#I've just been having fun going back through the old games with new context frankly

[fade-rat]

So.

If, at the time of Rook interrupting Solas's ritual there are only 2 Evanuris left alive. Logic then dictates that the Archdemons as seen during Blights 1-5 actually held the souls of the Evanuris, and thus were killed by Grey Wardens in the previous 5 Blights.

Therefore, when Morrigan completes the Dark Ritual in Origins, it's not the soul of Urthemiel persay that Kieran carries, but the soul of an Evanuris. Some theories point to June specifically.

I wonder if you could argue that Flemythal and Morrigan have equal paternity claim to Kierjune, given that he's both Morrigan's child as Kieran and carries the soul of Mythal's child, June.*

In which case, Flemythal confiscating the soul of June and allowing Morrigan to keep Kieran seems like a completely fair compromise honestly

Follow-up question - We know the Evanuris wielded the Blight and killed Mythal when questioned on it. We don't know exactly if that includes all of the Evanuris, and to what degree.

"She was betrayed as I was betrayed. As the world was betrayed. [...] And I will see her avenged."

To say that Flemythal is powerfully motivated by vengeance feels like an understatement.

And yet relationship between Flemythal and Kierjune clearly seems amicable. Kierjune goes with her willingly, and only seems to nonverbally ask for an alternative when it becomes clear that Morrigan is suffering. And Flemythal immediately agrees.

And continues to be amicable when the Old God's soul (June or perhaps a different Evanuris) is removed.

But you know what's missing from the scene with Kierjune? That same fiery, vengeance-fueled rage.

So maybe it was obvious, but I don't think all the Evanuris were in on Mythal's murder. In that same vein, I don't think we can be sure that all the Evanuris were in on using the Blight as a weapon. So I find it interesting that they were all imprisoned together anyway.

They did all have slaves, though, so we can't claim they didn't deserve what they got - Mythal's murder and the spread of the Blight besides

*(Admittedly, June may not be the child of Mythal - Elgar'nan referred to Ghilan'nain as sister specifically. The relationships between the Evanuris aren't always super clear, and I always assumed it was like a Greek god allegory thing in that myths just aren't clear like that sometimes. But the fact that the Elvhenan were spirits who gained physical forms also implies maybe they didn't have children in a physical way. In which case family ties might have been determined based on general vibe and social relationship, so who knows)

[genericpuff]

i find it funny that one of rachel’s drawings of herself in the afterword that just went up is just fully persephone. is that something she does a lot?

Alright so I've been making it a general rule for myself to like, not harp on Rachel in any way outside of LO as much because frankly the horse is dead now and there's not much left to say outside of what can be analyzed in hindsight. I think despite everything I have to say about her and her work, she still deserves to get away from this nonsense and I don't wanna spend eternity hovering over her shoulder.

But the afterword was posted within the LO series and is clearly meant for readers of LO in the functioning of being an afterword so let's just call it fair game LOL

I will say, on the whole, it does feel very honest and sentimental and I can respect Rachel for taking the time to write out and illustrate her afterword in a way that was personal to both her and her fans. I can understand why she went at it from the angle that she did and I'm not gonna fault her for that.

But there's also something that feels deeply... disingenuous about her approach right from the starting gun. I will say, before I continue, that I'm well aware I am biased towards Rachel as a creator, and I fully acknowledge that I could very well be reading too much into things. This is just my opinion, take it with mountains of salt.

I can get looking back on your own childhood, your past self, whatever, and going "see! it all got better!" because sure! For a lot of creators like Rachel, it must be wild to look back on where they came from and there's a lot of sentimentality on expressing that through an afterword like this where she reflects on where she came from. Though she STILL didn't acknowledge her other comics outside of LO, I can understand if she wants to leave those skeletons in the closet.

But I feel like her drawing herself as a child who's being given an Eisner by her adult self and all that just feels like some gross attempt to disarm any criticism of her because "don't make fun of me, I'm just a sad lonely baby girl!"

She's not a child. Child Rachel didn't grossly misappropriate Greek myth into their own self-indulged vanity project. Child Rachel didn't claim herself a folklorist of a culture's works only to bastardize them completely. Child Rachel didn't create a hostile environment within her fanbase by bullying anyone who she perceived as a threat, sneaking into critical spaces to try and cause trouble, and writing her own clapbacks into her comic. Child Rachel didn't claim to be challenging misogyny and purity culture only to reinforce misogyny and purity culture through her own self-insert baby-virgin-gets-rescued-by-rich-tycoon power fantasy that regularly glorified abuse towards women and the lower class.

30-almost-40-year-old Rachel did though.

At best it comes across as really cringe sentimentality from a Greek-weeb (heh, greeboo) and goes to show how much Rachel inserted herself into Greek myth without ever absorbing its messages or cultural contexts, it was all about her and her feelings as a sad New Zealand girl with dyslexia who thought Persephone's story was about another sad girl being rescued from her "horrible childhood".

At worst it's an active attempt to play on people's heartstrings by drawing herself as a child who people will naturally not want to criticize. I don't want to assume she's doing it intentionally, I really don't want to leave her afterword on a bad foot, as I can definitely understand as both a creator and a person who struggled with learning disabilities in their own childhood how and why she wants to pay homage to her past and where she came from... but let's just say, as someone who's also gotten way too "lost in the sauce" concerning personal self-reflective projects, I think there's a lot to say about how this confirms that Rachel made LO entirely for herself, about herself, without any actual intention to respect the original myths, because she never truly separated them from herself when she was a child. And, in my humble opinion as someone who has Been There with the self-insert OC's and self-reflective angsty plotlines, I can fully attest to the fact that that's not fucking healthy. Even with personal projects, you NEED to learn to get your head out of the sauce, you NEED to learn to objectively separate yourself from the narrative so the story doesn't fall apart under your own hubris and ego, you NEED to learn to draw a line if you want to have any sort of identity as a human being outside of what you make for people. And that's with just normal original stories, this was a story based on Greek myth which doesn't belong to her.

And this goes for a lot of the things she's said and done in the past, so much of her own "sources" even are tethered to things that she read / watched in her childhood and only vaguely remembers, as if she never mentally left her childhood at all, which just... if the point was to highlight her past and the traumas she went through and how they contributed to her present, an Eisner isn't going to validate those experiences. And drawing attention to her past through the lens of her childhood self absolutely 100% does not absolve her of the negative effect her work has had on the modern Greek myth zeitgeist nor the things she's said and done as a 38 year old woman who should absolutely know better.

The community she entered and took from will forever remain changed by her influence and taking, in many ways not for the better. She has the privilege of walking away and never having to think about it again, with all the awards and accolades that were bought for her, the bravado that she built around being a "folklorist" with zero credentials, and the platform she was given over many other creators struggling to even be heard.

That "place" she claims to have now was built entirely on inserting herself into another culture's works and doing nothing but taking, taking, taking, while offering nothing in return but vanity and lip service. That "place" was paid for and brought to you by Webtoons.