Tag: Hero’s Journey

The Saint Of Scrap

Leave a comment

Watching Andor again and the architecture is unmistakable Dumas, Balzac even Zola. What we have stumbled onto is a masterpiece of literary archaeology: Gilroy took the moldering corpse of 19th-century French literature, jacked it full of Imperial credits and hyperdrive fuel, and reanimated it as the most politically sophisticated piece of science fiction television ever broadcast into the global nervous system.

Here’s what Tony Gilroy figured out that most Hollywood minders never will: Joseph Campbell’s monomyth is malware. The Hero’s Journey isn’t some universal narrative DNA – it’s a 20th-century academic construct that’s been strip-mining storytelling for decades, reducing complex human experience to a repeatable algorithm optimized for mass consumption.

Joseph Campbell’s monomyth became malware, but not because Campbell was wrong – because he was catastrophically misunderstood. The Hero’s Journey wasn’t supposed to be a screenwriting template. It was Campbell’s attempt to map humanity’s collective unconscious relationship with the Other -, our species-wide neurosis about encountering what lies beyond the symbolic order of our known world.

Campbell was doing depth psychology, not narrative engineering. He was tracking how human consciousness processes encounters with the radically foreign, the genuinely transformative, the actually dangerous. The “journey” wasn’t a plot structure – it was a cognitive archaeology project, digging into how minds cope with ego dissolution and reconstitution.

But Hollywood – and by extension, American culture – completely borked the translation. They turned Campbell’s psychological cartography into a content-generation algorithm. Worse, they weaponized it as ideological infrastructure, using the “assault on the citadel” climax to reinforce what Francis Fukuyama would later theorize as the End of History – the notion that liberal capitalism represents humanity’s final evolutionary stage, that all narratives ultimately resolve into American-style individual triumph over systemic opposition.

The monomyth got conscripted into neoliberal mythology: every story became about exceptional individuals conquering institutional barriers through personal transformation, rather than about collective struggle to transform the institutions themselves.

The Collective, here, is not merely a loosely organized group with shared political aims, but more like a living field of unconscious participation—a web of inherited patterns, desires, and symbols that bind individuals into something larger than themselves. This broader meaning recognizes that most of what joins us together is unspoken: the collective unconscious of myths, fears, rituals, dreams, gestures. A collective is not always organized; often, it is discovered—in the sudden recognition of something deeply familiar in someone else, or in the synchronicity of shared intuitions.

In this sense, the collective isn’t just a call to action. It’s a fog we’re already breathing. Campbell’s exploration of how consciousness encounters alterity became a mass-production system for generating the same story about American exceptionalism, over and over again.

But Gilroy asked the killer question: what were stories before the Frankensteinazation of Campbell? What narrative operating systems were running before some mythology professor at Sarah Lawrence decided to refactor all human storytelling into a single subroutine?

The answer, of course, is the 19th-century novel – that magnificent, unwieldy, politically dangerous art form that emerged when writers realized they could use fiction to reverse-engineer entire societies. Balzac, Zola, Hugo, Dumas, Dickens, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky – these weren’t just entertainers, they were social hackers, using narrative code to expose the exploits and vulnerabilities in the power structures of industrial modernity.

Andor represents Gilroy’s systematic deconstruction of Campbell’s hero template and its replacement with something far more subversive: the realist tradition’s understanding that individual psychology is always political, that personal transformation happens through social struggle, and that true heroism emerges from collective action rather than mythic destiny.

Again, The collective is also the rust in the machine—what resists total design. Every time a new system, platform, or piece of technology is thrown at human beings, the collective reasserts itself in subtle, chaotic ways. It reclaims, repurposes, wears down. People modify the system by misusing it, by hacking it with sentiment, myth, miscommunication, and habit.

This isn’t regression—it’s the return of the commons in disguised forms. Not the idealized commons, but a lived, messy version: improvised solidarity, inside jokes, shared grief, borrowed dreams. It’s how forums turn into families. How memes become folklore. How bureaucracy decays into ritual.

The collective isn’t the revolution; it’s the aftermath that refuses to go away. It’s not designed—it seeps.

Instead of Campbell’s misunderstood circular journey from ordinary world to magical transformation and return, Andor runs on the realist novel’s linear progression: social analysis → political awakening → revolutionary commitment. Cassian doesn’t discover he’s special – he discovers he’s connected, part of vast networks of oppression and resistance that existed long before his story began and will continue long after it ends.

This is why Andor feels so different from other Star Wars content. It’s not running hero mythology – it’s running political fiction, using the narrative architecture that gave us Les Misérables, Germinal, and War and Peace.

Balzac & Andor: Same Story Engine, Different Skins

Balzac was doing prestige HBO drama before HBO. He wasn’t writing “novels” so much as he was creating a shared universe — think of La Comédie humaine like a 19th-century MCU, except instead of superheroes, you get landlords, mistresses, financiers, washed-up nobles, and ambitious clerks. What links them all? Social mobility as a bloodsport.

Andor, despite being set in a galaxy far, far away, picks up right where Balzac left off — it just swaps top hats for stormtroopers and drawing rooms for data farms. Both use classic character tropes to explore how big, impersonal systems grind people down — or how some people learn to game the system back.

Think Rastignac — the original prestige drama social climber. He sees how the game is rigged and decides to rig it back.: Syril Karn is a strait-laced version of Rastignac — less suave, more obsessive. He’s the guy who takes the manual way too seriously and still can’t get promoted. But he’s still trying to ascend, just like a Balzacian antihero.

Characters like Madame de Beauséant are prisoners of their inherited status. They can’t really move, because movement = loss of identity.: Mon Mothma — draped in silk and suffocated by it. She’s “legacy code,” living in a golden cage, and every attempt to act comes with a social cost.

Vautrin — part crime boss, part secret police, part revolutionary. The guy who knows where all the bodies are buried, and who’s probably buried a few himself.: Luthen Rael. Smiles like a shopkeeper, talks like Lenin with a laser. The man is a walking contradiction, running multiple scripts at once — just like Vautrin.

Countless bureaucrats and clerks moving paper, chasing promotions, enforcing nonsense. Their power is real, but their authority is borrowed. The Pre-Mor Authority. It’s the DMV with guns. These people think they’re the Empire. The Empire barely knows they exist.

Lucien de Rubempré in Splendeurs et misères des courtisanes — poetic, talented, and absolutely chewed up by Paris. Kino Loy. Gets a whiff of hope, takes a leap… and can’t swim. That’s the show right there.

What Balzac and Andor both show is that there are no clean hands. If you want to do anything in these systems — whether you’re toppling them or just surviving — you have to touch the filth. Even the “good guys” are compromised. Especially them. And both worlds are obsessed with resource flows — be it money, information, social access. These aren’t “subplots.” They’re the real story. Who gets to move things? Who gets cut off?

Balzac would’ve written Andor if he’d been alive today — not Star Wars, not the Skywalkers — just the guys in the background, pushing paper, sweating deadlines, taking bribes, hiding secrets, breaking rules, breaking down. He’d have followed Mon Mothma’s bank account like it was a loaded gun. He’d have called Syril Karn’s mom twice to hear her scream.

Andor is Balzac with blasters. It’s not sci-fi. It’s 19th-century literary realism wearing a helmet.

Prestige TV’s Oldest Trick — The Systemic Human Lab

Zola wasn’t telling stories. He was cracking people open to see what the system had done to them. His “plots” are really just pressure tests: you drop a person into a mine, a factory, or a slum, and you watch them break. Or mutate. Or explode. You’re not reading to find out what the character chooses — you’re reading to find out what the environment allows. It’s character as test subject, not hero.

Andor picks that up perfectly. It’s the first Star Wars entry that looks at people the way Zola did — as environmentally programmed, socially conditioned, and systemically trapped. It’s not about what characters want, it’s about what the machine wants from them.

In Germinal, coal miners aren’t characters, they’re slowly breaking bodies. Men are cogs. Hunger and exhaustion are the only character arcs.  Narkina 5 is a literal assembly line of this trope. The white floors, the point system, the boots — everything says: “You are not a person here. You are throughput.”

Plenty of civil servants in his work who believe in order so much they forget about people. They enforce ruin with a clean conscience. Dedra Meero. She’s so into catching rebels she doesn’t notice she’s become a monster. Or maybe she does and just doesn’t care.

