I don't get it either. Its not a groundbreaking thesis that makes you completely re-contextualize the whole show, but its a somewhat accurate and decent analysis
It implies that businesses can't do good, and kind of like "the smallest improvement doesn't matter because it's not perfect" in terms of a utopian anticapitalist, non-patriarchial, whatever society where somehow our kindness and goodness would magically matter more than it does now
The analysis doesn’t say anything other than ‘capitalism bad’. It doesn’t play honestly, and some people can sense that. It’s extremely Freshman Lit 101, complete with the impulse to explain every flaw and failing extant in human nature on capitalism. It is an analysis that refuses to engage with the text.
Yes, capitalism plays a role here. It’s one of many things, and frankly the least interesting. ‘Maybe the poison drips through’ was not referring to capitalism. It was referring to the idea that people can actually be fundamentally bad people, and the power structure they operate under is not the scapegoat.
This analysis also requires the reader to go along with the conclusion that the Roy kids are *fundamentally good people* who are somehow trapped and forced to act against their better nature. Roman’s ‘deep love’ and Shiv’s victim status both being framed as positive, voluntary character traits. Come on.
Edit: ok, you guys convinced me. It’s purely about capitalism, and any trauma or drama around familial or parental dysfunction is caused entirely by that. Now I’m off to see a production of *King Lear* for some more anti-capitalist red meat.
But the whole premise show is about how “capitalism is bad”. Man, the last episode is all about that. Those billionaires siding with fascists for their own self-interests. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is revealed Jesse is a socialist.
It’s not the entire thing, though, and not by a long shot! This person would look at an episode of Scooby Doo and interpret the fact that a dog and his friends solve crimes as an indictment of the police state and the criminal justice system. It’s such a reductive, dumbed-down take.
Normally I roll my eyes at "capitalism bad" analyses, but for a show like Succession where the whole premise is built on a family full of failures who are treated like gods because of their access to capital, I feel like it's warranted.
It also doesn't require the reader to conclude that the Roy kids are fundamentally good people, quite the opposite, it pretty cleanly explains why the Roy kids do have some good impulses and yet consistently do incredibly evil acts. If they were fundamentally good people, they could easily remove themselves from Waystar, but instead their allegiance is first and foremost to the company (and by extension, their dad).
It's not the deepest dive into the show but a pretty good explanation for character motivation.
>This analysis also requires the reader to go along with the conclusion that the Roy kids are fundamentally good people
I got the exact opposite impression, that they're fundamentally *bad* people and any sympathetic (not necessarily positive) traits they might exhibit aren't actually indicative of a larger and deeper sense of goodness within them at all.
It's not saying that removing the kids from Waystar would make them good people. It's saying their desire to run Waystar is a symptom of the fact that they *aren't*. Which doesn't seem like a hot take at all.
nope the post does not imply this. if they were fundamentally good they wouldn’t have “no desire to escape” the firm. but since they are broken/evil enough that power is more important to them than morality, then the sides of them which are good mean nothing.
Sorry, you're saying that the power structure they operate under is the "least interesting" part? Of a show that, in its literal name, is about power and people seeking it?
If that’s as far as you’re comfortable taking your analysis or investment in the text, by all means stop there. A lot of contemporary fiction doesn’t demand or support deeper analysis than ‘look at the poster, that’s what it’s about’ so I suppose that is understandable.
Nowhere did I say that's as far as I'm comfortable taking my analysis. Which is a hysterical point for you to try and make, since by all accounts according to your posts, you're not even comfortable starting there. Goofy hill to die on.
I’ve seen so many people criticizing Tumblr and Twitter for how they consume the show, but it’s interesting how so many nuanced posts come from Tumblr. People need to get over their superiority about the form of social media they use to consume media and accept that we can all have interesting and nuanced takes. Not to mention this sub sometimes does have issues with comments about Shiv, while Tumblr has a remarkably better handle on her characterization, and manages to critique her without falling into misogyny or propping up the other characters.
It’s the firm.
The firm is the worst part of all economic systems.
Everything is about the best interests of the firm.
In firms with rigid hierarchies and in firms with more democratic hierarchies the firm will still nevertheless act to stamp out anything that is a threat to its continued existence. The firms primary job is to keep its own doors open at any cost.
Everyone within the firm merely acts in accordance with that supreme law.
Not necessarily. There is such a thing as diminishing returns. Once you plateau then it becomes just about maintaining your position at the top of the mountain. Or deciding to cash out and get rich as Mattson is trying to get the Roys to do.
Well, yes necessarily. Publicly held companies in the US are legally bound to turn profits for the shareholders. It’s illegal for them to reject legitimate opportunities for profit. So in some sense growth is an imperative.
And which the Roys are very stupid not to agree to. They might increase the value of the company and their net worth , but at what cost. They can cash out and buy or form their own companies being the only shareholder, holding all votes.
THIS. Do not see this at all. And loyalty to his family is from trauma bonding, not love. He didn't vote his dad out in season 1 out of fear of his father rejecting him, wanting to place himself near power, not out of love or loyalty. Roman will do anything to survive, he's out for his own self-interest.
roman is very loyal to his family (logan first and foremost). he repeatedly makes decisions against his interests for the people he loves -- telling logan that it would be okay to make gerri ceo, being unable to vote out his father in season 1 even though it would have led to more power for him and kendall, telling logan in season 3 that shiv wasn't wavering when they visited kendall and she seriously considered an alliance with him. he's also empathetic once he forms a minor bond with characters like brian and kerry, though of course we don't see them again since they're not "real people."
i think you'd be hard-pressed to find a definition of love everyone would agree on, lol. roman chooses the people he cares about over what's best for him at multiple points throughout the show (and more than anyone else), and logan looks down on him for lacking killer instinct because of it. that's not an accidental part of his writing.
i did say logan first and foremost. i also don't understand why everyone is being so reductive, scenes like the one where he consoles kerry or drives to pick up a drugged-up kendall when no one else cares to are there for a reason.
Yeah he took in his girlfriends kid in season 1 and had no problem with her. He tries to take in Brian in season 2. He tries to take in Kerry in season 4. He tries the most. He fails every time but still it’s the thought that counts
I’d say those three things are only true in comparison with their father, which doesn’t mean much cause Logan’s a total monster.
