Welcome to my overly-organized blog. Just follow the links and you'll find everything. (No really, click the links.)
--write things (slowly) --make things (graphics and mixes mostly) --rec things (like it's my job tbh)
--not-so-quietly amassing an army of The 100 fans. --forever in mourning for Allison Argent. --plotting.
Look at your stories - don’t just count who gets to be the hero and the villain (what kind of hero? what kind of villain?); count who gets the redemption arcs.
WHO WROTE WHAT BIT?
Ah. Another tricky one. As the official Keeper of the One True Copy, Terry physically wrote more of Draft 1 than Neil. But if 2,000 words are written down after a lot of excited shouting, it’s a moot point whose words they are. And, in any case, as a matter of honor both of them rewrote and footnoted the other guy’s stuff, and both can write passably in the other guy’s style. The Agnes Nutter scenes and the kids mostly originated with Terry, the Four Horsemen and anything with maggots started with Neil. Neil had the most influence on the opening, Terry on the ending. Apart from that, they just shouted excitedly a lot.
The point they both realised the text had wandered into its own world was in the basement of the old Gollancz books, where they’d got together to proofread the final copy, and Neil congratulated Terry on a line that Terry knew he hadn’t written, and Neil was certain that he hadn’t written either. They both privately suspect that at some point the book had started to generate text on its own, but neither of them will actually admit this publicly for fear of being thought odd."
so at some point after the bombs went off someone had to sit down and say ‘we have to be willing to get rid of threats to the arks integrity’ and I can see most people being on board, if uneasy, about floating murderers, but petty theft? no. so did they start off with big crimes and then up the stakes little by little, or did they ride off of everyone’s fear about earth being gone and maybe they won’t make it either, and just pushed forward with ‘all/most crimes?’ [2/3]
did some stations adopt it before others? did others have to deal with the moral dissonance as they thought about merging? did it only come into being after they formed the ark? did they make the decision out of nowhere, or did something big happen (an oxygen dump like finn’s spacewalk) to prompt it? + ambiguity on whether the stations were made up 100% of researchers or whether they were preparing for the possibility of war down below would impact it. so what are your thoughts on this? [3/3]
i feel like to really answer this in the right way i have to know way more about oppressive societies and how they develop than i currently do, like right now my knowledge level sits around “well i watched the first hunger games movie”
i think a lot of it probably depends on how the ark began. i don’t completely buy the idea that they were established space stations before the cataclysm but if they were, then that’s a completely different start than if it’s populated with people who escaped the bombs (and makes the whole “it’s only been three generations” thing even more ridiculous, tbh, because if it was made up of scientists and researchers and not politicians, you’d think they’d be able to figure out an easier way of dissuading crime/conserving resources than “KILL THEM JUST THROW EM OUT THE WINDOW, HE STOLE SOME BREAD, KILL HIM”)
i mean from bellamy’s episode, and the way the kids talk about it, it seems like this system has been in place for most of their lives—i mean, it had to be, for it to seem so normalized to them. and the short timeline really makes this…not seem too realistic but whatever, going with it, my best guess is that a version of these laws were implemented by the very first generation in foresight for their ancestors, because they knew they would run into these sorts of problems. i also think that they were nowhere near as harsh in the beginning, and that the restrictions and punishments kept worsening with every new generation of leadership, so that by the time we get to present day, we clearly see that the rules are tyrannical and oppressive, but they’re all like “well, good of the all blah blah we’re totally not horrible people, swear to god.” the whole frog in the boiling water thing—every little step seemed reasonable, but all those little steps were just inching them down a really bad path.
