duo, pay attention.

[kaigou]

This is my personal theory - we discussed it in passing at dinner on Saturday evening, but despite Sharon & Jana (I think) demurring, I hold to it. Duo, next time you come with, 'cause I want backup on this. Casey was too busy talking to DC to be much help.

Heero - suicidal not by virtue of choosing death, but by virtue of not wanting to continue the life he'd led so far; there's a subtle but important difference
Duo - far from suicidal at any point, but homicidal? hell yeah. Only willing to contemplate self-destruction when his back is against the wall and he's assured he's going to take plenty of the enemy with him.
Trowa - suicidal because he can't think of anything better to do with his time. I know that sounds odd, but that seems to be his attitude: "Oh, well, guess I'll try this, then."
Quatre - altruistically homicidal. Again, back against the wall, but he takes that route as the last option, and knowing that in doing so, he's making sure the cause itself continues.*
Wufei - the only one IIRC who never even considers the option of self-destruction, let alone tries, but that fits with his character. Knowing you're the last one surviving of your family puts a heavy burden on ya, I'd think.

*I think this is the main reason Duo later has no issues listening to Quatre's lead, and in fact seems to turn to Quatre on Peacemillion as de facto leader. If Quatre is willing to be so ruthless about his own life, he's clearly a leader who won't ask you to do something he himself wouldn't do. Compared to Heero, who may be 'the heart of outer space' but has the leadership qualities of a brick. Heero won't bother asking another to do what he'd do; he'll just go do it himself!

---

Every now and then I contemplate writing an essay or two for Zania's site, just because she doesn't have enough to code already. Gotta keep those archivists busy. *smirk* Which reminds me, I still have to post girl_starfish's new story, and if it doesn't get finished, I'm going to be stringing her up when I get to Japan next Spring.

And wah, there went my brain. Watch it go. Will add more later, when I'm done with the one-shot on Relena for A Very Late Addition to Psyche's Before the Beginning challenge. I kept meaning to write it, and then I'd get distracted, but right now I'm finding it almost impossible to make the mental leap necessary for Celia in Dancing. I've got the scene, I've got the setup, I've got Keegan ready and willing to be all supportive-y friend, and Celia won't behave. *kicks characters* More later.


EDIT: whew, got it done. only been promising for what, two months now?

( one secret )

for psyche's before the beginning challenge. rated PG, no warnings, no pairings, no cussing...just a rite of passage.

Comments

[solitude1056.livejournal.com]

Soldier falls short for me because it implies (damn it! There I go again) a government sanction, or at least a group affiliation. They're fighting for the colonies to start with, and despite the doctors, they answer only to themselves.

Well, hold on. Wasn't Operation Meteor sponsored for, paid for, and created by the Barton Foundation to further a political agenda? Regardless of whether the 'fight for the colonies' is a cover or a true purpose, I've never gotten the impression that the Barton Foundation/Family gave much of a damn what the colonies wanted/needed. If there is any connection between the plotline of GWing and reality, it might be in the various revolutionary actions. It falls somewhere between the American Revolution (in terms of distant colonies wanting some kind of self-government and self-determination), and the Meiji Revolution in which the revolutionaries were seeking to reinstate an earlier political setup - since the impression I get from GWing is that the situation has deteriorated but at some point the colonies did have a level of self-supporting/determining rights/power.

However, Operation Meteor obviously falls apart soon after the pilots are sent on their way. EW reveals this was on the part of the Mad Five - such as Quatre's teacher ripping the electronics out to stymie the messages - but there are implications that both Duo and Heero were still receiving orders and/or mission suggestions from their mentors up until Heero's self-detonation.

I think it comes down to whether or not one is self-appointed. Clearly the five boys weren't; each were chosen for one reason or another (however arbitrary, like in Trowa's case). As forerunners of a cause, I might label them revolutionaries more than terrorists, and Duo wouldn't be the first to fight in a revolution with his own private agenda. As long as it aligns with the overall goal (freedom for the colonies), I think a selfish purpose is forgivable or at least understandable.

Man, I have no idea why I'm going on. Oh, right, I do. I have a chapter to write where Spark wanders the streets of DC, falls asleep, and her shoes are stolen, and I just don't want to go there right now. So, uh, anyway...

