Whatever happened to trust? A question rooted in grandiosity may end up misrepresenting the straggling few bands of brothers (and twin sisters) in WWE, but thematically, the company is in the midst of dissolution. Rhodes Scholars are bickering pettily amongst each other. Damien Sandow won his briefcase fair and square; does the role of sore winner retroactively justify Cody Rhodes' dickery in response to being shrewdly and legally bested for the Blue Briefcase? Maybe the question isn't so much whether Rhodes is vindicated in his bitterness. Maybe playing the game doesn't hold value over keeping a friendship intact.
One could say that Daniel Bryan reaped what he sowed in that case. He chose playing the game over a friendship with Kane. One could argue Kane threw away his best chance at reinforcement when he choke-slammed Bryan after their match. I see it differently; Bryan rent the bond asunder by projecting his own insecurities as being the weak link onto Kane and using it as feeble rationalization to break free and chase the title he's lusting after in the present. I sense that I'm not the only one who wants long-term storytelling. For those who are willing to look back more than a week's time, the web is spun more complex each week.
Dolph Ziggler and his former associates further plunge down the abyss of discord. John Cena made a decision to knight Bryan as his number one contender, and the thanks he's gotten has been distrust and paranoia. Even family bonds have been broken, as father and son-in-law clash over the direction of the company. The only units that remain are a hapless wannabe rock band, a religious cult, and a paramilitary hit squad.
The cliche in wrestling is that the chase is always better than the catch. This rationale has been used to describe the Championship scene, to justify long heel title reigns and short bursts of heroes winning the title. Obviously, WWE has traditionally used a different model with hardware, but have they employed the chase concept elsewhere? Maybe what the heroes are looking for isn't a longstanding title to call their own, but comradery with his peers. Friendship is not a means to an end; rather, it is the fleeting goal at which the good guy has it all - adoration of the crowd, the moral high ground, and brothers or sisters with whom to share these fruits of labor.
As we know from general storytelling theory, having it all is impossible. Sacrifice is a key element of story. Maybe the commonality of every major WWE babyface in the last who knows how long eschewing brotherhood for the other two is a product of paranoia and self-preservation. OR maybe something deeper is at play here.
Friendship is not a driving force of plot advancement in a combat theater unless it is broken for the purpose of providing another beast for the protagonist to slay. Exceptions to every rule exist, obviously, but every comrade John Cena or Daniel Bryan or Sheamus has is one less potential challenger each has down the line. WWE already has a problem with repetitive matchups, and Eric Bischoff was only 2/3 right when he said controversy created cash. In actuality, conflict is the moneymaker, and conflict is the multiplicative inverse of togetherness.
And so the wheel continues to spin. Bryan looks wistfully upon days when he could count on Kane to have his back and vice versa. Cena just wants Bryan to know that he respects him, and that contrary to what the American Dragon believes, Vince McMahon is totally wrong about his intentions. Rhodes feels the sting of loss that being a man of the people brings him. A man of the people can have no friends if his master is hoi polloi. Sandow proved that in order to get ahead, one must stab the other in the back.
Hard lessons to learn galvanize character, but not before they pierce the armor. If there was a central theme to RAW tonight, it was that a lot of coats of armor got punctured on the way to hard resolution. Even then, those endings will not take these men and women to accord. The nature of wrestling will never allow these men to be friends until they are all past their use-by dates. As long as they can step into the ring, WWE superstars will always be governed by conflict.
One could say that Daniel Bryan reaped what he sowed in that case. He chose playing the game over a friendship with Kane. One could argue Kane threw away his best chance at reinforcement when he choke-slammed Bryan after their match. I see it differently; Bryan rent the bond asunder by projecting his own insecurities as being the weak link onto Kane and using it as feeble rationalization to break free and chase the title he's lusting after in the present. I sense that I'm not the only one who wants long-term storytelling. For those who are willing to look back more than a week's time, the web is spun more complex each week.
Dolph Ziggler and his former associates further plunge down the abyss of discord. John Cena made a decision to knight Bryan as his number one contender, and the thanks he's gotten has been distrust and paranoia. Even family bonds have been broken, as father and son-in-law clash over the direction of the company. The only units that remain are a hapless wannabe rock band, a religious cult, and a paramilitary hit squad.
The cliche in wrestling is that the chase is always better than the catch. This rationale has been used to describe the Championship scene, to justify long heel title reigns and short bursts of heroes winning the title. Obviously, WWE has traditionally used a different model with hardware, but have they employed the chase concept elsewhere? Maybe what the heroes are looking for isn't a longstanding title to call their own, but comradery with his peers. Friendship is not a means to an end; rather, it is the fleeting goal at which the good guy has it all - adoration of the crowd, the moral high ground, and brothers or sisters with whom to share these fruits of labor.
As we know from general storytelling theory, having it all is impossible. Sacrifice is a key element of story. Maybe the commonality of every major WWE babyface in the last who knows how long eschewing brotherhood for the other two is a product of paranoia and self-preservation. OR maybe something deeper is at play here.
Friendship is not a driving force of plot advancement in a combat theater unless it is broken for the purpose of providing another beast for the protagonist to slay. Exceptions to every rule exist, obviously, but every comrade John Cena or Daniel Bryan or Sheamus has is one less potential challenger each has down the line. WWE already has a problem with repetitive matchups, and Eric Bischoff was only 2/3 right when he said controversy created cash. In actuality, conflict is the moneymaker, and conflict is the multiplicative inverse of togetherness.
And so the wheel continues to spin. Bryan looks wistfully upon days when he could count on Kane to have his back and vice versa. Cena just wants Bryan to know that he respects him, and that contrary to what the American Dragon believes, Vince McMahon is totally wrong about his intentions. Rhodes feels the sting of loss that being a man of the people brings him. A man of the people can have no friends if his master is hoi polloi. Sandow proved that in order to get ahead, one must stab the other in the back.
Hard lessons to learn galvanize character, but not before they pierce the armor. If there was a central theme to RAW tonight, it was that a lot of coats of armor got punctured on the way to hard resolution. Even then, those endings will not take these men and women to accord. The nature of wrestling will never allow these men to be friends until they are all past their use-by dates. As long as they can step into the ring, WWE superstars will always be governed by conflict.