Yang Wenli vs Oberstein
Is there a point in taking anime characters seriously even though they are just fictional characters?
I have had this post in my mind for a while but what prompted me to put it down on digital ink, despite how vague it is, was a discussion I had about whether there is any value in spending time analysing anime characters from Legend of the Galactic Heroes at all when you could be analysing historical characters and get the same value. Now, I profoundly disagree with that attitude, because as another member of that community pointed out — that’s just zero sum thinking; the media that you will consume will affect your understanding of the media which you previously consumed. The more widely you read the more angles your thoughts will have, angles of the same multi-faceted complex truth and beauty. [Nevertheless, I am glad to part of a community that is willing to question the value of its idols and ideals..]
Speaking of angles, by which I mean points of view, Legend of the Galactic Heroes does have a few of those. Tonight, I will write about two characters which reflect two contradictory views which I might not have simultaneously appreciated if it wasn’t for this show
Needless to say Yang Wenli and Paul von Oberstein are my two favourite characters from LOGH. Other characters have their moments, and certainly have more style than these two but I felt the most sympathetic towards these two. It might seem a paradoxical and even contrarian pairing given how differently they think and act but there is a faint link which I could see between the two.
In short, I perceived in their actions a goal made beyond their own time and life. Of course this is only my head canon, but since it isn’t outright denied, I feel like it’s an interesting take. Read on.
I don’t really believe that the deeds of men, in every age remain the same but in setting a precedent you might be able to set up repeating patterns, because well, you have shown that it can be done (because it has been done once so it can be done again). Or in other words that their will be another Cincinnati-like Yang in the future just as there will be another Machiavellian Oberstein, but these new variants would not have been possible without their predecessors. There is always going to be a round two so long as there are willing participants. Why you can already see a protégé for Oberstein in his former aide, and there are many who were affected by Yang. Or in other words, a sort of victory and vindication beyond death is possible, even if you might not be able to see it. Although I am sure that neither Yang nor Oberstein were particularly interested in seeing their views vindicated by others.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that in their own way Yang and Oberstein could both see outside of the immediate situation. This gave them prescience but in turn might have made them numb to the present. Yang is a “historian” who notices the repeating ripples of history and as such is hesitant to copy the precedent of a benevolent dictator hypocritically saving a democratic republic. Those around him might not realise it or accept it in the immediate moment but there is a logic to the illogic of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, just because it is not pure enough of a victory to break a historical ripple, because it is a lonesome stand for purity from a man who doesn’t probably believe that anything is sacred.
As for Orbestein, he might seem like a man who is the opposite of Yang, who exists and justifies things in the moment and who in the moment could make decision to unleash nuclear annihilation to a planet of innocent people, because it was convenient in the moment. This is a certain view, but if you look around Oberstein, what do you see? Impulsiveness, people using the national military to play up their personal hang-ups with women, to cushion their hurt pride, to keep a promise to a dead friend etc… and in the process they mass murder the most able-bodied and valuable members of their society, young men, in battles which amount to massacres… Let me put it this way, when looked at from a certain dispassionate cyborg-eyed perspective, one might say that war is so cruel that there is no honour in it only pride and delusions of grandeur, and so since there is no honourable way to conduct a war, one might as well end it quickly with overwhelming violence rather than drag it out because of hypocritical momentary pangs of pity which vanish like the morning dew upon some boyish impulsiveness and rage surfacing over the carefully cultivated outside. [And this goes doubly for Wenli too, who despite crying about how war is cruel at every possible moment and that he’s such a bad man for waging it, he didn’t surrender to Reinhart until the very end, which might seem like a contradiction in his character until you realise that it’s all part of his ideal that the military should be subordinate to the elected individuals rather than have a will of its own. Are these abstract moral “ideals” any more worth squandering people’s blood over than the more personal motivations of the Empire’s side? That’s a story for another post maybe. The point is, man this character is deep.]
What confirmed my appreciation of Oberstein’s character, however, was the way of his death which cast his total lack of purity in the light of purity of (civic) purpose, from drawing attention of the terrorists to himself, not out love for the emperor, down to his request not to waste any of the public's purse on his body which was falling apart. He really did always have something important to do all the time.
In Conclusion
Although it might seem stupid yet principled, the path that Yang Wenli chose, I don't see it as that way because it was a splendid death that a victory marred by hypocrisy could not have achieved. Beyond that romantic view, it is debatable that by not setting the precedent of taking power in the moment to then relinquish it, he didn't poison what little legitimacy democracy had left in this universe’s story.
As for Oberstein's death, well, isn't there something beautiful in the purity of how he doesn't seek to be loved, to be honoured in any way or liked, and doesn't fear death or complain that it is undeserved or not a consequence of his own actions. He might not have pitied anyone except himself because of how he was treated due to his disability, and yet the greyness of his character really does cause causes confusion and panic in the simpleminded peons who love one-dimensional evil @$$hole villains.
Ultimately although I have drawn some vague parallels between the two characters, are their perspectives ultimately reconcilable? You decide. I don’t really care if they contradict each other because I can appreciate both.