Keep in mind that GWing (unlike the other Gundam series) is a super-Gundam. Those boys carve through MS like they're butter - in the other series, Gundams aren't much more than slightly hyped-up compared to the competition. In GWing, the only real enemy of any value that a G-boys faces, in the end, is himself. If you keep that in mind, then yes, it's entirely possible that five unbeatable and almost indesctructible machines would most definitely scare the living daylights out of the Alliance. I think that's why it's worth noting that the first time a Gundam hits the dust isn't because it's taken down by a fleet of Leos - it's because the pilot himself chose to stop fighting and destroy the beast.

Even in EW, it's only implied that they act with government/Preventer sanction - for the most part, they don't. They simply see what has to be done, and continuing the independent streak that developed when they were cut off from support in the series, they go and do it. I'm not sure if that makes them terrorists...but then, history is written by the victors. In both cases (series and ova), G-boys are victors. The American Revolution was successful, and we call them revolutionaries; if it had been a spectacular failure, would they be no better than the Southerners who seceeded?

Okay, I do need sleep now. Gotta long day ahead of me and that chapter's not writing itself...

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

I'll give you revolutionaries. But I don't know that the terms revolutionary and terrorist are mutually exclusive. Revolutionaries can, and often do, use terrorist and guerilla tactics.

[solitude1056.livejournal.com]

The tactics are independent of the title, I'd think. After all, prior to the American Revolution, guerilla tactics were out of the question for most fighting forces in the Western world. It was only once the Gen du Bois had trounced the Brits a number of times (by using the guerilla tactics taught to them by the Native Americans) that people started wising up. Okay, so the Brits kept lining up in their neat little lines according to the rules of engagement but...heh.

I guess, what's a guerilla tactic compared to a terrorist tactic? Thinking over the examples in history that are known as one or the other, I'd think a guerilla tactic has the following qualities, kinda like in a three-out-of-four-then-it's-this: involves a group of people attacking, requires stealth and sneak attacks, ignores the traditional rules of engagements (in terms of open fighting field and identification of enemy), tends to be hit-and-run flyby attacks rather than extended engagements, yet there's definitely an organization to the group performing the guerilla tactics.

I see terrorism as having many of the same qualities except that in every instance where it's a terrorist action, it's not a group of people working in an organized manner. It's usually individuals focusing their wrath and destructive firepower on citizens. Think of people who turn themselves into bombs, or hijack planes full of bystanders. So a guerilla tactic can still be guerilla but with the added element of terrorism if the attack is focused on civilians - attacking the local mall instead of the court house, for instance.

We've had the notion of 'guerilla tactics' for over two hundred years, thanks to the Iroquois Confederacy, who used them ruthlessly and to great success for a long time. But terrorist is essentially a modern notion, although we may apply it after the fact to previous events. The problem with it being a somewhat new term is that it's not entirely nailed down what is, or is not, terrorist (nor may it ever be). I'm curious. Does anyone know the Japanese term used to describe the boys, in GWing? Are they ever referred to with any of the terms - freedom fighter, terrorist, guerilla, revoluntionary? Wondering what the cultural implications are within any Japanese terms, too.

Anyway, the highlight of Gundam (all the Gundams) are their complexity, even if GWing didn't really succeed in squeezing its plotline effectively into only 52 episodes. The boys started as revolutionaries, became terrorists when they lost the backing of the colonies, used guerilla tactics...and then they get to space, are faced with White Fang, OZ, and who-knows-else - and at that point (when Quatre comes into leadership, pretty much) their tactics also change dramatically, and their guerilla efforts fall by the wayside. They're pretty much following traditional rules of engagement when they depart Peacemillion for those last few fights - staged in open area, stealth not used, fight continues for so long then both sides withdraw to regroup.

I have no idea what they'd be, then, since how many people were aware Zechs planned on dropping Libra on the planet? Are you acting as a military force for right if 99% of the watching population isn't aware of what you're stopping until after the fact?

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

I was trying to remember what they called the pilots in the anime earlier--if they use any particular terms. I'm not actually coming up with any, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. It's one of those things that you miss out on when you deal with something out of its original language. It may well be that there's a Japanese term that gets translated as "soldiers," but in context means something more along the lines of "soldiers with a cause" or something.

Bah.

I'll agree that one of the problems with this argument is that "terrorist" doesn't have a nicely squared and agreed upon meaning.

In my mind, a terrorist isn't exclusively someone who attacks civillians. It's more a question of method than target. But I realize that many people see violence against society at large being implicit. *shrugs*