His bourgeois characters often have everything except freedom. They drink, cheat, lie — but mostly to maintain appearances. Their lives are very long cages. Mon Mothma. She’s got chandeliers and a husband who collects art, but her whole life is puppeteering money through backchannels to not get killed.

He showed whole neighborhoods working as a single organism — gossiping, helping, punishing, feasting, starving — usually all at once. Ferrix isn’t just a town. It’s a consciousness. That funeral scene? It’s not just moving — it’s how resistance thinks itself into being.

The collective unconscious, hive mind, and commons all find raw, corporeal expression in Zola’s naturalist novels—especially in Germinal—long before they were formalized by Jung, sci-fi, or political theory. In Zola, the crowd is not metaphor; it’s material. His characters act not simply out of reason or self-interest, but from something deeper—ancestral memory, social instinct, biological despair. The miners in Germinal embody the collective unconscious not as a set of abstract archetypes but as a living memory encoded in muscle, hunger, rhythm, and rumor. Their uprising is not planned—it erupts, as if memory itself rises through them, not unlike a trauma resurfacing.

This subterranean convergence of minds—formed in the dark of the mines, in cramped homes, in glances and gossip—anticipates the idea of the hive mind, but not the sterilized, AI-flavored version popular today. Zola’s hive mind is anarchic and organic: it bleeds, it hungers, it stinks of coal and sweat. It is both solidarity and suffocation. You don’t “log into” it—you are born into it.

And then there’s the commons—not the nostalgic, bucolic field of pre-industrial fantasy, but the industrial commons: infrastructure as shared destiny. The rail, the mine, the factory floor. Zola understood that when land and time are carved up by capital, the people below still find ways to cohere. They borrow from each other, fight with each other, survive together. The commons becomes not property but proximity. The shared condition of being ground down.

Together, these ideas form Zola’s unspoken theory of mass life: the human swarm, stripped of illusion, still manages to feel, to revolt, to remember. What Jung spiritualized, Zola anatomized. What sci-fi abstracted, he dragged into the mud. And what modern culture forgot—that the crowd is not always a danger, sometimes it’s a dream—we can still recover in his pages.

The Broken Origin That Isn’t a Motivation

In Émile Zola’s world, people don’t have “trauma arcs” because they don’t need narrative justification to suffer. His characters are born into systems that manufacture pain—pain that doesn’t need a flashback to be valid. Their parents drank, or worked themselves into early graves in mines or factories, or were crushed by poverty—and so they do too. It isn’t individual failure, nor some private drama that makes them tragic. It’s structural inheritance. The wound is social, not secret.

Compare that to contemporary storytelling, where trauma is often used as a sort of psychological origin myth—a “backstory” that provides motivation. This is the logic of what we might call neoliberal blankslatism: the myth that we are born blank and become who we are through discrete, explainable moments. In this model, the hero’s journey isn’t derailed by trauma—it’s powered by it. The character overcomes, grows, becomes exceptional. Their past is tidily contained within a therapeutic arc. Trauma becomes productively legible.

But Zola, and shows like Andor, offer a counterpoint. Cassian’s past on Kenari isn’t there to explain his behavior in some emotional algorithm—it’s there to show how trauma is a system install. It’s the Empire writing itself directly onto the body. The destruction of Kenari isn’t a sad memory to be revisited and overcome—it’s the invisible architecture of his life. It’s why his voice is wary, why his posture is tense, why trust doesn’t come easy. There is no “why” in the way neoliberal storytelling wants. There is only because.

Zola’s characters aren’t motivated—they’re implicated. They don’t seek redemption arcs; they seek bread, dignity, sometimes just a warm place to collapse. Andor inherits that ethical terrain. It doesn’t use trauma to make its characters exceptional. It uses trauma to show how systems replicate themselves, how violence doesn’t end but echoes. It reminds us that some origins are not stories—they’re blueprints. And not everyone gets to write their way out of them.

Montage = Emotional Compression

Where Zola takes pages to show someone disintegrate under poverty, Eisenstein takes a few shots. A bull slaughtered. A protest trampled. The viewer connects the dots. That’s how Andor is cut too. Visual contrast isn’t just style — it’s critique.

• Cassian walking barefoot in a white cell.

• Mon Mothma, silent in a gold room.

• Dedra, smug in a control booth.

• Bix, broken in a cage.

None of them are in charge. They’re all in different versions of prison.

George Lucas was always more Eisenstein than people realized — especially with the rhythm of Star Wars. But he used that power for myth: fascism as archetype. Andor strips that away. It’s not Vader vs. Skywalker. It’s labor, money, trauma, and surveillance vs. survival, decency, and slow-burn courage.

If you love Andor, you already love Zola — you just didn’t know his name. You’re not watching a story about a man with a destiny. You’re watching people try not to drown in a system designed to flood. It’s less about hope and more about bandwidth: who gets to act, and who’s been programmed to shut up.

The Myriel Protocol

Victor Hugo built moral operating systems. Les Misérables is less a novel than a cathedral of human contradiction, where every subplot carries weight and every minor character hums with ethical potential. When Andor works, it does so because it understands that rebellion is not just logistics — it’s spiritual infrastructure. It’s not just tactics. It’s grace under oppression.

Bishop Myriel’s act — giving Valjean the candlesticks — isn’t just charity. It’s a jailbreak. He doesn’t forgive a thief; he reprograms a soul. He hacks the moral firmware of the entire justice system with one act of unchecked compassion. Privilege escalation. From convict to saint in a single, unauthorized command.

In Andor, we see this same subroutine in Maarva’s funeral. Her words aren’t just inspiration — they’re malware. “Fight the Empire” isn’t a slogan. It’s exploit code — crashing the Empire’s control system, bypassing years of fear conditioning. The Empire tries to treat Ferrix like a static backdrop. Maarva turns it into a rebel bootloader.

This is the Hugo trope: Grace is a system exploit.

A single act of unreason can rupture the most rational tyranny.

Hugo’s sewers weren’t just symbolic. They were infrastructure for moral transformation. A space beneath society where garbage — and people — are reprocessed. Not erased, not redeemed, but converted.

Ferrix plays this role exactly. It’s not just industrial; it’s alchemical. Droids are stripped for parts, and those parts become martyrs. Imperial junk becomes weapons. Maarva becomes a brick.

TV Tropes might call this “Crapsack World, Holy Ground.” It’s the sacred hidden inside the wreckage.

Golems and Ghosts in the Machine: From Hugo to Andor

Where Hugo gave us Quasimodo defending the cathedral, Andor gives us K-2SO—not just a repurposed enforcer droid, but a golem: a creature created by the regime, imbued with its logic, now turned against its makers. He’s not a rebel by choice. He’s a rebel because the system failed to maintain control over its own tools. Like Valjean, K-2SO’s nobility isn’t innate or divinely granted—it’s stolen, carved out of servitude, kludged together from code and chance. And when he dies—when he sacrifices himself for Cassian—it isn’t a shutdown, it’s a manufactured martyrdom. A holy death of scrap metal. The sainthood of surplus.

This is Andor’s theology: broken things can be sanctified, but only in action—not through purity or bloodline. Nobility doesn’t descend; it is reclaimed from the wreckage. That’s Hugo’s legacy in the series—not in aesthetic, but in spiritual structure.

And then there’s Javert, Hugo’s original recursive cop—a man who doesn’t suffer from cruelty so much as from logic. He is a closed system, an ethical loop. He cannot tolerate contradiction because contradiction is not an input he’s designed to handle. So when Valjean shows him mercy—grace without calculation—his moral OS crashes. His suicide is a fatal exception error. Grace is his system crash.

Andor updates Javert into Dedra Meero, but she is not merely a zealot. She is a next-gen upgrade: refined, optimized, terrifying. Where Javert was animated by moral absolutism, Dedra is animated by pattern recognition. She sees in gaps and glitches—silences in surveillance, anomalies in scheduling, a missing voice in a radio channel. She doesn’t enforce the law, she anticipates deviation. A bureaucrat trained in algorithmic paranoia, she’s the child of total information awareness.But like all systems obsessed with noise, she misreads the signal.

She sees rebellion as virus, not becoming. She analyzes Ferrix like data, but she can’t model solidarity. The town isn’t a threat node. It’s a collective consciousness under compression. That’s why she fails. Like Javert, she encounters something her firmware can’t parse: human coherence that emerges without command.

