{"id":165149,"date":"2025-11-29T18:24:52","date_gmt":"2025-11-30T02:24:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=165149"},"modified":"2025-11-29T18:24:52","modified_gmt":"2025-11-30T02:24:52","slug":"vengeance-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=165149","title":{"rendered":"Vengeance (2022)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here\u2019s the cleanest way to map Charles Taylor\u2019s porous and buffered identity framework onto Vengeance<\/a>. The fit is surprisingly tight because the whole movie is about how people defend themselves against vulnerability and meaninglessness.<\/p>\n

I. Ben is the fully buffered self
\nHe begins sealed off from contingency and relationship. He treats emotions as data points. He keeps experience at arm\u2019s length. He interprets the world through his phone, his podcast pitch, his cleverness.
\nA buffered self avoids being acted upon. It tries to control experience by narrating it. That\u2019s Ben. Nothing touches him unless he decides it does. Even death becomes material for a storyline. His worldview is that meaning is manufactured by the mind, not received from outside. That\u2019s textbook buffering.<\/p>\n

II. The Shaw family is porous, for better and worse
\nThey feel everything. They let loyalty, kinship, and place shape them. They take the world personally. They believe people matter because they matter to them, not because they fit a theory.
\nA porous identity is open to forces beyond individual control. Tradition. Family bonds. Community stories. Shared pain. The Shaws are immersed in these forces. At their best, this gives them warmth and connection. At their worst, it blinds them. They can\u2019t see Abilene clearly because their emotional field distorts her.<\/p>\n

III. Abilene herself embodies the vulnerability of porosity
\nShe wants to be seen. She wants transcendence through connection. Her desires make her permeable. She lets others define her too easily. People project onto her. Her tragedy is the tragedy of a porous person surrounded by buffered people who misuse her openness.<\/p>\n

IV. Quentin Sellers is the weaponized buffered self
\nHe\u2019s not just detached. He\u2019s armored. He believes only in self-crafted meaning, the kind that requires treating people as objects. He\u2019s what you get when a buffered self goes cold and brilliant. He strips away every form of obligation that comes from connection.
\nBen is a buffered narcissist. Quentin is a buffered sociopath. Same structure, different moral temperature.<\/p>\n

V. The Texas setting is coded porous
\nThe place is loud with meaning. Music, family lore, communal rituals, the myth of the West. These are porous forces. They pull people in. They shape identity from the outside. This is why Ben finds it messy and interesting. He\u2019s fascinated by a world where people still let the outside world act on them instead of curating it.<\/p>\n

VI. The crisis point is Ben realizing his buffered stance is morally empty
\nQuentin\u2019s monologue exposes the hollowness of the hyper-buffered stance. When everything becomes narrative, you lose the ability to see people as real. Ben recognizes that his detachment is kin to Quentin\u2019s cruelty. The shock is that his self-protective detachment isn\u2019t neutral. It\u2019s a moral failure.<\/p>\n

VII. Ben\u2019s final choice is a movement toward porosity
\nShooting Quentin is not just vengeance. It\u2019s Ben cracking open. He lets real grief and real responsibility act on him. He abandons the narrating posture. He lets himself feel implicated. That\u2019s the porous turn.
\nHis refusal to air the podcast is the same move. He stops converting lived experience into content. He allows the story to stay in the world, not be processed and controlled.<\/p>\n

VIII. The movie\u2019s meaning through this lens
\nThe film becomes a meditation on two ways of being:<\/p>\n

Buffered: The coastal intellectual stance. Story over relationship. Detachment over vulnerability. Control over connection.
\nPorous: The communal stance. Family, obligation, pain, loyalty. Messy, demanding, human.<\/p>\n

The film doesn\u2019t idealize either one. The Shaws are porous enough to be blind. Ben and Quentin are buffered enough to be morally numb. The moral arc is Ben stepping into the open, risky space where people matter and where your life can be changed by someone else\u2019s suffering.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a clean integration that brings Landman<\/a> into the porous vs buffered identity frame and links it to Vengeance. The two projects rhyme in ways that weren\u2019t obvious until you put them side by side.<\/p>\n

I. Both stories revolve around extractive worlds
\nVengeance deals with cultural extraction.
\nLandman deals with resource extraction.<\/p>\n

In both cases the question is what gets taken, who gets used, and whether anything reciprocal flows back. That maps neatly onto buffered vs porous identity.
\nBuffered people extract.
\nPorous people get entangled.<\/p>\n

II. Landman is populated by porous characters trapped in a buffered industry
\nThe oilfield world is rough, communal, and emotionally exposed. People rely on each other. They\u2019re porous by necessity. You see loyalty, blood ties, resentment, pride. These people are shaped by the land and by each other.
\nYet the corporate layer above them is buffered. Those executives treat everything as a spreadsheet. They treat the land, the workers, and even disasters as inputs. Dale at his worst drifts toward this buffered posture. Tommy wrestles with being pulled into it.
\nThe human texture of Landman comes from the clash between these two layers. The people on the ground are porous. The people in the boardroom wear armor.<\/p>\n

III. The regions rhyme
\nTexas in Vengeance is a place that still runs on porous identity. People care too much. They mythologize too much. They don\u2019t buffer.
\nWest Texas in Landman is the same. The land itself is porous. It acts on people. It breaks them or binds them. The miracle of the show is that it captures how the region dissolves the buffered persona. Almost nobody stays sealed off once they\u2019re down in the dirt.<\/p>\n

