#and ultimately being robbed of your agency

[cosmicjoke]

Perfect addition! Thank you for your contribution to the post, because I really don't think people understand at all what the actual message of "Banana Fish" is, and they use their anger and disdain at Yoshida to dismiss the ending as being a product of her supposed belief that Ash "needed to pay" for what he'd done. It's such a simplistic and shallow way to look at it, I think.

Like I said, one only need look at the way Yoshida portrays Ash as a tragic hero from beginning to end to understand her intentions. She isn't trying to make the audience think that Ash deserved his fate, she's trying to impress upon them how completely and thoroughly the abuse he suffered destroyed his life, the ultimate culmination of that destruction being his horrifically unjust death. Of course it's unfair, but that's the point. A beautiful person died because he was allowed by the people who were meant to protect him to suffer years of ruinous abuse instead.

I love the way you put that, that Ash's death forces us to confront and internalize how each moment of violence and violation and cruelty that Ash suffered wasn't relegated or limited to those single moments, but how they all added up and stretched out to, as you said, touch every aspect of his life.

Ash dies because of his life as a gang leader, and he only became a gang leader because of the abuse he suffered. Therefore, his death is directly linked to his abuse. Ash's abuse forced him onto a path which inevitably led to his premature death. That's what all that foreshadowing is about, all the moments Ash thinks about death and dying, when Ash talks about being like that snow leopard, moving inexorably towards its own demise. Ash knows the life he's living is eventually going to kill him, and that's exactly what it ends up doing. And again, he's only living that life because of how he was abused. It's not about him deserving to die, or needing to pay for his crimes, it's about how he never even had a choice. As you said, his life was irreversibly shaped by his trauma. Because every adult in his life failed him so completely and forced him onto path he had no say in and which he couldn't escape. Ash dying in the end serves to drive home the true ugliness and horror of child abuse, by showing how it insinuated its way into and took control of every part of Ash's life, eventually also dictating the circumstances of his death. It shows how that abuse completely robbed Ash of any agency or control over his own life, and I think the fact of Ash's endless potential as a person, his incredible intellect and beauty, only emphasizes that point more. Ash could have been anything he wanted to be, if only the choice hadn't been taken from him. But it was. It was taken from him, and he was set on a course outside of his control, leading to his eventual demise. As you said, that sends a powerful message about the true consequences wrought from allowing children like Ash to endure the kind of violence he was subjected to. Abuse destroys lives, and "Banana Fish" doesn't allow its audience to pretend otherwise.

That's why I'll always say Ash dying was the only ending a story like this ever could or should have had. It's vital to conveying the overall message about the true evil inherent in the abuse of children and why it should never be seen as acceptable or allowed. Ash doesn't get his happily ever after, even though he deserved it, because any chance at it was taken from him the moment his baseball coach decided to rape him and his own father failed so completely to protect him. "Banana Fish" captures with so much pure reality the true, destructive power of child abuse, by demonstrating so clearly the ways in which it denies its victims hope. Ash never had a chance, and not because of anything he did, but because of what others did to him.

What people seem to constantly misunderstand about what Akimi Yoshida said regarding how Ash couldn't have just gotten away scot-free from his life of crime is that it ISN'T Yoshida saying Ash "deserved" to die. Yoshida frames Ash as a hero from beginning to end. He's shown to be a genuinely good and kind person, that goodness remarked upon again and again by multiple characters, and his death is seen as a tragedy. That should be enough to convince people that Yoshida didn't hate Ash or think he deserved to die. The fact she frames him in such a positive light shows she understands that Ash is a good person that was forced into doing terrible things for his own survival and the survival of others. So this insistence that she thought he deserved to die because she said in some fan-translated interview that he couldn't just walk away from his life of crime, or that there's a price to be paid for murder, is ridiculous. It relies on nothing but assumption about the character of the author.

It's also a problem in fandom, in general, where interviews with authors, in which they're often giving on the spot and half-baked answers to random questions without any prepreation, are given greater credence in interpreting the author's intent than the actual, published work itself. How about letting the work stand on its own and interpret it as is? I've seen so much hate lobbed at Yoshida for supposedly hating Ash or thinking he deserved to die, when the actual story itself does nothing but portray Ash as deeply sympathetic and tragic. Again, no one could read "Banana Fish" with any level of reading comprehension and come away with anything but the impression that Ash is the hero and a good person who's life and death was deeply unfair and unjust. That fact alone should override any answer Yoshida gave in any interview, especially when it's obvious how much Yoshida hates giving interviews and very obviously, intentionally gives half-assed answers that she doesn't put much thought into. It's clear from the work itself that Yoshida has a great love for Ash as a person and as a character. She based his design off of River Phoenix, her favorite actor, she shares her birthday with him, and again, the way she frames Ash and his actions is as that of a hero, from beginning to end. I don't know, maybe it's because she sees Ash as a hero herself?

Ash dying only demonstrates the point further about how child abuse ruined Ash's life. He was led into a life of crime because of the abuse he suffered, and the fact it was that life of crime that led to his eventual death, with it basically being a gang dispute that got him in the end, only further drives home the point of how devastating and ruinous child abuse is. Ash wasn't a criminal because he was a bad person, he was a criminal because the abuse he suffered drove him to become one, and then, eventually, that life of crime he'd been forced to lead came back on him in the form of Lao stabbing him, which is what I think Yoshida actually means when she says Ash couldn't just walk away from the life of crime he'd lived. That inability to walk away further demonstrates the tragedy of the abuse Ash suffered, because it shows how it forced him into doing things which eventually came back to haunt him, things which he couldn't "escape". Lao stabbing Ash was in consequence to his being a gang leader, and his being a gang leader was a result of the abuse he suffered. The two things are interconnected with one another. It's not about Ash deserving to die because of the lives he'd taken, it's about how the life Ash was forced to live as a result of his abuse eventually led to his death. That's where the whole notion of "you live by the sword, you die by the sword" comes from. It's not necessarily a moral condemnation of the person committing acts of violence, but an acknowledgement that violence begets violence. That violence is cyclical. But the fact of Ash's death as a result of his life of crime only further demonstrates the true devastation wrought by the abuse of children, and that's the ultimate point of "Banana Fish's" ending. It's meant to force us to face, through the tragedy of Ash's death, the tragedy of his life in turn.

