crimsoncowboyy

[crimsoncowboyy]

Are John and Arthur “Good” People? (An RDR Analysis)

A common comment I see on a lot of RDR posts is that, at the end of the day, John and Arthur are simply bad people. Usually, these comments can be seen in game clips where the player controlling Arthur has him do something drastically evil, such as mass murdering an entire town, just for fun. However, these also exist under posts that are meant to praise the characters of the game, showcasing their redemption arcs and appreciating how far both John and Arthur grow from the beginning of the game series. First, I think it is important to note that for the sake of the game being interactive, players must be able to have autonomy over what either John or Arthur do. Player autonomy within RDR is meant to serve as a world-building mechanism that unites the player with the intricate environmental designs, side-character interactions, and atypical lifestyles of John and Arthur. The more one explores, the more immersed they become with the characters they play as, and this makes the eventual deaths of both protagonists even more impactful. Yet, some players instead utilize open-world freedom to harass and harm numerous NPCs for seemingly no reason. Sure, Arthur and John can be made to rob random houses and beat up women in saloons, but this is not representative of the canonical story Rockstar is portraying. This leads to the other point I brought up, which is that many people argue that John and Arthur do not technically redeem themselves, and I want to dissect this by explaining what RDR teaches players about what it means to be a good person.

To tackle this complicated question, it is essential to recognize that the world Arthur and John come from is not a world that RDR players have ever lived in. The Wild West as a whole is essentially its micro-society that died about over one hundred years ago, and rather than going to war with other countries, Wild West “gangs” go to war with rival groups that hold ideologies the other finds to be immoral or corrupt. This world has its own traditions, power dynamics, borders, and way of life that can be defined by two main concepts: anarchy and poverty. Yet, like all political ideologies and lifestyles, some issues and hypocrisies arise from these values. Despite being anarchists who view the rich and the government as the world’s true enemies, micro-governments form within the “gangs” of the Wild West that develop into an almost cult-like reality that all people knowingly or unknowingly accept. Dutch Van Der Linde is a prime example of this. He rescues children, veterans, people of color, and outlaws who often themselves are victims of capitalism, racism, and American corruption and takes them in as his “children.” Dutch can be analyzed as the gang’s leader, and he ultimately sets up a society where he has loyal advisors, such as Hosea Matthews, but at the end of the day, only his word is to be followed, despite any doubts or opposition. Additionally, despite giving those living in poverty food, shelter, “education,” and a sense of community, Van Der Linde isolates members of his gang from the outside world through unique manipulation that eventually has the gang turn against one another.

Even though Dutch claims he opposes the structure of the United States government and the way it is often a form of evil, he does little to fight against the system. Instead, he uses it as an excuse to gain power in his way and steal from those he feels as a whole wronged him, but he sends loyal gang members to do the dirty work for him. This leads to a vicious cycle of poverty perpetrated by both Wild West gang leaders and the government itself; to put it simply, the government does little to help those born into unfortunate circumstances, poverty, families of color, and more. It then deems these people to be “inhuman,” causing those same people to flee to whoever will accept and guide them. Then, when the government gets wind of what those “inhuman” people are now up to, they demand that these lifestyles get abandoned and destroyed, but still fail to provide an alternate lifestyle of help to get people on the right track. This isolation and lack of empathy from those of governmental power both cause these Wild West outlaws to exist in a balance of stark independence and cultish loyalty to those who offer a sense of belonging. Thus, a vicious cycle continues.

Yet, even with menial knowledge of the Wild West lifestyle, it does not take long for players to get a sense that John and Arthur are two strong examples of what morality within this dubiously structured world can be analyzed to look like. The only times we see John and Arthur be “cruel” (outside of TikTok gameplay clips from teenage boys…) is when they want to say or do something mean to somebody. For example, Arthur demeans Sadie by calling her “woman,” but this is because he feels she is claiming to be better than other people in the camp because she does not want to cook. At other times, he uses the term “woman” or similar derogatory terms when trying to assert dominance or intimidate others. Arthur does this because of the loyalty he has to Dutch; he believes he is acting how he must act to provide for the gang, thus making Arthur’s motivations clear: loyalty. No matter what, Arthur is loyal to the people he perceives to be his family and saviors, especially Dutch. When Arthur is not working and encounters people he has genuine conversations with, we see the kindness, empathy, and creativity that Arthur possesses, even if Arthur himself downplays his own beautiful characteristics. Even if you always choose to antagonize gang members, you will not lose honor as a result of it, implying the gang understands that Arthur has and always will mean well. He openly expresses that he believes in equality, and we see through his interactions with women, people of color, and even those with alternative lifestyles, such as Charles Chatenay, that he respects people if they follow their hearts and lack impure intentions. This is why Arthur resonates so heavily with Eagle Flies, who wants to start a war against the United States Army because of their treatment of his tribe, while Arthur despises Micah who only serves himself.

