32 thoughts on “Earhart’s: “Point of No Return” Spoiler Space”
While Londo’s three remaining chances for redemption were covered in the Centauri Prime books, I’m curious about the two he wasted. To recap, Londo’s concluded that “saving the eye that does not see” was actually “saving the ‘I’ that does not see;” he had to recognize that he requires redemption and take action to achieve it. Not killing the one who is already dead meant saving Sheridan from the Drakh trap that had lured him into a Centauri dungeon, and surrendering himself to his greatest fear was asking G’Kar to kill him so his Keeper couldn’t tell the Drakh he’d acted against them.
Based on all those, I take it mean the redemptive act has to be an *act.* He can’t redeem himself simply by not doing a bad thing, which rules out his first meeting with Morden, as well as his request to attack the Narn colony in “The Coming of Shadows.” That leaves a few options, though (for a character who’s taken such a villainous turn, many of Londo’s evil acts are really just him standing by while more bloodthirsty or ruthless characters like Refa and Morden escalate matters around him. That’s something that gets hit particularly hard in “The Very Long Night of Londo Mollari,” as well as in an early season 4 episode where Morden tells Londo he’ll do every awful thing Cartagia orders because he’s afraid of how much worse things would get if someone who agreed with Cartagia replaced him). I’d say one of the two squandered chances was not stopping Refa from bombarding the Narn homeworld. It fits the requirement of needing to be something where Londo would have to take a stand, but that still leaves one other.
I have an odd itch that the other one is when Londo lied about Emperor Turhan’s last words. It seems like a small thing, but it’s also a moment where Londo was completely spineless and rolled over for Refa, when doing the right thing would’ve carried personal and political risks for himself, but also could’ve made a difference in how easily Refa’s faction was able to take over the government.
I agree with 2 of the chances for redemption that were laid out in this episode.
Not killing the one who is already dead – that clearly refers to Sheridan, and that one was fulfilled in War Without End when Londo allowed Sheridan and Delenn to escape.
As, at this time, it was Season 3 Sheridan who was seeing his future self, it could be concluded that if Londo had killed Sheridan at that point, then Sheridan from 2260 would have died and therefore the time line from WWE onwards could have been profoundly altered.
Surrendering himself to his greatest fear would have impacted the same sequence of events too. If Londo and G’Kar had not strangled one another then Londo’s keeper would have awakened, and Londo would have been forced to capture and most likely kill Sheridan and Delenn. Londo even explained this to G’Kar beforehand.
As for the eye that does not see, I believe that refers to G’Kar. Londo saved G’Kar after Cartagia had sentenced him to death. At this point of course, G’Kar only had one eye. I think the business with ‘the eye’ as described in season one was a deliberately planted red herring.
Without G’Kar’s aid, it may have been that Londo would not have succeeded in his plan to assassinate Cartagia.
In all three of these instances, the acts helped to save the lives of key characters who were instrumental in future events, and at least in one case eliminate one who was an ally of the shadows. This says to me that the redemption of Londo was something more profound than personal repentance.
As for the ‘fire’ that awaited him at the end of his journey: Look back to The Coming of Shadows. The dying Tauran asked ‘how will this end?’ and Kosh replied ‘in fire’. Pehaps this was the fire which awaited Londo if he ignored the warnings: The destruction of Centauri Prime and possibly more besides.
The propecies about Londo have always been a difficult point for me. (Disclaimer: I have not read the Peter David books.) I can see strong arguments for and against plausible options.
There’s a lot to be said in favor of seeing his decision to have G’Kar kill him as Londo facing his greatest fear, etc. It’s a genuinely redemptive moment, for one. It also combines nicely with saving G’Kar as referring to the eye that does not see: both are effectively the same right choice. And there’s more to it than that: Londo’s friendship with G’Kar is of central importance overall for Londo’s story.
But: is this really Londo’s greatest fear? This moment is established all the way back in Midnight on the Firing Line, and it doesn’t seem that Londo *fears* it at all.
Another possibility for ‘greatest fear’ was when he took the keeper in The Fall of Centauri Prime. By taking away his free will and effectively making him a puppet of the Drakh, perhaps that was the action which destroyed him.
Perhaps especially because it effectively subjugates his people to the Drakh, even if the Centauri don’t realize it. I tend to feel that Londo’s greatest fear should involve the humiliation of the Centauri.
When I hear “not killing the one who is already dead”, there could be one other guy: Morden.
First: Morden is already dead, he is revived several times by the Shadows (nobody would survive a radioation sickness, if he would not be something like a zombie 😉 ). So he is already dead and he is killed by Londo.
Second: What would it have done, when Londo would NOT have killed Londo and would not have bombed the shadow ships? NOTHING. He couldn’t know (the future don’t show itself kindly), that Sheridan would be in time for getting the Vorlons to reorder the planet killer, so that they wouldn’t destroy Centauri Prime. But this means, that his actions were completely useless, but made the Drakh, as Morden stated, angry onto the Centauri. The Shadow ships would have disappeared also without Londos doing.
Third: He has not avoided that Centauri Prime was turned into Fire TWICE. And both times because of the Drakh .
If you haven;t read the Peter David books, allow me to take a moment to highly recommend them. Just based on your comments I’ve seen here and on Downbelow you are someone I’ve come to regard as very insightful and a “True fan” of the series and I think you would probably really enjoy the books. The other two trilogies are good, but the Centari Prime trilogy really serves as a direct extension to the series itself if you feel, as I do, that Londo really is the main character of the series.
That said the end of the last book contain’s Londo’s own interpretation of the prophec, spoken, while heavily inebriated (taking place between his “audiences” with Sheriden in WWE), to G’Kar. He himself believed that the “eye that can no see” was G’Kar until the very end of the books, at which point he realizes that is was “I” not “eye.” He had to see himself capable of redemetion, and notes all the people along the way who tried to make him see this, and make him turn away from the path he is one.
He claims “the one who is already dead” was easy, Sheriden. Yes, cases can be made for the others, but really, in the context of what we see in the show it is the most obvious choice.
Londo then informs G’Kar that he is, in fact, Londo’s greatest fear, and reveals the keeper to him.
So at least in a series of books based on an outline by JMS, the simplest interpretation of the last two points would seem to be the obvious ansers, while the “eye” vs “I” still leaves some interpretation.
Totally. If B5 ever makes it to screen again, David’s trilogy would make a perfect story to shoot. There’s twists and turns, loyal character writing, humour and drama. You should totally read it. Book 3, Legions of Fire is trickier to get in the UK, but there’s a direct link for US ordering through Peter’s website biblio page.
