#that is their annual report | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

divinekangaroo · 9 months ago

Note

Read one analysis, and im confused. Is Lizzie to be blamed for Graces death? Is she to be blamed for Tommy sleeping with her soon after?

Lizzie x Angel can be considered the precipitating event, but Lizzie had zero influence or control on the long decision tree which followed which led more directly to Grace's death.

Based on the attribution analysis we frequently apply to, for example, working backwards from deaths at our workplace to determine points to target for change, for example,

If the Shelbys ignored L x A (took no action), would Vicente have hired an assassin to shoot Tommy and accidentally hit Grace? No.

If L x A hadn't happened, would Vicente have hired an assassin to shoot Tommy and accidentally hit Grace? No.

And because both of these if/then scenarios immediately before and immediately after what is seen as the 'precipitating event' result in a "no the death would not have happened", the analysis re attribution actually commences at this first step:

What was the first decision 'fork in the road' after this apparent precipitating event (of LxA hook up) which started the path down towards Grace being shot? (because it's actually this first decision that starts the cascade, NOT the 'precipitating event'. Remember: if the precipitating event is ignored, the death does not happen. It's the response to the precipitating event which actually starts the cascade towards the death.)

In my mind it was John (and maybe Arthur) deciding to take the path of violence and firebomb Angel's restaurant. Note: they had not even spoken to Lizzie at that point. She only found out there was an issue with Angel at the wedding!

At every point along the decision tree, John (and Arthur) made the choice to apply more violence. Vicente then chose to respond by matching their violence. John (and Arthur) then stepped up the violence another notch. Vicente then matched that higher violence. All the way to Angel being murdered, so Vicente hired an assassin.

That said, there *were* other contributing factors influencing the overall context, which may have led to influencing John (and Arthur and Vicente) to believe violence was the only possible decision at each decision point:

-Tommy has no tolerance for unrest, likely part pressures of both his rapid territory expansion + the deadly Russian scheme, and when everyone is part-way down this path of violence, gives a speech to his family where he makes it clear things have gone too far for apology, and outlines force/violence as necessary because he cannot have anyone stepping out of line right now. It is unclear in my memory if Tommy ever expressly told John/Arthur to kill Angel, but whether or not he did, this speech alone set a frame in John for further violent response as the appropriate action.

-Churchill keeps Tommy so busy/stressed out of his mind with seriously high risk, life threatening illegal activities such that Tommy couldn’t pay attention to brewing turf wars/friction, enabling a space where John escalated matters without Tommy's oversight (and what was Arthur doing? why didn't Polly know? Why did John and Arthur act without consulting Polly? So even with Tommy's distraction, what was John and Arthur doing to not establish this was appropriate?)

-Hughes keeps Tommy from actually attending the Vicente 'truce' meeting, leaving a space where John and Arthur go to town with humiliation and mockery. Tommy would *not* have approached this meeting this way; he is particularly businesslike even with his enemies, and even when he does mock (eg the IRA 'Chosen One' scene) it's more sardonic and contextual and not as...personally, racially, weirdly childishly targetted in the way John and Arthur did

-Something shifty *is* going on with Angel. He is a shifty dude. I have a detailed theory but it's a tangent to this point.

-Vicente is well aware of the humiliation/destruction of Sabini and highly sensitised to being treated in the same way. There's also a range of ethnic and racist factors in here too which further sensitise Vicente to not take it (Sabini says swallow, I say spit)

-(and you can go further back to frame their daily lives and also the war as a contextual contributing factor: these boys are all primed for violence being seen 'as the answer' because frequently, it was the answer. And in fact was integral to several of their successes, too.)

Then we go all the way down the other end of the decision tree and ask:

2. What was the final decision "fork in the road" just prior to Grace's shooting which resulted in Grace being shot?

For me, this was (offscreen!) Vicente hiring an assassin BUT SPECIFICALLY deciding the best place to assassinate Tommy was at a public charity event *held* by Tommy. One reason might have been access, but we also have to consider the way Vicente was at the point of really wanting to destroy Tommy by now. Assassinating a gangster like Tommy publically at a major 'stepping into' legitimate society milestone would have destroyed the Shelby family name in so many spheres, both criminal and society. It would have left the family after Tommy's death battling to hold their territories and without ability to leverage Tommy's financial legacy all that well. Ultimately it was a decision for maximum humiliation of Tommy Shelby and hurt of the Shelbys, to kill Tommy at his 'triumph' moment, instead of sniping him, ambushing him in his car, doing it in an alley or at his house. But because this decision of public assassination venue was made, this meant Grace (and many other people!) was present and at risk of being shot by accident, which is what happened.

I also think a little on motive: between Angel, John, Vicente, Tommy, Arthur, Lizzie is the only one in the 'people involved' chain leading to Grace's death who did not have ‘violence or harmful intent to others’ in her motivation. She never influenced or directed steps towards violence, whereas all the others did. If you apply a 'violence begets violence' / 'eye for an eye' approach it wasn't Lizzie's fault either, she never turned it towards violence diretcly or indirectly, that was all with John (& Arthur) and Vicente, with framing from Tommy influencing John.

Or you could consider a legal culpability angle too, if you like: Vicente and the assassin are culpable for Grace's murder. John (maybe Arthur) are culpable for Angel's murder. John and Arthur are culpable for property damage, arson and assault (causing permanent blinding). Angel *might* be culpable for fraud (false identities/false representations) but given there were no direct or consequential flow-on damages (financial or otherwise) from his fraud it's hard to say (and he's dead anyway!). But what did Lizzie do? Date a guy - who probably approached her, given the mores of the day - and invite him to a wedding? There's no legal culpability there.