and i mean, you’re right, i don’t see how people would make such a hasty jump to executions, especially for minor crimes, not when they’re under the assumption that they’re the last humans left in the universe and there really aren’t that many who live on the ark. like, yes, you can see how they might have rationalized themselves into it eventually—because if the ark fails than everyone dies, so let’s sacrifice a few for the good of the species—but man, like, the blatant disregard for human life in ark society just seems really incongruous to me if i’m supposed to accept that a) it’s only been a hundred years post-bombs and b) the people in charge really have the best interests of the human race at heart
and in regard to your third ask—fuck, like, i can’t really say very much definitively knowing so little about the culture on the ark, but those are all really interesting questions. my answer is “i wish i knew but i really fucking don’t”, like all we can do is speculate really, but i will say that finn’s spacewalk is definitely right up there on the level of bellamy shooting the chancellor in terms of egregious crimes (if not worse considering finn did it just for fun and bellamy was emotionally manipulated/blackmailed into it, and that bellamy’s crime only endangered one person while finn’s endangered the entire ark) that’s gone completely unaddressed, and it’s one of the reasons i’m really, really not into finn
i don’t think they were expecting war though, it seems pretty clear that they didn’t know shit about the conditions on the ground. this is where the story fails completely in my opinion, because—instead of going into it with a clear vision of this universe they’ve concentrated instead on the superficial and ~plot twists~ and ~mysterious things~, so we’re left not knowing all these REALLY! IMPORTANT! THINGS! like what caused the cataclysm?? who started it?? who built the ark?? why did that last station blow up?? don’t even get me started on the grounders because the decision to make them into this mysterious group of people who’ve forgotten pre-cataclysm earth after only three generations and somehow developed their own culture in isolation which is basically just a bunch of shitty racist stereotypes just makes me super uncomfortable but yeah basically the world building on this show is bullshit and i’m pretty disgruntled about it
anyway yeah so those are my thoughts, i hope that answers your question
maybe the increase on population is what made the council harshen their laws, and it’s possible that every crime became punishable by death right about the same time they settled on the 1 child only policy. If they started with approximately 400 people (according to the wiki page so????) and at the time of the pilot there are 2600 people on board (again, wiki, but supposedly it’s based on canon info), that means the previous generations had a lot more than child per couple. Maybe the first generation was all about reproducing to continue mankind so they were encouraged to have as many kids as possible but then the second generation ascended to power and they realized their resources would extinguish pretty quickly and so they implemented the death penalty and birth control laws to keep the population from growing uncontrolled?
I read somewhere that the book is set 200 years in the future and not 97 like the show. I think that time frame is far more believable than the one we were given to explain the current Ark society and the grounders having completely forgotten of life and Earth pre-cataclysm. Realistically, there could still be people that were alive at the time of the bombs, both on the Ark and on Earth (we know there aren’t, at least not on the Ark, but still)
i’m not sure i trust the wiki beyond very basic facts, that’s where i read that the finn/raven/clarke love triangle was in the book, but apparently finn and raven don’t even exist in the book, so okay, that’s super wrong (also there’s no restrictions on editing there whatsoever, like every time i’m there i end up fixing typos so yeah, i’m skeptical)
that’s a super interesting idea tho, and fits in with my theory that the ark was just a bunch of random humans who managed to escape to space—because they were totally unprepared, they didn’t think about the realities of making a sustainable culture in space, so of course they’d continue to behave as if they were still on earth—it wouldn’t even need to be a case of “we have to make babies to keep the human race alive” honestly, because like, most couples have more than one child. at least in the US, i can’t speak for everywhere, but in america i think the average is like 2.3 or something, and in the midwest especially, where i’m from, it’s more like 3.5
so yeah this is how this world kind of starts to make some sense to me, if the ark was originally just a bunch of really scared, unprepared people who ignored/were ignorant of the bottom line, and the first couple of generations were incredibly gluttonous and shortsighted and thus turned the ark into this really urgent, desperate situation that made it easy for the council to turn into what it is and the culture to become dystopian fairly quickly
and yeah. 97 years is fucking nothing. the adults on the show? their parents were around when the cataclysm happened, that’s how closely removed all this is, so the completely new cultures thing is just so—really, truly unrealistic
So we’ve all agreed that 97 years is not enough time for basically everything that’s happened to have happened. But the whole dystopian/oppressive (the spellcheck on my browser wants to auto correct dystopian to utopian, make of that what you will) culture of the ARK is one thing that I believe could have developed within that totally dumb time frame.
