#potc meta

[ari-the-arotistic]

So I was thinking about pirates of the Caribbean, and each characters unique moral code and way of approaching life, as one does, when I remembered a particular scene about our beloved James Norrington... the very first scene in which Jack and James meet. Now, as a long time Sparrington shipper, I adore the Sparrington fandoms adopted head canon of Jack's compass pointing directly at Jack when James is holding it as having a romantic connotation too it, but this is Disney we're talking about, and a Disney from 20 years ago at that, so it is of course just a head canon. And while it is a beloved head canon, I will always be a writer before a shipper, and what that scene says about Norrington from a writer's perspective is far too juicy not to share... So buckle up for a very long meta post about who James Norrington is as a person, and how it was set up in this scene(and later reinforced in the second and third movie). This is my first real meta post, and I'm very excited for it, so let's jump right in.

First of all, the compass scene.

As we can clearly see in the image above, since the red line that points to the object of the holder's desires is no where to be seen, its relatively easy to conclude that it's hidden from our view by the sun dial in the middle, and thusly is pointing directly at Jack. Elizabeth is off to James's right, and no one is standing behind Jack, so unless the compass was pointing at something in the far off distance that just so happened to be in Jack's general direction(unlikely) its pretty clear what(or who) the compass is pointing at. For most potc fans, this is fairly standard knowledge. But it's what this fact says about Norrington's character that I'd like to focus on. After all, what does it say about a man that a compass that shows you what you desire most is pointing at a pirate, and the very face of piracy at that, instead of your canonical love interest, when you're a Commodore of the Navy? As stated above, Sparrington shippers often point at this scene as proof that James has a bit of a pash on the ruggedly handsome pirate, or at the very least, a thing for men. But from a writer's perspective, this just simply isn't the case, and not because the writer's in this instance are the notoriously homophobic corporation we call Disney. The reason why this is so unlikely from a writing perspective is because given the context clues, we as an audience are meant to draw the conclusion that this is the first time that they meet(I have heard rumors of them meeting as children in the books, but having never read them, and focusing only on the movies, I'm not including that in this post). And since this is the first time they've met, it's highly unlikely that the compass is pointing at Jack because James has a bit of a thing for him. Even if James has heard of Jack's many exploits, he does not truly know the man behind the legend, so having romantic feelings for the pirate at this point in time just isn't believable. And even if James was a closeted gay/bi man, it's still unlikely that the compass would be pointing at Jack of all the men around the Commodore(of which there is a lot, some of whom he is incredibly close with) seeing as Jack is the poster boy of piracy, and at this point in the movie it's made abundantly clear that James vehemently detests the notion and all who practice it. If James were to be holding the compass in Jack's vicinity in later movies and it still pointed at the pirate, an argument could definitely be made that it was because he had developed feelings for Jack, but for their first meeting, it's just not realistic. So it's much more likely that the reason the compass is pointing at Jack is because of James's desire to send every pirate he meets to "a quick drop and a sudden stop" as he so eloquently put it to a young Elizabeth. This is further reinforced in the third movie when it is revealed that Beckett's desire to have Jack dead at his feet would prevent him from using the compass to find Shipwreck Cove if the pirate was not already at the aforementioned location, or, well, dead. This is again, relatively common knowledge. But like I said before, it's what this fact says about James that is the whole point of this post... and that is that James cares more about his career than anything else, even the woman he claims to love. Now for some, that statement alone might seem like a pretty obvious conclusion, but it's how this scene subtlety sets up this core aspect of Norrington's character before we even truly get to know who he is, and how it's brought to it's full height in the second movie, and the core aspect of his redemption and subsequent death in the third that I'd really like to talk about. Which brings us to the next segment of this post...

How James lost his commission to the navy...

And how he got it back

So let's start off with how James lost his commission... it's a story we all know pretty well, and one he tells to Gibbs in the scene shown above, when he plans to either join Jack's crew or get revenge on the man that(he believes) ruined his life. After Jack's escape in the first movie, James grew obsessed with capturing the pirate, so much so that he foolishly followed the Black Pearl into a hurricane, resulting in the sinking of the Dauntless, and the loss of countless lives that had been aboard the vessel. It's unclear aside from James himself who had been on the ship at the time, and who did or did not survive, but the death toll was heavy, with most, if not everyone who wasn't James, having perished in the storm. While it is not the most extreme example(which we'll get too in just a bit), this is a pretty clear example of James prioritizing his career above everything else, even reason and logic. And all just to capture a singular pirate, even at the cost of his own ship and crew, and rather ironically, the very career that he had been so desperately trying to hold onto in the first place. Which brings us to the next scene I'd like to discuss... James stealing the heart of Davy Jones. This moment is the absolute peak of this part of James's character. This is the moment where James takes his obsessive need for his career to the max. This is the moment where James truly prioritizes his career above everything else, even the woman he claims to love(and for Sparrington shippers, above the man he's reluctantly come to care about). At this point in time, when James decides to take the heart for himself to regain his old station, he's been on the Black Pearl long enough to know the full situation. That Jack is in some kind of trouble with Davy Jones, and that if Jack doesn't use the heart to bargain for his freedom, then the Kraken will hunt Jack, and subsequently the Black Pearl, down until he and everyone aboard are dead. And that includes Elizabeth. And yet, despite knowing that stealing the heart would basically mean sealing Elizabeth's death, he still decided to do so. Sure, the argument could be made that he thought Elizabeth would be able to escape somehow, but the chances of her dying at sea, or some other terrible fate befalling her before she could safely make it back to civilization would have been highly likely. Of course we as an audience know that this isn't the case, but James does not. So essentially, James was so obsessed with his career, and maintaining the image of the honorable Commodore that he didn't even truly register that he was putting Elizabeth, the woman he loves and has been trying so desperately to woo for the past two movies, in danger. And he won't fully realize the consequences of his actions until the third movie, in a deleted scene no less(I swear when I find whoever decided to delete some of the most important scenes to James's character...), when Davy Jones informs Governor Swann of his daughters untimely demise on the Black Pearl. Of course, almost immediately afterwards, Beckett retcons that statement by informing the Governor that Elizabeth was recently seen in Singapore, but for a few minutes, James has to sit with the fact that Elizabeth was dead, and it was his fault. And even after learning that she was in fact still alive, James has now finally come to the realization that if she had still been on the Black Pearl when it sank with its Captain, he would've been the one to send her to her death. And for Sparrington shippers, James has to sit with the unavoidable fact that he was the reason Jack had died(even if the pirate does come back), despite the fact that it was Elizabeth's betrayal that was the final nail in Jack's coffin, since she wouldn't have had to do that if the Kraken wasn't after them in the first place. Which brings us to the final scene I'd like to discuss...