Also, thanks for the downbelow link. I’ll be guesting on an episode there over the summer.
Things seem to have trailed off a bit here of late, so I thought I might contribute something for discussion.
The politics of the central sequence of this season (Messages from Earth through Ceremonies of Light and Dark) are interesting. (At least to me.)
There’s a strong emphasis on process and procedural norms as the source of legitimacy. So, in this episode, we get the whole thing about “respecting the chain of command.” Obviously, this is a stratagem for Sheridan, to play for time, but his words to the Nightwatch suggest that it’s more than that: that this is a sign of the essential lawlessness of Clark’s regime, and that it’s that lawlessness that makes Sheridan’s rebellion legitimate. Similarly, although I’d have to rewatch Severed Dreams to be sure, my memory is that it’s the illegality of bombing civilian populations on Mars that’s emphasized there.
There’s also the fact that when Sheridan makes his big announcement, he specifies his official position: “As Military Governor of Babylon 5…” (the only time, I think, in the entire show that it’s made clear exactly what the position of the commander of the station is).
And on the other side (and although I’m not sure that it’s raised in these specific episodes, it comes up a lot elsewhere), those military officers who remain loyal to Earth discuss this in terms of subordination to civilian authority.
What’s remarkably absent from all this is the issue of democratic legitimacy. The only time that this is raised in these episodes, as far as I remember, is when Marcus comments that as colonists, his people felt little affection for rule from Earth. Elsewhere in the series, it will be raised a lot in connection with Mars. So it’s not that it’s absent from the politics of the series as a whole, but it is almost entirely absent from the question of whether or not Sheridan should rebel against Clark.
This is part of a more general lack of interest in how the ordinary civilian population of the station feel about this whole situation. From this point through Endgame, Sheridan is every bit as much a dictator as Clark. Obviously, he’s a nice dictator who intends to step down the moment that he can, but he doesn’t actually have any more demonstrated democratic support, nor does the show seem to perceive any reason why he might want to correct that deficiency.
“Military Governor” is interesting – operating on the plausible assumption that JMS is taking his cue from US history, it’s drawn from military governors of US territories before they became states, or from military governors of occupied foreign areas such as happened immediately after WWII.
In fact, the ordinary human population in general (with the exception of Mars) basically doesn’t ever have its range of perspectives addressed. If Clark’s regime are, as they appear, genuine fascists, then there will be a real segment of the population – not the majority by any means, but a substantial minority at least – who will be active supporters of Clarkite ideas. But when we get to Ceremonies of Light and Dark, at least as far as the station is concerned, there is a tacit assumption that the elimination of a few Nightwatch dead-enders in effect ends any possibility that anyone on the station does not support Sheridan.
This isn’t because the possibility of opposition isn’t there – Garibaldi’s S4 arc is coming up. But that’s based on very different objections about Sheridan’s messiah complex and alleged lack of accessibility to advisors, or – when Evers articulates his case – on the advisability of Sheridan’s actions.
B5 tends, I think, to offer us a politics of elites: military officers, politicians, diplomats, and corporate executives. It operates as if elites are the only relevant actors.
That’s a really good, and somewhat troubling point. It would certainly seem to partially negate the entire mission statement of the series, all the way back in The Gathering: “the power of one mind to change the universe”. If you tack on “provided that mind is already in a high enough position to effect change”, that goes against JMS’ “you can fight city hall” message.
However, there’s also the crowd scene watching ISN in the Zocalo, which offers at least a momentary glimpse into John Q. Public’s mindset – there seems to be very little hand-wringing on behalf of the Clark administration on display. It seems that, much like Marcus’ statements about Earthgov regs and rulings being a pain in the backside for colonists, there’s a pretty healthy contingent of deep spacers (either resident on B5 or just passing through) for whom the same holds true. And jumping ahead to Severed Dreams, Sheridan is fairly transparent with information, plus everyone gets to see ISN forcibly taken off the air – there’s enough information on the table that, even if Sheridan is making major decisions on a lot of people’s behalf by fiat, things would be much, much worse for them if he did not.
Are there still Clark sympathizers? Sure. But in the wake of the attack on the station in Severed Dreams…even the most Earth/Clark-sympathetic among B5’s general populace would have to be shaken by what had taken place. (I don’t count Nightwatch in that, by the way: the underground Nightwatch membership we see in Ceremonies is almost entirely “hardcore” types or nutjobs – the B5 universe equivalent of folks who would occupy/trash a vacant nature preserve to make a political point. The people who’d joined Nightwatch for the extra 50 credits a week had been weeded out already; the remaining Nightwatch in Ceremonies is almost entirely extremist in nature.) Average folks who reckon, without thinking about it much, that their loyalties lie with Earth? In the white-hot moment of all this happening, probably not too sympathetic toward Clark or Earth. (Until later, when it impacts mail delivery…having to reroute mail through a couple of extra jumpgates to get around blockades really defeats the purpose of Amazon Prime, you know?)
And of course, there’s the real-world cop-out: that the show has 42-odd minutes to tell its story and can’t take the time to poll every non-military resident of B5 on their feelings toward the Clark administration. 🙂 And we’ll hear enough reactions to Sheridan’s decision down the road, from fellow officers to Bo & Mack, to…suffice to say, the conversation about Sheridan’s secession decision doesn’t just go away. It informs (almost typed “inflames” but come to think of it, it does that too) the entire rest of the series.
But with all the information available to the general populace between this episode and the next, one has to assume that they can at least understand why Sheridan did what he did, even if they don’t agree with it 100%. They may well come to resent it later for the inconveniences that come with it as a side effect, but in the meantime…they’re in a mostly-intact space station that didn’t have large portions of its hull breached in an all-out military action. They’re still alive. That likely wins Sheridan some points – for now.
There is also a scene on Franklin’s walkabout where he runs into a coupel who are apparently either pro-Clark, or deluded by the ISN propaganda. Sheridan is clearly still allowing free trade, even with people who do not support him, on the station. In that way he seems to be separating the official “anti-clark” stance of the military portion of the station from the “open for business” stance of the civilian population. So I don’t know that I would call him a “dictator” as such to the civilian population, but he deffinitly still holds his military position, and he will defend that position from those who attempt to take it from him by force (like Clark tried to do).
It is, in fact, Clark who will later impose an embargo on travel and trade to and from Babylon 5.