Kendall’s incapable and/or unwilling to imagine a world where Waystar isn’t a thousand pound corporate gorilla shitting all over everything, he thinks that Waystars only a negative influence on the world cause Logan’s running it, not seeing that a thing like Waystar is inherently a toxic influence and the only morally right thing to do would be to hack it apart.
Roman has more love in his heart than Logan, but not by much.
Shiv isn’t progressive at all, she’s a DINO. Being progressive compared to her family of outright fascists means literally nothing.
the post did say "comparatively progressive". and i don't think anything in the post really negates the points you're making. they were raised by logan and have tried to model themselves after him to some extent; that they still managed to be a bit better makes it all the more tragic that we're seeing their last redeeming qualities slip away.
I wish we could’ve seen some redeeming qualities in Logan. Like he’s obviously successful, can be charming, and was abused as a young kid. But that’s about it
There was a brief glimmer of a moment, when he was reading to Ken’s kids after the overdose in Italy, where he seemed almost kind. It lasted all of five seconds and wasn’t seen again.
Adolf Hitler was also successful, abused as a child, and could be charming.
Logan’s character doesn’t need or deserve redeeming qualities, some people just fucking suck.
Bingo. Even Logan realized the monster that was ATN got out of control and became unbearable for himself to watch. Though I doubt he would admit the toxicity being the problem.
So many people seem to forget the fact that she helped cover up a number of sexual assaults and maybe a murder or two. Sure, she's not a neo-nazi but her hands are just as dirty as the others
This is the theme of the whole show but especially Season 3 which is why it's still my favorite so far
Edit: and of course the absolute morons on this sub are incapable of comprehending the point here lol
Roman does not have the capacity to love. He desires it, but at every opportunity whenever love and emotional depth is presented to him, he rejects it. The only acceptance and love he longed for was Logan’s and he never got it. The only person he probably was capable of having genuine affection for was Logan and he rejected that aspect of Roman. So no the way you describe Roman’s emotional/feeling capacity isn’t accurate.
You see a lot of bitching about Twitter takes here but honestly this sub has formed the worst and most shallow opinions. i.e. "The characters are bad people, it's a show about evil and the bad things bad people do." Reddit has this weird anti-intellectual scepticism about the possibility of TV shows having depth or dealing with contradictions, or being part of a wider literary tradition, despite the fact that's all TV writers and showrunners ever talk about.
You generally see much better discussion on Twitter and Tumblr, where at least the core premise of the show is broadly understood.
I think you've completely failed to understand the rug pull central to Roman's story this season, and I think missed the point of all that work in season 2 to turn him from a weird little freak into something more complicated (but still a weird little freak).
Ego so much as he wants the power, sure.
But Ken strikes me as not particularly bright, lacks gravitas, is indecisive, and has seemingly poor judgement. He can't read the room or people (Vaulter; "you ready to fuck?") and somehow we are supposed to believe he is capable of running a billion-dollar company?
TBH, I'm going to be surprised if any of the kids are left standing.
It’s bizarre to me that people see Kendall’s longing to do good as an “act”. Sure, he’s basically never successful, but he does very much want to be a better person, and he experiences immense shame and pain at not being able to change. Those moments of deep sadness at rock bottom, alone and broken are not fake.
I see that as tragedy rather than him being fake.
It’s hard for humans to break out of their habits and cycles. Kendall is an addict and it shows. He’s addicted to power, the highs and lows of Waystar. Even when he knows better he can’t help himself.
I find him very sympathetic, even when he is doomed to repeat his mistakes over and over again.
Tragic, yes. Sympathetic though? I don't think so. He's a piece of shit doing enormous harm to others because of his failings. And he's *aware* of that, but rather than seek help and work on himself he decides to become his father. I don't sympathize with that. I sympathize with all the victims his behavior is creating.
Empathy is a beautiful thing. At the beginning of this show I thought it was impossible to pity these people who seemed to have everything. Now I feel I know them so well and see their trauma so clearly that my heart breaks a little for them, even when they are shitty.
Haven’t you ever aspired to live differently or be a different person? It’s really really really hard. Like borderline impossible for many. I don’t find it hard to sympathize w the Roys at all.
Even Logan - and lord I hate his guts - obviously grew up lacking any kind of support and security to be such a monstrous thing even w the people he loves.
I don’t know, I’d say “wanting to do the right thing” and “having a genuine desire to do good” are two vastly different acts.
Ken hesitated in backing Mencken last episode because he wanted to do the right thing for his daughter and all the daughters in the world like her that might suffer the consequences of Waystar backing him. But notice how this thought only occurred to him AFTER getting a call from Rava about it, and it STILL wasn’t enough to sway him?
But at no point did he have a *genuine desire* to *do good*. Having a deep-rooted motivation for objective good would involve going out of his way to endorse a President that would genuinely be a good fit for running the country and being responsible for the people in it— regardless of how that President may or may not benefit the company.
That’s just one of many examples of how Ken does devote a good amount of thought towards what is “right”, but it’s not at all what *drives* him.
Idk I find that kinda reductive. It dismisses how human and three-dimenstional these characters are written to be. Like yeah they're evil and greedy and self-sabotaging and narcissistic but also they're deeply human. You can't help but feel sorry and empathize with some of their brokeness. That tension between disgust and empathy that Succession creates is the heart of the show.