James choosing a side, and paying the price

Now, before we fully delve into this scene, I'd like to take a moment to talk about James's own perception of himself, and his relationship with honor and integrity. From the very first scene in which we meet James Norrington, we are made aware that he has a strong moral compass. He firmly believes piracy is evil, and that all who partake in piracy deserve a swift end. He perceives his Commodore persona as being the paragon of honor and integrity, and the sole arbiter of justice. We can infer from the line "By remembering that I serve others, Sparrow, not just myself" that James does have honorable intentions when ridding the world of pirates, that being protecting the innocent citizens under his care, but as seen once again in the first time James and Jack meet, wherein James adamantly tries to arrest Jack despite the fact the fact that pirate had just saved Elizabeth's life, his actions to achieve that goal are not always quite as honorable as his intentions are. This is especially highlighted once again when James gave Beckett the heart of Davy Jones. James's intentions here were once again rooted in honor and integrity - he believes that the only way to keep people safe from pirates is too return to his old station, to the image of honor and integrity he had built around the title of Commodore, and the only way to return to his old station is to give Beckett the heart. But the action itself was far from honorable, seeing as James had to betray the woman he loved just to obtain the heart, and that he was now putting it into the hands of a dangerously unstable individual who planned on using it to commit mass genocide.

And now, we finally get to the scene above... Of course, it's made clear throughout his scenes in the third movie leading up to this one that James is already starting to regret giving Beckett the heart after seeing the damage being caused, but since Beckett is targeting pirates specifically(although we as an audience know that Beckett's definition of pirate is very loose) James figures that the ends justify the means, as he often does in situations regarding piracy. It is not until his reunion with Elizabeth, where he learns that Governor Swann is dead, and that Beckett lied to him about the Governor's whereabouts, that James truly realizes the enormity of his mistake. It is in this moment that James has a sudden realization that fundamentally shakes him to his core, and is the reason behind his change of heart later on. He realizes that the honorable Commodore persona that he had tried to cultivate and keep a hold of for so long had never been truly honorable at all, and that by giving Beckett the heart of Davy Jones, he had effectively tied the noose around the neck of his own honor and integrity, as well as the necks of hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people, with his own hands. And as that one vine goes, this was the moment James knew, he fucked up. Which leads to his decision to change sides in an attempt to redeem himself, and his subsequent death in the process. Of course, part of James's reason for helping Elizabeth escape was that he does care for her, but given everything I've detailed about him so far, I think it's safe to say the main reason that James decided to help Elizabeth and her crew was because he wanted to undo the damage he had done, and he had faith that Elizabeth, Will, and Jack would have some sort of plan to defeat Beckett, and stop any further damage to come from his mistake. And now, for his death scene itself... As much as I love the idea of James surviving and joining the pirates(whether at Elizabeth's side or Jack's is unimportant), I firmly believe that his death was a necessary end of this part of his character arc, and that if he were to survive he would still have to go through a major ego death for this part of his character arc to end properly. Because as Bill turner drives that wooden pike into James's gut, it's not just the physical death of his body, but also the metaphorical death of Admiral James Norrington, and the ideals that James had used to build the persona out of. So even if James survived, the Admiral would still have to meet his metaphorical end, thusly causing James to lose a core part of himself that had been guiding most his decisions so far, in the process, which would start the next part of his character arc, where he would have to deal with the loss of a key part of his personality, and rebuild himself from the ground up to finally, truly become the image of honor and integrity he had envisioned from the beginning.

And that concludes this very long post. I could probably wax enough poetics about this aspect of James's character to write a short novel, but I've said everything important to this post, and if I go on any longer, I'm likely to start repeating myself lol. Thank you for reading, and feel free to share your thoughts in the comments or a reblog! I will always love hearing more about our polished peacock <3

[beemovieerotica]

How do you think Davy Jones and Calypso met? What do you think about their relationship ?

HWOAGGHH okay so let's get right into it

Supplemental POTC sources talk about Davy Jones basically being this incredibly skilled sailor likely from wealth and means who was able to impress Calypso and gain her favor through his seafaring abilities

It's a cool origin story and I've played around with it in fic, but I've always wondered what SPECIFICALLY about him caught her eye, because he wasn't the only great sailor of his time---like, he'd have to have done something absolutely bonkers in order for the goddess of the sea to take notice

I love hearing headcanons about this, but the flavor of origin story I've ascribed to him in most of my fics is "humble beginnings" / tragic war history / desertion / escape to sea

In my stories, what Davy Jones brings to seafaring and captaining his own ship that is interesting to Calypso is both a humility about his place in life and an obsessive devotion to the sea as the one thing worth living for / keeping him alive

He's not in it for profit, he's in it for survival and ends up aiding others---I have the Flying Dutchman (visually of Dutch design, 16th century, built like a slave trading ship) taken from Dutch slave traders at the height of their operations and the captives freed, both as a practicality on Jones' end (incredibly useful type of ship that balances speed and firepower) but more importantly as a compassionate act. There has to be a reason why Calypso chose him for the most compassionate role in the world, the most essential job in easing the dead into the next life.

I don't think that it's a coincidence that Calypso appears in the mortal form that she does, I think that witnessing men's greed as the soul of the sea has made her particularly sympathetic to the atrocities of the stealing and transport of West Africans to other parts of the world, countless of whom drowned and chose to throw themselves into the sea rather than face a life of subjugation. THIS resonates with her, this makes sense to her, her entire story is about having her freedom taken from her, and for that I deeply appreciate the casting and characterization choices they went with canonically, because it lends itself to such rich meta analysis. A lot of fan characterizations of Calypso paint her as completely discompassionate, uninvolved, and uncaring about the world of men, but I do not agree with this, I see her interest in humanity being much more complex, with hate, reverence, love, and disdain all mingled together

And that's ultimately why Jones stands out to her first, because he is one of the few/only people at sea not for profit, his freedom is wrapped up in the sea, and he has enough of a broken past that makes any kind of devotion he displays deeply and overwhelmingly all-or-nothing

It's this that lends itself to the imbalance of power and lack of compromise between them, which then leads to the betrayal, etc etc. But they are at the core of their relationship the two people who understand each other more than anyone else in the world could, but they are still mired in misunderstandings because they are a human and a god, because those relationships are doomed by nature of what they are, because you can never fully understand someone whose concepts of time, devotion, and reality are so fundamentally different to your own.