I would argue that democratic legitimacy is raised, in that Sheridan and company are only thinking about disobedience and rebellion because Clark assassinated the president. The democratic process has been deliberately broken by their opponents.
Nightwatch started a few episodes ago. At the time it was shown that neither Garibaldi nor Sheridan liked it, but neither tried to use their authority to shut it down completely.
Hi, new here (please don’t skewer me) and I’m not knowledgeable in politics, but regarding the points about The general public – I assume pretty heavy propaganda aside off screen would have been brought in since Clark stepped in power and also most of these folk probably still had their entire families back on Earth have probably been fed all sorts of bad info.
I agree though it would have been nice to see a fuller picture on screen.
My 2 cents 🙂
One of our hosts lives in Canada, and another holds a lay position in a mainline American Protestant denomination. So skewering is unlikely, I think.
One thing that I think I didn’t make clear about my original post is that I don’t mean it as criticism. Earl Green’s point about there being only 42 minutes is correct.
And other things apply, too. B5 is a space opera, and from that follow certain genre conventions. The story will be about Big Events and the protagonists will be a small number of people who Change the Fate of the Universe. One doesn’t have to achieve that by these particular contrivances, but one does have to achieve it somehow.
As it happens, I do have my problems with JMS’s “You *can* fight city hall” line on the commentary to The Deconstruction of Falling Stars (and A View from the Gallery is my single least favorite B5 episode). But one doesn’t have to agree with a point of view to appreciate it.
Also, there’s no requirement that politics on a show be complex and reflect the full range of factors at play in real political situations – in fact, that’s not even possible. Focusing on specific aspects gives thematic coherence and can allow one to examine those things more closely. If (if!) B5 tends to offer us a politics of elites, it may have interesting things to say about that, and elites do matter – that’s what makes them elites.
One thing I’ll add, though, is that the process vs. popular support dichotomy as sources of legitimacy was a salient one in American political life in the ’90s. It was fairly frequent for Republicans to question Clinton’s mandate in his first term because of a belief (let’s not get bogged down into debating its factual basis) that Perot had siphoned off voters who would otherwise have voted for Bush.
I wonder if the muted (or altogether lacking) civilian response to the changing situation on B5 is partly a function of the fact that most of the civilian population are either transient (i.e., on B5 for a specific time for a specific purpose) or contractors to the military (which operates the station). People who are just visiting don’t necessarily care about local politics, and civilian contractors may just decide to keep their mouths shut. I suspect that, as it is with most of the major characters, B5 is not considered a plum assignment for civilians. It may be that many of the civilians just don’t want to rock the boat, as it were.
Still, while Sheridan definitely governs as a military leader (seceding from Earth is an act of war) I can’t remember any situation where he fundamentally altered the day-to-day lives of civilians (abridgments of freedoms). He’s certainly not above using propaganda (his holographic secession speech, Ivanova’s voice of the resistance broadcasts, etc.) but that hardly makes him a dictator.
after watching Severed Dreams last night after the podcast listen (that was a long two weeks) its clear from the standing ovation Sheridan receives in the general docking / security check area – the *general* population of B5 gives him their full support.
Sure, but (a) the senator was relaying decisions made by that body and (b) those were political/policy decisions, not military orders. The distinction becomes important in S5, when Sheridan assures Lochley of their separation of powers (she military, he political) then promptly takes the telepath issue out of her hands.
Anyway, Sheridan’s point is that Security doesn’t have that dual role. They’re still part of the military chain of command.
And: The Senator in that episode was backed by the military chain of command, as Sinclair was ordered by his superiors to follow the Senators decisions. On the other side, the only official document Sheridan has until now from the military chain of command is the inacting of the martial law. And it don’t say, that Nightwatch will take over the station, it in fact says, that all power comes from Sheridan from now on. The General was quite clear, that he wanted Sheridan to “deal with it in your way”, and didn’t made an order to follow Nightwatchs claim. So the official chain of command didn’t acted this time, because Clark tried to urge the Military to be silenced of critical people via the political office, not the office of defense. The earth based military people couldn’t do anything (as there Nightwatch was too strong and they had a rebellion inside the military between Clark-loyal people and rebels, who for example tried to secure the senate in the raid scene), but 16 light years away at Epsilon Eridari it’s another story 😉
With regard to class issues in B5 it’s easy to elide the differences in class status of the ambassadors and the Earthforce characters since they interact so much, and often in a peer-like manner. Of the Earthforce characters, only Sheridan and Franklin would be considered anything other than working folks (white or blue collar). Both have accomplished fathers, have excellent educations and are on track (before everything goes sideways) for careers of prominence (elite status).
Garibaldi and Zack are both blue collar guys, signified both by their rank and by the way they talk. Ivanova and Sinclair are middle class, educated (probably paid for by the military), holding what we would consider white collar jobs, but without significant social capital needed to move them into anything like elite status. Earthforce military closely resembles the American military in the way it manages class. As a chief warrant officer Garabaldi is clearly below the line but non-commissioned officers like Garibaldi are what make the military work and are afforded status that a comparable civilian wouldn’t get.
One of the things that can get lost as the show moves on is that, other than Sheridan, all of the humans stationed on B5 early on are basically nobodies and throw-aways. (Franklin is also something of a nobody by virtue of being the family rebel. His career choices add to the distance between him and his father.) So, in many ways B5 really is about ordinary people making a difference in
Very good point. I hate to jump all the way to Sleeping In Light, but in that episode – and this really isn’t much of a spoiler – Ivanova says in her voice-over at the end that there are “second chances even for people like us.” Even 20 years after the fact, she’s acknowledging that B5 was the island of misfit toys… [reverb] in space! [/reverb]
One thing that I think is important is that in the ’90s, “working class” was not a normal part of American discourse in the way that it is now. Pretty much everyone was “middle class” across a wide income spectrum. I think “blue collar”/”white collar” is a lot closer to the way in which these things were usually conceived at the time.
That being said: absolutely agreed that Garibaldi and Zack are clearly coded as (Northeastern urban) blue collar, and would nowadays be assigned to the currently much discussed group of the “white working class.”
Ivanova’s trickier, because she’s Russian, and so is defined outside of American norms, which implicitly apply to most of the other humans. I don’t know that her father’s occupation is ever established. That being said, there are signs that she comes from an unusually intellectual background, which points to middle class. I’d suspect academic as her father’s profession, and I have a vague idea that’s actually there at some point, but my memory is very imprecise about that.