The thing is, for most of human history we’ve doled out punishments that are totally out of proportion to the crime. I’m not just talking about cutting off a hand for stealing (I think that still happens). Australia was settled by convicts who got sentences like seven years of hard labour for stealing a loaf of bread. In truth their real crime was being really poor at a time when London was a bit too full, so they clapped on the irons and sent them down under.
A lot of modern ideas like human rights and the right of law are very, very new. We’re still a bunch of sexist homophobic and racist assholes for the most part. We’re not a very nice race.
But really, all the proof I need is Germany circa the interwar period. Germany went from a destitute nation on its knees in 1918 to a global power that conquered mainland Europe in a space of months in 1939. They went from a fledgling democracy to Nazism in the space of 21 years. That’s a really short turnaround, especially since Nazism didn’t really get going until the 30’s.
When Hitler started the party, he didn’t win immediate national support because all Germans wanted to live under a dictatorship that would massacre everyone that didn’t fit the mould. It was a gradual process brought about by the anger and unhappiness leftover after the war and the great depression, that hit Germany really badly. These people were dirt broke at a time when a loaf of bread cost a wheelbarrow full of money.
Hitler didn’t just offer them someone to blame, he offered solutions to their problems. After he took power Germany’s economic situation improved, and he became popular with people outside of his racist nazi base. The series of laws that converted Germany from a functional democracy into the Third Reich happened gradually and then pretty much all at once. Most people approved of a lot of changes because Hitler appeared to be making things better. (I don’t think Hitler deserves all the credit, frankly things were so bad before him that they really could only get better.)
I don’t really want to go into a mountain of detail about the rise of Nazism in Germany, so I’ll skip ahead to the point where it becomes relevant to the ARK.
The First Generation in space would not have been markedly different from Germany in 1919. They would have been sitting up there, looking down at a desolate planet, limited supplies and space, wondering how it all went so wrong. Humanity was doing so fucking well, we were number one in everything, and now we’re all crammed together on tiny tin cans with nowhere to go.
Knowing people, the blame game would have started right away. I have a theory that station 13’s nation copped a lot of the blame. Three or so other stations would have started blaming them, drawing others into their alliance until momentum gathered and they all united against 13. I bet they blew 13 out of the sky to punish them for the war.
After that, they’d have had a lot of righteous anger and no one to get angry at. So the focus would turn on survival. They’d say “screw 13 for ruining the planet, we’re going to survive in spite of them” and that would lead to unity day.
Once united, they’d see the need for a uniform set of laws, so they’d sit down and write those up. The laws would be strict but not modern era strict. Since we know that they were aware of the problems they’d have returning to the ground, I think the population limits would have been there from the start. This way it would not only make it easier to find a way to get everyone back onto the ground, it would also make budgeting the resources easier.
Since they already had angry punishment rhetoric on their mind, a number of crimes would immediately get death sentences from the start. Because why should they waste resources on murderers and rapists? Also they’d start to do the math on their limited supplies and try to budget for two centuries on the ARK. Upon the realisation that they’d be cutting it real fine in terms of resources, they’d declare that stealing and any other actions that lead to an unacceptable loss in resources would result in death. It would have seemed fair too because those thieves were in effect killing future generations by their theft (Fucking Finn Collins, I’d like someone to do the math on how many of the 312 had to die just because of that month of oxygen he wasted)
But they’d still have remnants of their humanity left, so executing children would be off the table. Only that led to a raft of crime by kids on the behest of their parents because unlike their parents, the kids would only have to do some time in prison before being released. To prevent that, they’d come up with the rule that kids would be executed at 18.
And that folks, is how you go from a healthy democracy to a dystopian hell in the space of a couple of decades. It’s totally possible, even if the culture, language and radiation aspects of this verse are not feasible.
so like when i said “i don’t know enough” ^^^^^ this is what i mean, holy shit *applauds*