partridge-in-a-pear-tree

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

Filipino Isekai

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

viktor arcane has to be one of the characters ever.

he's gay. he's terminally ill. he's suicidal. he's from league of legends. he's in a toxic relationship with an orb. he also might be the orb(???). he bullshitted his way into the academy by pretending he went there. he rizzed up a guy so he wouldn't kill himself. he then tried to impress said guy by breaking into his boss's lab. then when he got caught he tried to play it off by saying he thought this big intimidating door was his bedroom door and he was just trying to sneak a guy in there. he nearly died because hetero sex was happening like a mile away. kinda. he took illegal drugs. he's also the apprentice of the guy who's making the illegal drugs and never mentions it. he's inspired off of the tale of frankenstein's monster. he got shot by a missle and fucking died. when he came back to life he immediately broke up his messy gay situationship and became jesus fucking christ.

truly one of the characters of all time

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

The belief that everyone in Arcane is morally grey is a common mistake. The vast majority of characters in Arcane are morally grey. The exception is Ekko, who has somehow never done anything wrong ever in his life.

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

Viktor's Sequence in S2's Opening, What It Symbolizes & What it Means for the Rest of S2

So Act I dropped and it's great—Lots of plot points to go over in the future—but for now I want to deep dive into some interesting things I noticed about the intro, particularly found in Viktor's portion of it.

The opening is full of interesting symbolism and representations of Arcane's characters in their clearest, "purest" form (pure as in lacking impurities, not as in morally pure).

There's a lot of neat tidbits hidden in the opening, but I particularly want to dive into Viktor's segment because i am biased as hell his shots have some potentially incredible depth to them that I'd like to dissect.

A lot of that potential comes from what exactly the mask represents, which I'm arguing is not a symbol of Viktor's Machine Herald identity.

Hear me out.

Starting off with his first shot: we see Viktor reaching for the mask. Instantly after he makes contact we cut to a shot of Viktor holding the mask and considering it. He even turns it a little as he looks at its face, as if he's not quite sure what it is.

These shots are telling the story of S1 Viktor's experimentation with the Hexcore, particularly the research Viktor conducted AFTER his blood mixed with it...and yet, the mask does not represent the Hexcore itself, so how can it be telling that story?

I've seen a lot of theories of what exactly is the catalyst of Hextech's corruption into the Anomaly, and the most popular one at the moment seems to be that Blood + Hextech + Abuse of Magic = Anomaly/Angry Arcane. This theory seems to stem from the fact that not only did the Hexcore react to Viktor's blood, but so also did the Hexgates themselves.

Corruption found on the base floor of the Hexgates. There's a ceiling to this room, so there's very little chance that this is literally where Viktor's blood landed, but I do think his blood's presence in the Hextech-charged room triggered a chain reaction with the rest of the Hexgate. We may even see this happen in a flashback.

So, assuming these intro shots are representative of the moment when Viktor reached out and touched the Hexcore, and later when he's examining it more closely/experimenting with it, why don't these shots represent the Hexcore itself?

Because Viktor isn't making a move to put on the mask. He's just looking at it, thinking about it, considering what it is. Viktor absolutely made a move to use the Hexcore in S1—and killed his assistant in the process.

So what is he "looking" at?

I believe the mask is representative of the Arcane itself, and, by extension, its hold on Viktor's mind.

He's examined the Arcane and played with its properties—unsure of what to really make of it, but he never had the chance to take on the full potential of it. Once Sky died he realized that something was very wrong. Maybe he didn't realize how wrong, but he definitely concluded that this form of magic needed to be destroyed—thus the "Promise me" scene.

If the Blood + Hextech + Magic Overuse = the Arcane lashing out theory is true...then the moment that Viktor's blood mixes with the Hexcore is the moment it crosses the line from a mindless device to a tool of the Arcane.

This idea is only strengthened by Viktor's next shot—the mask being held to his face.