This is what Deleuze calls a line of flight — when the system breaks open, not from destruction, but from becoming something it can’t contain.

In Deleuzean terms, Dedra is an overcoded desiring-machine: her drives are real, but fully integrated into an apparatus that redirects all passion toward control. She doesn’t lust for power in the classic sense—she is power, sublimated into data discipline. Her affectlessness is the mark of an imperial machine that has replaced cruelty with efficiency. She doesn’t need to brutalize to win—she just has to pre-empt the possibility of resistance. If Dedra is the paranoiac of control, Luthen is the schizo-strategist of rupture. He doesn’t represent rebellion. He’s a vector — spreading revolutionary potential like a virus with no center.

He’s not driven by ideology, but by subtractive desire: to burn himself out so something else can rise. He doesn’t make plans; he deterritorializes empires.

“Burn my life to make a sunrise I’ll never see” isn’t noble sacrifice — it’s code suicide. He runs himself as a temporary process. In Deleuze’s terms, he becomes-imperceptible: always shifting between roles, textures, identities. A gallery owner. A rebel mastermind. A ghost in the luxury machine.

He’s not a character. He’s a hack.

The Revolution Will Be Refactored: 

The tragedy—and genius—of Andor is how it shows us that these systems don’t collapse from outside pressure. They collapse when their own tools—droids, informants, petty bureaucrats—begin to misfire, when their own logic becomes so totalizing that it creates anomalies: people who should be broken, but aren’t.

In this sense, Andor is Hugo turned inside out. It offers no cathedral, no God, no final judgment. Only the haunted machinery of empire, and the ghosts it accidentally generates. Rebels who are forged, not born. Saints of rust and sabotage.

Andor is Hugo with a rootkit. It doesn’t tell stories. It rewrites functions. Revolution, in this frame, isn’t toppling empires — it’s interrupting their scripts. Grace, sabotage, collective care — these aren’t narrative moments. They’re system exploits. What Hugo showed in 1862, and what Andor resurrects now, is this:

The oppressed don’t just fight back.

They rewrite the code of reality itself.

THE DUMAS CONNECTION

Before there were movie serials, before Flash Gordon was dodging Ming the Merciless or Buck Rogers was fighting in the 25th century, Dumas was already perfecting episodic storytelling. Every cliffhanger, every “meanwhile back at the hideout” scene switch, every moment where heroes have to improvise their way out of death traps—that’s all Dumas technology.

Andor takes that foundation and asks: what if we made a Dumas serial where the Empire actually feels like an empire? Where resistance has real costs and victories don’t come with triumphant music? Where the Count of Monte Cristo is just another prisoner who got lucky and angry enough to fight back?

The result isn’t space fantasy—it’s Dumas realism. All the adventure, none of the romanticism. Swashbuckling for the surveillance age.

Alexandre Dumas is the godfather of serialized adventure. Before Flash Gordon was rocketing through space or Buck Rogers was fighting the future, Dumas was already building the DNA of episodic heroism with The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo. Every Saturday matinee serial, every cliffhanger ending, every “will our heroes escape this death trap?” moment traces back to his revolutionary storytelling blueprint.

If Hugo gives us the moral backbone, Dumas provides the action playbook. Andor’s heists and spy networks feel like classic Musketeer operations scaled up for galactic warfare. Luthen channels serious Monte Cristo energy—part vengeful mastermind exploiting Imperial corruption, part Aramis-style priest-spy running his underground railroad. The constant tension between Cassian going lone wolf and needing his crew (Vel, Cinta, Kleya) is pure Musketeer dynamics, just with fascist stormtroopers instead of Cardinal Richelieu’s guards.

Andor essentially takes Hugo’s moral framework and runs it through Dumas’ adventure engine. All the classic Hugo elements are there—the Parental Substitute who shapes the hero’s conscience (Myriel/Maarva), the urban underground as literal and metaphorical refuge (Paris sewers/Ferrix foundry), the Tragic Monster driven by duty (Javert/Dedra)—but they’re deployed with Dumas’ signature cell-based resistance structure.

Dumas wasn’t just writing escapist fiction—he was encoding revolutionary tactics in swashbuckling stories, creating templates that would define adventure entertainment for the next century. Every Flash Gordon serial borrowed his cliffhanger pacing. Every Buck Rogers episode used his “heroes on the run” structure. Andor is basically Dumas for the surveillance state era.

The classic Dumas revenge plot: Wrongful Imprisonment → Prison Education → Systematic Payback. Cassian Andor is Edmond Dantès without the fancy disguises and infinite wealth.

But here’s the key difference—Dantès got to play aristocrat with his treasure and secret identities. Cassian’s stuck doing guerrilla warfare from the ground up. Where the Count exploited individual villains’ personal weaknesses, Cassian has to take down an entire galactic bureaucracy. His “prison education” on Narkina 5 isn’t learning languages and swordsmanship from a wise old prisoner—it’s figuring out how to hack Imperial logistics from the inside of a labor camp designed to break people.

The Aldhani heist perfectly captures this evolution. It’s not personal revenge—it’s economic warfare. They’re not just stealing money; they’re creating administrative chaos that ripples through the Imperial system. Use the Empire’s own greed against it, trigger internal audits, make the bureaucrats start eating each other. Classic Dumas strategy: never fight the system head-on, make it destroy itself.

This is the Monte Cristo formula updated for modern resistance movements: turn systemic oppression into systemic sabotage.

Dumas invented the superhero team decades before comics existed. The “All for One” principle isn’t just friendship—it’s operational security.

Luthen’s rebel cells work exactly like D’Artagnan’s crew, just with dead drops instead of tavern meetings and encrypted communications instead of sword signals. Vel and Cinta’s relationship mirrors the way Musketeers had to balance personal bonds with mission security—sometimes you can’t tell your closest allies everything because the network depends on compartmentalization.

Mon Mothma’s dinner parties are basically diplomatic espionage, like when the Musketeers had to navigate court intrigue. The human cost is constant—Bix’s torture, Nemik’s death, Cassian’s isolation—because in Dumas’ world, heroism always comes with a price tag.

Classic Dumas trope: the Old Master dies passing wisdom to the Young Hero. Abbé Faria teaches Dantès everything, then dies. Athos mentors D’Artagnan, knowing his own best days are behind him.

Andor follows this pattern ruthlessly. Maarva shapes Cassian’s moral code, then her death becomes the catalyst for Ferrix’s uprising. Kino Loy shows him how to organize mass resistance, then stays behind so others can escape. Luthen keeps downloading strategy and resources into Cassian, but you know that mentorship is building toward inevitable sacrifice.

Each mentor transfer creates a more capable but more isolated hero. Cassian becomes increasingly effective and increasingly alone—the price of absorbing all that hard-won knowledge.

Here’s what separates Dumas from standard swashbuckling: his heroes aren’t just skilled, they’re smart. Athos doesn’t just fence well—he reads people and situations. Monte Cristo doesn’t just want revenge—he engineers social destruction with scientific precision. The famous “Queen’s Diamonds” plot from Three Musketeers is basically an elaborate con game with international implications.

Andor strips away the romantic glamour but keeps the strategic thinking. When Cassian infiltrates the garrison or escapes Narkina 5, he’s not relying on luck or individual heroics—he’s exploiting system vulnerabilities the way Dumas heroes always did. No magic swords or mystical powers, just intelligence, planning, and the willingness to sacrifice everything for the cause.

“All for one, one for all” isn’t a friendship motto—it’s a tactical doctrine.

The MacLean Gambit: How Andor Hijacks the Assault on the Citadel

So far I’ve been talking about the show’s 19th-century realist backbone, but I am missing the crucial middleware layer that makes it all function as television. Andor isn’t just Balzac in space – it’s a 19th-century realist novel wrapped in pure MacLean plot architecture.

MacLean perfected the “assault on the citadel” narrative for the postwar era. The Guns of Navarone, Where Eagles Dare, Ice Station Zebra – these weren’t just adventure stories, they were engineering blueprints for how small teams of specialists could infiltrate seemingly impregnable systems and bring them down from within. MacLean understood that modern warfare wasn’t about individual heroes; it was about technical expertise, operational planning, and the brutal mathematics of mission success versus acceptable casualties.