I love thinking about how terrible they are for each other and how no one else in the world fits better together than them. Their story is the most pivotal and interesting piece of lore to the trilogy, and ultimately the reason why I think P4 and P5 fell flat---because the writers kept scrabbling for something mystical and fantastical to try and replicate this, but nothing came anywhere close to reproducing that same love and meaning of the Jones/Calypso Elizabeth/Will contrast. Which I could also go on and on about but I'll stop here!

[nequittezpaswrites]

Will Turner is not smart

Okay, so. I like Will. I enjoy him a lot. He’s got a good sense of humor, he’s brave, he’s pretty, he has excellent taste in women—he’s got a lot of good qualities.

Brains are not one of those qualities.

I never realized this when first watching the movies, but, uh. Will makes a lot of… questionable choices. And sure, from a Doylist perspective there are good reasons for Will to do what he does in a lot of cases. But from a Watsonian perspective he can be a little… unhinged.

Let’s look at Curse of the Black Pearl, shall we?

Unhinged Decision #1: Crossing blades with a pirate

This is a bad choice. First of all, I don’t care how many hours a day Will practices swordplay—he’s not going to be able to win in a fight if he’s never faced a real opponent. And since it seems like this is just Will practicing alone in the smithy while his master drunkenly sleeps, we have to assume that this is Baby’s First Sword Fight. Jack literally questions the wisdom of this decision in the movie, and he is right to do so, because it is a bonkers move.

It is an especially bonkers move because there are dozens of Navy officers running through the streets right outside looking for Jack. All Will has to do is shout and they’ll come running. They do come running, in fact, when they hear the commotion of the sword fight! There is no good reason for Will to engage in a sword fight with Jack Sparrow.

It’s great from a movie perspective, don’t get me wrong. This is my favorite sword fight scene literally ever. But in-universe, this is a weird and irrational decision to make. Even if Jack did “threaten Miss Swann”. Unhinged.

Unhinged Decision #2: Springing Jack from jail

This refers both to the decision and the execution of that decision.

So, in the sword fight above, Will makes it very clear that he does not like pirates. So clear, in fact, that he says, “I practice three hours a day so that when I meet a pirate, I can kill it!” Not him, it.

But Elizabeth has been kidnapped and Will is desperate. The Navy doesn’t think Jack knows where the Pearl makes berth, therefore won’t consult him, but Will goes to talk to Jack and finds out that he does know where it makes berth.

A reasonable person might share this information with the Navy. Hey, Norrington, Jack Sparrow here says he’ll lead you there if you promise you won’t hang him. Norrington might resist at first, but he doesn’t exactly have any other leads. He can probably be convinced.

But let’s say that Will does tell Norrington, and Norrington says no, because Jack Sparrow is a dirty liar who lies and will lead them on a wild goose chase, wasting time that could be spent looking for Elizabeth. Okay, Will—it is now a reasonable decision to spring Jack from jail.

Will makes a bargain: he will break Jack out, and Jack will lead him to the Pearl and help him get Elizabeth back. Will fulfills his end of the bargain, and then waits as Jack collects his sword and pistol.

This is how you get murdered, Will! This is a pirate! He literally held you at gunpoint hours ago. What if he lied, like pirates are wont to do? What if you free him and he just murders you and goes on his merry way? What’s stopping him?

None of this occurs to Will. Unhinged.

Semi-unhinged Decision: Stealing the Interceptor

Note that I did not say stealing a boat. If reason fails and the Navy won’t let Jack lead them to Isla de Muerta, then procuring transportation does become necessary. Will and Jack are going to need a boat.

Thing is, Port Royal is… a port. There are lots of boats around. All shapes and sizes. Most of those boats aren’t defended by Navy soldiers, and probably some of them could be reasonably manned by two people. Jack, after all, made it from Tortuga to Port Royal in Anamaria’s little one-mast boat. There are surely similar vessels docked in Port Royal, and I can’t imagine that it would be harder to commandeer one of those than it would be to steal a ship from the Navy. 

Sure, they couldn’t pick up a crew in Tortuga in a smaller vessel, but they wouldn’t need a big crew if they stole a smaller vessel. Jack’s plan seems to be negotiating with Barbossa for the return of the Pearl, so there’s no real reason that he needs a crew for that, either. Yes, he’ll need a crew to sail the Pearl again, but surely if he can negotiate for the ship then he could negotiate some sort of transfer.

This gets a pass on being totally unhinged because time is of the essence. They need to get to Isla de Muerta before Barbossa and his crew spill Elizabeth’s blood, realize she’s the wrong person, and murder her in retaliation. They have to get there quickly, so they need the “fastest ship in the Caribbean.” I don’t know enough about sailing to say whether the detour in Tortuga to pick up a crew undermines the speed of the Interceptor, so… semi-unhinged.

Unhinged Decision #3: Promising the Interceptor to Anamaria

What are you doing, Will? That’s not your boat. That’s the Navy’s boat! Even if you bring Elizabeth back, they’re going to be very upset about you giving their ship to a pirate! You have a much better chance of being pardoned for the capital offense you’ve just committed if you return their ship along with Elizabeth. Unhinged.

Unhinged Decision #4: Knocking Jack out

Why, Will? Why did you trust Jack all this way only to betray him now? It appears, from the movie, that Will overheard that he is “leverage” and believes that Jack is going to trade his life for the Pearl. But he doesn’t realize until later that his blood is needed to break the curse, because he’s still in denial about his father being a pirate.

Will, if the pirates didn’t need your blood, why would they give a shit about you? They certainly wouldn’t trade away an entire ship just to, what, kill you? Just what sort of bargain do you think Jack is trying to strike, here? Unhinged.

Unhinged Decision #5: Rescuing Jack in the most dramatic way possible

We’re skipping to the end here. Will putting a gun to his own head is a good call in context, and him failing to smartly word his bargain with Barbossa is a forgivable mistake. Decent to good decisions the rest of the way through. Jack’s rescue, though…

Will has already demonstrated that he can break Jack out of prison easily. I doubt the Navy has had time to change the structure of the cells—the doors can still be lifted free with leverage. Can’t you just… spring him from jail the same way? Or maybe take whatever Isla de Muerta gold you used to buy your fancy outfit and showy hat, and instead use it to bribe someone else to do it so you have plausible deniability?