Viktor himself is not holding the mask—Jayce is. This shot depicts how Jayce used the Hexcore to save Viktor's life—very much against Viktor's will on multiple fronts—replacing Viktor's identity with a false one.

Jayce is putting the mask of the Arcane onto Viktor's face, hiding his true features, his emotions, his personality. The mask wears a flat, serene expression, reflecting Viktor's forcibly suppressed emotions in this Act—as we see with how Viktor interacted with Jayce when he woke up. As cathartic as that scene may have been, Vik was acting wildly out of character, and I sincerely think that was on purpose.

It's difficult to tell in this lighting but Vik's eyes are also their typical golden-amber in this shot. That would only make sense if this is symbolic of Viktor's true character being concealed by a false identity. It would make no sense to use Vik's amber eyes in a sequence meant to symbolize his new identity being concealed by the literal Machine Herald mask.

The final shot is not much different from the last one, but really drives home this comparison and the idea that the mask represents the Arcane, not Viktor's MH arc. The same mask is worn by numerous others, all slowly fading into view.

These faceless people are the Church of the Gloriously Evolved, all represented by the same exact mask that Viktor is poised to take on.

And yet, the mask is never fully put onto Viktor's face, unlike Viktor's followers. He can still back away. He can still hesitate.

So what does this all mean for S2?

It means that this ^ is not Viktor. This is a man either heavily under the influence of (or being fully controlled by) the Arcane.

And it also means that this trancelike state is not Viktor's endgame. I sincerely doubt this husk of who Viktor used to be will end up being the calculating antihero that is the Machine Herald.

Another point for the theory that Viktor's mental humanity will come back to him is the fact that Vik's in-game MH mask has golden eyes, mirroring Viktor's real eyes, not the lifeless—albeit shifting—gray of Viktor's current irises. Assuming Riot will be keeping this iconic part of Vik's design, that signals a change back from the emotionless puppet Viktor seems to be right now.

But I suppose we'll know for certain by the finale.

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

Caitlyn didn’t lie.

First off, due to the utterly brilliant writing of the scene, Caitlyn gets off on a technicality. Vi says to her, “Promise me…” and Caitlyn replies, “I won’t.” I don’t think Caitlyn is saying that as a way to dodge Vi’s plea, I just think it’s an incredibly clever way for the writers to deliver the idea that Caitlyn isn’t even capable of responding to Vi in an honest way, and neither of them realize it. Or if they do, they pretend they don’t. Or hope they don’t. Because they want to be who they were before, Caitlyn and Vi, side by side, out to change the world, possibly forgetting what happened last time they two tried facing off against powers greater than themselves.

But outside of the writing, I think Caitlyn truly thinks she is making a promise she can keep. In her mind, she hasn’t changed. She’s grieving, yes, and motherless now where she wasn’t a few weeks ago, but in her mind she is still the same principled person who believed equally in justice and mercy. She has always had a desire to bring Jinx to justice ever since Jinx blew up all those enforcers on Progress Day. And Vi has always known that, too, so why would her plea for Caitlyn not to change involve a changing of that objective?

I actually think that part of the reason Caitlyn lashes out the way she does after the fight with Jinx is because she believes she’s so unchanged. She thinks she’s keeping the worst of her grief at bay by diving headlong into her pursuit of Jinx and leveraging her influence and power to get her there faster. She thinks she is still an observer of the prejudice against Zaun - “I understand how easy it is to hate them. One vicious act.” Spoken as though she is not already the one fantasizing about murder over that one vicious act, as though she didn’t fall into the trap of generalized hatred of an entire people the second Jinx kidnapped her. We know that she sees Zaunites as an evil monolith because when she tries to convince Vi to put on the enforcer badge by assuring her that she can be a representative of what a good Zaunite can look like (“you can show them that not all of Zaun supports Jinx”) and when Vi refuses for a whole mountain of legitimate reasons, Caitlyn decides it’s because vi is not on “our side.” The lines in the sand are already drawn and Caitlyn is so deep in her own grief she can’t even see that she’s the one who has drawn them. She’s so sure that she’s the same as she’s always been that when Vi treats her like she’s unstable, incapable, reckless, dangerous, it forces her to face the person she’s become, and she breaks - her boundaries, Vi’s heart, and her own promise, all at once.

