Parley Info |
| Join the Crew! Rules & Guidelines Navigating Parley FAQ Introductions Latest News: Celebrating 3 Years! Joinable Groups |
"Mother's love, Jack! You should know better than to wake a man when he's sleeping. It's bad luck."- Joshamee Gibbs, Curse of the Black Pearl |
PotC 4 Pics Pirates of the Caribbean 4 Johnny Depp Joe Pancake What's the Last Movie You Saw? The Person Below Me Game Ask a Pirate | |
Our Button:![]() |
|||
| Avast, ye maties! We welcome you to Parley with us! Currently, you be a guest on our ship. This means you can only see certain room on board our ship. If you join our crew, you'll be able to access crewmember-only sections, and use many crew-only features such as customizing yer profile, sending personal messages by messenger pigeon, and votin' in polls. Joinin' us is quick, free, and as painless as it can get! Make yer mark here! If ye be already a crew member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| In Defense of Governor Swann | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 24 2007, 07:50 PM (982 Views) | |
| Alia Atreides | Aug 24 2007, 07:50 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Journeyman Craftswoman
|
A bit ago, fairly long, I did a "In Defense of Beckett" thread, and something I read recently made me feel that it was necessary to defend Weatherby now. I got the Pirates of the Caribbean Ultimate Sticker Book and as part of the way you know where to put the stickers was to match up the shapes and use the descriptions to figure out what goes there. Under Governor Swann was this description:
I think that this is an unfair characterization of Governor Swann, one that's sort of perpetuated in a lot of the children's sort of books--this sticker one and also the Visual Guide. While I will agree that he has difficulty keeping Elizabeth out of trouble, I do not think that is really all his fault. He's a single parent raising her (since PotC doesn't seem to acknowledge that he's still have some help), and that's a tough job. And parents can't always be blamed for the way their kids turn out--I mean look at me--my parents did their hardest to get me to study a science at university, and I'm studying languages. Elizabeth is naturally headstrong and stubborn, and will do whatever she pleases, no matter who tells her what to do. I think a lot though of his not coming down on Elizabeth is due to how much he loves her--and because she would also be the last connection to his wife. In the first scene of CotBP where we see him, Elizabeth, and Will together, he starts to tell Elizabeth that her actions are too familiar, but stops--a minor offense really, to people of today's beliefs, and he probably thought that since they knew each other from childhood, it was proabably fine to let them go on--hence why he did not insist that she stopped. And consistently what he does throughout the film is done because of how much he loves her. He is a doting father, but that cannot be simply taken as him being completely unable to keep her out of trouble. The last charge though is supremely unfair. A Governor would be appointed to a colony because they could control the colony--or that they could control it enough to bring the taxes in. If the taxes were not coming in, and there was too much unrest, then you'd just replace the Governor. Governor Swann is not a man who (in the first film anyway, I don't know as much about the sequels) really seemed to come across as that ineffectual--maybe in a battle, but he is a politician, not a soldier. He has no place in battle. Not only that but Port Royal is acknowledged as having become more civilized in between the time they arrived there, and the time of the Black Pearl's attack (in a deleted scene). While he seems to say that most of it is due to Norrington's efforts--the military could not have completely done that without the assistance of the civilian leadership--Norrington more likely cracked down on piracy--leaving Governor Swann to keep to his part of his duties of governing. I mean, here is a decent and kind character--he tells Will Turner to pass on the compliments for the sword (maybe not quite the most observant nor astute men), but he certainly has a good moral center as well. While he may not have been for rescuing Will--he did after all commit a crime which led to the loss of one of His Majesty's vessels, and also, I think Governor Swann saw it from a point of numbers--risking all those men just to save one. When Elizabeth accepted Norrington's proposal, he also tried to talk to her about her reasoning behind it, and try to guide her in actually thinking about it--he saw the sort of bad reasoning behind it, and the unfairness in it--that she did not make the decision because she loved Norrington, but to save another, and that was not the best reason to enter into a marriage. I like Governor Swann, I think he's a brilliant and awesome character, and that we must end this slander of him. These points are all open to debate of course, and you don't have to support Swann to post in here, but I just thought that if people could get away with publishing that stuff, that at least some sort of defense could be made for him. Norrington and Beckett have their supporters, but poor Weatherby doesn't really seem to have all that many. |
![]() |
|
| Suluna | Aug 24 2007, 10:44 PM Post #2 |
|
Cook
|
I agree that he doesn't deserve that kind of attitude from people. Though he's not my favourite character, by far, but he's still a good guy and should be treated as such. I never thought of him as a very bright candle in a lantern, he was a character there for comic relief, in a way. Think of the hand-in-the-drawer scene. And afterwards he came out of hiding and acted all tough. That never bothered me as much as it could have because he was a kind man, just very much the opposite of his daughter... which would make him weak, basically. Maybe the statement they made is correct, but it's still not necessary to spell it out like that in a mass-produced book.