There are so many people at the hanging, Will. So many soldiers with guns. So many witnesses to you doing crime. (This will come back to haunt you in future films, Will!)

Will explicitly states “If all I have achieved here is that the hangman earns two pairs of boots instead of one, so be it. My conscience will be clear.” Oh yeah? Well I’m pretty sure Jack would prefer that the hangman earned zero pairs of boots, and that you’d planned a better rescue.

Will gets lucky because Elizabeth loves him back and convinces her father not to hang him and to let Jack get away, but Will couldn’t count on any of that and seemed 100% prepared to die. Unhinged.

[fortunatelychaoticphantom]

Highlighted Posts - Fandom Topics

For some explanation, see serious topics post.

Avatar the Last Airbender / Legend of Korra:

Aang, forgiveness and violence in The Southern Raiders (meta).

Aang’s (lack of a) character arc (meta) + same response, posted independently from the original chain post with a bit of revisions (meta).

Avatar, violence and last second anti-killing rhetoric (meta).

The actual advice the past Avatars gave Aang (meta).

Aang vs. Ozai final battle and Star Wars influences (meta).

The Great Divide is good actually (meta).

Aang being rewarded by the universe? (meta).

Third season Scorched Earth plan out of left field (meta).

Bloodbending and Energybending (meta).

Katara didn't have a “plot armor” in the final battle with Azula, she's the epitome of a warrior (meta).

Katara and non-lethal battle winning (meta/joke).

Katara didn’t beat Pakku (meta).

Katara didn’t choose Aang “over” Zuko (meta).

Anastasia!Zutara AU (headcanon).

Mai and Zuko, what should have been (meta).

Mai happily joined Azula to hunt Zuko (meta).

Kanna and Pakku... why??? (meta/joke).

Gender equality in the Fire Nation and WW2 equivalents (meta).

Legend of Korra, the status quo and the institution of the Avatar (meta).

Making Korra’s dad chief is just… awful (meta).

Harry Potter:

The Malfoys didn’t have a redemption in canon (meta).

Michael Gambon is great, you guys are just mean (meta).

Snape, Dumbledore and the Defence against the Dark Arts (meta/joke).

No thanks, I don’t need a young Snape movie (joke).

What Harry’s reaction to his name being pulled from the Goblet should have been (joke).

The Tri-Wizard tournament has no rules (meta).

Star Wars:

Star wars and Pirates of the Caribbean are the same story (meta).

Kylo Ren and redemption in the Star Wars universe and Hollywood [tlj post] (meta).

DC:

so... does Superman have an appendix? (joke).

Why Selina Kyle never goes to Arkham (joke).

The Scorpion King/Wonder Woman comparison (joke).

Marvel:

Infinity War and the horror of the snap (meta).

Who’s the avengers’ designer? (joke).

Black Panther and The Lion King similarities regarding women (meta).

Shipping in the MCU (joke).

Antman and family (joke).

Pirates of the Caribbeans:

Elizabeth and Will’s relationship is the heart of the movies (meta).

The best things about PotC (meta).

Disney:

I sort of wrote a one-shot about the bimbettes from Beauty and the Beast (fanfiction).

Belle in the Hunchback of Notre Dame (meta).

Del Toro, monstrosity and Beauty and the Beast (meta).

Inner Workings is amazing (meta).

Frozen’s Anna and Hans (joke).

Quasimodo is awesome (meta).

Around the world with Captain Phoebus (joke).

Pocahontas’ ending is subversive as fuck (joke/meta).

Hercules didn’t know who Hades was (joke).

Other:

Bullshit “feminist” retelling and Mad Max Fury Road (joke/meta).

“Feminist” retellings explanation (analysis).

She-Ra and the inherently good protagonist (meta).

I hate the ending of She-Ra (meta).

Once upon a Time, Regina and redemption (two diverging threads of the same post) (meta): First and Second.

Ross Geller isn’t that bad, you guys are just mean. Or: The unbelievable cruelty of what Carol did to Ross (meta).

Bella Swan and Hermione Granger comparisons are bullshit (meta).

Twilight and depression (meta).

New Moon reread comments (meta).

Eclipse reread comments (meta).

Breaking Dawn reread comments (meta).

The Good Place is the greatest show in history. But also I have thoughts (meta).

The single most beautiful Geralt and Jeskier art ever made [The Witcher] (fanart).

Dimitri wanted to find the real Anastasia all along in hopes that she survived the revolution [Anastasia 1997] (meta).

Godzilla, Pacific Rim and Hollywood: between grim-dark and camp (meta).

Wednesday Addams and the usurpation of the summer camp for rich white kids (meta).

Debbie Jellinsky is the best [The Addams Family Values] (joke).

Achilles and Patroclus sitting in an urn. K.I.S.S.I.N.G. (joke).

Of course the Jewish women are the witches in Oz the Great and Powerful… (joke/meta).

Bird Box and mental illness (meta).

My problems with Carmen San Diego (meta).

Ice Princess and teenage movie tropes. Or: They're lesbians Harold (meta/joke).

Lord of the Rings life goals (joke).

The School of Good and Evil and that little bit of antisemitism… (joke).

Game of Thrones / House of the Dragon genetics are weird (joke).

Why wouldn’t I keep talking about old fandoms? (joke/analysis).

I hate Barbie. Sorry. (meta).

[shieldmaiden19]

Rediscovered this on my latest watch-through of the movies, and I stand by these tags.

“One of the most interesting things about Elizabeth Turner was her Kiss of Death. Throughout the trilogy, all of the men she locked lips with has died - including Sao Feng in At World’s End, and (if you want to be petty about it) her father, Weatherby Swann. Usually they would die moments after kissing her for the first time. This excludes Will Turner who has kissed her several times before and beat the odds every time. However, even he succumbed to her kiss and died as well minutes after the two were hastily married by Barbossa. This is most likely a just coincidence and not something that was intentional, but years later it’s still fun to point out to friends and watch a dawn of realization hit their face when they realize that Pirate Queen Elizabeth may have also been the Grim Reaper.”

[sepublic]

Now that I’m older, it’s occurred to me that Jack Sparrow really does play the role of the mentor figure in Curse of the Black Pearl. He’s definitely a very cleverly subversive take on the trope, but he is a take on it nonetheless; The older figure who teaches our young, hotshot hero how to act and passes on wisdom. “I knew your father.” An experienced member of a forbidden group that our protagonist learns to accept he is a part of. Acts as a call to action, and isn’t introduced until past the first few scenes of the film.

