander 4 in the novelisation he was in a shambles but there was no indication of it in the game what so ever. We only know so much of what he did and what we can only say what we think from what we know and see.
That is only one point of view but I am sure that I can think of others.
 
Wow... this is really deep. But I really agree with the Shakespear comparison... he was "us" until the movie, when he developed his own persona. Even in WC3 and beyond with live action, we had the opportunity to make many of his decisions.
 
Dahan said:
In Wing Commander 4 in the novelisation he was in a shambles but there was no indication of it in the game what so ever. We only know so much of what he did and what we can only say what we think from what we know and see.

Except that the novels are part of the canon too. In fact the beginning of TPoF (including showing Blair’s travails as a would-be farmer and husband) is included with the game in the form of a booklet that also contains information on ships and weaponry.

FlashFire82 said:
But I really agree with the Shakespear comparison... he was "us" until the movie, when he developed his own persona.

Well, the novels too, in which he was certainly characterized.

As regards our–call it what you will–visions, projections, or expectations of Blair, the result is we infuse him with our “take” on what it is to be human, what human nature is, and so forth, and that’s always tough to talk about. When people have complained about the Pilgrim “talent”, they have tended to sound a bit “groping”, as if not quite sure where they might be headed. And I’d say they were right to feel that way.

For example, some people have argued the Pilgrims’ ability amounts to a Star Wars ripoff (a.k.a., the Force). Leaving aside whether that’s true, I’ve sensed in this argument at the same time an embrace of the classical hero and underdog: the lone individual and mere mortal who through sheer spirit–believing in himself, willing his body on–overcomes physical adversity and pain to finally achieve victory. But what distinction is then being drawn? Certainly not “the mystical” versus “the physical”, as seems to be the aim. Instead, it’s more like universal mysticism versus individual mysticism. But isn’t the latter still “the Force”, just “writ smaller”? (And is even this distinction real? From whence did and do the atoms and “energies” that make us up come?)

At the other end of the spectrum, some have seemed to object to the way the Pilgrim “skill” emphasizes genetics or otherwise implies some kind of determinism. But I don’t recall (which is not to say it hasn’t happened) anyone extending that criticism to WC4 and the G.E. project, in particular that Blair’s DNA was used as one of the templates. Rather, I’ve had the sense that there’s been a general acceptance of that fact, as in: “Why yes, the undoubted immorality and evil of the project aside, of course Blair’s genes would be used. Tolwyn was right, he is an exceptional human being.” What?

But such is the nature of the beast.:)
 
Anyway, there is little or no proof that the "pilgrim" taunt in WC4 is related to the Pilgrims in the movie.
 
That's missing the point, though - of course the two aren't connected, since WC4's script was written long before the movie script. What makes it neat, though, is that thanks to the wonders of retroactive continuity, we can reinterpret an otherwise irrelevant taunt as a reference to Blair's heritage and therefore another element linking the movie to the rest of the WC universe.
 
Back
Top