| |
|
...a long period of immunosuppression (which would've been necessary to stop their bodies rejecting the "little wires").
Mm. You know, that sounded kinda plausible, given that the "they'll die without their medication" thing was a bit of a McGuffin, but: don't you only need immunosuppressants if you've been implanted with live tissue?
When D (who is a nurse) read this, she assumed the "medication" was some sort of psychoactive, boosting the animals' brainwaves to the proper state to interface with the armor. Immunosuppression never entered her mind: after all, you don't go on immunosuppressants for a hip replacement, or for breast implants, or even for a pacemaker...
Of course, one can't necessarily expect Signor Morricone to know this: and, as Tricky says, one gets the sensation that, in his drive to give his characters a happy ending, he did play rather fast-and-loose with plausible science.
And I think it's interesting that he managed to create enough sympathy for his characters, and to have us all rooting so hard for them, that we are almost comically willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, to let him off the hook for his lapses of research—because, as appalling as those lapses are, they alloowed for an ending that was hugely satisfying on an emotional level. Science be damned: in the end, only compassion really matters.
Actually, if there's an overarching theme to WE3, that's probably it: only compassion will save us. Not just the kindness of the hobo, but the compassion that Roseanne, by her sacrifice—by her example—awakens in We3 themselves.
Roseanne's the real Christ-figure, here, isn't she? Not just because she sacrifices her life to save Bandit, but because in so doing she provides a model by which Bandit and Tinker may be saved. Remember, at this point Tinker has run off, abandoning Bandit to his fate: and throughout their dventure, Tinker has been cynical and scornful of Bandit's goals and leadership—one gets the feeling that Tinker only stays with the group out of self-interest and safety in numbers.
Tinker cannot be blamed for this: it is a cat's nature to look out for Number One—cats are solitary, after all, not pack-hunters like dogs. But after witnessing Roseanne's self-sacrifice, Tinker does something extraordinary (as even Trendle acknowledges)—Tinker overcomes a cat's biological imperative, and returns for a fallen comrade—and later tends to the ailing Bandit. Tinker, biologically programmed for selfishness, has learned compassion: flawed, gross cat-nature has been redeemed by sacrificial example.
A couple of other notes:
Was most impressed with Giorgio's writing, esp. his ability to define distinctive personalities for We3 through aggressively simple dialogue—to show us, for instance, that Bandit is both poet and dreamer despite having a working vocabulary of only about 300 words. The descriptions of abstract, poetic concepts like Home (in issue #1) and Death (in this issue—"far black where") were simply inspired, and inspiredly simple.
Frank's storytelling has never been better. He's really creating a new visual vocabulary here, and working the hell out of it. Seriously, I would stack this stuff up against Eisner at his most innovative.
Finally: someone mentioned, I think in the thread for issue #2, the notion that We3 (in their "civilian" identities) were all named for various rogue/outsider figures—Bandit, Tinker, Pirate. Note that as the story comes to a close, the We3 "family," temporarily reduced to two, is three again—and that the new third is another who stands outside society, and nameless (to us) but for his designation: Bandit, Tinker, Hobo. |
|
|