But here’s Gilroy’s master stroke: he’s using MacLean’s assault-on-the-citadel template to deliver what might be the most sophisticated metacommentary on Campbell’s hijacking by neoliberal ideology ever smuggled into mass entertainment.

The Anti-Hero’s Journey as Ideological Exploit

Andor runs the MacLean protocol perfectly – every major sequence follows his template: assemble the team, infiltrate the target, overcome technical obstacles, execute the mission, extract under fire. Aldhani is pure Guns of Navarone: specialists with complementary skills, detailed reconnaissance, equipment failure, interpersonal conflict, and a climactic assault that succeeds at enormous cost.

But watch what Gilroy does with the aftermath. In a traditional Campbell cycle, the hero returns transformed, having conquered the citadel and claimed his reward. In MacLean’s version, the professionals complete their mission and move on to the next assignment. But in Andor, the “assault on the citadel” creates more citadels.

The Aldhani heist doesn’t resolve anything – it escalates everything. Instead of Campbell’s circular return to equilibrium, or MacLean’s linear mission completion, we get systemic feedback loops. The Empire responds to the robbery by tightening security everywhere, creating new forms of oppression that generate new resistance cells. Cassian’s “heroic” action doesn’t end his journey; it forces him deeper into a web of consequences he can’t control or escape.

This is where Gilroy’s hack becomes genuinely subversive. He’s using the “assault on the citadel” – the very narrative structure that neoliberalism conscripted to justify individual triumph over institutional opposition – to demonstrate why that framework is fundamentally broken.

Every time Andor deploys MacLean’s template, it reveals the template’s hidden assumptions:

The Myth of Decisive Action: MacLean’s heroes could solve problems through successful operations. Andor shows that every successful operation creates new problems. The citadel isn’t conquered; it adapts, evolves, metastasizes.

The Fantasy of Professional Competence: MacLean’s specialists succeeded through superior skill and planning. Andor’s characters succeed despite constant failure, miscommunication, and improvisation. Competence doesn’t overcome systemic dysfunction – it just helps you survive it longer.

The Illusion of Mission Completion has long been a storytelling staple, especially in classic adventure and espionage narratives like those of MacLean, where the story neatly concludes once the objective is achieved. There’s a satisfying finality in defeating the villain, seizing the prize, or toppling the fortress. Yet Andor dismantles this illusion with quiet ruthlessness, revealing that in the machinery of empire, there are no ultimate victories—only endless cycles of resistance and repression that endlessly regenerate themselves. The “citadel” is not a fixed stronghold to be stormed once and for all; it is a sprawling, adaptive system, a living organism of control and power that cannot simply be captured or destroyed.

This idea echoes the prophetic insight of Philip K. Dick’s famous assertion that “The Empire never ended.” For Dick, the empire is less a physical domain and more a pervasive state of consciousness and structural domination that outlasts any single battle or political upheaval. The imperial logic seeps into culture, technology, governance, and even the psyche, creating a closed loop of control that regenerates itself in new forms. In this light, Andor portrays rebellion not as a series of discrete missions with climactic finishes but as a generational struggle—an ongoing project of transformation that requires patience, resilience, and adaptability.

Transformation, then, is the true objective, and it is not achieved through isolated heroic acts. It’s a slow, grinding process of undermining imperial structures from within and without, remaking the social and moral architecture bit by bit. The citadel’s walls are less a physical barrier and more a metaphor for entrenched systems of power, and tearing them down is less about conquest and more about systemic evolution. In Andor, victory is less about a final, triumphant moment and more about planting seeds that will grow over generations, reshaping what empire means—and ultimately, what freedom could look like.

This perspective invites a deeper reckoning with resistance itself. It challenges the fantasy of the quick fix and forces a confrontation with the endurance required to transform societies shaped by sprawling, self-perpetuating imperial orders. In this way, Andor’s narrative rhythm becomes a meditation on the nature of empire and rebellion as intertwined, ceaseless processes—echoing Dick’s vision that the empire is not simply something to overthrow once, but a horizon that shifts endlessly, demanding a commitment that outlasts any single individual or campaign.

The Realist Novel’s Revenge: The Perfect Trojan Horse

By wrapping 19th-century social realism in MacLean’s adventure framework, Gilroy creates something unprecedented: a mass-entertainment narrative that uses the assault-on-the-citadel structure to critique the assault-on-the-citadel ideology.

The show gives audiences the visceral satisfaction of watching competent people execute complex operations – the MacLean hit – while simultaneously demonstrating that individual competence is meaningless without collective organization, that successful operations are meaningless without political context, and that heroic transformation is meaningless without social transformation.

Cassian’s arc isn’t Campbell’s hero’s journey or MacLean’s professional mission – it’s the realist novel’s understanding that personal change happens through historical engagement. He doesn’t discover he’s special and conquer the citadel; he discovers he’s connected and commits to the long, unglamorous work of systemic change.

This is why Andor works as both entertainment and political education. It delivers the genre pleasures that audiences expect – technical competence, operational tension, spectacular action sequences – while using those very pleasures to reprogram how viewers understand agency, heroism, and social change.

MacLean’s template becomes the delivery system for a completely different ideological payload: instead of reinforcing neoliberal fantasies about exceptional individuals conquering institutional barriers, Andor uses the familiar structure to demonstrate why those fantasies are not just wrong but actively harmful.

The assault on the citadel becomes a meditation on how citadels actually function, why they’re so difficult to assault, and what kind of long-term organizational commitment is required to transform rather than merely damage the systems that create citadels in the first place.

Beautiful hack, really. Gilroy took the narrative architecture that neoliberalism uses to justify itself and turned it into a weapon against neoliberalism. MacLean would have appreciated the technical elegance.

Beyond “Collective Might”: Survival of the Human Phenotype and the Party You’re Never Invited To

Don’t let anyone fool you with feel-good talk about “collective might.” The bitter truth Andor exposes—and one that Luthen’s arc drives home with brutal clarity—is this: you will never be invited to the party you helped build. The so-called “collective” isn’t a warm circle of shared glory. It’s a cold, adaptive organism focused on the survival of the human phenotype itself, not your idealistic dreams. It’s not about cheering together in victory but about endurance, mutation, and passing on compromised code through damaged vessels. The “party” is always elsewhere, for others — you’re just the fuel that keeps the system alive.

That “collective” you hear praised? It’s kumbaya copium. The real collective lives by stealth and mimicry, embedding itself like a rootkit inside imperial hardware. It survives not by purity or solidarity but by becoming indistinguishable from the system that oppresses it, absorbing its poisons to patch its own vulnerabilities. Resistance isn’t noble sacrifice; it’s a grueling, recursive survival strategy against an enemy that always moves faster, adapts harder, and cuts deeper. So stop dreaming about revolution as a carnival of togetherness—this is about biological and cultural survival when the party you made excludes you by design.

Andor doesn’t just tell a Star Wars story; it performs a multi-layered cultural exploit on contemporary media’s numbness and distraction. It weaponizes 19th-century literary frameworks as diagnostic tools to dissect algorithmic fascism today. But this isn’t sentimental nostalgia or academic homage—it’s a sharp, strategic payload hidden in plain sight. Balzac’s social stacks become audits of platform feudalism; Zola’s environment determinism morphs into digital behaviorism reports; Dumas’ networks turn into a dark forest of resistance interlaced with betrayal. The lesson? The “collective” is a facade. Behind it lies a survival code that knows you will probably not make it to Liberation day, so your job is to survive within and against it.

The genius of Andor lies in its triple-encrypted delivery system. The Star Wars veneer slips past casual censorship as nostalgic fluff, but beneath this layer sits literary realism coded with Balzac, Zola, and Dumas, while the Eisenstein-MacLean engine runs dialectical montage and suspense beneath. The “collective” becomes an intellectual sleeper cell—teaching viewers to decode power, map betrayal, and experience oppression viscerally. But remember: no matter how many cracks you expose in the system, the party remains locked. Your role is survival, not belonging.

This terrifies authoritarians because it upends their best defense: narrative entropy, flooding us with distraction and false unity. The prison break in Andor isn’t just an escape; it’s Kino Loy’s axiom in action: “Power doesn’t panic. Systems panic.” By merging systemic critique, visceral montage, and tactical clarity, Andor delivers popular art that doubles as critical theory, forcing us to see the hidden architecture of our own oppression. But the harsh truth lingers: while you decode and resist, the party you built is still elsewhere — the invitations never come to you.

