Ending of Herodotus file?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Aeon Flux : One Thread

Just a quick question about the ending of the Herodotus file, for anyone who read it. At the end, Aeon kills a man who resembles Trevor, then Trevor appears behind her, noting that, "he was talented". Was this supposed to be the operative "Loquat", who was detailed earlier in the book?

-- Di'Akano (Moloch418@hotmail.com), May 13, 1999


Phil; if you look at the begining of the last scenario it begins with the Surveillance Cam.34D, showing Aeon entering the Last Raptor Aviary and Motel for the meeting. Next frame (X00.05.10)shows Trevor, and obviously he is NOT on his own surveillance camera...right? Note his clothing-a light tan colored shirt with his tan suit on, lounging, smoking and looking unhappy (perhaps over the thought his ensuing moves may kill Aeon or if she lives it is due to her unlove of him?). Anyway the next picture is again the surveillance camera (see X00:07:10 for confirmation). The camera films the tryst and here is a subtle nuiance-Trevor has on a BLUE shirt, and surely this is symbolic of the blue collar worker carrying out the employers bidding (ok, maybe not but hey its a nice guess, let's ask Mark Mars!!!) Sadly, Aeon is the champion-she lives by killing the director (a play on her usual role?). Enter the Chairman, who after all is off camera all along-and who sees the tryst through and afterwards lives to sit in his chair again. Heavy price paid. Now the question is was it Loquat? The answer is no I think based on one assumption...Loquat would NOT have felt grief..."Insider her I was, and inside her I shall remain..."

-- Barb e. (Suesuesbeo9@cs.com), October 10, 2002.

I don't think so. I think it was probably just another clone or duplicate, or whatever. You're probably thinking of that picture of Loquat that somewhat resembles Trevor, but I think that this is just a coincidence. It's obvious that Loquat doesn't look like just any one person.

-- Mat Rebholz (matrebholz@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

That's the point - that could have been him disguised as Trevor.

-- Philip Mills (philip.mills@cableinet.co.uk), May 13, 1999.

Okay, I was going to link to the online version of that particular page of the Herodotus File - but I can't find it even after browsing the WebRing.

Can anyone remember where the Herodotus File extract is located?

-- Philip Mills (philip.mills@cableinet.co.uk), May 13, 1999.

I thought the comic-book type pages were over at D-Section... worth a look, anyway.

I'd never thought of the idea of Trevor's dupe being Loquat - but the idea lends a delicious irony to the proceedings. Remember in the agent briefings, Loquat looked at least as qualified as Aeon, if not more. Then she knifes him in forty seconds flat. Come to think of it, Trevor even picked Loquat initially for the Herodotus Operation, then decided to go with Aeon. I wonder why...

-- Charlie Princeton (cmmartin@princeton.edu), May 13, 1999.

I'm sorry but how can you possibly think that Loquat could be the double that aeon killed? In Loquat's description the book seems to indicate that he finds out the details of his assignments without recieving them from his employer. An agent as clever as that would surely never take a menial job as a stunt double. He would probally also know to not accept such a job in the first place. The reason why Trevor did not choose him is also obvious. Trevor would have a very hard time killing him afterards. The ironic part is that Aeon, Loquat's opposite(being very visible), could probaly be considered more difficult to get rid of that Loquat ever would have been.

-- Tess (dreammyth@aol.com), November 01, 1999.

It was of course Trevor himself who was killed at the end of "The Herodotus File." The figure who refers to the dead man as "talented, don't you think?" is the double who, instead of becoming Aeon's victim (as Trevor intended), now presumably takes over Trevor's position and power... not to mention love life.

-- Peter Gaffney (trypsys@hotmail.com), February 02, 2001.

Well, then, is it just a coincidence that Euphemia and Gekman III both typed with a typewriter of the same ilk? Gekman III, who confesses his love for Aeon says he says he loves her 'enemies' too. Was Euphemia really Gekman III, who was so jealous he set the hounds on Aeon? Sending Trevor to his death as well? Didn't know Trevor died, great writing. I loved the Herodotus file.

-- Barb e. (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), February 02, 2001.

Yes, it is great story. You can hear Trevor and Aeon saying the words as you read them. How can you know that the real Trevor died?

-- William (stateofflux@yahoo.com), February 02, 2001.

As some of you may know, I was the creator and executive producer of Liquid Television, for which I first commissioned Peter Chung to create a series of shorts which became Aeon Flux. I also co-wrote and exec. produced the Aeon series and edited with Peter Gaffney the Herodotus File. I have read PG's postings regarding Trevor and I must regretfully inform you that he is diseminating fabrications worthy of Euphemia. Seriously, the point of the file was to create a false history of Aeon's relationship with Trevor, which at some point became the officially deniable backstory. Confused? Good. The best way to disguise the truth is to reveal it. My pal Peter Gaffney does us all a great service...

-- Japhet Asher (trypsys@hotmail.com), February 04, 2001.

This makes my Euphemia question to have a rather obscure answer, where have I experienced this feeling before? hmmm...

-- Barb e. (Suesuesbeo@aol.com), February 06, 2001.

I just read the "File" for the first time and I thought it was really great (except for the ending). Regarding Japhet Asher's comments, why would Trevor create such a sordid backstory to stand in as the officially deniable truth? What purpose does such a sordid lie serve? Don't politicians usually lie to create a favorable image of themselves? If Trevor's goal, as indicated by the file (and yes I'm aware of the dangers of using already questionable material to prove itself false) was to eradicate the past and replace it with a new perfect past, how does falsify his own past in such a way further his goals? The file is simply too far reaching to be totally dismissed. Did Aeon's acts of terrorism never happen; there would certainly be enough corroborating evidence to support them. And what about all the surveilance footage in the file? Can that all be faked as well? I wish they made more books like this so that we could get a more complete view of the exact level of Breen technological advancement and what kind of things they are capable of. Of course the idea that the real Trevor was actually killed and that a double took his place is ridiculous. Why would the double be waiting in the shadows while the real one is in harms way? Why would the double be implanted with NRAs? And since the whole finale was being taped, wouldn't the goon squad rush in as soon as they saw Trevor get knifed just like they did when he started shouting "bring home the bacon!"

-- Logo (Vosepherus@aol.com), March 31, 2002.

When I read the initial bio of Loquat, I thought the agent was actually Trevor himself. In the TV series, he certainly is a first- class operative and doesn't mind getting his hands dirty. "Clean gloves hide dirty hands - and mine are dirtier than most." Also the way of contacting Loquat seemed particularly bent towards Trevor Goodchild's own proclivities.

Trevor's "Loquat" persona would have given him an opportunity to keep his skills up - which also explains why his initial preference is to get Loquat to do the BRM work. Who better to do the work than himself?

Then I read the ending and assumed Loquat was the "Trevor" who was killed. Which kind of destroys my first assumption. I think the "Trevor" who gets killed is just a stunt double, and Trevor really IS Loquat (as per my original thoughts).

-- Phil Willis (willis_phil@yahoo.com.au), October 10, 2002.

& THAT's what is WORTH IT about OUR fkn' show!! OUR "fans" ARE OUR COLLABORATORS & we're NOT FUCKING WITH YOU -

"I don't play...and I don't lose."

-- Mark Mars (artian@charter.net), October 10, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