|
![]() |
|
| Alia Atreides | Aug 24 2007, 11:30 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Journeyman Craftswoman
|
Most of the stuff--books and the like produced around PotC fail to grasp any of the complexities of many of the characters. Especially the secondary characters. Now, I may be very critical of Ted & Terry, mostly regarding their work in the sequels, but whether by design or unintentionally, their secondary characters are more complex than one would often expect. I mean, it's like real life, few people are straightforwardly good or bad, they simply make decisions and take actions to the best of their reasonings, or can find ways to justify the good or bad decisions they make. That's part of being human...but often times books like this paint you in the good or evil light. By comparison, Elizabeth Swann's description is glowing and can only paint her in a good light. They fail to mention that for her the ends justify the means (killing Sparrow to save the rest, promising to marry someone in order to coerce them into saving another individual). It's just all to common to look at character and instead of classifying them as being necessarily protagonists and antagonists (which are more neutral terms versus heroes and villains) they treat them all in shades of black and white with no room for grey. I mean, this is a book that classified Norrington as a landloving villain...I mean, I'll rant and rant when they get things wrong about historical facts, but that's easier to forgive than the blatant inequality in which they treat the characters. Because Jack, Will, and Liz are our heroes, no mention can be made of anything they did that was bad--and if it is, it is always being justified. For anyone on the villains side, they delight in pointing out their cruel natures and flaws, as opposed to thinking about the reasonings behind them, and as a way to make the heroes more heroic. In that statement I really object to the last part, because I don't see any evidence to really justify it--if Swann had so much trouble controlling the island, or anything in Port Royal, why would Beckett have coerced him into working for him? He even stated later that he had outlived his use...if they had said that, "He has difficulty keeping his daughter Elizabeth out of trouble, and trouble controlling some of the people of Port Royal," then yeah, I wouldn't have like it, but I wouldn't object as much. It wouldn't be painting the same absolute as the previous statement did. |
![]() |
|
| Brookworm | Aug 28 2007, 06:43 PM Post #4 |
|
Wretch
|
Great analyzation Alia. You have put into words one of the thoughts that has been nagging and flittering around in my head for awhile now. |
![]() |
|
| Jonathan | Oct 19 2007, 06:18 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Wretch
|
Shameless reviving of an older thread.
Heroes and villains are relative terms in this case. We should remember that the movie(s) are based around pirates. The films are naturally going to attract a great deal of "positive" attention to the main characters - who are, admittedly, pirates in varying forms. I'll agree that Governor Swann got short-changed badly by the second movie. He went from being the political man in charge to being a defeated pawn on Beckett's chessboard. Beckett's remark that Swann had outlived his use can be taken both ways, however. If, in fact, Swann was no longer effective in his role as governor, why was he not replaced in a more normal fashion? That was why he ended up in the Caribbean, I believe; to replace the previous governor. On the other side of it, if Beckett believed that Swann was no longer useful in the political sense, why did he feel it necessary to coerce him into working for the Company? Swann may have had his political connections, but Beckett clearly had more and better ones, simply by virtue of his presence in the Caribbean. That, in turn, gives rise to the question of, what uses for Swann did Beckett have in mind, given his remark toward the governor? It's possible that Swann was no longer effective as a servant of the King, but perhaps Beckett might have seen some value in him as a servant of the Company? That, of course, doesn't explain why or how Swann came to die - though I'll admit I know nothing of that event, as I missed that part of the third movie; I could be missing something - or what had happened to him after we last saw him in DMC. |
![]() |
|
| Alia Atreides | Oct 21 2007, 02:55 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Journeyman Craftswoman
|
Oooh! That's a very good question! This will contain spoilers for the second and third movies! Don't read past if you don't want to get spoiled. Let's suppose that Swann wasn't really any political value to begin with--despite him saying that his name did carry some weight or some such thing. What connections or skills does he possibly have that could be helpful to Beckett? He knows (supposedly) how to run things. I think that the real value he has, is in his relationship to his daughter. We see Beckett exploiting that relationship to get Swann to work for him, but what if he was keeping Swann around in the thought that things might turn around, and he'd get the chance to use him against his daughter? Beckett is constantly playing one person against another--with almost better results than when Sparrow does it. He plays Will against the pirates, Jack against everyone else (though, whom is playing whom there does get a bit tricky), he's using Elizabeth against Swann...you could almost say that when he asks Jack about Elizabeth Swann, like what was discussed in this thread that when he asks about her he's just trying to find out more he's trying to figure out how this will affect all the other intrigue he has going on...pointless though as it may be seeing as how he is about to go into battle. If, he was holding onto Swann as a bargaining chip against Elizabeth, then he's probably decided that Elizabeth is too far out of his grasp now, that Swann is not worth the trouble anymore. Though if he were smart, I think he would have held on to him. People are loathe to fire on an enemy ship, when you have your father on board it. |
![]() |
|
| Jonathan | Oct 21 2007, 04:26 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Wretch
|
That's not a bad thought. It could very well have happened that he lost a great deal of his influence after Norrington's disgrace, since Swann was very likely to have been the Commodore's "champion". What better (or worse) way to lose respect and standing than to have someone you've been supporting politically take such a fall? That, and what effect did his own daughter's actions have on his political and social standing? I can't imagine that Swann would have escaped the repercussions of Elizabeth's social misdeeds, even if Elizabeth herself did not consider the consequences worth worrying about.