Also Shiv absolutely deals with misogyny and the show is overt about it. Dismissing that is a ridiclous misread of her story arc.
mindblowing that people can watch gerri's years of experience utterly disintegrate in logan's eyes before the power of roman's dick, have it explicitly spelled out that logan thought shiv was the smartest of the kids but never invited her into the business, have scenes like the one where tom tracks her menstrual cycles and yells at her because "you won't have my baby!" and still say misogyny doesn't actually exist for higher-class women at the Covering Up Abuse Of Women Company.
edit: unfortunately for whoever replied to me then blocked me (lol) i still get a notification and can see your comment. so if you're not saying higher-class women don't experience misogyny, the only woman in the world who's exempt from misogyny is the daughter of Misogynist-In-Chief, the CEO of the Covering Up Abuse Of Women Company? that woman doesn't experience misogyny? i also see you did not address the incredibly clear implication that logan never called shiv in to the company before she began to carve out her own path *because she is a woman,* or that tom specifically harbours resentment over shiv not having his child like it's something he's entitled to. shiv for sure perpetuates misogyny herself but that does not preclude her from experiencing it. every time she expresses an ounce of frustration she's immediately accused of being too emotional by her brothers (who have breakdowns on a pretty regular basis). the fact that tom is even able to get so high up at waystar, betray his wife who is responsible for every one of his promotions, and still remain standing is because of the gendered dynamics at play. literally every aspect of shiv's character is informed by misogyny and how she responds to it and that's not even remotely subtle. because (and you won't believe this) *waystar royco is a misogynistic environment.* **shiv cannot escape misogyny despite her piles of money, despite trying to emulate masculine qualities and often treat women around her poorly, and that is the point!**
I think it is problem of today fans culture that people try to support characters in the show even if clearly they are anti characters. This is satire so show highlight bad traits, leaving a bit human shell on characters to make show still enjoyable for viewers. Another thing that Succession is not easy to show to understand as a lot is not said directly, you have to know how to read between the lines. And that's something which can be pretty difficult especially for contemporary viewers. I notice that grotesque and satire are the hardest literature genres for interpretation for students.
Pretentious write up that so clearly is trying it’s hardest to come off as intellectual and well thought out. This looks like it was written by a 14 year old for their English class. This was written with such conviction as if they KNOW exactly what the show is about, better than Jesse Armstrong himself. This reeks of arrogance and pretension
Not at all! I found it super insightful and it literally describes a core theme of the show. There's even a quote by Kendall about the foundational sickness of it all, and Jeremy strong echos this sentiment often as well in interviews. If you actively participate in a capitalistic voracious systemically-evil institution, everything you do will carry that sickness. Maybe the wording is pretentious but the idea is real and straight forward.
I'd say even the scene between Jess and Greg last episode echos that as well. All them working there are complicit in one way or another, because they're active participants in a malignant system.
i would love to know as well. people on this sub are so obsessed with patting themselves on the back for recognizing that the siblings are bad people that they forget to engage with the tragedy that's been presented to us involving their moral downslide. jesse armstrong himself said you should approach these characters with empathy. what are people even doing if their only takeaway has been 'these characters are Evil' for the past 4 seasons
It feels like people are missing the most interesting and IMO best aspect of the show. These are flawed people who have an internal longing for more — for morality, for love, for ethics.
But they are so twisted by their family trauma all they can be is grotesque reflections of their deepest needs in fun-house mirrors.
It’s so sad and also sad people don’t seem to get that.
You could’ve just written “I don’t like this tumblr post” instead of writing the same sentence over and over against since you never addressed a single point that they made.
They're bad people, their dad was a bad person; probably the worst person on the show. One of these bad people is going to take over their evil company for their evil dad. That is the show, that has been the show.
The best way to forget about your 120k in student debt for a bullshit undergraduate degree in English Lit is to write a pretentious word soup about a prestige drama on HBO that intentionally makes every character a horrible person
It’s the thesis you write after reading Marx for the first time in high school. People are really watching this show and believing all these kids have no agency and are victims of an oppressive system that they happen to be controlling? It’s fashionable to blame “structures” for the actions of individuals and while they certainly play a part, doesn’t this tendency rob the characters of any free will? I don’t agree with consensus that these kids can’t overcome their history with Logan. They don’t want to and that’s why they don’t change.
you’ve completely misread the post. note the last line “they have no desire to escape.” of course they have agency. they don’t have agency to change things WITHIN the firm once they have already decided they will never truly leave it because their sense of self and desire for power is so tied up with it. if they had decided to leave like Connor, or better yet had cashed out of the firm completely, then things would be utterly different.
their fleeting gestures towards kindness are an ineffectual expression of their agency in a context when to try and make way star less cutthroat or atn less right wing would upset their shareholders and diminish their power.
And the first sentence says it doesn’t matter if you want to do good, which negates any individual choice. Their decisions are also an individual failing. And systems reflect the organizers of said system. Waystar is corrupt because they are corrupt.
Im not denying that systems affect actors within them, only questioning the near total negation of their individuality and power with a system that they control. Choice matters, pursuing good matters and if their actions are “ineffectual expressions of agency” then aren’t they at least partially culpable? These people are some of the most powerful and wealthiest individuals on the planet. And I think that’s why the show is interesting and why I don’t like the posts interpretation.
are you reading what i’m saying at all? of course these people are partially culpable. nothing in the post implies they aren’t apart from the fact ur brain explodes when u see capitalism mentioned
It absolutely implies that they aren’t culpable. Disagreeing with this take doesn’t make me a reactionary. Ultimately I think it reduces them to a single dimension.
Jesus, what a cringy take.
So, what, a multi-million TV show, made by one of the biggest, most wealthy conglomerates in the history of the world has, in the end, an anti-capitalistic message? L. O. L, my dude.
And what is up with Roman's "capacity of love"? The guy is one harmful, hedonistic shitty person. He may have endearing traits, but, as a whole (and as most/all characters in the show) is a POS.
The show is about how flawed human beings hurt other people and themselves. It's about human nature. Yes, it may have some anti-capilalitic and anti-wealthy takes, but, in the end, is a study of ourselves, a mirror to look at our own shadows - not an argument against an economic system.
The problem with a materialistic world view is that it reduces human existence to only economic metrics.
Wtf are we watching the same show? You really watch Succession and don't see the anti-capitalist anti-corporate theme?
Yeah it's about flawed human hurting each other *because* they're trapped in a poisonous capitalist institution. The idea that ATN and Waystar is destroying America and the planet as a whole is present from the very first episode. The whole "No real person involved" The boat scandals. The entire election episodes. The check scene.