Lu-Tze and the Tao of Non-Engagement

Leave a comment

A Radical Simplicity

Terry Pratchett’s Lu-Tze, the humble sweeper-monk, embodies a philosophy that transcends the binaries of control and chaos, order and entropy. His approach echoes the Taoist principle of wu wei—effortless action—where effectiveness arises not from force or rigid doctrine, but from alignment with the natural flow of things. In a world where systems demand either compliance or rebellion, Lu-Tze’s quiet labor becomes a subversion of both. He sweeps floors, tends gardens, and occasionally nudges history with a well-timed proverb, all while maintaining an almost Zen-like detachment. This isn’t apathy; it’s a deliberate refusal to be ensnared by the narratives that trap others.

Where Jeremy Clockson is a being of precision, of engineered inevitability, Lu-Tze is improvisation wearing a broom. He acts, but never hurries. He intervenes, but rarely directly. He knows when to do nothing—not out of laziness, but because doing nothing is sometimes the most powerful move on the board. This is wu wei: not passivity, but attunement. Not resistance, but redirection.

Lu-Tze’s true rebellion is his refusal to play the game on the game’s terms. In a monastery of time-obsessed monks and obsessive administrators, he becomes a kind of counter-temporal agent. His toolkit isn’t quantum precision—it’s tea, footnotes, and aphorisms. He smuggles agency into a world obsessed with schedules. He practices radical patience in an age of urgency.

Importantly, wu wei does not mean disengagement from the world. On the contrary: it demands deep presence. But presence without domination. Lu-Tze notices—and this makes him dangerous. He is underestimated precisely because he refuses to self-mythologize. He does not posture. He sweeps. And in that sweeping, he rewrites the future.

Lu-Tze’s simplicity isn’t just spiritual—it’s political. In a world increasingly obsessed with spectacle and optimization, he embodies a slow refusal. His sweeping is a practice of soft power, a kind of monkish mutual aid. It doesn’t scale. It doesn’t trend. But it works. And that’s why the Auditors hate him. He cannot be predicted. He cannot be optimized. He is the chaotic good of quiet maintenance.

And while characters like Lobsang enact the tension between order and soul, Lu-Tze offers a third path: the invisible art of keeping things just functional enough not to collapse. He’s not the hero. He’s the janitor of the sacred. The clock ticks because he keeps the dust off the gears.

In terms of art and meaning-making, Lu-Tze is the analog craftsperson in the back room. The slow artist who whittles spoons. The poet who doesn’t publish. He doesn’t need applause. He just needs the floor to be clean.

Marx, Zen, and the Clock as Capital

When the Abbot instructs Lu‑Tze to “stop the clock,” the order resonates beyond plot. The clock—especially the perfect one Jeremy Clockson builds under the Auditors’ influence—isn’t just a timepiece; it’s the fantasy of total control. In Marxist terms, it’s capital’s dream object: pure quantification, the commodification of time itself. No deviation, no subjective experience, just value measured in ticks and tocks.

Lu‑Tze is the anti-capitalist, anti-bureaucratic Zen Marxist janitor. He doesn’t wage war against the machine—he sweeps around it, confounds it, slips through its gears. His proverbs, riddles, and broom are more subversive than any manifesto. Like a Zen koan, he can’t be neatly interpreted, and that’s the point. He’s not here to solve the system; he’s here to remind us it was never sacred to begin with.

Marx wrote that under capitalism, even time becomes alienated—we no longer live in it, we sell it. Lu‑Tze refuses that paradigm. Ask his job, and he says, “I’m just the sweeper.” Which is to say: I exist outside your categories. He’s the embodiment of kairos—opportune time—against the capitalist worship of chronos—measurable time.

Lobsang and the Split Self

Lobsang Ludd, apprentice monk and living incarnation of Time itself, is where the grand cosmic argument becomes achingly personal. His story is not just the tension between past and future, or between chaos and order—it’s the fracture at the heart of the modern self. Lobsang is a contradiction made flesh: half-human, half-myth, half-clock. His very existence is a split screen—on one side, the warm, impulsive, half-smiling boy who steals apples and tells jokes; on the other, Jeremy Clockson, the ultra-competent craftsman of inevitability, built to measure, built to obey.

This isn’t just narrative cleverness—it’s a diagnosis. Lobsang is the embodiment of the contemporary condition: a being caught between the speed of machines and the slowness of meaning. Between the spreadsheet and the dream. He is what happens when the soul tries to survive under metrics. When intuition is pressed into a uniform and told to meet deadlines.

Lu-Tze, the sweeper monk, sees this. And crucially, he doesn’t try to resolve it with doctrine or logic. He doesn’t lecture. He doesn’t offer a syllabus. Instead, he teaches Lobsang with confusion. With humor. With badly-timed jokes and inexplicable errands. His method is methodlessness: pedagogy by surprise. He introduces Lobsang to the art of the sidelong glance, the subtextual lesson, the broomstroke that changes history.

This is not revolution in the industrial sense—there are no manifestos, no barricades. It’s resistance by living otherwise. To take joy in something unmeasurable. To make tea slowly. To laugh at a pun. These are not small things. In a world obsessed with precision, a bowl of noodles can be an act of defiance. A quiet joke can derail a deterministic future.

Lu-Tze teaches Lobsang that time is not a prison to be maintained but a river to be floated on, or sometimes stepped out of entirely. In doing so, he reframes the problem. The question is no longer how to perfect time, but how to inhabit it. How to dwell in it, care for it, misuse it even—and in doing so, reclaim it.

Lobsang’s journey, then, is not to choose between Jeremy and himself, but to integrate the two. To become both clock and cloud. Both structure and soul. This synthesis—impossible, absurd, necessary—is the real victory. Because the enemy is not order, nor even chaos, but the idea that one must erase the other to function.

In a culture that demands specialization and speed, Lobsang learns instead to be whole. Not perfect, not optimized—just whole. That, in the end, is what saves the world: not stopping time, not preserving it, but allowing it to contain multitudes.

Stopping the clock isn’t about breaking time—it’s about restoring it. Thief of Time argues that history isn’t a riddle to be solved or a path to be completed. It’s a garden. Messy, uneven, and alive. And someone, quietly, has to sweep the paths.

THE AUDITORS

The Auditors in Thief of Time are terrifying from central casting not because they’re evil in the traditional sense, but because they’re pure function. They’re obsessed with eliminating chaos, optimizing everything, and making the universe neat, clean, and predictable. In that way, they’re like a cosmic version of the “paperclip maximizer” thought experiment—an AI that pursues its goal with such blind efficiency that it destroys everything else in the process.

They don’t hate humanity. They just see people as messy. Irrational. Inefficient. Too unpredictable to fit into a perfectly ordered system. So their solution is to remove the mess entirely—by removing us.

This is what makes them funny. They’re not monsters in jackboots. They’re not driven by hatred. They’re driven by logic—cold, bloodless logic. They’re what happens when you take the tools of technocratic liberalism—optimization, system design, rational planning—and strip away any empathy, humility, or tolerance for contradiction. What’s left is a mindset that wants the world to be smooth, silent, and sterile.

In that sense, the Auditors are like the evil twin of the liberal world order: not violent tyrants, but clean managers of doom. They don’t scream. They just delete.

Now contrast that with the monks. They’re flawed, yes—but they still tolerate mess. They try to keep time flowing properly, understanding it’s a balancing act, not a solved equation. They’re like caretakers of a delicate ecosystem rather than engineers of a perfect machine.

But even they fall short. Because they, too, come from a worldview that believes in managing history—as if history were something you could balance forever. And when time begins to break apart, their calm detachment becomes paralysis.

Only Lu-Tze can respond—not because he’s stronger, but because he’s freer. He doesn’t buy into the idea that the world can be perfected. He doesn’t try to control history. He just shows up, broom in hand, and starts sweeping. He accepts the chaos. He works within it. He does the job, with humility and humor.

In an age where both authoritarian systems and well-meaning managerial ones are failing—where optimization itself becomes a form of violence—Lu-Tze represents something radically different. Not a new system. Not a better theory. Just a person doing honest work without illusions of control.

 In refusing the ego’s demand to be seen, branded, optimized. He chooses simple labor over a life of performance. He holds on to his mind, even as he gives his body to the work.