By contrast, Elizabeth and Will are established in the movie’s first scene, which further strengthens the actually hot take that they’re the main protagonists of the film and the trilogy as a whole, not Jack. Jack is just less recognizable as a mentor because he breaks a lot of the rules (more guidelines really) of the trope, and is treated as more than just a tool for our main character’s growth; He’s someone with his own life and wants and stake in this, too.

Jack Sparrow is ultimately the Gandalf, the Obi-Wan of Pirates of the Caribbean. And that leads me to my argument that PotC is the Star Wars of its generation, with its own Empire Strikes Back and everything. It’s got a lot of the same tropes and structure, but it’s mixed around and dressed up in such a unique way that most people fail to realize this at first glance. 

Take for example, the dynamic of Davy Jones and Cutler Beckett... This is just Vader and Tarkin in A New Hope; A more iconic, supernatural threat, physically imposing, who is nevertheless subservient to Just Some Guy who is British and represents the Machine that strips the world of its magic and wonder. Vader and Jones are more romantic, they’ve got sad backstories and are humanized to the audience; But Tarkin and Beckett are banal and simple, just ruthless men who don’t care, like in real life.

But while Tarkin dies in the first film to make way for Vader taking the spotlight, as well as his similarly theatrical Emperor, the creators of PotC clearly wanted to explore the dynamic of a supernatural force straining against his imperial collar, and the tension of knowing he is contributing to the decline of his own kind. They took Vader and Tarkin’s relationship and made it front and center, happening at the end of the trilogy and not at its beginning. And it is Beckett and the imperial machine that is emphasized as the true evil, whereas in Star Wars, the Empire takes orders from Palpatine and his Dark Side shenanigans, who are framed as the foundation for the conflict.

The crew reinvented Star Wars for a new audience, rather than just... pulling off of the brand and imagery of Star Wars, or copying it word-for-word. They understood the core foundation of the story and the earnest creativity that comes into making something both familiar yet inarguably new, which subverts the stories that came before it in a meaningful manner.

[cuddlytogas]

maybe it's just the Radical Rediker talking, but there's something pointed in the way that, say, popular pirate media like Pirates of the Caribbean dilutes the pirate's freedom to "bring me that horizon" as opposed to, say, "plenty and satiety, pleasure and ease, liberty and power" (Bartholomew Roberts).

broadly speaking, most pirates chose the life in order to escape and revenge the hard labour, corporal punishment, overworking, and unequal pay of merchant/navy/privateer ships; or the privations of their sudden unemployment once a war was over, ignored as soon as their ability to die for the state was unneeded. yes, many were thugs, but, consciously political or not, they were responding to a particular, material reality.

the pirate's desired freedom was from the effects of exploitative modes of statehood and capital production. but popular media usually shifts this into a general desire for freedom: freedom to roam, freedom to love (usually merely a cross-class white, heterosexual union), or freedom from the personal pressures of social norms. it's a vague, ahistorical, post-Enlightenment, libertarian ideal rather than a response to a real social and economic situation.

to be clear, this only really applies to specifically the late golden age of piracy, in the first quarter of the 18th century. earlier generations of pirates/buccaneers often displayed nationalist/religious motives, and were lauded, tolerated, or even encouraged by the French and English states for aiding their fights against the Spanish and Portuguese. only the last gasp of age of sail pirates had a truly anti-national energy, and both figured themselves, and were figured by the imperial powers, as the enemies of all nations.

but if we are to valourise the late golden age pirate, at his best, his ideals were for true democracy, and the abolition of nation, hierarchy, and labour exploitation; not "the horizon". he was striking out in response to specific political, social, and economic oppressions, rather than a general individual restlessness, and that reality - and its similarities to our own - are important.

I dunno, I just... have a lot of thoughts about the defanging of piracy in modern media. obviously there were a lot of things bad about them, too, and the level of egalitarianism varied between individual people and ships. but again, if we're going to be valourising them anyway... there were idealists. and they weren't subtle about they wanted.

"I shan't own myself guilty of any murder", said William Fly in 1726. "Our captain and his mate used us barbarously. We poor men can't have justice done us. There is nothing said to our commanders, let them never so much abuse us, and use us like dogs. But the poor sailors --"

[boltlightning]

close enough that light we can see my doubt betrays the better of me ♫♪

[thenationaltreasuregazette]

What do you think of “violence” as a lens for examining the movie? I see someone mentioned it in the notes of a recent post contrasting Ben and Ian’s approaches to getting fingerprints, and I remember observing to one of my friends that it struck me as an action movie where the heroes are being shot *at* but never shoot anyone, they outwit, hide, and flee. Even at the end, under Trinity Church when they outnumber Ian’s team, the heroes don’t attempt to rush the surviving henchman and get his gun, their response is still to *outwit* Ian again.

Hey @kaiyves-backup,

Great question!

I believe the commentary in question is by @tentacledwizard.

Parallel Action

I adore the heist sequence so much. It's conveying a lot of information about both teams visually while ratcheting up the tension the whole time. This technique of cutting back and forth between two sequences of related activities is called 'parallel action', and it is used to fantastic effect in this part of the movie.

I mean, pretty much every part of National Treasure is one of my favorite parts of National Treasure, but the heist sequence just sings, and this crosscutting is a big reason why.

Good vs Evil

The trope of the heroes winning through wits instead of violence is a longstanding one. You could probably trace it back to The Odyssey if you were so inclined? It plays on some base cultural assumptions we have about good = clever, intelligent, peaceful while bad = violent, brutish, dumb. Obviously the particulars of those associations change over time, but broadly they stand.

And National Treasure is very clear about situating each side with the "good vs evil" narrative. While Ben is prepping UV light powder, Ian and co are amassing grenades and blocks of C4.

Ian's crew tases a guard to gain fingerprint access, while Ben artfully steals Abigail's fingerprints with no harm done other than some awkward flirting and potentially weird implication for their relationship later but that's not what we're dealing with atm.

The film takes every opportunity to show us the difference between these two approaches, and I think there are a few reasons why, both in general and to serve this story in particular.

First of all, both teams are doing a "bad" thing. They are both trying to steal something that we, the American public consciousness, hold sacred. To differentiate them and make sure we know who is doing it for the right reasons and for the wrong reasons, the film gives them two very different approaches. It's clear at every step who to root for.