But she didn’t lie. Not really. She just lost sight of herself so completely that she doesn’t know what her own truth is anymore.

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

On Radicalization

I'm seeing a lot of people now talking about radicalization (for obvious reasons) and I want to put my two cents into it.

I'm not a radicalization expert by any means, but I have my MA in terrorism studies, and I'm currently pursuing a PhD in security studies, so radicalization is a thing that I have talked/thought about a fair amount.

I think one of the most important things to understand when you think about radicalization is that "radical" and "extremist" are both relative. Generally, when we're talking about radicalization, we're talking about a sharp political shift to a position outside of what we would consider the norm. What's radical in a liberal city in the United States in 2024 is vastly different from both what would have been radical in that city 150 years earlier and what is radical in some other countries right now.

For much of the last 2+ decades (or at least ~2001-2019), most of what was talked about with radicalization was in the context of islamist terrorism/violent extremism. People around the world were trying to figure out why people (especially in Western countries) were joining al Qaeda or ISIS or why people in Afghanistan were joining the Taliban, etc. What was it that drove one person to do that and another person not to--and, what was it that drove one person with those ideological beliefs to commit violence and one person not to.

Right now, in the US, what a lot of people are talking about is why people (namely young white men) are shifting dramatically to the right, particularly socially, and ending up in the political far right. In particular, why are they now advocating for (or at least voting for people who advocate for) taking away rights that are ~50 years old, as well as being more openly white/Christian supremacist than was socially acceptable 25 years ago, and why are some of them committing far right violence?

I think some of the reality that we have to face is that people have been advocating against abortion (and to a lesser degree birth control) access for those entire 50 years, and people have been white/Christian supremacists this entire time, and we just had a brief period of time when it was a little less okay to say out loud. But anyone old enough to remember the Obama campaigns remembers that the opposition to them was virulently racist and Christian supremacist.

But radicalization is happening, so let's talk about some of the ways that it happens in general. None of these are universally true, and what might radicalize one person might not radicalize another.

Social isolation. Social isolation is an extremely common factor in radicalization. Communities generally do two things: they act as a moderating force, and they give people ties that discourage violence. When studying islamist radicalization, from what I remember, conversion was a factor in likelihood of radicalization--not because there is something inherently radicalizing in the act of converting to a religion, but because converts often found resources online or with communities that specifically targeted new people, ones that were less ideologically moderate.

People who convert are also I think in some cases the people who are more likely to be ideologically driven anyway, because it is more work to convert and so you would only do so if you have a stronger ideological belief in it. You see this with some Catholic converts (e.g., Vance)--they are often more conservative and don't necessarily reflect mainstream Catholic teachings because they didn't grow up in a Catholic community as much as intentionally looking for the things that would make them The Most CatholicTM (ironically and hilariously one of those seems to be disagreeing with the Pope, which is approximately the least Catholic thing you can do).

if you have a community, you're generally also less likely to try to hurt people in that community because they're people you care about. Not a universal truth, obviously, but in aggregate. Being in a community also means that there are people who can tell you that what you're saying is extreme and walk you back from it. If you're isolated, nobody will tell you that.

But overall being isolated makes you more likely to feel like nobody likes or cares about you, which can make you angry and disaffected and looking for someone to blame, and it also makes you far more vulnerable to people who are looking to recruit. If you think everyone hates you and then someone tells you that everyone does hate you except for them, you're probably going to listen to them.