Sinclair is another weird case. He’s from Mars and is explicitly of British ancestry, despite his American accent. He’s also from a continuous line of over 200 years of fighter pilots – so a long, long line of military officers, the extent of whose success in their overall military careers is undefined.
“White collar” with an asterisk for both, I think.
On the other hand, Sheridan is actually more iffy when one thinks of how the character is coded vs. what are the ostensible details of his character’s background. His father is a diplomat (how important I’m not sure), but when he appears on screen, what’s emphasized is that he is, more or less, Pa Kent. So Sheridan is coded as being from a small-town farming background.
I’ll push back just a little on Sheridan. Some of the details of his background and his “aw shucks” demeanor when he first arrives definitely read “small town guy” but he is also well-travelled, not unfamiliar with the details of other cultures, and is comfortable if not always happy with the niceties and protocols of dealing with high level dignitaries (a skill not necessarily picked up in his previous posts). Also, the fact that his name is well-known enough on Clark’s circles for him to personally be assigned to B5 suggests that he’s not just an ordinary soldier. Sheridan is in many ways written to be the idealized American: well heeled but not stuffy, handsome, intelligent, thoughtful but also a man of action. JMS seems to have created him to be the prototypical TV leading man, only to do some interesting and unexpected things with him, particularly in season 4.
With respect to Ivanova, I would say that her Russian-ness seems to be something that gives her an aspect of particularity than anything else. She drops the Russian affect in her speech early in season one and the personal trait that drives a lot of her storylines is her latent telepathy. She’s pretty American otherwise.
Still, this is an interesting discussion that I hadn’t paid that much attention to until now. Thanks!
The big problem I have with the three chances, especially as explained in the Centauri Prime trilogy, is they’re treated as CONDITIONS not CHANCES. but that’s to misread the situation, she says he has three chances.
So, if you assume that his redemptive act is to surrender himself to his greatest fear, then that surely has to be to die fighting G’kar. It can’t be allowing himself to be Keepered, because where was it ever stated he feared becoming the puppet of an alien parasite?
And it is a redemptive act. He does it knowing it will destroy him – but in doing so he saves his soul, ad it were, as well as the lives of his friends and his people. The only counter to this argument is, it’s meant to save him from “the doom that await him.” Well, dying is pretty doomy and that’s what he’s signing up for.
So what were the two lost chances? The one already dead could be Morden (but how would not killing him change things? I’d imagine the Draakh were more put out by those Shadows being nuked rather than another Shadow puppet being beheaded) or Refa (but I can’t imagine how his not being killed would change matters. Maybe things would have gone down differently with Cartagia?). But it can’t be Sheridan.
The Eye/I that does not see… no clue. It’s too nebulous and nothing fits. G’kar’s eye? How would that be relevant to anything? It’s not saving him from execution, because remember, he fails this chance. It’s something he did or failed to do that led to the loss of destruction of this eye or I, and nothing fits. If its ‘I’ and he’s meant to save himself, by doing something different or not doing it, well there’re plenty of occasions like that still to come – but none when he fails to see something. Allow the Draakh to take over CP in the first place because he’s not there in person to “see” it? I don’t buy it. Prophecies are usually intentionally vague, but most of the possible explanations are just too much of a stretch when it comes to matching the words of this prophecy.
“I’ve had… an idea. [whhhhhoooooo]” Gotta love Andreas Katsulas’ ability to deliver lines.
This is such a good episode. And such a quotable episode; to this day I use Londo’s line about the word “dubious” (It doesn’t mean anything, but it scares people every time.).
Things didn’t turn out quite as bloody, but Londo and Vir’s prophesies put me in a Shakespearean frame of mind. All hail, Macbeth and Banquo. Banquo and Macbeth all hail.
Funny that y’all should mention the “Great Man” theory of history. Just a couple of days ago I listened to Episode 105 of Verity (“Chatty Daleks”), in which some harsh words were directed toward that theory (specifically, the word “bollocks”). I was quite irritated, especially that a Doctor Who fan could reject the notion that individuals have the power to shape history. And now we get it again over here. And I entirely agree that Babylon 5 presents an unapologetic defense of the idea that individuals shape history (When I was listening to the Verity episode I couldn’t help but hear the academic panel in “Deconstruction of Falling Stars”). What we need to do is have an approach that is more complex than “history is NOTHING BUT the biographies of great men” or “history is NOTHING BUT the outworking of social forces before which individuals are powerless”. It’s not either-or. It’s both-and. My PhD is in the combined field of social/personality psychology, which means that I am trained to look for ways that social variables and individual difference variables interact and together shape the patterns of our thoughts/feelings/behaviours, and I see history in the same way. Yes, social contexts are powerful, but there would be no Doctor Who without Verity Lambert, and there would be no Babylon 5 without JMS. Individuals have power.
On the democratic legitimacy, politics and elites strand I feel Marcus and Lyta are interesting specimens. The former worked as a pilot, and in mining, then in (non-combat) military intelligence during the war. This combination suggests his position in the mining company was of a surveyor or a stock taxi-man, a transporter. He’s non Earth-born, too young to wield much family company power.* We get the sense of helplessness about him, striving for empowerment. His dealings with employees are one-on-one. Where I’m going with this is that I theorise Marcus as coming from a place outside of this elite structure, and his early S3 appearances represent that voice of the non-elite…for a while. However, his trajectory brings him into the ambassadorial sphere of Delenn, and his friendships within the officer-class. It’ll be interesting to watch who his contacts are in future episodes, no?
And Lyta is the other end of the spectrum. Skipping the Gathering+Divided Loyalties, she goes an ambassadorial circle and management ally to abandoned, a loose cannon, disenfranchised.** Her right to a vote as one of the ‘rulers’ or ‘old gang’ is meaningless, and where she not quite so dangerous might well have ended up in Downbelow. Paradoxically, Lyta becomes that representation of common person.
*Not canon or your canon, DreamInCityOfSorrows gives us a Marcus who cared for his sick father and who took charge of the bankrupt mining colony and put it on firm financial ground.
**Oddly, the description of out-of-sorts Lyta fits with what we know about pre-S3 Marcus.
While Londo’s three remaining chances for redemption were covered in the Centauri Prime books, I’m curious about the two he wasted. To recap, Londo’s concluded that “saving the eye that does not see” was actually “saving the ‘I’ that does not see;” he had to recognize that he requires redemption and take action to achieve it. Not killing the one who is already dead meant saving Sheridan from the Drakh trap that had lured him into a Centauri dungeon, and surrendering himself to his greatest fear was asking G’Kar to kill him so his Keeper couldn’t tell the Drakh he’d acted against them.