The parallel action is also creating dramatic irony. We know that Ian is coming, and that he's heavily armed, but Ben doesn't until it's nearly too late. That creates some delicious tension, because the editing keeps reminding us what Ben and Riley don't know: this sequence is actually a race not just against the clock, but against armed mercenaries Yikes!

It also sets up Ian as a formidable antagonist. He's just as capable as Ben, but much more dangerous. He's able to match Ben and Riley's heist literally beat for beat on screen, while causing much more harm to people and property. This underscores that he will not hesitate to harm Ben, the Declaration, or anyone else who crosses his path on the treasure hunt (as an unfortunate Dr. Chase is about to learn).

Clever Heroes

One thing I want to focus on especially is the way this movie actually subverts this trope a teeny bit. Usually, the trope is that the good guys are just as capable of violence as the bad guys, but choose not to use it. They elect to outwit because it's more 'gentlemanly.' Off the top of my head I'm thinking of:

The Princess Bride. Both sides feature skilled fighters and Wesley and Inigo can and have killed a man like slicing butter, but they elect to use their wits and civility whenever possible. By contrast, Prince Humperdink and the Six-Fingered Man will use any violent means necessary to get what they want.

White Collar. Slightly random, I know, but I'm watching this right now, and the show makes it clear from the outset that Neal Caffrey is an expert marksman and highly competent with guns but he chooses not to use them because he's a classier (and therefore more likable) kind of criminal.

James Bond?? Honestly I haven't see one of these in a while but I feel like 007 isn't just mowing people down all the time. He's playing them. Outsmarting them. Only getting his hands dirty when he has to. Because he's, again, smarter/suaver/more 'civilized' and likable than his antagonistic counterparts.

The key here is that these guys all have the same violence as their opponents as an option in their toolbelts and make a moral choice not to use it.

Ben doesn't have that option.

Weak heroes

He could not, on his best day, go toe-to-toe with Ian or any one of the henchmen, let alone a group of them together. His only choice is to outwit them.

Throughout the course of the movie Ben throws one (1) punch and it hurts enough that he has to stop and shake his hand out.

And he only gets that punch off in the first place because Powell isn't expecting it.

He's a researcher. Yes he's fit enough to run around and scuba dive but if he had any kind of hand to hand combat training it would have been ~20 years ago when he was in the ROTC program.

This puts him in a sub-category/related trope: the scrawny nerd who outwits the much more physically powerful enemy. Think Mulan using the weights to help her climb the pole or a pre-serum Steve Rogers pulling the pin out of the flag poll.

And Ben is the most athletic of the bunch by far. Abigail seems like a person who takes good care of herself, but probably in a lowfat-yogurt-and-pilates way not in a can-fuck-you-up-with-martial-arts kind of way. And Riley? ...Riley does not strike me as someone who is especially strong or fit. Screen time, junk food, late nights online. Patrick is in his 60s and eats pizza alone on Friday/Saturday nights.

So while they maybe could have overpowered Ian all together, it would be a big risk, and probably none of their first instincts. Team Treasure is entirely composed of neurodivergent nerds--one imagines they all learned pretty early in their childhoods that they couldn't overpower their bullies, but they could outsmart them.

And so when their lives are on the line, they turn to the self-preservation strategy that's gotten them this far: their wits.

Conclusion

Wow, I did not expect this answer to get so deep!

This turned into an interesting look at both the creative choices in the movie and the characters.

Thanks so much for your question! Feel free to send another any time.

[snoopy0706]

rewatching pirates of the caribbean and looking at the Jack Sparrow family tree made me realize a very funny thing.

Edward Teague is Jacks father.

He is losely based on Edward Teach.

(I know there's a Blackbeard in Pirates of the Caribbean, who is called Edward Teach, but let's ignore that for a second. Blackbeard is a name losely used for any captain who has the vibe honestly.)

If Edward Teague aka Jack Sparrows Dad was Blackbeard....

he-

would be Jacks Dad.

And Stede would be his Mom.

Jack Sparrow has gay parents.

Let me live that fantasy please

[johnbly]

can't stop thinking about how in dmc jack treated james like a dog (whistling when he wanted him to start digging for the chest, the deleted scenes with giving him the other shovel to carry + having him clean his boot) and james takes it first because of wanting to stay by elizabeth but then because he was waiting for his moment to take the letters of marque + either the compass or chest and get his life back

and of course he gets the letters and the heart and gives them to beckett --

only for beckett to treat him like a dog as well ("you summoned me," the sending off/shooing gesture on the dutchman when it was time to drop off the chest, "he'll obey it's what he does") but this time james has to take it because he sees no other path

[jgvfhl]

Oh I am eating this with a SHOVEL this is fascinating and I love the analysis

There is one thing that bothers me with Armando Salazar “naming” Jack:

POTC wiki says that the novels in which Jack commanders the Barnacle and has adventures with Arabella Smith, Fitzwilliam P. Dalton III, Tumen, Jean Magliore and Constance Magliore happens around 1706. Which means it happens 2 years before Jack defeats El Matador Del Mar - Armando Salazar by making him sail into the Devil’s Triangle. The issue with that conclusion is that if we take those two at face value, it creates a continuity error with naming as Jack is already referred to as Jack Sparrow in the first novel, not only by himself in the interlude, but also by other characters, which if we took Salazar’s naming as canon, would mean that the characters must have met Jack after he was already a Pirate Lord… which makes no sense, because then Arabella would know he was a pirate, unless we assume that nobody knew who exactly defeated the Spanish Pirate Hunter, only knowing that he was defeated. Which then works with the whole Fitzwilliam shit going on in those novels, but is still kinda fishy when it comes to timeline, which I will describe below.

The issue being again that he is referred to as Sparrow not only by the narrator, but by himself and other characters multiple times when he was not yet named. Which means that if we want to treat the novels as canon, we cannot take the fact that Armando named Jack “the Sparrow” at face value, because it then fucks up the whole timeline of his life. I could at best assume that defeating Armando gave Jack’s new name value and power on top of making him a Pirate Lord of the Caribbean, but Armando could not have named him unless we assumed that novels happened after he became the Pirate Lord, in those brief 2 year gap between him defeating the Salazar and “having to abandon pirate life and start working for Beckett” which would make no sense if he was already a pirate at the time as in the novels Jack stresses a lot how much he hates pirates, and he doesn’t consider himself a pirate despite doing pirate things like looking for treasures and having adventures and fighting other pirates.