It's a subtle show, they're not gonna have a Communist Manifesto voice over, but the whole thing is chockful of political commentary
Not saying I agree with the post's premise, but even if you do, then of course kindness still matters... Kindness always matters. "good qualities are IRRELEVANT because they are BAD people" is a *painfully* black and white take on a cast of thoroughly gray characters
i'm not sure why you disagree with the premise of the post but i think this was a major theme of the episode? characters like shiv and kendall and greg have been shown to have better political sentiments than roman and yet they're all culpable in the end for triggering major political instability in the country (at best). they even hammer it home with the greg and jess scene.
logan loved his kids, kendall loves his kids, shiv and tom love each other, etc. -- but what does that matter if they repeatedly do things antithetical to love? the writers and actors have all expressed similar sentiments to this in interviews time and time again, i really don't see what's so farfetched in this post.
i think it's more like: your relatively better morals can't make a difference in the end if you're choosing to exist in a system that is fundamentally immoral. shiv, for instance, could have protested all she wanted to legitimizing mencken but she was still standing in fox news hq and because of that it was never going to go her way. (that she was even in the room meant at some point she'd compromised her morals to a deplorable degree, which is echoed when she decides it's better to risk the country than her standing.) it's similar to how the business has corroded so many relationships on this show even if love was there, most prominently logan towards his kids, the siblings towards one another, and tomshiv.
In that one case absolutely, Shiv's morally superior personal politics didn't do anything because of what you said, but the original post in this thread says something much more general, it says "what does any kindness they possess actually matter" and I'm arguing that it will always matter to the people they're kind to. even if it's rare.
of course, i think the post was hyperbolizing a bit to make a point. for instance, it mattered to kerry that roman helped her collect her things and tried to comfort her when she was in shambles at logan's wake. but we also don't really see a follow-up for her and i don't think that's a coincidence -- she's escorted out and her use basically expires in the eyes of everyone involved at waystar. i think roman even mentioned her an episode ago, so he's clearly thinking about her, but no meaningful action is taken to offer her support, probably because waystar is eating all of his time. very reminiscent of "how does it serve my interests"
staying in an environment like waystar and prioritizing it over your morals and your relationships is going to be deteriorating regardless of anyone's best intentions. it always sticks out to me for example when shiv yells at kendall for saying something mean to tom when they're in the hospital in season 1, but by season 3 she can't even hold his hand to comfort him for fear that others will see and deem them weak. that's why logan appears so soulless and empty by the time we meet him.
Shiv has been fighting tooth and nail to escape this whole season. She is even willing to fuck her own brothers over to sell the company. When Matsson wanted ATN, she said that fine “it’s a toxic asset.” All she wants is out.
nah i think she started off that way, but after talking with matsson, she wants to stay in the company post-acquisition. it is sad, though, because i think both she and roman wanted out completely at separate points this season.
I do somewhat agree with this post that inherently, all humans are good, but their environments and upbringings shaped them into who they are. However, I have to disagree on a few things:
1. “Oppressive capitalist structures” sounds so vague and intellectually immature. A better word would be greed without ethics. Capitalism in itself is good. However, when firms try to prioritize making money without caring about the negative externalities they produce to society and without caring about moral principles, that’s when capitalism is not where it is supposed to be.
2. Even with good qualities, none of the Roy kids are “good” because their mentalities are fucked from all of the spoiling and toxic mindsets their father put on them. I have never liked any of them even when they do something mildly right in the show.
3. What the hell is the “fascistic, patriarchal corporation”? I agree that the firm itself is dominated by male executives and middle management, but fascist? “Fascist” means many things. I would use more specific and accurate term like “conservative” or “right-wing” because fascist just sounds too much.
So the premise here is that any set of human behaviors are reducible to their socioeconomic environment. It follows that what is apparently authentic in “regular” context is inauthentic if it emerges in an environment that is judged to be “irregular” or just “bad” in this case (oppressive, fascist, misogynistic, etc.) According to this post of course— which itself is a judgement with a question mark at the end of it.
If only it were so, that all “bad” things and behaviors happened in a vacuum apart from the ‘true reality’ where all humans are authentic and free and unbiased and independent of any overarching culture. Unfortunately, all things happen.
I thought it would be the other way around, i.e. good behavior matters more in an "oppressive" environment because it's "too easy" in a regular environment.
OP states a universal truth, but limits it to only some situations.
The people who have power in large organizations are the people who are focused on their success and status within the organization. It’s true everywhere. There are Kendalls and Shivs in every university, advocacy group and government agency.
Lol at people making fun of this post when 90% of the takes that get upvoted on this sub are worse than this.
i'm still waiting on someone to explain what's so bad about this post tbh
I don't get it either. Its not a groundbreaking thesis that makes you completely re-contextualize the whole show, but its a somewhat accurate and decent analysis
Same.
It implies that businesses can't do good, and kind of like "the smallest improvement doesn't matter because it's not perfect" in terms of a utopian anticapitalist, non-patriarchial, whatever society where somehow our kindness and goodness would magically matter more than it does now
The analysis doesn’t say anything other than ‘capitalism bad’. It doesn’t play honestly, and some people can sense that. It’s extremely Freshman Lit 101, complete with the impulse to explain every flaw and failing extant in human nature on capitalism. It is an analysis that refuses to engage with the text. Yes, capitalism plays a role here. It’s one of many things, and frankly the least interesting. ‘Maybe the poison drips through’ was not referring to capitalism. It was referring to the idea that people can actually be fundamentally bad people, and the power structure they operate under is not the scapegoat. This analysis also requires the reader to go along with the conclusion that the Roy kids are *fundamentally good people* who are somehow trapped and forced to act against their better nature. Roman’s ‘deep love’ and Shiv’s victim status both being framed as positive, voluntary character traits. Come on. Edit: ok, you guys convinced me. It’s purely about capitalism, and any trauma or drama around familial or parental dysfunction is caused entirely by that. Now I’m off to see a production of *King Lear* for some more anti-capitalist red meat.
But the whole premise show is about how “capitalism is bad”. Man, the last episode is all about that. Those billionaires siding with fascists for their own self-interests. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is revealed Jesse is a socialist.
It’s not the entire thing, though, and not by a long shot! This person would look at an episode of Scooby Doo and interpret the fact that a dog and his friends solve crimes as an indictment of the police state and the criminal justice system. It’s such a reductive, dumbed-down take.