It just really gets to whether you believe the precipitating event (Lizzie hooking up with Angel) is the sole source of blame or whether it was the - call it at least - eight decision points along the chain, mostly in John (and Arthur) and Vicente's control, where each time the decision was taken to *increase* the violence to the point of murder and retribution. Based on having to work with lawyers and specialists unfortunately frequently to analyse deaths on sites and work out how they could have been avoided, it is often misapplied to blame the 'precipitating event' which appears the obvious problem - as above, it is frequently the first decision in response to an otherwise *ordinary* and low/no risk precipitating event, and the subsequent cascade, where the failures that lead to the death occur.

I have seen a reading that Lizzie got with Angel just to get back at Tommy, but...really? She is so invested in the Shelbys; there is no hint or undercurrent that she was intending to betray Tommy's business information. Even if she knew who Angel was, so what? He didn't fit in the definition of "foreigner" - he was born in England! And, let's not forget, no one told her that Angel was a risk to the business until after the restaurant was firebombed and Lizzie was at the wedding wondering where the hell her boyfriend was. John could have told Lizzie before choosing violence to break it off with Angel, and she probably would have, such is her investment in the Shelbys.

I do think Lizzie was primed to fall for/be vulnerable to someone like Angel, following her humiliation at Epsom where Tommy 1) did not acknowledge her faltering expression of love/care, 2) asked her to play the prostitute, 3) set her up for assault/rape and 4) probably came into work within the week after this happened to Lizzie and announced he was getting married and had a kid on the way. Imagine her looking for someone with the same kind of 'air' as Tommy (danger/intelligence/power) in order to clear out her head of any remaining longing for Tommy. But I certainly don't think she ever thought her association with Angel would *hurt* Tommy or the business in any way - Lizzie was just trying to move on.

Depending on how you consider the hints about Angel, he could have been deliberately honey-trapping Lizzie to spy on Tommy, but I don't think she was aware of this at that S3-E1 point (and again -- John and Arthur didn't tell her anything before they destroyed the restaurant!)

[I do like to consider how symbolic both Grace and Angel's names are, though: how Angel being murdered leads to Grace being murdered. There is no salvation for this family is there. And, the symbolic parallel in their names and deaths made me wonder if there is also that symbolic in their roles: Grace was initially a honeytrap for Tommy, so...was Angel a honeytrap for Lizzie? But that's drifting from the point of your question sorry...]

---

Ah, Tommy and sex again. So I’m always intrigued at takes that make Tommy (who has ALL the power) deciding to sleep with Lizzie somehow Lizzie’s fault?

They made it clear in the show TxL only have sex ‘when Tommy wants’. How she says it makes it clear he’s not doing it out of want for her…sex for him appears to be some kind of release/anxiety thing too, like having sex is a momentary way to feel better, even if briefly.

And really, I do think about the power imbalance: Lizzie’s job/money and personal dignity is now dependent on Tommy being able to hold his shit together and keep doing what he does. She *could* say no to him, but why would she? She is infatuated/in love with him, she’s financially dependent on him, her social status is dependent on him, and she does also *care* for him as a person and very much probably a friend. She’d know better than anyone how Tommy uses sex as that kind of anti-anxiety release. She would accommodate his needs no matter her own hurt at doing so, in the hope he hurts less / hurts himself less, which is a pattern she demonstrates again and again.

So if they have sex ‘too soon’ after Grace dies, well, it’s probably Tommy’s fault as the initiator and the holder of power, and only minorly Lizzie's fault for not saying no (dear god when can we stop blaming women for not saying no), but really, why is there any fault to consider at all? Grace is dead, there’s no infidelity or broken promise — and remember the sheer pressure Tommy is under in S3. And we're upset the guy has uncomplicated 'take me out of my head for a moment please' sex with a once lover/prostitute for a bit of relief? Such a terrible judgement to apply to him (and Lizzie) for someting that doesn't matter and which is effectively consensual and hurts no one else, given all the other actually bad things Tommy does that would merit such judgement.

IDEK man. By the time T x L are having sex again, Lizzie is also much more aware of how delicate the whole Russian situation is than she was at start of S3; any desire she might have to say no out of personal dignity/pride probably dissolves when she realises she might be one of the few slender threads Tommy’s got to actually get some uncomplicated relief/release from the disaster of, and immense grief and threat of, S3, and maybe stay a little sane for her being able to give him that brief human comfort and care. I mean, he could be going to prostitutes for anxiety release, but given the issues with possible leaks/risks, as well as the way he actually needs care and comfort in his grief not just release, I just. Yeah.

Why are we blaming Lizzie again? I've confused myself lol. She can't be blamed for the S3 sex Tommy has with her. (- edits to add: on the point of 'so soon after grace's death', Tommy's also under massive time pressure. He knows he has to sleep with Tatiana very soon to make his whole ploy successful and keep the wheels in motion; take this 'headcanon' however you will, but I like to imagine he didn't want the first time he had sex after Grace to be with the mad Russian duchess who actually propositioned him for sex on the night Grace died in his arms....I mean, really, what would have been better, Tommy being disaster-fucked by Tatiana first and maybe having a worse breakdown than he did have (that little one in his study), or Tommy having off-screen comfort sex with Lizzie and being able to just keep on keeping on...?)

#Tommy: lies back and thinks of the Shelby Company Ltd Annual Report net value increase and his whole family *not* being hung as criminals

22 notes · View notes