John and Arthur are similar to one another. One thing to make note of is that they symbolize a sibling duo that grew up in chaos and processed it differently. Arthur, who is older than John, takes a much more “loyal dog” approach to his upbringing. Since Dutch and Hosea took Arthur in and provided him with the paternal comfort he always sought even before the “Van Der Linde gang” was fully established, Arthur dedicates his entire life to the two. He is scarily dedicated to serving them, both because he adores the gang as a whole and because he has not formed an identity outside of Dutch’s hold. Dutch does this on purpose, essentially grooming Arthur to be an unbeatable bodyguard, and takes advantage of Arthur’s desperate-for-praise nature and gradually exposes Arthur to more and more violence until it is just a factor of his life. However, John juxtaposes Arthur’s fervently faithful nature, as he is younger and joined the gang after it was a bit more developed. John shows a much more defiant and anti-authority streak than Arthur does. While Arthur does value alone time as a means of reflection, John shows a tendency to make choices for himself, even if this is at the expense of other people. Yet, there is something almost childish about John, even when he’s robbing someone or being threatened by the government. In the face of danger, he will make snide remarks, and while being stubborn, he will display an almost silly sense of opposition to whatever he dislikes or does not want to do (think about how he was acting while being driven in the car in RDR1). Yet, deep down, John has a similar sense of loyalty to Arthur, and this is where their two arcs truly divide; Arthur is causing him because of his unconditional loyalty to a decaying cause, while John wants to be better for his wife, Abigail, and son, Jack, but does not know how to be. It is very evident that John loves Abigail more than anything. Around her, his defiant, angry nature will subdue or disappear entirely. Abigail, who also grew up in unfortunate circumstances and turned to prostitution as a result, understands who John is at the core, and he understands her. She is the one person John, in his own strange way, is vulnerable with. He lets Abigail slap him if he says something rude, performs gestures of love as a means of apologizing to her, and goes to Mexico while it is in the midst of a bloody civil war to take down Bill, Javier, and Dutch after the gang disbanded all to secure her freedom from government captivity. John’s love for Abigail is so important because he is somebody we see resent how he gets frequently used like a pawn by people in power, but with Abigail, he accepts that sense of authority and respects her because of it.

So, if John loves Abigail so deeply, why did he run away after the birth of Jack? Does this not make him a deadbeat father and a bad man? At first glance, John’s relationship with Jack does appear to have a level of unhealthiness to it. Not only did he miss a year of Jack’s life, but as he gets older, John tends to put down Jack’s less “masculine” interests. While this is wrong to do to Jack, it is difficult to claim that John’s actions were meant to be purposely cruel. This is somebody who knows very little about love, family, and fatherhood. Sure, John gets glimpses of these realities through the gang, but the gang is still made up of lots of people who are coping with traumatic pasts. The gang, who are now all adults, understand the reality of their situation and the people who are in the same circumstances as them, but John knows that Jack deserves better than the dwindling life of a Wild West outlaw. Yet, John does not know how to obtain this life for his son. The only fatherly figures he has had raised him to be but another player in this violent world, and otherwise, John has lacked positive and authoritative male role models in his life. So, John panics and disappears not just on Abigail and Jack, but on the gang as a whole. Upon his return months later, almost everybody welcomes him back with open arms; even Abigail. She understands that John fled not because he is unloving, but because he is too loving and fears he will raise a son that will turn on as hardened and unfortunate as him, and that is the last thing John wants. Even though they fight and sometimes fail to communicate efficiently, John and Abigail know that deep down, they mean everything to one another, and no matter how idiotic John acts, it is out of fear, not pure cruelty.