Relative depravation. Relative depravation is the idea that the radicalizing factor isn't having nothing, it's having something and seeing people who have more so you feel like you have nothing. I remember this came up when people were studying who in Afghanistan joined the Taliban, and it was often people who were more middle class rather than people living in poverty. The people living in poverty didn't have time to be radicalized because they needed to put food on the table, but the middle class people could see how good other people had it and how bad they had it and it made them mad. (I am vastly oversimplifying a study I remember from 10 years ago--it's a lot more complicated than this.)

But in the US, we're seeing this with men (who have, on an objective basis, lost political power in the US), and with white people (who have, on that same objective basis, lost political power in the US), and with people from geographic regions that used to have much stronger economies and better opportunities but don't anymore (e.g., coal areas, manufacturing areas). They can look at other people (e.g., women, POC) and say "I lost power and you gained power because I lost power, that's not fair and it's hurting me" or "it used to be better but now it's bad, that's not fair and it's hurting me" and then they get mad about it. And some subset of people who get mad about it decide to hurt people over it, or at the very least they vote to try to get it to not be like that anymore. They want to go back, because to them, back was better.

Radicalized education. One of the reasons why white women are so valuable to the white supremacist movement is not just that they can have white children, but that they can teach those white children. Some of this starts at home, or in the schools, or in the churches. And it's not necessarily radicalization if it starts that way (because people aren't moving politically so much as just being), but there are tens of thousands if not millions of children right now who are learning misogynist, queerphobic, and white supremacist ideas in all forms of their education. Those children who learn the benevolent slaveholder narrative or the states rights idea or that Jews killed Jesus or whatever grow up to be adults, and some of them vote, and some of them vote Republican because the ideas Republicans are spouting are the ideas that they were taught.

Suffering under real or perceived oppression. One of the goals of terrorism, in some cases, is to spark an overblown government reaction, which will then radicalize the populace into rising up against them. This is because, sometimes, for some people, that works--some people suffering under oppression or what they perceive is oppression will become increasingly anti-government (or anti-whoever is oppressing them) and that will sometimes turn violent.

The thing to remember here is that oppression is also in the eye of the beholder, to some degree. By the standards of some right-wing Evangelicals, for example, they are oppressed by the secular federal government, which keeps them from practicing their religion in the way that they see fit.

Justice by any means. This isn't exactly a way that people are radicalized, but one thing I see in people I would consider radicalized on basically all ideological fronts is this idea that justice (or winning) should come by any means. You see this in people who burn abortion clinics or kill abortion providers to "save babies" and people who kill cops as a solution to police brutality and people who stone gay people to death. The idea that your ends justify your means is, to me, a core to true radicalism.

The reality is this: if there was one way to stop radicalization, countries would have done it decades ago. Sometimes it's about drawing people into a community, and sometimes it's about getting them out of the community that is radicalizing them. Sometimes it's about being kind or compassionate to a single human being, and sometimes it's about showing them that they are operating against their own self-interest.

And sometimes it's just about damage control and about keeping someone who is already radicalized and looking to do violence from doing violence.

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

I saw someone say on TikTok that "Viktor loved jayce too early and Jayce loved Viktor too late" and it's all I've been able to think about.

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

You’re welcome 😘

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

”i thought maybe you could love me like you used to” and “everyone in my life has changed. please don’t change” THE PARALLELS

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

Make sure you say "I wonder what they're doing right now..." about your comic relief friends every now and then so the episode can cut to their B plot

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

do u ever get emotional about the fact that tchaikovsky, a gay man, wrote his Romeo and Juliet overture for his brother and his brother’s gay lover bc I sure as hell do

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

You know when people ask how did germans let Hitler get so much power ... this is how

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

regulus black who wears rings of all shapes and sizes on his fingers at all times to Look Cool but when he gets married to james, takes them all off and leaves only the one ring on — their wedding ring.

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

when the light caught your hair, for a moment, you seemed her perfect likeness.

when the light caught your hair, for a moment, you seemed her perfect likeness.

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

[partridge-in-a-pear-tree]

CHAPPELL ROAN winning Best New Artist at the 2024 MTV Video Music Awards