Just a fair warning, I am probably
going to gush a little bit during this post. Today in class, as we discussed
one of the passages we looked at, I noticed that it has a striking resemblance
to themes in the Assassin’s Creed series.
Pyle also has similar motives as the most recent protagonist in Assassin’s Creed 3, Connor Kenway. For
those of you who have never heard of Assassin’s
Creed, go out and buy yourself all five games because you have been missing
out on one of the greatest stories ever told.
Okay, so a little AC backstory here
that the video doesn’t get into. The plot of every game is split into two time
periods. One is set in 2012, with the protagonist Desmond Miles. Desmond enters
a machine called the Animus, which taps into his DNA, allowing him to relive
the lives of his Assassin ancestors. The series has remained historically
accurate, but taken liberties where appropriate. For example, it is speculated
that Pope Alexander VI did not actually die, but was poisoned by his son,
Cesare Borgia. Therefore, in the third installment of the series, Cesare does
poison his father. They never do anything that changes history, but they take
different spins on it. They have made games that take place during the
Crusades, the Italian Renaissance, and, most recently, the American Revolution.
Throughout the AC history, the Assassins have been in a struggle with the
Templars. However, both of them claim to believe in the freedom of all people,
but seek this differently. The Templars believe that men do not possess the
ability to govern themselves, and need to be controlled in order to be truly
free. The Assassins, on the other hand, believe that the Templars are not truly
seeking freedom, but seeking domination. They believe that all people should be
free to govern themselves and do not need anyone to rule them. It’s comparable to
the differences between Theodore Roosevelt’s 1916 Progressive Party and the
Populists of the 1890s.
So, how does this relate to the
Quiet American? Well the line that specifically caught my attention is during
the argument between Fowler and Pyle. Fowler says, “Oh, I know your motives are
good, they always are… I wish sometimes you had a few bad motives, you might
understand a little more about human beings. And that applies to your country
too, Pyle” (124). Both Pyle and Connor Kenway are idealists. They both have
certain beliefs about people and nations that they think are infallible. In the
case of Pyle, it is his idea of this Third Force that will solve all of the
problems in Vietnam. Pyle feels that this Third Force is the only chance to
push out the French and Communists from Vietnam. This is similar to the way
that Connor views freedom. He equates the idea of democracy with freedom of
all. He believes that it will push out the British from America, and allow
every man, woman, and child to be completely free of rule. There is a certain
innocence in this belief, in that they view it as a simple problem with one
clear-cut solution. However, in the video I posted above, Connor watches as the
British leave America. When he turns around, he sees several slaves up for
sale, and he cannot help but wonder if the ideals that he gave his life up for
were for naught.
This
brings us to the views of the Templars. Now, one thing I have to say is that,
for the first time in any AC game, I felt bad for killing every single Templar
in Assassin’s Creed 3. The ideas that
these men presented made just as much sense to me, if not more sense, than
those that Connor and the Assassins presented. In a way the Templars have a
more mature view of things. They do not see a solution to humanity’s problems,
so they wish to control these problems, contain them, and aim for peace and safety.
This is, in some ways, similar to Fowler, who views the innocence and idealism
of Pyle as idiotic. In his mind, the only way to end these conceptions of
innocence and idealism is to control them. Fowler does not see any substance in
the Third Force, viewing it more as a concept that Pyle got out of books and
fairytales than something of actual worth.
In the video clip above, there are plenty
of quotes available for analysis, but there are two I’d like to call attention
to. John Pitcairn says, “And we should live forever on castles in the sky. You
wield your blade like a man, but your mouth like a child.” I think that this
perfectly captures the idealism of both Connor and Pyle. They are strong enough
to enforce ideas, but they are young and they are outsiders. Pyle is a
full-blown American, new to Vietnam. He may like to act like he really
understands everything that is going on, but how can he claim to when he has
not been there and lived through it for himself? Connor is half British and
half Native American, and does not declare a side in the Revolution (instead
preferring to be on the side of freedom). He’s killing the men that he believes
to be against this, but when it comes down to the moment of their deaths they
maintain true to their ideals, and often seem to understand things more than
Connor.