[strawbeb]

i have so many thoughts about gossip girl and a lot of them are about how the writers absolutely killed every single character’s development except for maybe cece (who they just killed after she’d had the slightest bit of character growth)

[nat20composure]

Astarion and Agency- The Necessity of Discomfort to Self Discovery and the Infantilization of Victims

Minor Astarion discourse ahead that mentions the treatment of SA victims post-abuse:

I want to open this post up just with like. The statement that I don't think there is a correct way to enjoy media and that I LOVE to see individual head cannons and takes on characters in media. I think that is also, to a degree, an integral part of video games because of how unique the experience of playing a game will be to every person who plays it. But it has been making me feel so incredibly sad looking through fan content, art, or discourse for BG3 specifically because of how many people have taken the route of infantilizing Astarion.

I understand the instinct to shield or protect an individual that you love and care for. I also understand that because of the nature of the things that Astarion goes through, a lot of people also feel very deep emotional stakes in him. I'm one of the many fans of the character who is a victim of SA and CSA, I really do get it. That is also why for me personally it is so demoralizing to watch so many people treat him like he is a child who cannot make his own decisions or stand up for himself. Part of that frustration stems from it feeling like a media literacy issue, and the other part of that sense of defeat is just because it feels indicative of a broader attitude that people seem to hold towards victims of abuse, particularly those who are victims of SA.

To explain what I mean by people infantilizing him: I see so many people refuse to allow him the opportunity to be hurt, or to feel uncomfortable. They see this character who has been through an immensely horrible and traumatic experience, and their instinct is to try and shield him from anything else that has the potential to upset him. I get that the people who want that aren't doing it with malicious intent, but frankly it is not really...Helpful? To try and prevent victims from Experiencing Discomfort tm. I also think it kind of disregards the entire thesis of Astarion's character and arc.

When you go through something that robs you of your selfhood and agency, the world can become a crushingly terrifying place. In Astarion, that fear presents itself in a desperation for power, control, and at the core of both of these desires- Safety. One thing the game is clear about is that he has a right to kill his abuser. He has a right to escape his situation. A lot of Astarion's personal arc is centered around being able to finally do that. But the game doesn't just leave it off at getting him to safety. So much of it is also about him needing to take responsibility for himself and his actions, with needing to learn who he as a person is.

The inclusion of the Gur children and Sebastian as characters is a good example of ways in which the game gives Astarion the opportunity to take responsibility. I think that if the intention of the arc was meant to be that "Astarion should never ever have to deal with being afraid or uncomfortable again", then the Ascended arc wouldn't Come with such heavy moral ramifications, like sacrificing the other people just like him, killing the victims he lured in, literal child murder. The game infers that he doesn't deserve to die because of the things he Needed to do to survive, but it also makes it very clear that there is a difference between addressing an Active Threat and using your fear as an excuse to hurt others. Breaking that cycle of abuse when he finally gets the chance to is what separates Spawn Astarion from Cazador.

Taking responsibility for himself, and letting himself sit in the discomfort of vulnerability ultimately ends up being a thing that he is very proud of and cherishes. If you tell him you will make sure nothing like that ever again he himself says that he doesn't want you to be his protector. And so it blows my mind when people go into all of these discussions about Astarion with this...Weird moral high ground for never, ever making or letting him make choices that might hurt him?

I see this the most when it comes to discussions about the possible polyamorous relationship with Halsin and the interaction with the drow twins in the brothel. So many people are just...outright angry? At other people engaging with either of those options? And I feel like that anger is one) rooted in the projection of their Own feelings on non-monogamy and what a victim of SA can or cannot look like. and two) Relies on undermining the agency that Astarion BEGS you for at every turn.

When it comes to the drow twins, the game adapts Astarion's response to them based on where he is in his own personal development (a really cool thing imo). Obviously, if he still doesn't feel good or safe about engaging with sex he declines and says you can feel free, though he hopes you aren't just doing it because he hasn't had sex with you. I think this makes sense: He's just gotten out of a situation where his Safety and worth were directly tied to him having sex. I imagine he feels afraid that not wanting to have sex with you makes him replaceable or inadequate because at this point in the game, he feels like that's all he has to offer. The interaction is relatively the same if you ask him for a poly amorous relationship with Halsin: He just asks you to reassure him that you aren't only doing it because he hasn't had sex with you, and then tells you he isn't worried about it otherwise.

A lot of people have taken the expression of that insecurity in combination with him still allowing you to go forward and do these things as him just "sucking it up" because he's afraid of losing you. (I am aware Shadowheart says he wouldn't be able to handle it when you ask her if you can date both of them- But keep in mind, Astarion says she wouldn't be able to either, and THAT obviously isn't true of her. For the purposes of this discussion I'm only including interactions with Astarion as a judgement of his character.) I understand that concern, but I feel this take disregards so many other points of dialogue, and is also continually rooted in the baseline vilification of discomfort.

To further go into it, the way that he speaks about both of these interactions changes significantly if you speak to him about it once he is completely free from Cazador, and has had time to allow himself to start reconnecting with himself and his sexuality on his terms. He has absolutely No reservations about an open or poly relationship with Halsin, and says he trusts that things will be ok because he one) feels secure in Your relationship and two) Knows Halsin is experienced and trusts him to not be a messy bitch about it.