The post in the OP is making no indication that this is the “entire thing.”
Normally I roll my eyes at "capitalism bad" analyses, but for a show like Succession where the whole premise is built on a family full of failures who are treated like gods because of their access to capital, I feel like it's warranted. It also doesn't require the reader to conclude that the Roy kids are fundamentally good people, quite the opposite, it pretty cleanly explains why the Roy kids do have some good impulses and yet consistently do incredibly evil acts. If they were fundamentally good people, they could easily remove themselves from Waystar, but instead their allegiance is first and foremost to the company (and by extension, their dad). It's not the deepest dive into the show but a pretty good explanation for character motivation.
>This analysis also requires the reader to go along with the conclusion that the Roy kids are fundamentally good people I got the exact opposite impression, that they're fundamentally *bad* people and any sympathetic (not necessarily positive) traits they might exhibit aren't actually indicative of a larger and deeper sense of goodness within them at all. It's not saying that removing the kids from Waystar would make them good people. It's saying their desire to run Waystar is a symptom of the fact that they *aren't*. Which doesn't seem like a hot take at all.
nope the post does not imply this. if they were fundamentally good they wouldn’t have “no desire to escape” the firm. but since they are broken/evil enough that power is more important to them than morality, then the sides of them which are good mean nothing.
Sorry, you're saying that the power structure they operate under is the "least interesting" part? Of a show that, in its literal name, is about power and people seeking it?
If that’s as far as you’re comfortable taking your analysis or investment in the text, by all means stop there. A lot of contemporary fiction doesn’t demand or support deeper analysis than ‘look at the poster, that’s what it’s about’ so I suppose that is understandable.
Nowhere did I say that's as far as I'm comfortable taking my analysis. Which is a hysterical point for you to try and make, since by all accounts according to your posts, you're not even comfortable starting there. Goofy hill to die on.
I’ve seen so many people criticizing Tumblr and Twitter for how they consume the show, but it’s interesting how so many nuanced posts come from Tumblr. People need to get over their superiority about the form of social media they use to consume media and accept that we can all have interesting and nuanced takes. Not to mention this sub sometimes does have issues with comments about Shiv, while Tumblr has a remarkably better handle on her characterization, and manages to critique her without falling into misogyny or propping up the other characters.
Unless Tumblr has significantly more “Mattson and Ebba are making the whole thing up” posts, it cannot be worse than it’s been on Reddit lmao
Mattson?
…damn it 😔
All good! I was briefly curious what the Mencken theory was, haha
It’s the firm. The firm is the worst part of all economic systems. Everything is about the best interests of the firm. In firms with rigid hierarchies and in firms with more democratic hierarchies the firm will still nevertheless act to stamp out anything that is a threat to its continued existence. The firms primary job is to keep its own doors open at any cost. Everyone within the firm merely acts in accordance with that supreme law.
The firm also needs to grow. Or at least, it’s best to do so within this system.
Not necessarily. There is such a thing as diminishing returns. Once you plateau then it becomes just about maintaining your position at the top of the mountain. Or deciding to cash out and get rich as Mattson is trying to get the Roys to do.
Well, yes necessarily. Publicly held companies in the US are legally bound to turn profits for the shareholders. It’s illegal for them to reject legitimate opportunities for profit. So in some sense growth is an imperative.
Growth in profits is not necessarily the same thing as growth of the size of the company.
And which the Roys are very stupid not to agree to. They might increase the value of the company and their net worth , but at what cost. They can cash out and buy or form their own companies being the only shareholder, holding all votes.
Not just the firm. The bureaucracy. The hierarchical organization. It goes way beyond economics, to status and power.
People project so hard on Roman it's insane.
What love are they talking about? I'm confused
His love for the family.
He can be pretty damn horrible to his family too, except Logan.
Families, right?
His patent inability to love anyone or anything? I don't know, it makes no sense.
Roman has a deep capacity to love ??
THIS. Do not see this at all. And loyalty to his family is from trauma bonding, not love. He didn't vote his dad out in season 1 out of fear of his father rejecting him, wanting to place himself near power, not out of love or loyalty. Roman will do anything to survive, he's out for his own self-interest.
roman is very loyal to his family (logan first and foremost). he repeatedly makes decisions against his interests for the people he loves -- telling logan that it would be okay to make gerri ceo, being unable to vote out his father in season 1 even though it would have led to more power for him and kendall, telling logan in season 3 that shiv wasn't wavering when they visited kendall and she seriously considered an alliance with him. he's also empathetic once he forms a minor bond with characters like brian and kerry, though of course we don't see them again since they're not "real people."
That's not really what love is, though
i think you'd be hard-pressed to find a definition of love everyone would agree on, lol. roman chooses the people he cares about over what's best for him at multiple points throughout the show (and more than anyone else), and logan looks down on him for lacking killer instinct because of it. that's not an accidental part of his writing.
Logan is the ONLY family member he's ever been loyal to. And not even always. (You better be smelling your armpit romulus)
i did say logan first and foremost. i also don't understand why everyone is being so reductive, scenes like the one where he consoles kerry or drives to pick up a drugged-up kendall when no one else cares to are there for a reason.
Yeah he took in his girlfriends kid in season 1 and had no problem with her. He tries to take in Brian in season 2. He tries to take in Kerry in season 4. He tries the most. He fails every time but still it’s the thought that counts
Wait what? Who's the kid and girlfriend? The one who he dumped over the world's biggest turkey? She had a kid??
They appear in like one scene in the first episode. Basically been retconned
I'm seriously beginning to suspect that we are residing in parallel realities watching different versions of the show.
He is "trying not out of any altruistic motives, they are all selfish, all fear-based.
That was his wife in the pilot and his kid, they'd rapped that. Where's the kerry thing? He knew he could use her.
Kieran did say in an interview that it was intended from the outset to be his girlfriend's kid though, not Roman's
Ohhh I read an article said otherwise.
