starscourgc

[starscourgc]

“Tell the Two Fingers, that Ranni the Witch cometh, to rend thy flesh. With a fateful wound, ne'er to heal.”

-

(I repainted a Ranni piece I made 2 years ago!)

[starscourgc]

kinda obsessed with the idea that messmer impaled the dancing lion on two stakes to push forward the idea that the divine lion is not true divinity but instead just men in a costume.

[starscourgc]

[starscourgc]

This image from the third Elden Ring Book of Knowledge on SOTE has been circulating, and people are citing it as proof that Radahn was a willing participant in Miquella's plans. I don't think these words can serve as definitive proof, and I maintain that Radahn was controlled by Miquella. Here's why.

Image credits: @/Siofra_Mariner on Twitter

To me, the words "their order" and "their cause" don't prove that Radahn is united with Miquella by choice. These deliberate words make me think of Leda's group, Those United in Common Cause, who end up at odds with each other when Miquella's charm inevitably breaks. I think that that very same influence is being alluded to here, with Miquella having used his influence to control Radahn and join him to his cause.

The words "Miquella will intervene once again" imply that Miquella has to fight against some form of natural current, has to change the course of fate, in order to succeed (or try to succeed) at defeating the Lord of the Old Order; to me, the first time he intervened and changed the course of fate is referred to in the first paragraph, where they detail his resurrection of Radahn's body, free of scarlet rot. The text also refers to Radahn's "deserved rest" - again implying that Miquella's resurrection and use of Radahn is somewhat unnatural and morally wrong. If Radahn truly were a willing participant, I don't think that it would have been referred to this way. The story of one intervening with another's fate ironically occurs earlier in the base game, with Radahn stilling Ranni's fate by holding back the stars.

Next, I want to talk about, guess what, more wording.

"Miquella's wish to instill Radahn as his Promised Consort upon his ascent to godhood, a promise he made to Radahn in their childhood."

Note that the wish is Miquella's wish, not Miquella and Radahn's wish, not their collective wish. The word promise is also interesting if we look at the way Miquella uses the word in the DLC dialogue, and towards whom it's directed.

"I promise you, a thousand year voyage, guided by compassion."

Miquella says this to the Tarnished when they are grabbed. Two grabs, and the Tarnished gets their "Heart Stolen", charmed by Miquella forevermore. The Tarnished is resistant, and this is one way through which Miquella deals with resistance.

To Miquella, promises and vows are not shared agreements, but they are the way he enacts his will and influence upon others. They are unidirectional, assured, and a means to an end. His compassion extends to all, but strips all free will, and Radahn's is no exception.

A few notes that didn't fit into any of the above points:

This is my interpretation of the game and the text, and I always enjoy reading other people's interpretations. I think that's the great thing about Elden Ring's ambiguous lore; there can be many readings, and we'll really never know which are right.

I'm very biased when it comes to the topic of Miquella's desecration of both Radahn and Mohg, one in body, and one in soul - I feel like it really cemented how wrong Miquella ended up turning after abandoning all those aspects of himself in the Land of Shadow, and I felt all kinds of icky and sad when I finished the DLC because of this. St. Trina's being discarded and her death was devastating, especially when she was one of the most human and compassionate characters in Elden Ring, granting respite to all the frenzied merchants out of true compassion.

I do believe that Miquella is a victim of the cycle, though, and that he lost himself in more ways than one after witnessing what happened to his mother. To Miquella, the only way to make people stop doing horrible things is to stop them from doing anything of their own volition at all. In theory, it works. But it is so sad. I'm reminded of Melina's dialogue when you choose to inherit the frenzied flame: "However ruined this world has become, however mired in torment and despair, life endures. Births continue. There is beauty in that, is there not?" I sympathize with Miquella, I really do. I understand that he did all this because he not find any alternatives. The world being comprised of cyclical happenings that one person cannot fix is a recurring theme in Souls in general, and Miquella is just another victim of another cycle, which ends up begetting more violence, much like the violence enacted on Marika which prompted Miquella to try and fix things in the first place.

That’s it! I really needed to get this off my chest, and it definitely didn’t fit into a tweet (which is where all the discourse is happening lol). If you made it to the bottom of this yap, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this as well! Thanks for reading my ramblings <3

[starscourgc]

Godrick, Marika and grafting

With the new shaman & Marika lore, we found out that what made the shamans weak, having (diluted but) of the same blood, Godrick essentially turned that weakness around to use it as a weapon. He turned what made the shamans weak, into strength. He took that oppression and is now using it as a means to fight anyone who tries to harm him.

But of course, since it is Godrick, fandom once again sees the situation in the worst possible light & often reminds others that it's the only right way.

See that text above? See how it's possible to give nuance to characters that you don't like / are conventionally ugly / are the lowest hanging fruit?

Reminder people, just because a popular account (be it a youtuber or artist) establishes among their sizeable following that a character can be only interpreted in their way only, which in Godrick's case is usually in the worst faith, doesn't mean you can't challenge that. It doesn't mean you can't have your own ideas, despite most of the fandom excelling at herd mentality and fanatism towards big creators. Don't be afraid to talk about your ideas and interpretations, especially if those ideas are considered uncommon.