I think that shift, in combination with the in game explanation of why he isn't ok with being in that sort of relationship with the other Origin Characters (for Lae'zel and Wyll, he says they'd never agree to that. For Shadowheart, he says she's not experienced with open relationships and that he doesn't think it'd work out. For Karlach, that it would break her heart. And for Gale, he says you need standards.) is a pretty good indicator that he doesn't actually care about polyamory or monogamy. I think the vilification of that choice relies on you picking and choosing when you do or do not believe Astarion or just outright not liking non-monogamy in the first place. This interaction has more to do with the player's choice and comfort level, and so is not as important to the broader discussion I am trying to have in this post.

The interaction that is more pertinent to not Allowing him to make decisions is, I think, the drow twins. If you interact with the drow twins after the completion of the Cazador questline, he is outright giddy at the prospect of interacting with the Drow twins. Specifically stating that he is excited to see how he likes these sorts of things now that he's free.

NOW- I do NOT think that he enjoys the act. The game makes that abundantly clear, and I'm not arguing that he has a great time. He obviously does not, and dissociates during it. That being said, allowing this interaction to happen does not make a player evil or selfish. You are not playing the hero if you decide to moderate his choices just because you do not think he is ready for it. Once again, no one is evil for Not doing it either, and I am not saying anybody has to want to. I am just saying that treating this choice like it is an evil choice to make relies on completely disregarding what He wants to do.

Astarion says so many times in the game that he is anxious about finally having the freedom to find out what he wants to do, and I think that his excitement for the drow twin exchange is one of the opportunities the game gives him to make a choice. He makes that choice- And it sucks for him. He doesn't enjoy the act, and having done it he would be able to move forward knowing that. I think it's really cool and important that the game represents that facet of recovering as a victim. While you are trying to renavigate who you are, you are going to make a million new choices you never had before. And sometimes those choices are going to suck ass. It would be a different matter if he knew these things would hurt him and went ahead and did them anyway. But so many people expect him to move forward avoiding even the Potential of being hurt, and I think that is extremely reductive of his arc and who he is.

Beyond the matter of interpersonal relationships, the choice between Ascending or not Ascending Astarion is not a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. It is a choice between his fear and his humanity. Between letting his trauma and his fear define him for the rest of his immortal life, and allowing him the vulnerability of deciding who he is when he isn't running from the world. When he's willing to listen to the parts of himself that want to do right, that wants meaningful connection, that wants to be proud of himself. That wants to meet himself. To confront who he is when someone else isn't deciding that for him.

Astarion as a character is extremely ambitious, inquisitive, and adventurous, three traits that only become more and more evident as he breaks free from letting his own fear dictate how he lives his life. I don't understand how so many people can see him and want to take the core of his character away from him, when he spends the entire game fighting desperately to take it back.

Victims are not casts of the abuse they have gone through. Their shapes may be changed by the hands of others, they may have to relearn how to be the person they want to be. But they are not broken or irreparable or fragile. They do not need to be freed from the grip of one person to be held tight in the grip of another. It is so fucking unfair and self-important to think that your hands will be the ones that fix them. That your hands know better than theirs. I think the kindest thing you can do for a person is to trust them with themselves, and to listen when they tell you who they are and what they want. Please listen to the voices that have only just learned to speak. It is the only way they can get better at doing it.

[mrhaitch]

hi mr. haitch!

i was wondering if you could do a character analysis on suguru geto? i have a hard time understanding how his ideology changed, specifically when he takes it to the extreme and wants to eliminate ALL non-sorcerers. i’d also like to hear your thoughts on the dynamic between gojo and geto… their conflicts and how they drifted apart but never permanently resented the other. lastly, if possible, could you touch on how loneliness affected the two and if it had any impact in their actions, both after riko’s death and after their argument when they split paths

thank you so much,

a curious anon

My knowledge of the series is pretty limited so I can only answer with what I've seen and understood, but Geto and Gojo can be looked at as two different reactions to the same trauma: one blames himself and the other blames everyone else.

That's the core to the changes both of them underwent after Riko's death. Gojo was recognised and elevated as the strongest from birth - the linchpin that holds his society together. Despite the swagger and the ego, beneath is a powerful loneliness and detachment. He has been reduced to a function, with no choice other than to fulfill it, and there's a lot of resentment towards Jujutsu society as a result - they took his childhood, his humanity. His whole identity is based on being the strongest, and yet when he found something he wanted to protect - he failed. Since Riko's death we see evidence of constant effort to master his abilities, to better fulfill his role but at the cost of sinking deeper into the expectations of others. Even so, Gojo comes away with a greater appreciation for the vulnerable, especially children.

Geto, however, did not suffer the same societal pressure - everything about him, his place in the story, is a result of choice and agency. He wants to be a sorcerer, wants to get stronger to protect the weak, he wants to work with Gojo to better the world. When we first meet him, he views his abilities as a means to realise his desires, his ambitions, and - fundamentally - his values.

Riko's death, and everything that followed, robbed him of that ability to choose. Her death meant nothing, a new vessel was found, the world didn't end, everyone moved on. Gojo internalised his feelings of failure and forged on - seemingly unmoved. Geto threw everything he had at saving and avenging her and it changed nothing.

I'll pause here and say that I think Geto and Gojo saw different things in Riko: Gojo saw someone weaker than himself forced into fulfilling a role, Geto saw someone exemplary and unique murdered by the powerless. Perhaps (and remember I'm not an expert here) she came to stand for all of Jujutsu society in his mind - someone with an inherent greatness or importance sacrificed for the sake of people who lack the strength to protect themselves. She was the ultimate realisation of his early beliefs (the strong serving the weak) and it proved to be horrible, far removed from what he envisaged.