Based on all those, I take it mean the redemptive act has to be an *act.* He can’t redeem himself simply by not doing a bad thing, which rules out his first meeting with Morden, as well as his request to attack the Narn colony in “The Coming of Shadows.” That leaves a few options, though (for a character who’s taken such a villainous turn, many of Londo’s evil acts are really just him standing by while more bloodthirsty or ruthless characters like Refa and Morden escalate matters around him. That’s something that gets hit particularly hard in “The Very Long Night of Londo Mollari,” as well as in an early season 4 episode where Morden tells Londo he’ll do every awful thing Cartagia orders because he’s afraid of how much worse things would get if someone who agreed with Cartagia replaced him). I’d say one of the two squandered chances was not stopping Refa from bombarding the Narn homeworld. It fits the requirement of needing to be something where Londo would have to take a stand, but that still leaves one other.
I have an odd itch that the other one is when Londo lied about Emperor Turhan’s last words. It seems like a small thing, but it’s also a moment where Londo was completely spineless and rolled over for Refa, when doing the right thing would’ve carried personal and political risks for himself, but also could’ve made a difference in how easily Refa’s faction was able to take over the government.
I agree with 2 of the chances for redemption that were laid out in this episode.
Not killing the one who is already dead – that clearly refers to Sheridan, and that one was fulfilled in War Without End when Londo allowed Sheridan and Delenn to escape.
As, at this time, it was Season 3 Sheridan who was seeing his future self, it could be concluded that if Londo had killed Sheridan at that point, then Sheridan from 2260 would have died and therefore the time line from WWE onwards could have been profoundly altered.
Surrendering himself to his greatest fear would have impacted the same sequence of events too. If Londo and G’Kar had not strangled one another then Londo’s keeper would have awakened, and Londo would have been forced to capture and most likely kill Sheridan and Delenn. Londo even explained this to G’Kar beforehand.
As for the eye that does not see, I believe that refers to G’Kar. Londo saved G’Kar after Cartagia had sentenced him to death. At this point of course, G’Kar only had one eye. I think the business with ‘the eye’ as described in season one was a deliberately planted red herring.
Without G’Kar’s aid, it may have been that Londo would not have succeeded in his plan to assassinate Cartagia.
In all three of these instances, the acts helped to save the lives of key characters who were instrumental in future events, and at least in one case eliminate one who was an ally of the shadows. This says to me that the redemption of Londo was something more profound than personal repentance.
As for the ‘fire’ that awaited him at the end of his journey: Look back to The Coming of Shadows. The dying Tauran asked ‘how will this end?’ and Kosh replied ‘in fire’. Pehaps this was the fire which awaited Londo if he ignored the warnings: The destruction of Centauri Prime and possibly more besides.
The propecies about Londo have always been a difficult point for me. (Disclaimer: I have not read the Peter David books.) I can see strong arguments for and against plausible options.
There’s a lot to be said in favor of seeing his decision to have G’Kar kill him as Londo facing his greatest fear, etc. It’s a genuinely redemptive moment, for one. It also combines nicely with saving G’Kar as referring to the eye that does not see: both are effectively the same right choice. And there’s more to it than that: Londo’s friendship with G’Kar is of central importance overall for Londo’s story.
But: is this really Londo’s greatest fear? This moment is established all the way back in Midnight on the Firing Line, and it doesn’t seem that Londo *fears* it at all.
Another possibility for ‘greatest fear’ was when he took the keeper in The Fall of Centauri Prime. By taking away his free will and effectively making him a puppet of the Drakh, perhaps that was the action which destroyed him.
Good point.
Perhaps especially because it effectively subjugates his people to the Drakh, even if the Centauri don’t realize it. I tend to feel that Londo’s greatest fear should involve the humiliation of the Centauri.
When I hear “not killing the one who is already dead”, there could be one other guy: Morden.
First: Morden is already dead, he is revived several times by the Shadows (nobody would survive a radioation sickness, if he would not be something like a zombie 😉 ). So he is already dead and he is killed by Londo.
Second: What would it have done, when Londo would NOT have killed Londo and would not have bombed the shadow ships? NOTHING. He couldn’t know (the future don’t show itself kindly), that Sheridan would be in time for getting the Vorlons to reorder the planet killer, so that they wouldn’t destroy Centauri Prime. But this means, that his actions were completely useless, but made the Drakh, as Morden stated, angry onto the Centauri. The Shadow ships would have disappeared also without Londos doing.
Third: He has not avoided that Centauri Prime was turned into Fire TWICE. And both times because of the Drakh .
If you haven;t read the Peter David books, allow me to take a moment to highly recommend them. Just based on your comments I’ve seen here and on Downbelow you are someone I’ve come to regard as very insightful and a “True fan” of the series and I think you would probably really enjoy the books. The other two trilogies are good, but the Centari Prime trilogy really serves as a direct extension to the series itself if you feel, as I do, that Londo really is the main character of the series.
That said the end of the last book contain’s Londo’s own interpretation of the prophec, spoken, while heavily inebriated (taking place between his “audiences” with Sheriden in WWE), to G’Kar. He himself believed that the “eye that can no see” was G’Kar until the very end of the books, at which point he realizes that is was “I” not “eye.” He had to see himself capable of redemetion, and notes all the people along the way who tried to make him see this, and make him turn away from the path he is one.
He claims “the one who is already dead” was easy, Sheriden. Yes, cases can be made for the others, but really, in the context of what we see in the show it is the most obvious choice.
Londo then informs G’Kar that he is, in fact, Londo’s greatest fear, and reveals the keeper to him.
So at least in a series of books based on an outline by JMS, the simplest interpretation of the last two points would seem to be the obvious ansers, while the “eye” vs “I” still leaves some interpretation.
Totally. If B5 ever makes it to screen again, David’s trilogy would make a perfect story to shoot. There’s twists and turns, loyal character writing, humour and drama. You should totally read it. Book 3, Legions of Fire is trickier to get in the UK, but there’s a direct link for US ordering through Peter’s website biblio page.
Also, thanks for the downbelow link. I’ll be guesting on an episode there over the summer.
Things seem to have trailed off a bit here of late, so I thought I might contribute something for discussion.
The politics of the central sequence of this season (Messages from Earth through Ceremonies of Light and Dark) are interesting. (At least to me.)