Because in Lu-Tze’s quiet refusal to turn his soul into a product, there’s a radical dignity—one that many in modern, “creative” industries have traded away in exchange for LinkedIn clout or “personal branding.” In this light, sweeping isn’t just a job. It’s a form of resistance. A refusal to be consumed by the economy of self-exploitation.

This continues in a sort of, you know, Machiavellian way—like somewhere back in the boardrooms of capitalism in the 1950s, someone realized a terrible truth: if we only work them physically, they still have their minds to themselves. They can think. They can dissent. They can dream. But if we own their minds—if we capture their attention, their imagination, their very sense of self—we won’t need to police them. They’ll police themselves.

So the strategy shifts. The new labor isn’t just lifting or building; it’s aligning yourself with corporate values, being “passionate” about KPIs, injecting your personality into your emails. The worker becomes the product. The sellable thing is no longer what you do, but who you are—or at least, who you pretend to be.

And here, again, Lu-Tze sweeps in—not as a guru, but as a quiet rebuke. He sweeps the floor, not his soul. He gives the world his labor, but never his mind. In this age where rebellion looks like burnout and docility looks like ambition, the old monk with a broom might be the last revolutionary.

The strategy doesn’t just shape the workplace, it colonizes the imagination. It bleeds directly into our storytelling, especially in Hollywood and Netflix-era content, where the protagonist has subtly shifted. The old hero archetypes—the farmer called to greatness, the dreamer resisting the empire—have been replaced by agents, analysts, special forces vets, or start-up founders. These are people who already belong to systems of control. They’re not breaking out—they’re maintaining order, upholding protocol, or innovating inside frameworks that already exist.

Even when they “rebel,” it’s within limits that flatter the machine: the FBI agent who goes rogue to save the world still proves the FBI was right to hire her. The ex-military man haunted by war trauma still resolves it through more violence, but now “on his own terms.” The tech bro turned savior doesn’t overthrow the system—he just upgrades it. These characters don’t escape the algorithm—they are the algorithm’s fantasy of rebellion. Branded authenticity.

It’s all part of that same Machiavellian realization: don’t just command people—make them want it. Don’t suppress their individuality—monetize it. The contemporary protagonist is no longer a mirror to our struggles; he’s a recruiting poster. He performs freedom while embodying control. And in that sense, these narratives are the cultural arm of the same logic that gave us the corporate wellness seminar, the “personal brand,” and the company Slack channel that feels like a dystopian high school.

This is why someone like Lu-Tze matters so much. He isn’t optimized. He isn’t curated. He’s not a brand. He’s just a guy doing what needs doing, outside the spectacle. And that’s why he’s radical.

What we’re seeing is the deep saturation of ideology—not in the old sense of state propaganda or brute censorship, but in a much more insidious form: narrative capture. Capital doesn’t want to stop stories—it wants to own them. And what better way than to write the protagonist as someone whose only real power is to work better within the system?

So rebellion becomes a product feature. The hacker is now a start-up founder. The punk is an influencer. The rogue cop is the best cop. The spy questions authority, but only to save the world on its terms. It’s not that culture stopped telling stories of resistance—it’s that resistance got turned into a genre with a three-act structure and a Disney+ spin-off.

In this environment, every main character is either trauma-forged or professionally competent. They have to be broken, but in a narratively useful way. And most importantly, they must be redeemable by the system. Their inner conflict resolves when they get their badge back, their startup funded, or their team reassembled. 

Catharsis becomes compliance.

Now contrast that with Lu-Tze: the sweeper monk who doesn’t seek attention, who dodges the spotlight, who doesn’t want to be the main character. He refuses the call—not out of fear, but out of understanding. He knows that history is made by people who don’t try to control it. He sweeps. He listens. He waits. And when he acts, he does so without drama.

In a world that’s turned “authenticity” into a monetizable trait and main characters into brand extensions, Lu-Tze is dangerous. He’s not “off the grid” in a performative way—he’s simply free. Free in the oldest and strangest sense: detached, modest, impossible to incentivize. He’s immune to optimization.

This is why Pratchett’s world hits harder now than it did when he wrote it. He saw what was coming—not just the collapse of systems, but the rise of counterfeit freedom, scripted rebellion, and algorithmic individuality. And he offered something better: humility, absurdity, action without ego.

What Pratchett sketches in Thief of Time is not just a witty fantasy about monks tinkering with clocks—it’s a profound meditation on history, time, and agency. If Fukuyama’s “End of History” imagines a world where liberal democracy and capitalism have resolved all major ideological conflicts, then time, in that schema, becomes flat and singular: we’ve arrived, the story is over, and all that remains is management.

This is the world the Auditors dream of. They abhor the messiness of human narratives and long to impose an eternal present, scrubbed clean of desire, error, and surprise. In a way, they are the spiritual children of the End of History thesis—believers in order for its own sake, where time is reduced to quantifiable ticks, a perfect loop with no deviation.

But Pratchett gives us another vision in the Monks of Time. Unlike the Auditors, the Monks understand that time is not a monolith. It is lived unevenly across the world. A grieving village needs more time. A battlefield needs to pause. A moment of epiphany must stretch beyond the confines of the clock. Their work is to redistribute time, not in the cold logic of administration, but in the spirit of care and responsiveness. They are not trying to stop history, nor complete it—they’re trying to keep it humane.

And that is why Lu‑Tze, the humble sweeper, who operates in the cracks of the grand system, understands that the world is not governed by doctrines or end-states, but by small acts of compassion, disruption, and patience. While the Abbot contemplates the eternal in infant form, Lu‑Tze walks the earth, subtly correcting course, never seeking credit. He embodies an ancient truth found in both Zen koans and Marxist critique: that true understanding isn’t about controlling history, but about living rightly within it—even if that means sweeping floors and defying fate in small, absurd, very human ways.

In this framework, Thief of Time becomes a powerful rebuttal to any notion of temporal finality. It’s not just that history hasn’t ended—it’s that history, like time itself, must remain alive, messy, and open to revision.

A Carrier Bag Theory of Systems

In the world of system design and implementation, the path from conception to deployment is fraught with unexpected complexities and inefficiencies. As John Gall might astutely observe, systems invariably cost more, take longer, and deliver less than anticipated. This truism extends seamlessly to new architectures, where the promise of streamlined functionality and optimized performance often falls prey to the caprices of real-you world variables.

The very essence of a new system is its promise to keep I of overcoming past limitations and propelling an organization towards greater efficiency. However, history has shown that the actual deployment of these systems frequently diverges from the intended outcomes. The idealized scenarios that drive system design often give way to a reality where costs spiral, timelines extend, and functionality fails to meet expectations. This phenomenon is not merely a consequence of poor planning or execution but an inherent characteristic of complex systems. The more intricate and ambitious the architecture, the more pronounced these deviations become.

The Shifting Sands of Problem Domains:

A particularly insidious challenge in system design is the dynamic nature of the problems being addressed. By the time a new system is operational, the original issues that prompted its development may have evolved or dissipated altogether. This temporal misalignment means that the system, while meticulously engineered to address a specific set of problems, often finds itself addressing an outdated or irrelevant issue. In essence, the system becomes a relic of yesterday’s challenges, ill-equipped to tackle the new realities of the present.

The Stumbling Blocks of Legacy Solutions:

Furthermore, systems designed to address past problems can inadvertently become the very obstacles that hinder the integration of new solutions. Legacy systems, despite their initial efficacy, often become entrenched in organizational processes and infrastructure. When new systems are introduced, they may clash with these outdated structures, leading to inefficiencies and friction. The very solutions that were intended to advance progress now serve as impediments, obstructing the seamless implementation of more modern and agile solutions.

The Iterative Path Forward:

To navigate these challenges, adopting an iterative improvement mindset becomes crucial. Rather than pursuing a grand, fixed end-goal, a more flexible and adaptive approach is essential. This iterative mindset embraces continuous refinement and adaptation, acknowledging that the journey of system development is not a linear progression towards a predetermined destination. Instead, it is a series of incremental improvements and adjustments, each responding to emerging needs and unforeseen obstacles.

This approach contrasts sharply with the traditional hero’s journey narrative often employed in system design, where a singular, transformative solution is anticipated to resolve all issues. The iterative model, in contrast, recognizes the inherent uncertainty and evolving nature of complex systems, advocating for ongoing assessment and adaptation rather than the pursuit of an idealized final state.