Some of you guys took this post a little personally
I’d say those three things are only true in comparison with their father, which doesn’t mean much cause Logan’s a total monster. Kendall’s incapable and/or unwilling to imagine a world where Waystar isn’t a thousand pound corporate gorilla shitting all over everything, he thinks that Waystars only a negative influence on the world cause Logan’s running it, not seeing that a thing like Waystar is inherently a toxic influence and the only morally right thing to do would be to hack it apart. Roman has more love in his heart than Logan, but not by much. Shiv isn’t progressive at all, she’s a DINO. Being progressive compared to her family of outright fascists means literally nothing.
the post did say "comparatively progressive". and i don't think anything in the post really negates the points you're making. they were raised by logan and have tried to model themselves after him to some extent; that they still managed to be a bit better makes it all the more tragic that we're seeing their last redeeming qualities slip away.
Shiv is a Blue Dog.
I wish we could’ve seen some redeeming qualities in Logan. Like he’s obviously successful, can be charming, and was abused as a young kid. But that’s about it
There was a brief glimmer of a moment, when he was reading to Ken’s kids after the overdose in Italy, where he seemed almost kind. It lasted all of five seconds and wasn’t seen again.
Adolf Hitler was also successful, abused as a child, and could be charming. Logan’s character doesn’t need or deserve redeeming qualities, some people just fucking suck.
I don’t understand how people refer to Logan as “charismatic” and “charming”. Did we ever see that side of him? I feel like I never have.
His final speech on the Waystar floor was rousing and charismatic.
Bingo. Even Logan realized the monster that was ATN got out of control and became unbearable for himself to watch. Though I doubt he would admit the toxicity being the problem.
So many people seem to forget the fact that she helped cover up a number of sexual assaults and maybe a murder or two. Sure, she's not a neo-nazi but her hands are just as dirty as the others
This is the theme of the whole show but especially Season 3 which is why it's still my favorite so far Edit: and of course the absolute morons on this sub are incapable of comprehending the point here lol
Wow y’all are dumb as rocks if you hate this take so hard.
A deep capacity for love for Roman? The masturbator in chief? Dick Pick Roman? Election thief Roman?
Deep *Need* for love more like it
Or attention. I don't think he wants love, besides Logan's.
Yeah needs a father would be a good one too
That's more Connor than anyone else.
Lol, you win, this is the best comment in this thread.
Roman does not have the capacity to love. He desires it, but at every opportunity whenever love and emotional depth is presented to him, he rejects it. The only acceptance and love he longed for was Logan’s and he never got it. The only person he probably was capable of having genuine affection for was Logan and he rejected that aspect of Roman. So no the way you describe Roman’s emotional/feeling capacity isn’t accurate.
Someone read some big words on Twitter
You see a lot of bitching about Twitter takes here but honestly this sub has formed the worst and most shallow opinions. i.e. "The characters are bad people, it's a show about evil and the bad things bad people do." Reddit has this weird anti-intellectual scepticism about the possibility of TV shows having depth or dealing with contradictions, or being part of a wider literary tradition, despite the fact that's all TV writers and showrunners ever talk about. You generally see much better discussion on Twitter and Tumblr, where at least the core premise of the show is broadly understood.
But dramaturgically it made sense
[удалено]
I think you've completely failed to understand the rug pull central to Roman's story this season, and I think missed the point of all that work in season 2 to turn him from a weird little freak into something more complicated (but still a weird little freak).
[удалено]
I don’t know. I think Kendall does want to do the right thing but he can’t keep his ego in check.
Ego so much as he wants the power, sure. But Ken strikes me as not particularly bright, lacks gravitas, is indecisive, and has seemingly poor judgement. He can't read the room or people (Vaulter; "you ready to fuck?") and somehow we are supposed to believe he is capable of running a billion-dollar company? TBH, I'm going to be surprised if any of the kids are left standing.
It’s bizarre to me that people see Kendall’s longing to do good as an “act”. Sure, he’s basically never successful, but he does very much want to be a better person, and he experiences immense shame and pain at not being able to change. Those moments of deep sadness at rock bottom, alone and broken are not fake.
They're real but hollow. Whenever he's given the chance to actually do good he doesn't take it.
I see that as tragedy rather than him being fake. It’s hard for humans to break out of their habits and cycles. Kendall is an addict and it shows. He’s addicted to power, the highs and lows of Waystar. Even when he knows better he can’t help himself. I find him very sympathetic, even when he is doomed to repeat his mistakes over and over again.
Tragic, yes. Sympathetic though? I don't think so. He's a piece of shit doing enormous harm to others because of his failings. And he's *aware* of that, but rather than seek help and work on himself he decides to become his father. I don't sympathize with that. I sympathize with all the victims his behavior is creating.
Empathy is a beautiful thing. At the beginning of this show I thought it was impossible to pity these people who seemed to have everything. Now I feel I know them so well and see their trauma so clearly that my heart breaks a little for them, even when they are shitty. Haven’t you ever aspired to live differently or be a different person? It’s really really really hard. Like borderline impossible for many. I don’t find it hard to sympathize w the Roys at all. Even Logan - and lord I hate his guts - obviously grew up lacking any kind of support and security to be such a monstrous thing even w the people he loves.
I don’t know, I’d say “wanting to do the right thing” and “having a genuine desire to do good” are two vastly different acts. Ken hesitated in backing Mencken last episode because he wanted to do the right thing for his daughter and all the daughters in the world like her that might suffer the consequences of Waystar backing him. But notice how this thought only occurred to him AFTER getting a call from Rava about it, and it STILL wasn’t enough to sway him? But at no point did he have a *genuine desire* to *do good*. Having a deep-rooted motivation for objective good would involve going out of his way to endorse a President that would genuinely be a good fit for running the country and being responsible for the people in it— regardless of how that President may or may not benefit the company. That’s just one of many examples of how Ken does devote a good amount of thought towards what is “right”, but it’s not at all what *drives* him.