[Novels “The Coming Storm” (1) and “The Siren Song” (2) were published a month before the Dead’s Man Chest was released. “The Pirate Chase” (3) and “The Sword of Cortez” (4) as well as “The Age of Bronze” (5) were published just after the movie. Which means that Armando Salazar “naming Jack” was a retcon of the novels.]

Another issue is that it is stated somewhere that Jack ran away from home when he was 12, because he hated being a pirate (and because his grandmama was abusive and nearly killed him again) and that information also kind of suits the whole setting of the novels, so they could as well happen when he was just 12 if narration of the first novel specifically didn’t state that Jack, Arabella and Fitzwilliam were a few years older than Tumen and Jean, who were described as being at most 13 the oldest, which then makes the rest of them 15-18yo.

So, we can either have the fifth movie random lore gotcha with Armando naming Jack “the Sparrow” as canon, or we can have novels as canon, but we cannot have both, because novels were written so much longer before 5th movie and set in a moment in time so inconvenient that treating both as canon will inevitably confuse the whole timeline. I dunno how you, but I think it is easier to erase one random fact from a movie made pretty long after the novels, than rewrite the novels to have no usage of word “sparrow” in it.

[laesas]

did you ever make a post about pete not liking tankhun ? i know you mentioned it a few times in your tags but i don't remember seeing a post. (i share your opin ions.)

I definitely toyed with the idea of meta or a gifset but I didn't ever make a full post! I love unrequited love and I ESPECIALLY love the extremely rare platonic version which Tankhun and Pete absolutely nail in my opinion!

There are loads of moments where Pete's smile drops around Tankhun very quickly, or he insults Tankhun behind his back. Instead of laughing things off like Arm and Pol, he almost has a wincing fear-response to Tankhun, which we don't really see at all from the other bodyguards.

I think that Tankhun likes to think of himself as being close friends with his bodyguards, and he does genuinely show a lot of open affection for Pete and eventually concern for his safety. But I think ultimately for Pete, Tankhun is just a part of Pete's job, and over time resentment has built up until he thinks of Tankhun as one of the *worst* parts of it. I definitely don't think he resents Tankhun enough to hurt or endanger him, but that's about as far as it goes, there's certainly very little love there.

Something about that dynamic is just particularly brilliant, especially when combined with Pete's eventual defection from Tankhun's side to Vegas'. He chooses a man who has beaten and tortured him over a man who showers him in affection and throws parties on his return.

I utterly adore Tankhun but I think as a character that's grown up in a gilded cage, he doesn't really understand that what Pete needs is a sense of his own autonomy rather than being dragged to "fun" "lets cheer up Pete" parties that Tankhun has demanded on his behalf. At least with Vegas he *chose* to go back, he handed Vegas the ropes, let him lock him back up again. Even before he develops feelings for Vegas, Pete has clearly felt like a subhuman pet for Tankhun and the main family for a long, long time and I think ironically Vegas acknowledging Pete's humanity is the tipping point for him.

I think even without their nascent romantic love as a factor, Pete would always choose Vegas. Because despite the threat of suffering, he offers a sense of freedom that Tankhun's gilded cage does not. It all makes for an incredibly interesting betrayal, and makes Pete choosing Vegas over Tankhun all the more pointed. By choosing to be Vegas' pet, he chooses to be human.

[nequittezpaswrites]

Will Turner Is Not Smart: Dead Man’s Chest Edition

It’s time to dive into the second Pirates film, in which Will Turner suffers the consequences of his own actions, yet stubbornly insists on repeating the same mistakes. Previous take on Will’s unhinged decision making in Curse of the Black Pearl is here.

Prologue: Rescuing Jack in the most dramatic way possible

This was #5 on the list of Will’s unhinged decisions in Curse of the Black Pearl, and it bears repeating here because it is the inciting incident for literally everything that comes next. Will and Elizabeth would not have been dragged into the nonsense with Davy Jones or anything else that happens in the second and third movies had they not publicly saved Jack Sparrow in front dozens, if not hundreds, of witnesses.

Clownery the First: The ‘deal’ with Beckett

After Will and Elizabeth are arrested, Beckett has Will brought to his office, where he tells Will the following things: 1) The East India Trading Company wants him to recover Jack Sparrow’s compass. 2) In return for the compass, Jack is to receive letters of marque, meaning a full pardon and employment as a privateer for England.

Beckett also mentions in this conversation that Will and Elizabeth “face the hangman’s noose,” but notably he never states outright that he intends to free or pardon Will or Elizabeth. He tells Will to “Bring back that compass or there’s no deal.” But what exactly is the deal? It is implied that Will and Elizabeth can go free, but Beckett never explicitly says it. This is the sort of deal you want in writing, Will. And if not, then at the very least stated aloud, and preferably in the presence of witnesses.

Will got a pass on the clumsy wording of his bargain with Barbossa in the last movie, but apparently he learned nothing from the way that backfired. There is absolutely no excuse for his lack of due diligence here. Clownery.

Clownery the Second: Serving himself up on a plate

I hate the whole sequence on the cannibal island, so I won’t go too far into it, but if someone tells you that they eat “long pork,” run hard in the other direction. The guy who takes Will there won’t even get close to shore, and even if you don’t speak French, the word “dangereux” is pretty self-explanatory. And then, when Will runs into Cotton’s parrot, who says “Don’t eat me!”, he moronically assures the parrot that he’s not going to eat it. Have you forgotten how parrots work, Will? They repeat phrases they have heard humans say. Clownery.

Clownery the Third: Playing Jack’s puppet

In the last movie, Will didn’t trust Jack enough and knocked him out with an oar for… some reason. In this movie, by contrast, you can do anything to Will Turner. He’s shiny and dumb and easy to trick.

First of all, when Will tells Jack that they need to return to Port Royal and trade the compass for Elizabeth’s freedom, he fails to specify: 1) to whom the compass is being traded, and 2) what’s in it for Jack. He literally doesn’t even mention the letters of marque. And sure, maybe Jack wouldn’t want them, but Will doesn’t know that for sure.

So instead, Jack names his own price: Will must help him find the key. Will displays a stunning lack of curiosity in this conversation, asking almost no questions, and what questions he does ask are the wrong ones. Observe:

Will: This is going to save Elizabeth? Jack: [hesitating, looking visibly worried; when he speaks, his voice is low, pitched so the rest of the crew can’t hear] How much do you know about Davy Jones? Will: [oblivious] Not much. Jack: Yeah, it’s going to save Elizabeth.

