“I am one of one”: Week 6 (Clash in Italy) – Characterisation project

This week’s analysis is heavily weighted towards Cargill, given her appearance on premium live event Clash in Italy, and its potential narrative consequences. So without further ado…

Jade Cargill – Smackdown

Jade Cargill kicks off this week’s Smackdown, and her willingness to incite the crowd displays on the one hand her single-mindedness, her self-confidence; on the other, it hints at over-confidence or arrogance. “I’m so confused, y’all act like I’ve got something to prove,” she tells the Catalan crowd. “I don’t ask for permission. I am Jade Cargill. I am one of one. I do what I want.” Her minion B-Fab follows up with: “she [Jade] is the most dominant.” ‘Dominance’ is a word I’ve used consistently over the past weeks when describing Cargill’s character traits, and now this is verbalised by those around her. It’s worth noting that as B-Fab delivers her lines, Cargill is gesturing towards her own sculpted physique.

On interrupting the dastardly three, Rhea Ripley qualifies Cargill’s dominance as “self-proclaimed”, before Cargill, in response, refers to her own power. On Charlotte Flair and Alexa Bliss’s entrance to the promo party, the narrative tension within Cargill’s character, crystalises: can she prove her self-proclaimed status against veterans of multiple accomplishments? Will her arrogance be her achilles heel?

The resulting bout against Alexa Bliss – much smaller yet much more experienced – is designed to prove Cargill’s physical dominance. The gap between words and actions comes back to haunt Bliss on this occasion: “I’ve gone toe to toe with people on the mic and in this ring, people that are way better than you. So do not make me embarrass you before your career has even started.” Cargill not only beats Bliss, but assaults her post-match, with Bliss’s allies no longer at ringside to prevent it. Bliss’s inability to back up her words promotes Cargill’s future chances of doing this. Also, it promotes Cargill’s value of ruthlessness once again. Or, as the commentators describe Cargill, “destructive” and “dangerous”, as competitive values.    

Clash in Italy

So, having set up the obstacle for Cargill – in a one-on-one bout, proving her self-proclaimed dominance and greatness – Clash in Italy offers a climax to her feud with Ripley, and an inflection point for her character. As identified in previous weeks, here the commentators focus on the physical aspects of Cargill’s character, offering something akin to a sporting narrative. She “has no wasted movement”, is methodical, she’s “done her homework” on her opponent. In other words, her ability to strategise, her competence and skills, sit alongside the strength and conditioning suggested by her physical appearance. Cargill, it appears, has developed the skills to match her confidence and may be who she says she is, as long as her achilles heel – arrogance – doesn’t bring her down*.

However, there’s an important contradiction in these sporting narratives. While commentators promote Cargill’s sporting skills, the 2026 smartened-up viewer both accepts this on a kayfabe level, while simultaneously reading her skills not through a competitive lens, but a performative one. Her real skills – or hidden labour – are actually her ability to works with her ‘opponent’ to entertain and incite the crowd. Note that it’s only Cargill’s ‘hidden labour’ which will retain the crowd’s attention – i.e. if she performs a picture-perfect, cohesive imitation of sporting strategy but the crowd are silent and disengaged, it has no value – and so allow continued narrative momentum for her character.  

Cargill’s loss in this bout occurs due to the karmic interference of Charlotte Flair; Flair successfully carries out the exact subterfuge failed by Cargill and her buddies moments earlier. What this second defeat provokes in the Cargill character will be interesting. Having twice failed to match her actions to her words, this may provoke a death of the old self. The ‘lie’ her character has told herself can no longer be upheld, and so a shift in the internal self must take place to resolve this inner crisis. Let’s see in the weeks ahead.    

*While this analysis is about ‘reading’ what’s on the screen, and not offering storyline critique, or emotional opinion, good God was Corey Graves’ commentary infuriating here. Above, I have outlined the commentary narrative, but I’m being kind to Graves in doing so. What was actually offered was a contradictory, muddled mess – e.g. Cargill hasn’t wasted a movement, immediately followed by her doing pushups to taunt Ripley.   

Credit: WWE/WhatCulture

Seth Rollins – Raw

This week, Rollins performs against Montez Ford, one half of the Street Profits, who, in their efforts at collectivisation alongside Rollins, have suffered multiple misfortunes. The bout comes after Ford earlier in the night referred to “the Seth Rollins Redemption Tour” – making the narrative arc explicit. Rollins eventually wins, but with both men exhausted, Ford’s partner Angelo Dawkins is attacked outside the ring. There’s a quick cut away from this attack, and a backstage scene sees Ford finally admit that he and Rollins need to work together. With Rollins now apparently having the backup required, he requests another bout with Bron Breakker, seeking to bring the feud to a close. With this promise of a narrative climax, we can expect to witness the virtues of collectivism. More importantly for the character of Seth Rollins, his redemption should mean the display of faith and dependability I suggested last week.