Both RDR games end with the protagonist’s death which symbolizes a cycle of violence being broken, even if it is a more gradual process. John and Arthur have spent their lives essentially in exile. Their biological families and home country have abandoned them in numerous ways, and this resulted in an outlaw lifestyle that is now being forcefully put to an end by the very same government that catalyzed its creation. They have mastered how to fight for what little they have and how to steal from upper-class Americans as an act of retaliation, but all this does is trap Arthur and John in their angry pasts. Rather than Dutch helping the two get back on their feet, he instead encourages John and Arthur to fight and take from the same society that displaced them. Yet, this brutality does nothing but make the two groups hate each other more and more, especially as Dutch’s plans began to change from simply robbing the rich to becoming the very force that enables poverty patterns to continue. John and Arthur begin to recognize and oppose this because of the empathy both possess, and they start to resent Dutch’s changing ways. Once again, we do not see either man kill in cold blood, seek to harm the innocent, take enjoyment in murder, or act in self-serving manners. From the angle of the Wild West being its own society, John and Arthur have the roles of being military men who finally see the extent of the damage their world has caused, even though they tried to convince themselves that their world was different. Thus, the cycle breaking begins. After being diagnosed with tuberculosis, Arthur decides to spend the time he has left helping strangers with an array of problems and assisting those whose lives he feels he has negatively impacted. One of Arthur’s final moments is him either going back to get the money that will symbolize Arthur reclaiming a sense of personal power in the world that is crumbling around him or him helping John with one final major escape from the life of violence he was born into. This is after Arthur already made numerous decisions to save John from danger, whether it be a wolf pack or a prison island, because despite Arthur’s criticism of John’s actions, Arthur knows that deep down, John is not somebody who acts with the intention to be bad. Seeing this goodness and selflessness from a man who grew up in the same life as himself, John continues to try and be a different person for the sake of protecting his family. John tries hard for this, and he eventually builds a ranch for him, Abigail, and Jack to live on together and search for a sense of normalcy, which Abigail appreciates more than anything.

However, progress is not linear. Despite John working hard to outgrow the only lifestyle he ever really knew, he cannot fully escape the trauma and chaos that trails him. This is partially due to him occasionally slipping back into his old ways, especially in the face of danger, where he continues to fight rather than aim for peaceful means of mediation, and partially due to the American government doing what it does best: fail at true justice. Even though John has started to create a new life for himself, the government ignores their role in the development of the Van Der Linde gang, instead kidnapping John’s family years later and only agreeing to release them if John can take down Dutch, Bill, and Javier. They send him into the war-ridden Mexico region with minimal resources, assistance, or guidance, causing John to have to do what he used to do with Dutch, which is kill, meddle in other people’s battles, and get taken advantage of by more powerful forces. Once again, John only kills because he sees it as fighting for the greater good; a reality where he and his family can be free and his past can be eradicated. He does not take joy in fighting for or against the Mexican government, he is simply working with what little he has to save his family. Even then, we still see John’s heart through his care for Luisa, Bonnie, and even strangers that he assists on the road. Despite this and performing what the American government asked of him, they still gun him down at the game’s conclusion, which John accepts rather than evades because he wants his family to settle down and live to become something better, even if he is not there to see it.

Even though RDR1’s epilogue shows Jack to now be angry and hurt as well, there is still something inherently different about his life compared to that of John and Arthur. Jack’s dad was present in his life, even if imperfectly, he had a mother who loved him dearly, even though we know she passed away a few years after John did, and Jack has an understanding of the foundation of a life built around love and family. It is possible that Jack may have the same streaks of violence as John did, but for the first time, the Marston lineage is seeing a glimmer of hope that has seldom been seen before, all because one man dared to stop fighting against the past and instead fight for a brighter future, even if not for himself. Now, does all of this backstory and explanation pardon everything Arthur and John have done? Absolutely not. No human being is capable of getting through life without hurting people, involving themselves in situations they should not have a part in, only trusting perfect people, or making bad choices in the face of unfamiliarity or turmoil. However, it proves something greater than simply stating if John and Arthur are “good” men because oftentimes, people grow up in worlds where goodness is not an apparent reality. Yet, what can be said is that Arthur and John tried to better and fight for a greater, purer good, even at their own expense. Sure, their pasts cannot be eradicated, and they cannot change what is already done, but what they do have power over is how they shape the rest of the time they have left. So, they do what others have rarely done for them and take a gamble on embracing love to both change for the people they cherish and to be changed by those who love them.

All countries and communities are united through collective acts of violence, war, pride, and enabling of cruelty. The United States government and the Van Der Linde gang are both guilty in that regard. Yet, if the absence of all imperfections and the capability for one to escape the harsh circumstances they exist in is what makes somebody good, then nobody would ever be able to respect themselves, because, in one way or another, everybody hurts and gets hurt in return. What makes a true difference, however, is the ability to acknowledge one’s shortcomings, whether or not these are intentional, circumstantial, or implicit, and utilize that realization to push not to become perfect or guiltless, but better than before. At the end of the day, that urge to push for a gentler way of living for the sake of bringing peace to both yourself and who or what you love the most is what makes Arthur and John good people. Deeply complex, flawed, regretful, and troubled, but good. If everybody valued goodness as the desire to do better rather than fight against an unchangeable past, maybe the world as a whole would strive for decency and ultimately unite us all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you for reading! This is my first time posting on Tumblr, and I am looking forward to posting and engaging with more commentary of RDR. My essay is not proofread, so I apologize for any mistakes. :)