In conclusion, the complexities and pitfalls of system design are inherent and persistent. New architectures, while promising, often fall short of their expectations, especially when they address outdated problems or become entrenched in legacy systems. Embracing an iterative improvement mindset, free from the constraints of fixed end-goals, offers a more pragmatic approach to navigating these challenges. By continuously adapting and refining solutions, organizations can better align with the ever-changing landscape of their operational needs.

Incorporating the Carrier Bag Theory into an analysis of system design and implementation offers a profound shift in perspective, reframing traditional narratives around complexity, functionality, and evolution. The Carrier Bag Theory, proposed by Ursula K. Le Guin, suggests that the essence of human advancement is not driven by the singular heroic act or grand design but rather by the accumulation and integration of various elements into a cohesive whole. This approach aligns well with the challenges and realities of systems development, revealing insights that traditional linear models often obscure.

The Carrier Bag of System Design:

Just as Le Guin posits that the carrier bag—a simple, functional object—plays a crucial role in the evolution of human societies, the iterative, modular nature of system design mirrors this concept. Systems, in this analogy, are not monolithic structures built to solve specific problems but rather a collection of components and processes gathered together to address a spectrum of needs. This approach emphasizes the importance of flexibility, adaptability, and incremental progress.

The Cost and Complexity Mirage:

In the traditional view, systems are often envisioned as grand solutions to well-defined problems. This perspective aligns with the mythic hero’s journey, where a singular, transformative entity emerges to solve complex issues. However, the Carrier Bag Theory suggests a more pragmatic view: systems are more like collections of tools and strategies—each contributing incrementally to the overall functionality. Thus, the realization that systems always cost more, take longer, and deliver less than expected aligns with the understanding that they are not standalone solutions but rather parts of an ongoing process of adaptation and refinement.

The Problem Shift and Legacy Systems:

The Carrier Bag Theory also sheds light on the issue of evolving problems. Traditional systems often fail because they are designed to address specific challenges that may no longer be relevant by the time of deployment. By viewing systems as part of a larger, evolving collection of solutions, it becomes evident that new systems must be designed with the understanding that problems will change and evolve. Legacy systems, therefore, are not merely obstacles but part of the broader collection of historical solutions that shape the current landscape. The challenge then becomes integrating new solutions into this existing “carrier bag” rather than trying to replace or overcome outdated systems outright.

Iterative Improvement and Flexible Solutions:

Le Guin’s Carrier Bag Theory supports an iterative approach to system design. Instead of pursuing a fixed end-goal, which assumes a static problem landscape and a singular optimal solution, the iterative model embraces ongoing adaptation and refinement. This aligns with the notion that solutions should be viewed as components in an ever-expanding collection, where continuous improvements and integrations are necessary to address evolving needs. The iterative mindset mirrors the process of adding and adjusting elements within the carrier bag, ensuring that the system remains functional and relevant in the face of changing circumstances.

In Conclusion:

Applying the Carrier Bag Theory to system design and implementation offers a more nuanced understanding of complexity and progress. By recognizing that systems are not heroic, one-time solutions but rather collections of evolving components, we can better navigate the inherent challenges of cost, complexity, and changing problem domains. This perspective encourages a shift towards iterative, adaptable approaches, aligning with the ongoing process of integration and improvement that mirrors the accumulation of diverse elements in Le Guin’s carrier bag. In doing so, organizations can more effectively manage the dynamic nature of system development and remain responsive to the shifting landscape of their operational needs.

At War With the Archetype: The Fluidity of Roles in the Monomyth

Leave a comment

The archetypes, those universal symbols of human experience, are not fixed stars in the firmament. They are currents in a river, shifting with the flow of time, circumstance, and choice. You may begin as the Hero, setting forth on your journey to slay the dragon, but in the act of victory—or failure—you may find yourself transformed into the very thing you sought to defeat. The Hero, the Villain, the Mentor, and even the Fool are not roles assigned at birth but masks we wear, exchange, and abandon as our stories unfold.

Consider the Hero’s Journey, the backbone of myth and narrative across cultures. It begins with the Call to Adventure, the threshold where the ordinary self steps into the unknown. But what happens after the return? Is the hero who brings fire to mankind still the hero when the flames burn too brightly? Ask Prometheus—or better yet, ask Frankenstein’s monster, the rejected child of hubris and ambition. Here, the archetype bends: the savior becomes the oppressor, the creator becomes the destroyer.

This fluidity is not a flaw in the archetype but its greatest truth. Archetypes are not static ideals; they are dynamic energies, shaped by the choices of the individual and the collective. The mentor who leads the hero to glory may one day become the shadowy figure who clings to power, fearing irrelevance. The trickster who mocks the world’s order may, with a single act of courage, become the savior it never expected. Even the villain—the so-called “big bad”—may, through redemption or necessity, turn their sword against a greater darkness.

TV Tropes captures this truth well: characters are not confined to their roles. Heroes fall, villains redeem, sidekicks rise. The “Heel–Face Turn” and the “Face–Heel Turn” are not just plot twists; they are reflections of our own capacity to change. We are not bound by our archetypes because we are the ones who shape them.

Take Darth Vader. The Hero of the Clone Wars becomes the scourge of the galaxy, only to redeem himself as a father in his final moments. He did not abandon the archetype; he expanded it. Or Walter White, who begins as the provider—a wounded everyman—only to succumb to his shadow and become the very dragon his family fears.

So, some of the problems of the world today can be traced back to our refusal to acknowledge this fluidity of archetypes. It is a refusal born of pride, ignorance, and fear—a desire to cling to a single role in the story, even when the story itself has moved on. We are so determined to see ourselves as the “good guys” that we fail to notice the moment we cross the line, when our actions no longer serve the greater good but instead perpetuate harm.

History is littered with examples of heroes who became tyrants. Nations rise as liberators, only to become oppressors. Ideologies that began with noble intent calcify into dogma, and their champions refuse to see how the world has changed around them. This is the shadow side of the Hero’s Journey: the inability to relinquish the sword once the dragon is slain.

Take the post-war world as an example. The victors of World War II saw themselves as the saviors of freedom and democracy—and rightfully so. But in their quest to preserve that freedom, many of those same powers became the very forces of domination they had once fought against. Proxy wars, coups, and “policing actions” were justified under the guise of heroism, even as they devastated lives and undermined the very values they claimed to uphold.

In the early days of technology, Silicon Valley cast itself as the archetype of The Magnificent Bastard. These were the clever rebels who hacked the system, disrupted the status quo, and made audacious plays to democratize power. Steve Jobs in a garage, Bill Gates dropping out of Harvard—these figures embodied the trope of the underdog genius who bends the rules to make the world better. The internet itself, a digital Wild West, promised freedom: open access, decentralized networks, and an escape from the control of corporate and governmental gatekeepers.

But as the story progressed, the archetype shifted. The disruptors became The Crime Lords. Companies that once positioned themselves as the Robin Hoods of innovation now rule like shadowy mafia bosses. Facebook, once a scrappy startup connecting friends, became a data-mining behemoth wielding influence over global elections. Amazon, which began as a plucky online bookstore, now crushes small businesses under the weight of its monopoly. These tech titans no longer operate as the audacious rogues taking on the system—they are the system, enforcing their control with ruthless precision.

The arc from The Magnificent Bastard to The Crime Lord was driven by a refusal to adapt. Instead of accepting the responsibility that comes with power, tech leaders clung to the hero narrative, even as their actions began to resemble the very institutions they once opposed. In doing so, they revealed the shadow side of their archetype: when cleverness gives way to corruption, and disruption becomes domination.

In politics, the archetype of The Wise Mentor is a familiar one: the seasoned figure who guides the Hero and helps the next generation rise. In the mid-20th century, many of today’s gerontocratic leaders earned their place in this role. Figures like Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell, and Nancy Pelosi were once the rising stars of their political parties, fighting for civil rights, economic reforms, or guiding nations through crises. They stood as beacons of wisdom and experience, trusted to light the way forward.

But as time went on, the Wise Mentors failed to recognize when their time had passed. Instead of stepping aside to allow new voices to shape the story, they slid into the role of The Obstructive Bureaucrat. This trope embodies those who cling to power not out of necessity but out of fear of change. Rather than nurturing the next generation, they block progress, defending outdated systems and prioritizing personal legacies over collective growth.