But let's focus on their reactions: Gojo went further into himself, into his role, aspiring to realise his full strength to protect others. Geto stopped growing - became bitter, twisted, blaming everyone but himself. He thinks himself a liberator, but in truth he is motivated by an endless appetite for revenge - to take his pain and inflict it on everyone else. It's a response common among men who struggle to regulate and manage their anger and personal set-backs, looking to displace their own negative emotions and push them onto someone else: believing it'll lessen their own pain.

All of this is just supposition, though. Fundamentally Geto is a violent racist, with a fascistic worldview built around strength as some kind of valorous ideal - gleefully inflicting pain and suffering on others. We can empathise with his journey, but we don't have to forgive his actions.

[utilitycaster]

Hey,

I just wanted to say that seeing your thoughts and opinions on Ashton have been really cool. I'm someone who never connected with Ashton and was struggling to grasp their choices and their opinions as I'm someone who just views the world so differently.

But the way you phrase things, especially stating you love them as a character even if you dislike their choices and framing them in the way you have has helped me understand a little more and even if I still can't say I like Ashton, I can respect them more and Taliesin's choices with playing them and that's nice to have especially when they have been quite vocal the last few episodes with their opinions concerning everything.

You doing great things. Keep going

Hi anon,

Thank you so much! I love this ask a lot and I really appreciate you sending it.

One of my favorite aspects of fiction is being exposed to perspectives I don't share and seeing why a character feels that way. Ashton's behavior this last episode absolutely drove me nuts - but I get it! The shard was only a week ago, and that's not a lot of time to get over their desire to feel wronged and robbed, and so when Ludinus drops a golden example of "here's something else you can use to explain why everything is someone else's fault" in their lap, of course they're going to take it! I think Ashton has, throughout the campaign, really been struggling with the fact that he does have a lot more agency and freedom and power than he is willing to believe or admit, and so a narrative of powerlessness in the face of the gods is very seductive even though it's also a nonsensical one (both because the gods haven't remotely struck anyone down in the present day, and because Ashton themself is claiming the power to decide, for the world, what to do next).

He's overlaying his own personal experiences of trauma over the narrative of what was shown in the Occultus Thalamus, and that's extremely normal and (in our world, anyway) human! We all bring our own biases and experiences to the world and to fiction and view things through a particular lens. It would be weird not to. It's just also important to constantly question "am I reacting to what I actually saw and what is actually there; or am I making assumptions that are unfair to make in this particular setting," and Ashton's not in a place to do that. It's rough to watch at times - I know I'm like "HEY YOU'RE IN THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, YOU GOTTA CHILL" but it's such a real response I cannot, ultimately, hate on it.

Anyway it is great that you're trying to approach a character who is being abrasive and difficult and very unlike you with thought and compassion, and I am so glad that some things I've said have helped with that.

[suffersinfandom]

Hey. Hey.

You're allowed to hate season two of OFMD. You're allowed to hate Ed and Stede (although I think you should reconsider interacting with the bulk of the fandom if that's your thing). You're allowed to love an antagonistic character like Izzy. You're even allowed to disagree with me -- I honestly don't need everyone in the world to agree with me. Disagreement is good, even! I don't want us all to think exactly the same way.

But, like. I'm going to take issue if you insist that your misinterpretation of the show or your fanon is the ultimate reality, you know? I've spent a lot of my life being gaslit by abusers. I don't appreciate that kind of thing in my fandom.

I don't like meanness. I don't like condescension. I don't like the smug moral superiority some people cloak their "criticisms" in. It makes me furious when perfectly normal posts are attacked, mocked, and picked apart.

Also:

Ed is not a violent, abusive person.

Ed does not have a hair-trigger temper.

Saying that other characters' actions had an impact on Ed and influenced his behavior doesn't rob Ed of his agency.

I think it's extremely condescending to question the media literacy of other fans, but I definitely feel like some of us were either watching very different shows or we have some unchecked biases coloring our interpretations.

[real-fire-emblem-takes]

Okay I want to write an essay here about Gullveig and Book 7 and themes of agency and how Gullveig's mega-waifu design is actually integral to this.

The way Gullveig is designed, she rarely if ever smiles. Even when you Summon her. She's a dutiful servant. She has no agency. This is the future Njordr envisioned for her: an agentless, demure woman who does as she's told. She's gorgeous--breasting boobily and everything.

Kvasir already thinks she has little agency--that her fate is decided. She is lonely, and cares for the protag like, you know, a nurse almost. She falls for them. But ultimately, she knows her life is a cycle and it cannot be broken. She will be hunted down and killed and become Seidr. It doesn't matter what she wants--which is to live--she has no agency in this. It's Fate.

And Seidr... Dutifully does what Njordr tells her to, not knowing that even the ritual she does to "create a child" is a step in an elaborate plan to fully break down any sense of agency she has. The Golden Seer's Curse will ultimately rob her of it entirely and he'll have his weapon to take out his bitterness on the mortals because he's pissy he's not in his prime anymore. Seidr doesn't realize he dreams of being a mother will be dashed because the ritual is one to mark the player character for literal disassembly and soul fodder for a fake goddess to bear the curse in the interim. Because we could dismantle Njordr's plans by encouraging Seidr's agency.

It is only through empowering Seidr do we finally end the time loops for good. It is only by boosting her does SHE get to decide. Gullveig isn't gone--because she doesn't think it's fair that Gullveig should die. Instead, Seidr becomes a character who exists outside of time as all three at once through her own will. It is actually REALLY important to stress that she doesn't kill Gullveig, she absorbs her and they become one singular entity out of time. All three now exist at once--the ending is actually pretty explicit about this! Seidr refuses to let any part of her life be robbed from her by Njordr, and we gave her the power to make that decision but it was still ultimately HER DECISION TO MAKE.