Will asks zero follow-up questions about this, or about Jack’s straightforwardly suspicious behavior. Later, he asks Gibbs why Jack is afraid of open water and receives some exposition about the kraken, but some questions a reasonable person might ask Jack in this situation are: What is this key? Why do you want it? What does Davy Jones have to do with it?

The conversation with Tia Dalma reveals this information, and Will gets a pass on agreeing to fetch the key from the Dutchman. It’s a stupid plan, but charging in thoughtlessly is basically Will’s specialty, and he’s desperate to save Elizabeth.

He does not get a pass on telling Davy Jones that he’s there to settle Jack’s debt, though. Will, for God’s sake—when Jack says that if you get caught you should say “Jack Sparrow sent you to settle his debt”, your immediate response should be, “Hold on, what debt?” Do not just thoughtlessly repeat what Jack tells you! You have no idea what you’re agreeing to! Clownery.

Clownery the Fourth: Fighting with Jack and Norrington

Will manages to be decently clever about stealing the key from Jones and escaping the Dutchman. Well done, Will.

On Isla Cruces, where Jack, Elizabeth, and Norrington have unearthed the chest, Will drops to his knees and prepares to stab the heart right then and there, so as to save his father. He doesn’t yet know that this is a bad idea, as it has only been alluded to at this point that whoever kills Jones must take his place. Jack stops him, because he needs the heart for Jones to call off the kraken, and Norrington also wants the heart, in order to give it to Beckett. All three begin fighting over the key.

The thing is, Jack and Will’s objectives are not actually opposed to each other. Will promised to free his father by killing Jones, but he could just as easily free him by bargaining, like Jack intends to do. Will and Jack could unite against Norrington, take the heart, and make their deals. Both of them could get what they want. Instead, Norrington runs off with it and both of them lose.

(Also, though Will doesn’t seem to realize it, he has good reasons not to kill Jones. If he does, he will be destroying the bargaining chip which was supposed to see him and Elizabeth freed. True, they’re both out of jail now, but they’re both outlaws unless they can be pardoned, and killing Jones would essentially make that impossible.)

Clownery.

Clownery the Fifth: Believing the Pearl can beat the Dutchman

When they’re running from the Dutchman, Will tells Jack, “My father is on that ship. If we can outrun her, we can take her. We should turn and fight.”

First of all, no. Being able to outrun a ship does not equal being able to take that ship in a fight. Those things are not the same, Will.

They are especially not the same when we are talking about a ghost ship crewed by a supernatural entity. You’ve seen Jones freaking teleport. You know by this point his crew can’t be killed. You’ve seen the Dutchman dive beneath the waves. Why on earth would you think that you could win a fight against her? You can’t beat Jones with brute force any more than you could beat Barbossa that way—did you learn nothing from the last film?

The worst part is that Will persists in this mad conviction for a very long time. At the end of the movie, he’s not sad about losing Jack—he’s angry that the Pearl is gone, because for some reason he’s decided that he needs it to free his father.

Why would that be the case, Will? Catching the Dutchman has never been the problem. You got onto it in the first place by climbing aboard a doomed ship. And even if you did catch up to it, or get on board it, you wouldn’t be able to do anything to help your father, because you don’t have the heart!

But for some reason, Will has decided that he needs the Pearl to save his father, and this delusion is the driving force behind essentially all of his ridiculous choices in the movie that follows. Clownery.

[hacked-wtsdz]

It’s interesting how The Curse of the Black Pearl begins with Elizabeth and Will, and only after we get introduced to Jack. They are all main characters, however that choice seems interesting to me. Additionally, the way he is introduced is like a second first scene of the movie, it could have begun with Jack on that boat, and it would have been a great beginning. But instead we begin with Elizabeth. And by the time we meet Jack we already know: that she is interested in pirates, the way everybody in her world treats pirates, the way she and Will met, the fact that Will came from a pirate ship, and the fact that there is a ghost pirate ship attacking other ships. And only THEN we see Jack on his sinking boat, the skeletons of pirates foreshadowing Barbossa’s crew and Jack’s entire goal: to find a ship. And then we learn that it’s not just some ship, but the Black Pearl, the Pearl that Elizabeth saw ten years ago. It’s clear to us that he and Elizabeth will meet, because they are the main characters, but even before they do we can see a connection between them.

At World’s End’s ending is also built the same exact way. It ends with Will leaving Elizabeth on the shore, their story that begun in cotbp is logically ended. That scene where she stands alone on the beach could have been the end of the movie. But instead they show us Jack, who is facing the exact same problem he was facing at the beginning of cotbp — his ship is stolen (by Barbossa, no less), and he sets out into the ocean on a small boat to get it back. That is the true ending of the story. It’s interesting how Jack, despite changing as a person throughout the story (he chooses his friends over his beloved ship, he sacrifices himself instead of running away, he sees Elizabeth for what she really is and most importantly, he gives up his dream of roaming the seas forever to save Will), he never changes as a, well, character. Elizabeth is a governor’s daughter in the beginning, and a pirate king at the end. Will is a smith, a simple honest working man, who ends up becoming Davy Jones himself. But Jack is exactly the way we met him when we part with him: a pirate chasing treasure (the black pearl).

It’s a very interesting consecutive storytelling choice that differentiates Elizabeth and Will from Jack. They are the main characters, and Jack is a secondary character more than a main one. They are the ones who get thrown into the story, into a world entirely different to their own, but Jack? Jack IS the world. Jack represents the ending age of piracy, the magic and the freedom of it. Jack is part of the story that Elizabeth and Will find themselves in. He changes as a man but he doesn’t change as a symbol, his role doesn’t change. That’s why the next two movies and their endings aren’t interesting or satisfactory to me, Jack becomes Elizabeth/Will and starts doing something outside of his initial fate. Him getting the Black Pearl at the end of cotbp is good because the movie itself has a happy ending for everyone. Will and Elizabeth are together, and Jack sets off to roam the seas, he’s still piracy, and they are still the main characters. At the end of dmtnt he observes them, they get their happy ending, but he sets his goal “beyond the horizon”. All of his enemies are dead and he has changed from a character representing the restlessness of piracy to a character with his own story apart from being a pirate in the Caribbean. He has his story and goals within the idea of him representing a pirate’s life, but the moment this unending way of life is lost on him, his own personality is lost on him.

[dying-suffering-french-stalkers]

hello one billion new followers i gained while i was sick????