There’s a strong emphasis on process and procedural norms as the source of legitimacy. So, in this episode, we get the whole thing about “respecting the chain of command.” Obviously, this is a stratagem for Sheridan, to play for time, but his words to the Nightwatch suggest that it’s more than that: that this is a sign of the essential lawlessness of Clark’s regime, and that it’s that lawlessness that makes Sheridan’s rebellion legitimate. Similarly, although I’d have to rewatch Severed Dreams to be sure, my memory is that it’s the illegality of bombing civilian populations on Mars that’s emphasized there.
There’s also the fact that when Sheridan makes his big announcement, he specifies his official position: “As Military Governor of Babylon 5…” (the only time, I think, in the entire show that it’s made clear exactly what the position of the commander of the station is).
And on the other side (and although I’m not sure that it’s raised in these specific episodes, it comes up a lot elsewhere), those military officers who remain loyal to Earth discuss this in terms of subordination to civilian authority.
What’s remarkably absent from all this is the issue of democratic legitimacy. The only time that this is raised in these episodes, as far as I remember, is when Marcus comments that as colonists, his people felt little affection for rule from Earth. Elsewhere in the series, it will be raised a lot in connection with Mars. So it’s not that it’s absent from the politics of the series as a whole, but it is almost entirely absent from the question of whether or not Sheridan should rebel against Clark.
This is part of a more general lack of interest in how the ordinary civilian population of the station feel about this whole situation. From this point through Endgame, Sheridan is every bit as much a dictator as Clark. Obviously, he’s a nice dictator who intends to step down the moment that he can, but he doesn’t actually have any more demonstrated democratic support, nor does the show seem to perceive any reason why he might want to correct that deficiency.
“Military Governor” is interesting – operating on the plausible assumption that JMS is taking his cue from US history, it’s drawn from military governors of US territories before they became states, or from military governors of occupied foreign areas such as happened immediately after WWII.
In fact, the ordinary human population in general (with the exception of Mars) basically doesn’t ever have its range of perspectives addressed. If Clark’s regime are, as they appear, genuine fascists, then there will be a real segment of the population – not the majority by any means, but a substantial minority at least – who will be active supporters of Clarkite ideas. But when we get to Ceremonies of Light and Dark, at least as far as the station is concerned, there is a tacit assumption that the elimination of a few Nightwatch dead-enders in effect ends any possibility that anyone on the station does not support Sheridan.
This isn’t because the possibility of opposition isn’t there – Garibaldi’s S4 arc is coming up. But that’s based on very different objections about Sheridan’s messiah complex and alleged lack of accessibility to advisors, or – when Evers articulates his case – on the advisability of Sheridan’s actions.
B5 tends, I think, to offer us a politics of elites: military officers, politicians, diplomats, and corporate executives. It operates as if elites are the only relevant actors.
That’s a really good, and somewhat troubling point. It would certainly seem to partially negate the entire mission statement of the series, all the way back in The Gathering: “the power of one mind to change the universe”. If you tack on “provided that mind is already in a high enough position to effect change”, that goes against JMS’ “you can fight city hall” message.
However, there’s also the crowd scene watching ISN in the Zocalo, which offers at least a momentary glimpse into John Q. Public’s mindset – there seems to be very little hand-wringing on behalf of the Clark administration on display. It seems that, much like Marcus’ statements about Earthgov regs and rulings being a pain in the backside for colonists, there’s a pretty healthy contingent of deep spacers (either resident on B5 or just passing through) for whom the same holds true. And jumping ahead to Severed Dreams, Sheridan is fairly transparent with information, plus everyone gets to see ISN forcibly taken off the air – there’s enough information on the table that, even if Sheridan is making major decisions on a lot of people’s behalf by fiat, things would be much, much worse for them if he did not.
Are there still Clark sympathizers? Sure. But in the wake of the attack on the station in Severed Dreams…even the most Earth/Clark-sympathetic among B5’s general populace would have to be shaken by what had taken place. (I don’t count Nightwatch in that, by the way: the underground Nightwatch membership we see in Ceremonies is almost entirely “hardcore” types or nutjobs – the B5 universe equivalent of folks who would occupy/trash a vacant nature preserve to make a political point. The people who’d joined Nightwatch for the extra 50 credits a week had been weeded out already; the remaining Nightwatch in Ceremonies is almost entirely extremist in nature.) Average folks who reckon, without thinking about it much, that their loyalties lie with Earth? In the white-hot moment of all this happening, probably not too sympathetic toward Clark or Earth. (Until later, when it impacts mail delivery…having to reroute mail through a couple of extra jumpgates to get around blockades really defeats the purpose of Amazon Prime, you know?)
And of course, there’s the real-world cop-out: that the show has 42-odd minutes to tell its story and can’t take the time to poll every non-military resident of B5 on their feelings toward the Clark administration. 🙂 And we’ll hear enough reactions to Sheridan’s decision down the road, from fellow officers to Bo & Mack, to…suffice to say, the conversation about Sheridan’s secession decision doesn’t just go away. It informs (almost typed “inflames” but come to think of it, it does that too) the entire rest of the series.
But with all the information available to the general populace between this episode and the next, one has to assume that they can at least understand why Sheridan did what he did, even if they don’t agree with it 100%. They may well come to resent it later for the inconveniences that come with it as a side effect, but in the meantime…they’re in a mostly-intact space station that didn’t have large portions of its hull breached in an all-out military action. They’re still alive. That likely wins Sheridan some points – for now.
There is also a scene on Franklin’s walkabout where he runs into a coupel who are apparently either pro-Clark, or deluded by the ISN propaganda. Sheridan is clearly still allowing free trade, even with people who do not support him, on the station. In that way he seems to be separating the official “anti-clark” stance of the military portion of the station from the “open for business” stance of the civilian population. So I don’t know that I would call him a “dictator” as such to the civilian population, but he deffinitly still holds his military position, and he will defend that position from those who attempt to take it from him by force (like Clark tried to do).
It is, in fact, Clark who will later impose an embargo on travel and trade to and from Babylon 5.
I would argue that democratic legitimacy is raised, in that Sheridan and company are only thinking about disobedience and rebellion because Clark assassinated the president. The democratic process has been deliberately broken by their opponents.
Nightwatch started a few episodes ago. At the time it was shown that neither Garibaldi nor Sheridan liked it, but neither tried to use their authority to shut it down completely.