Gullveig wouldn't be as powerful as a story of feminine agency if she DIDN'T end up a mega-waifu by the end. Because the entire point is she's a woman robbed of agency and turned into a thing. A living weapon, sure, but given the metaphors going on in regards to agency here, if she wasn't hot it'd fall a little flat because she's been molded into what a man thinks she should be. Her one act of agency AS Gullveig is killing Njordr because she can make it fall within the lines of the curse.

And I will stand here and say a lot of people were so busy being mad at Gullveig's design and the "make a baby with me" bits they missed the underlying in-your-face metaphor for the topic of women's agency. Of course Seidr wants to make a baby--that's What Women Do. It's also one of the biggest NEGATIVE acts in the entire book because it deconstructs the player character to use their soul as fodder to become a sacrificial lamb for the Golden Seer's Curse.

Anyway that's my essay. Enjoy.

.

[jzargo]

"Dragon Age: Inquisition is a game about lack of agency" and "Dragon Age: Inquisition is an rpg and it should have had more player choice" are not two opposing statements, btw.

RPGs are games that are, inherently, about choice. Creating a game where you examine what happens when you are robbed of choice is a ballsy move, and one that I think Inquisition does succeed at...in some parts. Ultimately, I don't think it committed hard enough to the concept, and the parts where it's weakest are when it can't decide between the horror of being made a symbol and the power fantasy of being the leader of the inquisition. You should have elements of the power fantasy, of course. especially for characters who buy into the Inquisition. But it's the distinction that matters. This needed to be contrasted more with the moments of horror, moments of the cage closing around the Inquisitor. (I think the Dawn Will Come sequence is actually a good example of this: search up the scene on YouTube and you'll see plenty of comments from people who genuinely thought the moment was awe-inspiring or empowering, vs the people who play non-Andrastian characters who find the moment awkward at best and horrifying at worst)

While there are many dialogue points where people remind you repeatedly and sometimes cruelly that your own beliefs don't matter in the scale of the Inquisition, these moments usually end with the Inquisitor being shut down and being forced to go along with things silently. What we should have been given were moments after the fact. Moments scattered throughout the game where we got to see the Inquisitor increasingly chafe against their role or, conversely, buy into it. Moments in private, either with love interests or companions of high approval where the Inquisitor would be able to express either their increasing frustration or increasing awe at their role.

If you're going to make a game where the main character is robbed of their agency, I need it to break them or I need to see them slowly and happily accept their place as figurehead. We kind of get this symbolically in Tresspasser: the Inquisition is at a turning point, and the Anchor - the thing that made the Inquisitor, the symbol of their power and the thing that made them a symbol, is finally poisoning them and killing them. But although the metaphor is lovely, I do think it needed to be backed up by interpersonal moments where we got to see how being the Herald sits with the Inquisitor.

tl;dr i needed to see being made into a symbol Consume the Inquisitor more. I need to see them breaking under the weight of their personhood being ripped from them or I needed to see everyone around them watch with increasing horror as they fully give themselves over to being The Herald.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

Hi! So, seeing you in my notes reminded me that I meant to ask you about that Instrumentality poll. Being as I am tumblr user 人類補完計画, I have, asyoumightimagine, a lot of interest in the topic, and I'd be very curious to hear *your* thoughts on Shinji's choice - in part because you mentioned in the tags that you were wondering whether your take aligned with the consensus view, but also because I feel like you're among the most distinctive & intellectually honest philosophical voices I've encountered on here, and I do wonder how your faith, along with your overall view on things, influences your take(s) re:EoE.

I was going to wait until the poll finally closed but i think its been plateauing for a couple of days now anyway so i might as well. This is all going to be pretty vague and mysticism-y ofc, especially given the vagueness and mysticism of the source material itself, and im going off of memory on top of that (i am not putting myself thru the emotional hurdle of rewatching EoE just for a post, sorry)

So, first off, my interpretation of shinjis ultimate choice is to reject instrumentality for all of humanity, to retain our ATFs and our individuality. And i lean towards thinking this was a mistake, on his part. I sometimes see ppl suggest that he offered everyone a choice to either join or refuse instrumentality, but i tend to think this is just projection; idr anything in the text to clearly support this

Im not really sure how to go about arguing for this position directly, beyond rebutting objections. To the extent we are given a clear explanation of what an ATF is, it is smth like the secrecy of our own thoughts and desires and personality; ie, others ignorance of those things. Ignorance is a terrible thing, just generally, in itself! Like impotence. Its terrible in proportion to the importance/value of the things one is ignorant of, and ppl are about the most valuable things there are. Thats much of whats so bad about death, which is why it makes perfect sense the dead get to join in HI as well. So, putting it all together, the presence of ATFs is a terrible imposition, and their removal thru HI is a great blessing, maybe even the greatest possible blessing. And this shows itself in the end of strife and discord and the beginning of real unity of spirit and will, but its already present in the mere dissolution of interpersonal ignorance

The narrative itself frames this as an erasure of individuality, but im not sure how to understand this. Is the idea supposed to be that we would not survive the loss of our ATFs? Im not sure thats even intelligible: the loss of our ATFs is just the lifting of certain kinds of ignorance or, in other words, the instilling of certain kinds of knowledge. Knowledge in whom? In those undergoing human instrumentality. So clearly we survive HI, if it involves us coming into knowledge, and thus being around to know these things. Is this supposed to mean our distinctive contributions to the diversity of human experience etc would all be destroyed in favour of some uniform replacement? I dont see why that would be necessary; we can certainly imagine ways ppls varying idiosyncratic quirks can all "make it into" some sufficiently rich collaborative work. Why should HI not be the same? I suppose the fact it involves everyones bodies into a homogeneous sea of yellow goop speaks against this, but my inclination is to read this as a sort of pupal stage from which a mature instrumentalised humanity can emerge. Tho thats admittedly a bit of a reach