IV. Compare Ben (Vengeance) to Dale\/Tommy (Landman)
\nBen begins fully buffered. At the start his mind is the only thing that counts. Nothing penetrates.
\nDale is porous by origin but tries to adopt a buffered mask when he moves upward. He struggles because his instincts are still relational.
\nTommy is deeply porous. He feels everything. His problem is not detachment but exposure. He absorbs other people\u2019s pain. He\u2019s the opposite of Ben.
\nBen\u2019s arc is about becoming porous enough to care.
\nThe Landman arcs are about finding a functional balance so porosity doesn\u2019t destroy you.<\/p>\n

V. Both stories indict the buffered worldview
\nIn Vengeance, Quentin is the extreme buffered self. His detachment is lethal. The movie argues that buffered identity taken to its logical conclusion becomes sociopathic.
\nIn Landman, the buffered posture is corporate. It leads to safety failures, exploitation, broken families, and ecological damage. The show\u2019s villains are the ones who feel nothing. They treat the oil patch like a game board.<\/p>\n

Both works say the same thing: buffering is seductive because it feels like strength, but it hollows you out.<\/p>\n

VI. Where the works diverge
\nVengeance is about an individual trying to shed the buffered shell.
\nLandman is about a region fighting to keep porous identity alive inside an economy that rewards buffering.
\nIn Vengeance, the buffered person must become porous to be human.
\nIn Landman, the porous person must develop a slight buffer to survive the oilfield\u2019s chaos.<\/p>\n

VII. The emotional center
\nIn both works, the heart is found in the porous families.
\nThe Shaws in Vengeance.
\nThe McBrides, Big Jim, Tommy\u2019s circle in Landman.
\nThese people know each other\u2019s flaws. They stay anyway. They take losses personally. They live in a way that resists the algorithmic mindset.<\/p>\n

VIII. What the synthesis shows
\nVengeance diagnoses what\u2019s wrong with modern identity: detachment masquerading as insight.
\nLandman shows you what happens when old porous life tries to survive inside a buffered corporate empire.
\nPut together they paint a picture of America caught between two modes of being:
\nA buffered elite that narrates reality from above.
\nA porous working world that lives reality from below.<\/p>\n

The tension is the same across culture and industry. In Vengeance, the buffered self exploits stories. In Landman, the buffered self exploits land and labor. In both, redemption comes only when someone breaks out of that sealed posture and lets the outside world act on them.<\/p>\n

Vengeance and Landman look like very different pieces of storytelling. One is a sleek satire about a Brooklyn podcaster bumbling through Texas. The other is a sprawling character drama about the oilfield. But put them under Charles Taylor\u2019s porous vs buffered identity lens and they start talking to each other. Both works diagnose the same American problem: people who seal themselves off from the world vs people who let the world act on them and pay the price for that openness.<\/p>\n

In Vengeance, Ben begins as the classic buffered self. He narrates life instead of living it. Nothing touches him unless he can turn it into content. Texas is exotic. Abilene\u2019s death is raw material. He\u2019s protected by irony, cleverness and the belief that meaning is something you manufacture in the mind. The Shaws are his opposite. They\u2019re porous. They feel everything. Their loyalties are messy. They\u2019re shaped by place, family and pain. This is the film\u2019s deeper conflict: a buffered outsider who sees only symbols and a porous family who actually lives the consequences.<\/p>\n

Quentin Sellers is what happens when buffering becomes an operating system. He\u2019s brilliant and dead inside. He manipulates people because they\u2019re not real to him. They\u2019re props. He voices the movie\u2019s thesis that Americans don\u2019t connect anymore. They curate. They narrate. They extract. Ben realizes with a shock that he\u2019s not far from this. The buffered self he thought was neutrality is actually moral cowardice. When he finally chooses vengeance, it\u2019s not frontier swagger. It\u2019s the moment he cracks open. He lets the world act on him. He becomes porous enough to care.<\/p>\n

Landman flips the lens. Here the whole region is porous. West Texas shapes people through danger, loyalty and shared hardship. Almost everyone on the ground is porous by necessity. They absorb each other\u2019s stress. They\u2019re formed by the land. But hovering above them is a buffered corporate layer. The executives see everything as inputs. They treat workers, families and even disasters like items on a spreadsheet. Dale drifts toward that buffered posture as he rises. Tommy lives at the opposite extreme. He\u2019s so porous he bleeds for everyone around him. The heart of the show is the tension between these modes of being. The oil patch chews up the porous and rewards the buffered, but it can\u2019t survive without the very people it undermines.<\/p>\n

Both works expose the same divide running through American life. The buffered world of elites and managers and narrators thinks it sees clearly because it\u2019s detached. But detachment deadens judgment. It hollows out moral instinct. The porous world of families, workers and small communities carries the emotional load. It feels the hits. It keeps human life from collapsing into abstraction. The cost is pain and chaos. The benefit is connection.<\/p>\n

Put together these stories say something blunt: America is split between people who live reality and people who explain it. The buffered identity produces cleverness and control. The porous identity produces loyalty and heartbreak. Vengeance argues that the buffered self must rediscover porosity to stay human. Landman argues that the porous self needs just enough buffering to survive an unforgiving system. Both insist that you can\u2019t build a society on sealed-off people who treat others as narrative material.<\/p>\n

What unites the two works is their respect for the people who still let the world get inside them. The ones who feel too much. The ones who don\u2019t have the luxury of curating experience. They look messy, but they\u2019re the moral core. The buffered characters come off smarter but emptier. The porous characters come off raw but real. America\u2019s future depends on narrowing the gap between these two modes of being. These shows make that plain without preaching. They just tell the truth about what it costs to stay human.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here\u2019s the cleanest way to map Charles Taylor\u2019s porous and buffered identity framework onto Vengeance. The fit is surprisingly tight because the whole movie is about how people defend themselves against vulnerability and meaninglessness. I. Ben is the fully buffered … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26867],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-texas"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t