The problem lies in their inability to let go of the hero narrative from their youth. They see themselves as the eternal Saviors, even as their policies and approaches grow stale and their decisions increasingly harm the systems they once sought to protect. What they fail to understand is that The Wise Mentor is not meant to dominate the story but to guide the Hero and then step aside. Refusing to evolve turns them into antagonists, figures of frustration rather than inspiration.

This narrative stagnation traps entire systems in a cycle of decay, as younger generations are denied their opportunity to rise as The New Heroes. The archetypal journey is meant to flow—Mentors guide, Heroes ascend, and the story moves forward. When any one figure refuses to relinquish their role, the tale turns tragic, and the very archetypes that once promised hope and progress become the barriers to both.

On a personal level, the same principle applies. The individual who insists on remaining the Hero at all costs risks becoming the Villain in their relationships, their communities, or even their own story. The refusal to adapt to new circumstances—to accept that one’s role has changed—is a denial of the very essence of the archetype. The Hero must return from the journey, and with that return comes transformation. To remain in the mode of the slayer, the conqueror, or the revolutionary long after the battle is over is to invite ruin, both for oneself and for others.

This rigidity is not just a problem of power; it is also a problem of identity. We crave simplicity, a narrative that tells us, “I am the good guy, and they are the bad guys.” But the truth is far messier. In any conflict, both sides see themselves as heroes in their own stories. And when we refuse to see our own capacity for villainy, we blind ourselves to the harm we might be causing.

Conversely, some of the greatest redemption stories come from those who recognize when their role has changed. The Villain who acknowledges their cruelty and seeks to atone, the Hero who realizes they have overstepped and steps back into humility—these are the moments when the archetypes serve us, rather than the other way around.

So how do we escape this trap? How do we live in harmony with the fluidity of archetypes rather than being consumed by them? First, we must embrace self-awareness. The hero who cannot see their shadow is doomed to be consumed by it. Second, we must learn the art of letting go. Roles are not permanent. You may be the Hero today, but tomorrow you may need to step aside for someone else. The Mentor knows when to pass the torch; the Trickster knows when the joke has run its course.

CARRIER BAG THEORY

Ursula K. Le Guin’s Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction reimagines storytelling as a collaborative, relational process rather than a singular, heroic arc. She shifts the focus from the classic “hero with a weapon” narrative—the spear, sword, or tool of domination—to the humble, inclusive “carrier bag.” The carrier bag gathers, holds, and sustains life, representing a collective and interdependent way of thinking about stories. Archetypes, in this framework, are no longer static roles like “hero” or “villain”; they are fluid, constantly shifting depending on context and the relationships within the system.

This fluidity becomes especially clear when we consider what is carried. A carrier bag might hold seeds of nourishment, fostering growth and life. But it could just as easily carry the seeds of destruction—tools, ideas, or materials that can unravel the very systems they were meant to sustain. Take, for example, the materials for an atomic bomb. In one context, they might symbolize ingenuity and progress; in another, they bring about catastrophic destruction. The carrier itself is neutral—it is not inherently good or evil. It is the relationship between what is carried, how it is used, and the choices made by those wielding it that shape its impact.

This mirrors the fluid nature of archetypes. The same figure who embodies the Hero archetype—gathering and using tools for the collective good—can transform into the Villain when what they carry becomes harmful or destructive. Robert Oppenheimer, for instance, can be seen as a Promethean hero, bringing the “fire” of nuclear knowledge to humanity, but his role quickly shifted to that of a destroyer as the devastating potential of that knowledge became clear.

Even on a biological level, the metaphor deepens. Consider a carrier bacteria: it might transport nutrients essential for life, or it might carry a deadly pathogen. The act of carrying itself is fluid and neutral—what matters is the interaction between the carrier, the carried, and the environment. Similarly, in archetypal terms, the Hero does not stand apart from the story—they are shaped by what they carry, how they use it, and the consequences that follow.

Le Guin’s theory reminds us that stories—and archetypes—are not fixed battles for dominance but evolving processes of relationship and responsibility. Whether carrying seeds for sustenance or the tools of destruction, the archetype’s role is defined not by static labels but by the choices made and the story unfolding around them.

The archetypes are tools, not chains. To cling to one, or to deny its shifting nature, is to deny the fluid, ever-changing reality of life itself. We are all, at once, the Hero, the Villain, and everything in between. The journey is not to remain fixed in one role, but to learn when to take up the mask—and when to set it down.

This, then, is the lesson: archetypes are not prisons. They are mirrors, reflecting back not only who we are but who we might become. The Hero’s Journey is cyclical because life is cyclical. Who we are at the threshold of the adventure is not who we will be when we return. And if we remain rigid—if we refuse to grow, to adapt—we risk stagnation. Even in myth, the Hero who cannot change becomes the Tyrant, and the Tyrant is but the next step in the cycle.

So, do not fear the fluidity of the archetypes. Embrace it. The masks we wear are not lies; they are possibilities. To be the Hero is to risk becoming the Villain, but it is also to hold the potential to be the Mentor, the Healer, or even the Trickster who burns the world down so it may be built anew.

We are all, at once, the Hero and the Shadow. The journey is not about avoiding the darkness—it is about knowing when to step into the light.

The Hero’s Journey

Leave a comment

Buckle up, chum, for a headfirst dive into the primordial soup of narrative. This hero’s journey you mention, it’s become a cultural shorthand, a marketing buzzword tossed around like a hacky frisbee at a PTA picnic. Folks brandy their screenplays and self-help manuals with it, a hero’s journey here, a hero’s journey there, without ever cracking the spine of Campbell’s dusty tome. It’s enough to make you wonder if the monomyth itself isn’t a vast, postmodern conspiracy – a labyrinthine archetype designed to trap the unwary writer in its echoing corridors of cliché.

They wouldn’t recognize a Refusal of the Call if it bit them on their collective unconscious. These journeymen (and women, if we’re being woke about it) think the hero’s path is a Disneyland ride – magical negro as a sidekick, a three-headed plot device for a climax, and a happily-ever-after that wouldn’t give a Disneyland animatronic a second glance.

Here’s the truth, veiled in layers of obfuscation: the hero’s journey ain’t a rigid map, some holy grail of plot structure. It’s a primal whisper, a psychic blueprint etched into the collective unconscious. These stages – the Ordinary World, the Call to Adventure, the Refusal of the Call – they’re echoes of our own psychological dramas. The hero, that schlemiel stumbling into the unknown, that’s us, baby. Us, grappling with the inertia of our daily grind, the siren song of something more, the paralyzing fear of taking that first, irrevocable step.

The real hero’s trip is a messy, non-linear descent into the belly of the whacked-out whale – weird encounters with shadow figures, a descent into the collective unconscious that would make Freud blush, and a return that might leave you questioning if the hero even remembers where they came from, let alone bringing back the elixir for the betterment of the tribe. It’s a cosmic joke, a funhouse mirror reflecting the fragmented psyche of the modern world, and most folks just want a hero with a six-pack and a quip.

But Campbell, bless his Jungian heart, wasn’t peddling a formula. He was unveiling a universal truth – that the human story, at its core, is a desperate yearning for transformation. We crave that crucible, that white-hot furnace where our leaden selves are transmuted into something stronger, something…well, heroic. It’s messy, this journey. It’s fraught with false prophets and dead ends, with mentors who turn out to be grifters and sidekicks who become rivals. It’s a descent into the belly of the whacked-out whale of existence, and sometimes, you just wanna puke and hightail it back to the shallows.

But those who persevere, who navigate the labyrinth without succumbing to cynicism or despair, they emerge changed. They return with the elixir, the hard-won wisdom gleaned from the crucible. Maybe it’s a social commentary disguised as a detective novel, or a scathing indictment of the military-industrial complex masquerading as a space opera. Whatever form it takes, it bears the scars of the journey, a testament to the transformative power of the myth itself.

So, the next time some poseur throws around “hero’s journey” like a parlor trick, remember this: it’s a potent symbol, a gateway to the hidden chambers of the human psyche. It’s a reminder that even the most mundane existence holds the potential for epic transformation. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a rendezvous with a talking penguin and a box of Lucky Strikes. This hero’s journey ain’t gonna unravel itself.