That's very Beckett-like, but I don't know if it would have been very effective. Elizabeth's shown a strong tendency to do as she pleases, regardless who might tell her otherwise. It's not much of a stretch to believe that she would disregard anything her father might say, especially if it was known that he was "allied" with Beckett. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if - despite the fact that he is her father, or perhaps because of that - Elizabeth considered him as potentially manipulatable as anyone else. Though... I do question her ability to know when and how to be subtle. Shoving a pistol into someone's face will make them do what you want, but it's only a temporary solution to any one problem.
Swann might not appear to be very "sharp", but even he would have to question Beckett at some point, without having any solid, believable evidence that Elizabeth truly is alive, well, and "protected". Even knowing how slowly news moved about, he'd have to wonder what was going on beyond Port Royal. Beckett doesn't strike me as the type to provide regular updates, except in the "oh by the way" sort of fashion. It certainly wouldn't be done out of courtesy, and I highly doubt that Swann would dare provoking Beckett with too many constant queries about Elizabeth, unless he felt that information was being withheld from him. With that said... I can't quite envision Beckett being able to use Elizabeth as a means to control Swann for too long. He'd want to know what was going on, and that could only serve to shave time off his "usefulness" to the Company - which might very well have been one of the factors leading to his under-explained demise.
That's presupposing that Elizabeth would have known her father was aboard Endeavour, though I'm sure Beckett would not have been bothered at all to make such a thing known at the first opportunity. It would be a cruel move and one that I can certainly Beckett making, yet at the same time, I don't think Elizabeth, being in the position we see her in at the start of the battle, would have allowed even that knowledge to stop her or the other pirates. Either way, the final result is that Swann could only come out on the losing end. No matter what he did, there was just no way out of the mess. Beckett had almost complete control over the Caribbean and his connections were placed in probably every level of government in England. If Swann had managed to get away from Jamaica and returned home, he would probably have found himself very hard up as a result of Beckett's meddling. If he had refused to aid Beckett, he may have simply been killed. We know from the core of his character that he would have done anything for Elizabeth, and that's what caused him to "change sides". And, I would say, what sent him along to his end. The writers didn't do nearly as good a job with Swann's character as they could have, which is a shame. I'd have liked to know more definitively how he figured into things "behind the scenes" and also what really happened to him between DMC and AWE. Token references just didn't cut it. |
![]() |
|
| themonkey'snameisJack | Dec 21 2009, 09:00 AM Post #8 |
|
Swabbie
|
Yeeeeaahh, I liked Swann. I mean, he was only trying to do the right thing. But as Lucy says in the Peanuts comics:"In all of mankind's history, there has never been more damage done than by people who thought they were doing the right thing" Quote taken from 'You're on your own, Snoopy' |
![]() |
|
| nulldevice | Jan 23 2010, 02:26 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Smuggler
|
Good topic -- sorry I didn't catch it earlier. As to Elizabeth, she was very much her own person and was not to be deterred by anything Gov. Swann did and said. You can see his exasperation often, such as when she escapes from the cabin using the bedsheets ("Elizabeth. what have you done?") or when she declares her loyalty to Will ("He's a blacksmith!"), as well as in numerous more subtle scenes. What was said earlier about the duties of a governor are certainly true: it was really an honorary position in many ways, and much of the day-to-day work was done by various appointed staff. Whether Norrington's disgrace had anything to do with how Beckett acted is hard to say; I thing he just played everything any way he could. Clearly, when Gov. Swann was not willing to cooperate or be a useful pawn in his schemes. he had to remove him from power. It does seem odd that eh should have had to die -- I can't really see how that furthered his cause, and as pointed out earlier, lost him a possible bargaining chip. Nevertheless,having someone as uncooperative was not going to work out for Beckett, so Swann had to go. Elizabeth was a wildcard, hence he thought it wise to arrest and imprison both right away, though Elizabeth probably more as assurance that Gov. Swann would cooperate. His ill-fated escape attempt put an end to that thought, though, which may in turn have sealed Gov. Swann's fate. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Curse of the Black Pearl · Next Topic » |


"Mother's love, Jack! You should know better than to wake a man when he's sleeping. It's bad luck."





I agree that he doesn't deserve that kind of attitude from people. Though he's not my favourite character, by far, but he's still a good guy and should be treated as such.


6:55 PM Jul 11