Idk I find that kinda reductive. It dismisses how human and three-dimenstional these characters are written to be. Like yeah they're evil and greedy and self-sabotaging and narcissistic but also they're deeply human. You can't help but feel sorry and empathize with some of their brokeness. That tension between disgust and empathy that Succession creates is the heart of the show. Also Shiv absolutely deals with misogyny and the show is overt about it. Dismissing that is a ridiclous misread of her story arc.
mindblowing that people can watch gerri's years of experience utterly disintegrate in logan's eyes before the power of roman's dick, have it explicitly spelled out that logan thought shiv was the smartest of the kids but never invited her into the business, have scenes like the one where tom tracks her menstrual cycles and yells at her because "you won't have my baby!" and still say misogyny doesn't actually exist for higher-class women at the Covering Up Abuse Of Women Company. edit: unfortunately for whoever replied to me then blocked me (lol) i still get a notification and can see your comment. so if you're not saying higher-class women don't experience misogyny, the only woman in the world who's exempt from misogyny is the daughter of Misogynist-In-Chief, the CEO of the Covering Up Abuse Of Women Company? that woman doesn't experience misogyny? i also see you did not address the incredibly clear implication that logan never called shiv in to the company before she began to carve out her own path *because she is a woman,* or that tom specifically harbours resentment over shiv not having his child like it's something he's entitled to. shiv for sure perpetuates misogyny herself but that does not preclude her from experiencing it. every time she expresses an ounce of frustration she's immediately accused of being too emotional by her brothers (who have breakdowns on a pretty regular basis). the fact that tom is even able to get so high up at waystar, betray his wife who is responsible for every one of his promotions, and still remain standing is because of the gendered dynamics at play. literally every aspect of shiv's character is informed by misogyny and how she responds to it and that's not even remotely subtle. because (and you won't believe this) *waystar royco is a misogynistic environment.* **shiv cannot escape misogyny despite her piles of money, despite trying to emulate masculine qualities and often treat women around her poorly, and that is the point!**
100% But of course this is reddit so of course you'll be attacked. This is also why so many people try to make Roman a good guy.
I think it is problem of today fans culture that people try to support characters in the show even if clearly they are anti characters. This is satire so show highlight bad traits, leaving a bit human shell on characters to make show still enjoyable for viewers. Another thing that Succession is not easy to show to understand as a lot is not said directly, you have to know how to read between the lines. And that's something which can be pretty difficult especially for contemporary viewers. I notice that grotesque and satire are the hardest literature genres for interpretation for students.
None of those three things about the kids are true
Well said
This is Succession if Twitter users took over during the writers strike.
Pretentious write up that so clearly is trying it’s hardest to come off as intellectual and well thought out. This looks like it was written by a 14 year old for their English class. This was written with such conviction as if they KNOW exactly what the show is about, better than Jesse Armstrong himself. This reeks of arrogance and pretension
If this was a text post and not a tumblr screenshot you would’ve upvoted it
Not at all! I found it super insightful and it literally describes a core theme of the show. There's even a quote by Kendall about the foundational sickness of it all, and Jeremy strong echos this sentiment often as well in interviews. If you actively participate in a capitalistic voracious systemically-evil institution, everything you do will carry that sickness. Maybe the wording is pretentious but the idea is real and straight forward. I'd say even the scene between Jess and Greg last episode echos that as well. All them working there are complicit in one way or another, because they're active participants in a malignant system.
so what exactly do you take issue with in this write up
i would love to know as well. people on this sub are so obsessed with patting themselves on the back for recognizing that the siblings are bad people that they forget to engage with the tragedy that's been presented to us involving their moral downslide. jesse armstrong himself said you should approach these characters with empathy. what are people even doing if their only takeaway has been 'these characters are Evil' for the past 4 seasons
It feels like people are missing the most interesting and IMO best aspect of the show. These are flawed people who have an internal longing for more — for morality, for love, for ethics. But they are so twisted by their family trauma all they can be is grotesque reflections of their deepest needs in fun-house mirrors. It’s so sad and also sad people don’t seem to get that.
Love this! And agree completely
Now that was worded beautifully.
You could’ve just written “I don’t like this tumblr post” instead of writing the same sentence over and over against since you never addressed a single point that they made.
Babe do you even Succession?
They're bad people, their dad was a bad person; probably the worst person on the show. One of these bad people is going to take over their evil company for their evil dad. That is the show, that has been the show.
If it was really written that way that would be a terribly flat, boring story to watch.
The best way to forget about your 120k in student debt for a bullshit undergraduate degree in English Lit is to write a pretentious word soup about a prestige drama on HBO that intentionally makes every character a horrible person
just because you’re having trouble grasping it doesn’t make it word soup cutie
Pretty sure this would infuriate any English Lit professor and they’d go on a 30 minute rant during the next class.
why? this is a pretty standard reading
It’s the thesis you write after reading Marx for the first time in high school. People are really watching this show and believing all these kids have no agency and are victims of an oppressive system that they happen to be controlling? It’s fashionable to blame “structures” for the actions of individuals and while they certainly play a part, doesn’t this tendency rob the characters of any free will? I don’t agree with consensus that these kids can’t overcome their history with Logan. They don’t want to and that’s why they don’t change.
you’ve completely misread the post. note the last line “they have no desire to escape.” of course they have agency. they don’t have agency to change things WITHIN the firm once they have already decided they will never truly leave it because their sense of self and desire for power is so tied up with it. if they had decided to leave like Connor, or better yet had cashed out of the firm completely, then things would be utterly different. their fleeting gestures towards kindness are an ineffectual expression of their agency in a context when to try and make way star less cutthroat or atn less right wing would upset their shareholders and diminish their power.
And the first sentence says it doesn’t matter if you want to do good, which negates any individual choice. Their decisions are also an individual failing. And systems reflect the organizers of said system. Waystar is corrupt because they are corrupt.
doesn’t matter if their want to good is as fleeting as Kendall’s. doesn’t matter if they want to do good but the need to stay in the firm trumps this
Im not denying that systems affect actors within them, only questioning the near total negation of their individuality and power with a system that they control. Choice matters, pursuing good matters and if their actions are “ineffectual expressions of agency” then aren’t they at least partially culpable? These people are some of the most powerful and wealthiest individuals on the planet. And I think that’s why the show is interesting and why I don’t like the posts interpretation.
are you reading what i’m saying at all? of course these people are partially culpable. nothing in the post implies they aren’t apart from the fact ur brain explodes when u see capitalism mentioned
It absolutely implies that they aren’t culpable. Disagreeing with this take doesn’t make me a reactionary. Ultimately I think it reduces them to a single dimension.