Theres yet another negative interpretation of the "destruction of individuality" i sometimes hear: that it would somehow rob us each of our agency and ability to shape the world in accord with our desires and beliefs. This goes along with a worry that the inauguration of HI would necessarily be a violation of consent and mental autonomy, which strikes me as misguided for much the same reason. Our ignorance of one another is not an individual condition of oneself in particular one can opt in or out of irrespective of the choices of others; if my not being able to retsin my ATF is a violation of my "autonomy", why is my retaining my ATF not in turn a violation of the autonomy of the others being thereby kept ignorant of my deepest self? Mutual ignorance of one anothers mental states (including that very ignorance) is in no interesting way reducible to the ignorant subjects each having certain "individual" or "intrinsic" or "internal" states that can individually and unilaterally be shifted without affecting those of the others; it is an "external" relation. So thinking about HI in terms of individual, unilaterally revocable consent is confused; the fact it is changing is irreducibly collective, and thus consent to it and only be given or refused collectively if at all. Hopefully thats not too opaque

This reply feeds into my answer to the worry about the dilution of ones agency and control over the world. This objection makes sense against a background view on which, for an agent A to control the answer to a question Q and a distinct agent A* to control the answer to a question Q*, Q and Q* must be modally independent: any answer to the latter must be compossible with any answer to the former. Or that, if this isnt true, this is bc As control over Q or A*s over Q* must be only "limited" or "partial" or w/e. My rejection of this assumption (which is i think what lies behind the last objection about autonomy) is probably my deepest, most abstract anti-liberal commitment. Its a conception of control or freedom that i think ultimately requires a debilitatingly narrow view of what full freedom could look like, or of what facts can amount to states of a person. (For example, i think it prolly requires you to say that knowing that the sun rises, a property entailing the "external" fact that the sun rises, is not actually a state of a person, in some important sense, rather than smth like a conjunction of a state of a person and a state of the horizon/sun.) But going all the way into this would probably take a lengthy book; mb i will try to work it out slightly more precisely at some point tho

You asked how my feeling about EoE connect with my faith, and broader view of the world. This illiberal assumption is close to the heart of it. I am always tempted in this context to quote marxs comments in the 1848 manuscripts about the whole of nature being the "inorganic body of man", and i dont think im alone in seeing connections between those passages and remarks like pauls about the mystical body of the church ("So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." Now there is smth for mereologists to chew on!!) And this is a trend you see elsewhere in the Christian tradition, like dantes description of the celestial eagle in paradiso xviii-xx. I was surprised, when talking to an atheist friend about my tentative support for HI, that they said my christianity made sense of my disagreement with them about this point; not bc i dont think theres a connection but bc idt of these emphases on the unity of the mystical body as particularly prominent in outsiders impressions of Christian belief

Anyway, hopefully that was at least somewhat illuminating. Thx for the kind words ^^

[skyeblue8]

ᗯҽɬɬ, ყ'αɬɬ ρι𝓬ƙҽԃ 𝜏ԋҽ Ɛɳʋყ Ꭱιɳց, ടσ... 😈

-> This is going to be my own thoughts, world-building and establishment of the Envy Ring, which is truly going to be exciting considering it has even been mentioned in canon yet. Now, if you have any critiques or notes for what you believe should be in this ring, please leave a note in the comments about it. And be sure to vote for the next ring you want me to write about. Also...

⚠️WARNING⚠️ But for some of this to work, the rings may have to be swapped around from their original placement. I know it's not a big deal, but it's just a thing I want you to remember.

Anyway, first things first...

Envy's Environment:

•••》 In terms of the overall ring color scheme, I believe Envy would be an all around ombré shade of deep blue, indigo, black and purple to represent the deep feel of the ocean while also giving off a sense of mystery and superiority from the purple shades, mystery that works since the inhabitants will have a habit of being two-faced, but more on that later...

•••》 For the civilization itself, I think that the ring would simply function as a semi-futuristic underwater society with a sea creature motif to the buildings. The inner landscape will function as a sort of capital or city while the outer landscape is largely dark, creepy, and wild with demonic coral and aqautic life. Entry into the ring from the 666 elevator will be via a long arched bridge:

•••》A majority of the Ring would look almost like a shadow city (kind of like an "other-mother" type deal where a lot of the popular buildings and attractions are shadowy, aqautic copies of those in other rings, kinda like Mammon with Loo Loo Land only it will have more Envy influence to it.)

•••》 The more upper class buildings and residents will reside in the center of the ring, with the big establishments like restaurants, apartments, etc. largely rooted to the ocean floor while those in the outer slums are more ragged and left to drift aimlessly in the current, like the floating islands of Sloth but underwater. Moreover, the fancier apartments and homes will have a futuristic and lumimous bubble design that fits with the rest of their surroundings. I'm sure there is more that can be done for the environment of Envy, but I'll add more another day.

Envy's Residents:

•••》The people of Envy will (obviously) consist of various anthropomorphic sea creatures whose overall wealth, status, and treatment are depended on their looks/beauty as the core theme of Envy is longing for what others possess and thus, the natives of this ring will treat the lower accordingly. And to differentiate the natives from the sinners, sinners who become aquatic demons will adopt a more brighter color pallette than the natives, and will essentially possess a skeletal system whereas others will not. (I'm thinking this on the spot, so don't judge just yet).