Hi, new here (please don’t skewer me) and I’m not knowledgeable in politics, but regarding the points about The general public – I assume pretty heavy propaganda aside off screen would have been brought in since Clark stepped in power and also most of these folk probably still had their entire families back on Earth have probably been fed all sorts of bad info.
I agree though it would have been nice to see a fuller picture on screen.
My 2 cents 🙂
*propaganda off-screen
One of our hosts lives in Canada, and another holds a lay position in a mainline American Protestant denomination. So skewering is unlikely, I think.
One thing that I think I didn’t make clear about my original post is that I don’t mean it as criticism. Earl Green’s point about there being only 42 minutes is correct.
And other things apply, too. B5 is a space opera, and from that follow certain genre conventions. The story will be about Big Events and the protagonists will be a small number of people who Change the Fate of the Universe. One doesn’t have to achieve that by these particular contrivances, but one does have to achieve it somehow.
As it happens, I do have my problems with JMS’s “You *can* fight city hall” line on the commentary to The Deconstruction of Falling Stars (and A View from the Gallery is my single least favorite B5 episode). But one doesn’t have to agree with a point of view to appreciate it.
Also, there’s no requirement that politics on a show be complex and reflect the full range of factors at play in real political situations – in fact, that’s not even possible. Focusing on specific aspects gives thematic coherence and can allow one to examine those things more closely. If (if!) B5 tends to offer us a politics of elites, it may have interesting things to say about that, and elites do matter – that’s what makes them elites.
One thing I’ll add, though, is that the process vs. popular support dichotomy as sources of legitimacy was a salient one in American political life in the ’90s. It was fairly frequent for Republicans to question Clinton’s mandate in his first term because of a belief (let’s not get bogged down into debating its factual basis) that Perot had siphoned off voters who would otherwise have voted for Bush.
I wonder if the muted (or altogether lacking) civilian response to the changing situation on B5 is partly a function of the fact that most of the civilian population are either transient (i.e., on B5 for a specific time for a specific purpose) or contractors to the military (which operates the station). People who are just visiting don’t necessarily care about local politics, and civilian contractors may just decide to keep their mouths shut. I suspect that, as it is with most of the major characters, B5 is not considered a plum assignment for civilians. It may be that many of the civilians just don’t want to rock the boat, as it were.
Still, while Sheridan definitely governs as a military leader (seceding from Earth is an act of war) I can’t remember any situation where he fundamentally altered the day-to-day lives of civilians (abridgments of freedoms). He’s certainly not above using propaganda (his holographic secession speech, Ivanova’s voice of the resistance broadcasts, etc.) but that hardly makes him a dictator.
after watching Severed Dreams last night after the podcast listen (that was a long two weeks) its clear from the standing ovation Sheridan receives in the general docking / security check area – the *general* population of B5 gives him their full support.
Interesting bit about Senators not being able to give orders, didn’t Sinclair get orders from a Senator in S1??
Sure, but (a) the senator was relaying decisions made by that body and (b) those were political/policy decisions, not military orders. The distinction becomes important in S5, when Sheridan assures Lochley of their separation of powers (she military, he political) then promptly takes the telepath issue out of her hands.
Anyway, Sheridan’s point is that Security doesn’t have that dual role. They’re still part of the military chain of command.
And: The Senator in that episode was backed by the military chain of command, as Sinclair was ordered by his superiors to follow the Senators decisions. On the other side, the only official document Sheridan has until now from the military chain of command is the inacting of the martial law. And it don’t say, that Nightwatch will take over the station, it in fact says, that all power comes from Sheridan from now on. The General was quite clear, that he wanted Sheridan to “deal with it in your way”, and didn’t made an order to follow Nightwatchs claim. So the official chain of command didn’t acted this time, because Clark tried to urge the Military to be silenced of critical people via the political office, not the office of defense. The earth based military people couldn’t do anything (as there Nightwatch was too strong and they had a rebellion inside the military between Clark-loyal people and rebels, who for example tried to secure the senate in the raid scene), but 16 light years away at Epsilon Eridari it’s another story 😉
With regard to class issues in B5 it’s easy to elide the differences in class status of the ambassadors and the Earthforce characters since they interact so much, and often in a peer-like manner. Of the Earthforce characters, only Sheridan and Franklin would be considered anything other than working folks (white or blue collar). Both have accomplished fathers, have excellent educations and are on track (before everything goes sideways) for careers of prominence (elite status).
Garibaldi and Zack are both blue collar guys, signified both by their rank and by the way they talk. Ivanova and Sinclair are middle class, educated (probably paid for by the military), holding what we would consider white collar jobs, but without significant social capital needed to move them into anything like elite status. Earthforce military closely resembles the American military in the way it manages class. As a chief warrant officer Garabaldi is clearly below the line but non-commissioned officers like Garibaldi are what make the military work and are afforded status that a comparable civilian wouldn’t get.
One of the things that can get lost as the show moves on is that, other than Sheridan, all of the humans stationed on B5 early on are basically nobodies and throw-aways. (Franklin is also something of a nobody by virtue of being the family rebel. His career choices add to the distance between him and his father.) So, in many ways B5 really is about ordinary people making a difference in
Very good point. I hate to jump all the way to Sleeping In Light, but in that episode – and this really isn’t much of a spoiler – Ivanova says in her voice-over at the end that there are “second chances even for people like us.” Even 20 years after the fact, she’s acknowledging that B5 was the island of misfit toys… [reverb] in space! [/reverb]
One thing that I think is important is that in the ’90s, “working class” was not a normal part of American discourse in the way that it is now. Pretty much everyone was “middle class” across a wide income spectrum. I think “blue collar”/”white collar” is a lot closer to the way in which these things were usually conceived at the time.
That being said: absolutely agreed that Garibaldi and Zack are clearly coded as (Northeastern urban) blue collar, and would nowadays be assigned to the currently much discussed group of the “white working class.”
Ivanova’s trickier, because she’s Russian, and so is defined outside of American norms, which implicitly apply to most of the other humans. I don’t know that her father’s occupation is ever established. That being said, there are signs that she comes from an unusually intellectual background, which points to middle class. I’d suspect academic as her father’s profession, and I have a vague idea that’s actually there at some point, but my memory is very imprecise about that.
Sinclair is another weird case. He’s from Mars and is explicitly of British ancestry, despite his American accent. He’s also from a continuous line of over 200 years of fighter pilots – so a long, long line of military officers, the extent of whose success in their overall military careers is undefined.