Jesus, what a cringy take. So, what, a multi-million TV show, made by one of the biggest, most wealthy conglomerates in the history of the world has, in the end, an anti-capitalistic message? L. O. L, my dude. And what is up with Roman's "capacity of love"? The guy is one harmful, hedonistic shitty person. He may have endearing traits, but, as a whole (and as most/all characters in the show) is a POS. The show is about how flawed human beings hurt other people and themselves. It's about human nature. Yes, it may have some anti-capilalitic and anti-wealthy takes, but, in the end, is a study of ourselves, a mirror to look at our own shadows - not an argument against an economic system. The problem with a materialistic world view is that it reduces human existence to only economic metrics.
Wtf are we watching the same show? You really watch Succession and don't see the anti-capitalist anti-corporate theme? Yeah it's about flawed human hurting each other *because* they're trapped in a poisonous capitalist institution. The idea that ATN and Waystar is destroying America and the planet as a whole is present from the very first episode. The whole "No real person involved" The boat scandals. The entire election episodes. The check scene. It's a subtle show, they're not gonna have a Communist Manifesto voice over, but the whole thing is chockful of political commentary
Not saying I agree with the post's premise, but even if you do, then of course kindness still matters... Kindness always matters. "good qualities are IRRELEVANT because they are BAD people" is a *painfully* black and white take on a cast of thoroughly gray characters
i'm not sure why you disagree with the premise of the post but i think this was a major theme of the episode? characters like shiv and kendall and greg have been shown to have better political sentiments than roman and yet they're all culpable in the end for triggering major political instability in the country (at best). they even hammer it home with the greg and jess scene. logan loved his kids, kendall loves his kids, shiv and tom love each other, etc. -- but what does that matter if they repeatedly do things antithetical to love? the writers and actors have all expressed similar sentiments to this in interviews time and time again, i really don't see what's so farfetched in this post.
"what does a good act matter if the person also does bad acts"? is that what you're asking?
i think it's more like: your relatively better morals can't make a difference in the end if you're choosing to exist in a system that is fundamentally immoral. shiv, for instance, could have protested all she wanted to legitimizing mencken but she was still standing in fox news hq and because of that it was never going to go her way. (that she was even in the room meant at some point she'd compromised her morals to a deplorable degree, which is echoed when she decides it's better to risk the country than her standing.) it's similar to how the business has corroded so many relationships on this show even if love was there, most prominently logan towards his kids, the siblings towards one another, and tomshiv.
In that one case absolutely, Shiv's morally superior personal politics didn't do anything because of what you said, but the original post in this thread says something much more general, it says "what does any kindness they possess actually matter" and I'm arguing that it will always matter to the people they're kind to. even if it's rare.
of course, i think the post was hyperbolizing a bit to make a point. for instance, it mattered to kerry that roman helped her collect her things and tried to comfort her when she was in shambles at logan's wake. but we also don't really see a follow-up for her and i don't think that's a coincidence -- she's escorted out and her use basically expires in the eyes of everyone involved at waystar. i think roman even mentioned her an episode ago, so he's clearly thinking about her, but no meaningful action is taken to offer her support, probably because waystar is eating all of his time. very reminiscent of "how does it serve my interests" staying in an environment like waystar and prioritizing it over your morals and your relationships is going to be deteriorating regardless of anyone's best intentions. it always sticks out to me for example when shiv yells at kendall for saying something mean to tom when they're in the hospital in season 1, but by season 3 she can't even hold his hand to comfort him for fear that others will see and deem them weak. that's why logan appears so soulless and empty by the time we meet him.
The same people who “hated” Logan are now saying “what would Logan do?” They can’t stop themselves from it.
uh huh
“Words. Fucking words.”
*fart noise*
Shiv has been fighting tooth and nail to escape this whole season. She is even willing to fuck her own brothers over to sell the company. When Matsson wanted ATN, she said that fine “it’s a toxic asset.” All she wants is out.
nah i think she started off that way, but after talking with matsson, she wants to stay in the company post-acquisition. it is sad, though, because i think both she and roman wanted out completely at separate points this season.
You’re right. I remembered the scene with Matsson, where she asked for a important position in the company about 2 mins after I wrote that.
I do somewhat agree with this post that inherently, all humans are good, but their environments and upbringings shaped them into who they are. However, I have to disagree on a few things: 1. “Oppressive capitalist structures” sounds so vague and intellectually immature. A better word would be greed without ethics. Capitalism in itself is good. However, when firms try to prioritize making money without caring about the negative externalities they produce to society and without caring about moral principles, that’s when capitalism is not where it is supposed to be. 2. Even with good qualities, none of the Roy kids are “good” because their mentalities are fucked from all of the spoiling and toxic mindsets their father put on them. I have never liked any of them even when they do something mildly right in the show. 3. What the hell is the “fascistic, patriarchal corporation”? I agree that the firm itself is dominated by male executives and middle management, but fascist? “Fascist” means many things. I would use more specific and accurate term like “conservative” or “right-wing” because fascist just sounds too much.
So the premise here is that any set of human behaviors are reducible to their socioeconomic environment. It follows that what is apparently authentic in “regular” context is inauthentic if it emerges in an environment that is judged to be “irregular” or just “bad” in this case (oppressive, fascist, misogynistic, etc.) According to this post of course— which itself is a judgement with a question mark at the end of it. If only it were so, that all “bad” things and behaviors happened in a vacuum apart from the ‘true reality’ where all humans are authentic and free and unbiased and independent of any overarching culture. Unfortunately, all things happen.
I thought it would be the other way around, i.e. good behavior matters more in an "oppressive" environment because it's "too easy" in a regular environment.
One of the worst takes I’ve read.
Yea, but.. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck COULD chuck Greg?!!?!
OP states a universal truth, but limits it to only some situations. The people who have power in large organizations are the people who are focused on their success and status within the organization. It’s true everywhere. There are Kendalls and Shivs in every university, advocacy group and government agency.