• In simple terms it would go from:

1. Attractive Sea Creatures (Jellyfish, Seahorses, Bioluminous Squid, Multi-pattern fish, etc.) —> I.E. The Wealthy, High Class, and most respected

2. Unattractive Sea Creatures (Angler fish, Sharks, Piranhas, Blob fish, really any aesthetically vicious predator) —> I.E The Poor, The Lower Class, the disrespected

•••》Sinners can end up in either category, depending on how kind Lucifer decides to be when they fall into Hell. And ultimately, despite the sweet looks the upper class may possess, they're still not above cruel and sadistic behavior as anyone else. And, if you happen to be lucky enough to be rich down in Envy without being robbed or swindled, then you can easily buy your status regardless of your looks.

•••》Because of this vanity contest, I can imagine that the ring would have the best modeling agencies, fashion designers, and makeup artists in all of Hell living/working there. (See Helsa, who pegs me as bratty, rich, and vain)

Now, as sharks are already so common in Helluva Boss and can apparently procreate with imps, I'll be labeling them the "imps of the Envy Ring". These creatures are so big, unsightly, and widespread that they're often forced to retreat into the dark recesses of the Envy Ring so their presence doesn't taint the image of Leviathan's Ring.

•••》Regarding those who visit Envy and aren't aquatic demons, they're able to transport around via air tubes, trams, mini-elevators and walkways.

•••》Now, something visitors need to keep in mind when visiting is that with Envy comes Insecurity, especially with the prince, Leviathan, towards the number of residents he has compared to other rings. Because of this, you may have a difficult time trying to leave the ring rather than entering it as those guarding the entrance may purposefully make it difficult as per the orders of their prince (unless your one of the lower class hense why their are so many sharks out and about).

• That's all I got for now, though I will come back later to do a follow up post on Leviathan himself. Until then, leave any notes, suggestions, etc that you may have in the comments and please vote for the next ring:

[aihoshiino]

Did we ever have a confirmation on whether Kamiki actually had a hand in Ai's death or was it just Aqua's speculation? (Kamiki definitely killed at least one other successful actress so... Still a murderer.) 15YL spending that much time to make us empathize with him made me wonder if Aqua changed his mind during his investigation. His thoughts are pretty much hidden from us, after all.

Another question that I've been wondering is that, do we know if Kamiki himself is successful as an actor at all? The fact that very little people seem to recognise him from a production made him very mystical as a being but not much sense for the entertainment industry since he's still there and not, retired. It reminded me of Taiki's description of his legal father who was unsuccessful as an actor and find fulfillment in sleeping with successful actresses... Just thought it would be hilarious (in a very dark way) that Kamiki is unsuccessful and taking it out on successful women.

Interestingly, I actually don't think we do. Aqua draws that conclusion in the prologue and barrels on ahead with that as the assumption, but the thing is... almost everything Aqua assumes or 'deduces' about his father is proven to be wrong. If you compare Kamiki to the kind of implicit suspect profile we can reverse engineer from the people Aqua investigates, it's clear that he'd never considered the idea that his father could have been a peer that Ai just... had a consensual relationship with and then moved on.

Not only that but Aqua's conclusions are ultimately kind of, like... based in nothing? Or at the very least, the things supporting his conclusions are pretty flimsy and are basically just Aqua saying "the conclusion must be this because I say so".

At best, Aqua's conclusion that the culprit had an accomplice feeding him info is a pretty safe one given that Ryosuke tracks Ai down at the hospital and then in Tokyo, but it's still really funny for Aqua to be like "he was just a normal guy, there's no way he could do that kind of detective work on his own" when Akasaka goes and turns Akane into BBC Sherlock in the very same manga lol. Other than that, it's all conjecture that Aqua treats as self-evident fact.

I also think it's interesting that Ichigo also points this out to Aqua, during a conversation in which Ichigo is framed as the rational one to Aqua's clearly underdeveloped conclusions.

I've definitely thought "Hikaru isn't the culprit" would be a really interesting twist for the series to conclude Aqua's revenge plot on, because it would rob Aqua of the catharsis of his self destructive retribution fantasy and force him to actually try and confront and unfuck the feelings driving him down that path to begin with. But whether or not OnK would actually go that route this late in the game, I have no idea.

As for Kamiki as an actor, I actually never got the impression he was involved in acting after leaving Lala Lie? It's said that he formed his talent agency a couple years after Ai's death but he mostly seems to work in management and production, or at least that's my guess based on how few public appearances he has. It would explain why nobody connects him to Aqua, anyway - how many media producers can you even name off the top of your head, let alone remember the face of?

[cosmicjoke]

Levi's Choice and His Value of Self-Determination:

Another aspect of Levi's choice to give Armin the serum and let Erwin rest that people don't really consider, is Levi's respect toward peoples will and right to choose for themselves.

Erwin didn't want to be the commander of the Survey Corps anymore.

He wanted to be able to finally fulfill his role as commander by making that one, final sacrifice of his dream for his duty, and through that final act, at last absolve himself of his guilt and become worthy of the position. That's why he thanks Levi for making the choice for him. Because it allowed Erwin to do what he really wanted to do, deep down, but didn't have the strength to, which was sacrifice himself for the cause of the Survey Corps and live up to the sacrifices of all his fallen comrades. That's what Erwin wanted. To go out on his shield. To die for the cause.

Levi never forces anyone to do anything against their will, and that's an important part of his character to understand in order to also understand his choice.

He's constantly asking others to choose for themselves, to decide for themselves what they want and what they believe is right. We see him do this with Eren, and Jean, and Historia, and even Dimo Reeves. Even when Levi is trying to coerce people into a certain action through threats of violence, they're always empty threats which he never really follows through on and, ultimately, lets the person decide for themselves what they're going to do. Like his threats against Annie, or Zeke or Erwin. Levi threatens all of them with violence if they don't do what he tells them, but he never actually goes through with these threats, even as all these people fail to comply. And, of course, this pattern of Levi letting others make their own choices and decide for themselves holds true with Erwin, too, in Shinganshina.