[starscourgc]

the miserable Snake again.. love is in the air? WRONG!!!!! ABYSSAL SERPENT

[starscourgc]

Lacrima and Radahn as 1.0 intended

[starscourgc]

2 years difference… waow

[starscourgc]

Big, giant, beefy, man giving his beloved skinny horse a nice bath. Yes, Radahn is giving Leonard a boop. Also yes, that is (Red)Mane 'n Tail shampoo.

[starscourgc]

latenna

[starscourgc]

orn and sen... sitting🥳

[starscourgc]

just an impermissible hair situation, tbh. ft. orn/sen

[starscourgc]

What do you think about Gehrman and Maria? Do you think he was the one to create the Doll? And why she is like this? I always felt like Gehrman couldn't stand her when she became aliv acted soulless while looking like Maria. Themes of trying to return the dead person and making things only worse are so 👌

There have been some good discussions about this already, and I want to be as nuanced as possible on the spectrum of Gehrman is a creep to -> Gehrman's intentions with the Doll are irreproachably pure. I think the Doll is exactly what it would be if we slap a Victorian material culture reading on it: a mourning doll. A object made to carry social meaning, in this case the act of working through grief.

Shoving the rest of this under a cut for length.

I read Gehrman and Maria's relationship as a pretty intense platonic love: devoid of eros, or physical intimacy, but driven more by the familial/committed love of pragma (long-term companionship) or storge (instinctual, unconditional love of a parent for a child); or the kind of unquestioning devotion of oneself to their mentor implied in guru-bhakti if we want to change cultural metaphors. I like the idea that Maria was deeply isolated when she came from Cainhurst and that Gehrman acted as her warden - which implies an age difference - and eventually became her teacher/mentor, bolstered by a strong, familial undercurrent, keeping with the idea that her safety and well-being remained his responsibility.

Which is why it seems plausible that her sudden death would drive him to create something like the Doll in an act of intense, guilt-tinged grief (gone somewhat awry, if you subscribe to the idea that Flora animates the Doll because it feels pity for Gehrman? It's a way to keep him chained to the Dream? It's a wee bit sadistic? Take your pick.) There are a multitude of ways to read the Doll's overt femininity and domesticity (again, you don't need to be a Victorianist to understand the obvious juxtaposition of the Doll's visual and material cues of femininity and Maria's overt masculinity in her actions/presentation). In part I like to read Gehrman's decision to craft the Doll in this way as a (failed, desperate, contrite) way to retroactively safekeep the idea of Maria. The only way to have kept Maria from these horrors and their consequences would have been to literally shackle her to her femininity - implied by the Doll's dress and domesticity, the sphere of the home, servitude, and so on. But the real Maria would never have agreed to such a thing, or wanted it - and so we get this kind of twisted, penitent object of what it would have taken to keep Maria safe. The Doll is a reminder to Gehrman of what he could not do, a shadow of what Maria never was. If you've experienced intense grief after the loss of someone close, you know that grieving never works the way you think it will. You know that you might suddenly reject things associated with the departed, or cling to certain things without reason or logic, or be overwhelmed with absence and try to fill it in the worst possible ways. I think all these apply here. Grieving is messy and hideous and never-ending, and I think the Doll is a perfect sort of allegory for that.

And I think Gehrman telling you to use the Doll "as you please" can be read with a fair amount of nuance, too. For me it speaks to a sort of ill-concealed disgust at what he's made, even as it was supposed to be in the loving image of one of the people he cared for the most - and should have protected but failed to do so. His own reminder that it's not Maria - it barely does justice to the memory of Maria, if we're being honest - and so it's an object, to be used. As you said, the idea of "trying to return someone from the dead and making it worse" - yeah. It's not galvanism and she's not Frankenstein's monster, but we're not so far away in the repertory of Victorian horror tropes, either. The Doll is peak unheimlich - with an all-the-more icky double-meaning when you take into account the unheimlich's origins as an idea meaning not homely, here applied to an object meant to evoke the Victorian ideal of domestic womanhood.

I also think, in the timeline, that the creation of the Doll was one of the last things Gehrman did before he agreed to whatever "deal" was made with the Moon Presence to evoke the Hunter's Dream. In that sense the Doll represents a failure in the grieving process, an inability to forgive himself, and the slow whittling away of his willingness to keep living in this waking world that took Maria from him. It's one of the ultimate ironies of Gehrman that make him such an interesting but classically tragic character: I feel he's one of the characters most intimately accepting of his own mortality. He's tired, he's ready to die, and he's okay with that - but of all those people he loved and tried to protect, he's the last one left "alive", so to speak, if you consider his inner circle by the time we get to the game.

I have no idea if that answered your question but that's all I got right now. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

[starscourgc]

˚✧ ELDEN RING ∞ ° ˎˊ˗  

[starscourgc]

A bunch of art fragments ✨🖌️

[starscourgc]

Mogui and Morgor

[starscourgc]

Tears of joy and tears of regret.