In the death of Thomas Hickey, he says,
“I’m the type of guy who likes to have a beer in one hand and a titty in the
other. Thing is, boy, I can have what I seek – had it even. You, your hands
will always be empty.” Hickey is a great representation of a realist. He does
not care about any visions of the future, or grandeur views of nations. He
cares about himself and what he can gain from the situation. He does not delude
himself. Between Fowler and Pyle, though, who is the realist? On one hand, Pyle
is an idealist, but he seems to have a true belief in his views. So, in his
mind, perhaps he is a realist. Fowler, on the other hand, thinks that when it
comes to politics and people, he is much more realistic than Pyle. However,
even he admits that, in regard to Phuong, he “was inventing a character just as
much as Pyle was” (124). When it comes down to it, perhaps Hickey is right
about both of them. Maybe neither can get what they want, and they’ll both
leave empty handed.
The character speaking here is Haytham
Kenway, Connor’s father and leader of the Templars in America. This speech is,
in my mind, one of the greatest speeches ever given in video games. First and
foremost, what wonderful voice acting for Haytham Kenway’s character. This is a
dense speech. It’s political, it’s emotional, it’s ideological, and it’s
powerful. I’ll leave the majority of the speech for your interpretation, but
one of my favorite lines is when Haytham says: “Oh, they might have dressed it
up with pretty words, but that does not make it true.” Fowler and Pyle can come
up with all these ideas that they want, create all these visions, quote Harding
and Pascal and make everything sound absolutely wonderful. In the end, is
either of them right? Do either of them believe in the one absolute truth?
Okay, last video, I promise. Tell me that
this trailer is not epic. I dare you. One line in this trailer really speaks to
me, though. “In your haste to save the world, take care you don’t destroy it.”
The motivation behind Pyle’s ideals is to save Vietnam, to save Phuong, and to
do good. That does not mean that the results will be favorable.
[DISCLAIMER: Ubisoft did not pay me to advertise this game... but buy it anyway.]
3 comments:
Mike -- Thank you for this really compelling comparison. The old, stuffy crank in me first reacted to your post with skepticism, but, as your essay pushed on, the similarities became more and more striking. While I haven't had time to look at all the videos yet, some of the quotes you offer could easily come out of Fowler's mouth. This sounds remarkably like our narrator: ““In your haste to save the world, take care you don’t destroy it.” While I'm not a gamer myself, I have to acknowledge how artistic they are becoming -- and how much they are becoming a new way of telling stories.
I first want to say that this is an absolutely fantastic comparison that Mike makes in this post. Though I have also played through the entire Assassin’s Creed series, I would have never have realized such a clear connection between Pyle and Connor without Mike’s help. Though I agree with the majority of the remarks made by Mike about Pyle and Connor, I do not agree with the fact that both of them are idealists. In order to understand this character comparison, you must understand the motive and fuel for what both characters do. On the one hand, there is Pyle is dead set on his goals and his ideals regardless of the costs. As is evident through his actions, in particular the bombing, Pyle shows little remorse for what he does and is fueled by an abstract goal. Connor on the other hand, is not only fueled by the ideal of freedom, but also by emotional factors such as the burning of his village and the fact that Haytham is his father. Connor is not simply detached from the situation at hand like Pyle is. Pyle has no vested interest in Vietnam and only cares about his own goals and Phuong. Though on the surface, both characters may seem similar in the way they choose to reach their same idealistic goals; they are both are motivated by completely different things which creates a clear divide between them.
I have to admit that I too was very skeptical when I first saw that you were going to compare Pyle to Connor, but this is truly genius. Maybe I'm just saying that because I love Assassins Creed and anything involving it is interesting to me, but I believe it's deeper insights and ideals are very similar to those that Greene conveys through Pyle. Assassins Creed is about taking basic history and values and putting a spin on it. Very similarly, Pyle takes basic ideas of Democracy and The Greater Good and puts HIS own spin on it. When it comes down to it, not much really changes throughout history. It seems that we as humans are always searching for the same things : power, land, government that fits our ideas, and satisfying lives. The circumstances and means in which we seek these basic ideas are constantly changing, but as humans, we will constantly struggle to obtain our goals.
Post a Comment