#Obv this isn't a full analysis of possible illiad and/or biblical allusions in CoD lol

[hypermascbishounen]

So, I haven't played Curse of Darkness myself, and I've never enjoyed Netflixvania. But, I feel like I've noticed something particular, that I have not seen mentioned by anyone. And am curious what fans of Curse of Darkness specifically would think about my reading of this.

It seems to me that in game, Hector and Isaac both have names that are meaningful to their characters, but also come with connotations of another implied meaning, as each others foils, that feel just as important.

Game Isaac seems to be named in reference to the biblical Isaac, bc he is effectively a sacrificial son. But he is also out to ruin Hector in retaliation, to the point of needless cruelty, because of his grief and madness. Like Achilles, from the Iliad(or he possibly also has Ajax parrelels, another notable opponent to Hector).

And game Hector seems named for the Illiad's Hector, bc like him, he is at his core a sympathetic and honorable man who was nonetheless on the wrong side of a bloody conflict. But he is also cast out by a patriarchal figure, like bliblical Isaac's brother and counterpart, Ishmael. (There's also possibility for Achilles parallels himself, thanks to his vengeance quest over his own lost love. Which also seem to be part of his narrative comparisons to Dracula)

So I suspect that the reason N!Isaac ends up with a sort of unearned version of game Hector's arc and themes, that is hard to tell if it was even intentional, is because:

Unlike in the bible, in the *Quran*, Isaac and Ishmael have their roles switched. Ishmael is the central focus instead of Isaac, and is the sacrifice, before he is cast out into the desert, and becomes a founding figure in islam. This is probably why Dracula literally finds N!Isaac in the sahara desert(and banishes him there again).

So, N!Isaac, as a muslim, is no longer treated as a reference to the biblical Isaac, but is an Ishmael archetype, which *is what Hector is supposed to be.* But N!Hector's role as being his foil is gone, and instead he's at best there to weakly prop up how much better N!Isaac is by comparison. (And I don't believe him being "sacrificed" to Ellis' fetish writing counts either, bc he's framed more as a pet dog than a lamb, and it's not really connected much to his relationship with N!Isaac.)

Meanwhile, because N!Hector is no longer a proper foil, or respected by the narrative, he's also lost all symbolism behind the name Hector. And in turn, N!Isaac has completely lost all of game Isaac's illiad parallels.

Game Isaac as Achilles' less flattering qualities - of arrogance and need for recognition through glory, his grief and self-hatred over not being there to protect the person who meant the most to him, and his uncalled for ruthlessness and disrespect for his opponent, that ultimately leads to his death -

Or possibly Ajax, who was often considered second best to Achilles, who felt entitled to Achilles armor, and when passed over had violent delusions that lead to him killing himself with Hector's sword

- is just completely missing as an axis in N!Isaac. He doesn't even really get any *positive* Achilles or Ajax symbolism iirc, or any illiad Hector symbolism to complete the reversal either. His character is a one note(and clumsy) Ishmael archetype, who can only really be held up as great by the narrative no matter what he's done, or is doing.

Obviously, N!Isaac's freedom/agency arc is also tied up in him being a former slave. But I do think that him being muslim, and the way he's framed akin to Ishmael, is meant to line up with it. Which decision was made first/whether it was at the same time is debatable. But either way, it leads to him being an almost immediate inversion of game isaac's character from the basic themes. And bc game Isaac was already designed mirroring Hector, N!Isaac would inevitably just become a low-level partial rendition of game Hector.

This all bothers me, if my suspicions are correct. It looks like hugely wasted potential, and worse, the kind of writing decision borne of not paying attention to the source materials themes, bc it wasn't respected, and thought to not have them at all. Trading dual literary references meant to reinforce two characters relationship, for a single one-sided one, is just weaker writing. To the point where it seems unthinkable to do consciously, and has to have been from not even realizing there was something there to leave out. I come away feeling like the nfcv writers think they're smarter than the games writers, but with little evidence to show that. And that these characters deserved better.

Is this a fair interpretation or am I reaching too far with CoD's themes? Did I forget anything major about this in regards to nfcv? Has this all been mentioned before, and I'm just re-treading basic analysis? Feel free to lmk, bc I am but some guy with a mythology special interest passing through, who goes slightly insane wnv I see allusions to things I recognize, go unnoticed and neglected by supposedly professional writers, lol.