“White collar” with an asterisk for both, I think.
On the other hand, Sheridan is actually more iffy when one thinks of how the character is coded vs. what are the ostensible details of his character’s background. His father is a diplomat (how important I’m not sure), but when he appears on screen, what’s emphasized is that he is, more or less, Pa Kent. So Sheridan is coded as being from a small-town farming background.
Good stuff!
I’ll push back just a little on Sheridan. Some of the details of his background and his “aw shucks” demeanor when he first arrives definitely read “small town guy” but he is also well-travelled, not unfamiliar with the details of other cultures, and is comfortable if not always happy with the niceties and protocols of dealing with high level dignitaries (a skill not necessarily picked up in his previous posts). Also, the fact that his name is well-known enough on Clark’s circles for him to personally be assigned to B5 suggests that he’s not just an ordinary soldier. Sheridan is in many ways written to be the idealized American: well heeled but not stuffy, handsome, intelligent, thoughtful but also a man of action. JMS seems to have created him to be the prototypical TV leading man, only to do some interesting and unexpected things with him, particularly in season 4.
With respect to Ivanova, I would say that her Russian-ness seems to be something that gives her an aspect of particularity than anything else. She drops the Russian affect in her speech early in season one and the personal trait that drives a lot of her storylines is her latent telepathy. She’s pretty American otherwise.
Still, this is an interesting discussion that I hadn’t paid that much attention to until now. Thanks!
The big problem I have with the three chances, especially as explained in the Centauri Prime trilogy, is they’re treated as CONDITIONS not CHANCES. but that’s to misread the situation, she says he has three chances.
So, if you assume that his redemptive act is to surrender himself to his greatest fear, then that surely has to be to die fighting G’kar. It can’t be allowing himself to be Keepered, because where was it ever stated he feared becoming the puppet of an alien parasite?
And it is a redemptive act. He does it knowing it will destroy him – but in doing so he saves his soul, ad it were, as well as the lives of his friends and his people. The only counter to this argument is, it’s meant to save him from “the doom that await him.” Well, dying is pretty doomy and that’s what he’s signing up for.
So what were the two lost chances? The one already dead could be Morden (but how would not killing him change things? I’d imagine the Draakh were more put out by those Shadows being nuked rather than another Shadow puppet being beheaded) or Refa (but I can’t imagine how his not being killed would change matters. Maybe things would have gone down differently with Cartagia?). But it can’t be Sheridan.
The Eye/I that does not see… no clue. It’s too nebulous and nothing fits. G’kar’s eye? How would that be relevant to anything? It’s not saving him from execution, because remember, he fails this chance. It’s something he did or failed to do that led to the loss of destruction of this eye or I, and nothing fits. If its ‘I’ and he’s meant to save himself, by doing something different or not doing it, well there’re plenty of occasions like that still to come – but none when he fails to see something. Allow the Draakh to take over CP in the first place because he’s not there in person to “see” it? I don’t buy it. Prophecies are usually intentionally vague, but most of the possible explanations are just too much of a stretch when it comes to matching the words of this prophecy.
Please please please!
When you do the Severed Dreams recording: Bring up Babylon 5’s BEST out-take gag ever!
You know the one I’m talking about: “General Hague has gone to…”
For those who haven’t seen the S3 gag reel, enjoy:
Hah! Now I get it. Thanks! 🙂
Sooo good 😀
“I’ve had… an idea. [whhhhhoooooo]” Gotta love Andreas Katsulas’ ability to deliver lines.
This is such a good episode. And such a quotable episode; to this day I use Londo’s line about the word “dubious” (It doesn’t mean anything, but it scares people every time.).
Things didn’t turn out quite as bloody, but Londo and Vir’s prophesies put me in a Shakespearean frame of mind. All hail, Macbeth and Banquo. Banquo and Macbeth all hail.
Funny that y’all should mention the “Great Man” theory of history. Just a couple of days ago I listened to Episode 105 of Verity (“Chatty Daleks”), in which some harsh words were directed toward that theory (specifically, the word “bollocks”). I was quite irritated, especially that a Doctor Who fan could reject the notion that individuals have the power to shape history. And now we get it again over here. And I entirely agree that Babylon 5 presents an unapologetic defense of the idea that individuals shape history (When I was listening to the Verity episode I couldn’t help but hear the academic panel in “Deconstruction of Falling Stars”). What we need to do is have an approach that is more complex than “history is NOTHING BUT the biographies of great men” or “history is NOTHING BUT the outworking of social forces before which individuals are powerless”. It’s not either-or. It’s both-and. My PhD is in the combined field of social/personality psychology, which means that I am trained to look for ways that social variables and individual difference variables interact and together shape the patterns of our thoughts/feelings/behaviours, and I see history in the same way. Yes, social contexts are powerful, but there would be no Doctor Who without Verity Lambert, and there would be no Babylon 5 without JMS. Individuals have power.
Nu Shooz:
1. Those boots laced themselves up. Clearly Shadow bio-tech.
2. Marcus with a perm? Denied.
3. Could be this is what happened in Talia’s mind.
Will join the chat soon, AFK has been taking over. You don’t seem stuck for comments though.
On the democratic legitimacy, politics and elites strand I feel Marcus and Lyta are interesting specimens. The former worked as a pilot, and in mining, then in (non-combat) military intelligence during the war. This combination suggests his position in the mining company was of a surveyor or a stock taxi-man, a transporter. He’s non Earth-born, too young to wield much family company power.* We get the sense of helplessness about him, striving for empowerment. His dealings with employees are one-on-one. Where I’m going with this is that I theorise Marcus as coming from a place outside of this elite structure, and his early S3 appearances represent that voice of the non-elite…for a while. However, his trajectory brings him into the ambassadorial sphere of Delenn, and his friendships within the officer-class. It’ll be interesting to watch who his contacts are in future episodes, no?
And Lyta is the other end of the spectrum. Skipping the Gathering+Divided Loyalties, she goes an ambassadorial circle and management ally to abandoned, a loose cannon, disenfranchised.** Her right to a vote as one of the ‘rulers’ or ‘old gang’ is meaningless, and where she not quite so dangerous might well have ended up in Downbelow. Paradoxically, Lyta becomes that representation of common person.
*Not canon or your canon, DreamInCityOfSorrows gives us a Marcus who cared for his sick father and who took charge of the bankrupt mining colony and put it on firm financial ground.
**Oddly, the description of out-of-sorts Lyta fits with what we know about pre-S3 Marcus.