it’s sooo fun how james fitzjames’ exists within the terror as narrativization of himself, shaping the events around him into a consumable story AND he’s also the only person who gets to address the audience. there are ample scenes where characters are alone on screen but only jfj has a continuing dialogue during these moments. both in ep 6 with his “leave it to you sir john” while going through the trunk and in ep 9 with his bringing back the phrase “more than god loves them” about francis, he speaks only for an unseen audience. the only other time where we see a character speak not to another living being is with goodsir’s “i am trying” to jacko’s preserved body — but still this is firmly within the world of the narrative. the difference with fitzjames isnt that he steps out of the narrative, nor even that he sees the shape of it, but instead that he recognizes it’s presence at all.

with a name “like a bad pun” and a life he’s created out of elaborately preserved fictions and veils, jfj has mastered the beats of narrative. unlike crozier, it takes a lot for him to be able to perceive the genre (arguably he doesnt really see the tragedy for what it is until he begins to die in earnest) but he knows the performance. he knows that there is an audience somewhere, whether that be the ghosts of the men they’ve lost (it’s interesting that both instances involve reference to sir john, the first one being directly addressed to him), those back in england who might be told this story by him or others, or even us, the eyes looking back on them as history. he weaves threads and beats in throughout to be picked up in the telling, easing the story’s passage along.

it would be easy to condemn, as a character perceiving the audience, in any story but especially on like the terror where we’re shown men at their worst and most wretched. other characters (i.e. francis) would be quick in my opinion to curse those watching their suffering, removed from its immediacy. but jfj seems to recognize a certain value in the out of reach audience, having an understanding both of their lack of power (there are no cries for help here) and their ability to keep the flame burning, so to speak. if, as i believe, things that happen in the terror matter simply on the basis of having happened and people having experienced them, fitzjames’ interaction with and communication to the audience encourages the experience of these things to continue, even in a second hand way.