Once again, because Levi values free will and peoples right to choose for themselves, to have agency over their own lives, above just about everything. That's what Levi's speech to the 104th during the Uprising arc was all about. This idea of the hell people choosing for themselves being better than the hell forced upon them.

To give Erwin the serum would have been to rob him of his own agency and deny him his own choice, forcing him back into a role and a life he no longer wanted, which he had given up gladly and thanked Levi for allowing him to give up, and that would have gone against everything Levi believed in and valued.

Levi's entire philosophy of "no regrets" hinges on this idea of always doing what you feel in your heart is the right course, even if the outcome isn't what you hoped for. It's about never compromising what you actually believe is right, no matter the cause. That's why I always roll my eyes at anyone who claims Levi compromised his values or his morals for Erwin. That claim is so antithetical to Levi's character as a whole.

Levi always followed his heart and did what he believed was right, no matter the cost to himself. Even if it meant losing the one person who gave him a sense of direction in life, which is precisely what he lost in letting Erwin die.

Levi refused to violate his belief that everyone should be allowed to choose for themselves their own path, and he refused to violate another persons agency and right to self-determination, even if that violation was meant to be committed in the name of "the greater good".

And again I posit, what does that term "the greater good" even mean, if people aren't allowed to choose for themselves what becomes of their lives?

That question is what underpins every dystopian nightmare ever depicted in fiction and played out in reality. A society of "peace" that's achieved only through the repression of free will, of fee thought and agency and autonomy. In other words, no real peace at all, but a false peace built upon a lie and the violation of other peoples wills. Further, a peace like that is inevitably doomed to failure anyway, because it's just another form of oppression and persecution. Just another form of imprisonment. Eventually, it would lead to rebellion. Eventually, it would lead to war.

Levi understood that better than anyone, I think. He understood that forcing people to do anything against their will was wrong, and that to do so would eventually only undermine whatever temporary benefit might be gained through forced cooperation.

We really see this belief of Levi's demonstrated through the story. Again, he never actually forces anyone to do anything. He ultimately lets everyone decide for themselves, and he never compromises in this, he never leaves anyone without a choice, because to him, there's nothing more important than people getting to choose for themselves, of getting to live and even die how they choose. It's one of the reasons Levi doesn't make a good "leader" in the traditional sense. He has no desire to tell other people what to do or how to act. And it's not because he's afraid of being responsible for other people, though that is something Levi fears, but because he believes it's every person's right to decide those things for themselves. We see this demonstrated also through the way Levi stands down when Hange makes the choice to sacrifice her life. It's why Levi doesn't try to stop her. Because it's her choice, and he doesn't feel he has any right to tell her or anyone else that she can't make it.

I think understanding this about Levi's character is also vital to understanding why he made the choice he did with Erwin. He wasn't ever going to violate Erwin's agency to choose for himself. He wasn't going to take that choice away from Erwin by undoing it through injecting him with the serum.

As an aside, what I also don't get about people who claim Levi was willing to doom humanity for Erwin is that it assumes Levi believed Erwin was absolutely, irrefutably essential to humanity's survival, which we know he didn't believe, because he was willing to let Erwin die not just once, but twice, prior to making the choice he did with the serum. Once during the Uprising arc, when he tells that MP they kidnapped that he's willing to let Erwin die if it means getting Eren and Historia back, and once during the RtS arc, when he lets Erwin ride to his death charging the Beast Titan. Neither scenario indicates at all that Levi believed Erwin's death in those circumstances would doom humanity to extinction, or whatever. On the contrary, he saw Erwin as expendable in comparison to Eren's survival, and twice put Eren above Erwin in the belief that Eren was more important toward achieving the goal of humanity's victory. Clearly, Levi always believed that humanity could survive without Erwin. He wouldn't have been willing to let Erwin die two times in the lead-up to his choice in Shinganshina if he didn't believe that. So this ridiculous notion that Levi "doomed" humanity for Erwin holds no water. It also assumes that Levi would have somehow, magically, understood the circumstances they would be facing before learning what was in Eren's basement, and that knowing those circumstances, he knowingly and purposefully let Erwin die. People that claim this are basically claiming that Levi had full knowledge of what they would be facing and that Erwin's continued existence was essential to defeating that threat, and he did it anyway just to spare Erwin further suffering. But the reality is, Levi had no way of knowing at all what they would be facing or what the threat was, nor did he hold any belief that Erwin's continued existence was essential in defeating that threat. He had no idea that they would discover an entire world of people beyond the walls, let alone a world of people hostile toward them and wishing for their eradication. He didn't make the choice he did while believing humanity couldn't go on without Erwin. He fully believed it could. This is what pisses me off so much about this bullshit claim that Levi "chose Erwin over humanity". No he didn't. Levi 100% believed humanity would survive without Erwin.

[sludgefriend]

I have spent a grand majority of my life experimenting with myself. Here is a list of everything that has ever worked. This is the ultimate taking-stock.

-Always find reasons to laugh at and take joy in your own failures.

-Try to always treat failure as a learning experience. Endeavor to fail differently each time.

-Nothing is ever that serious. Take life in stride. You can always come back from loss of any kind.

-Attempting to be perfect is a worthless endeavor. Nobody likes a perfect person. Trying to be a perfect person is a miserable experience.

-Know things. Know what restaurants are good. Know what’s good on their menu. Know where events happen, and when. Know people.

-Know what you like, and try to know why.

-Find something to be curious about in every single human being. Everyone has some mystery and intrigue if you look closely and patiently enough. Engage with people that you think are boring. Engage with people that you think are annoying. Engage with people that you don’t think you like. Engage with people that you hate. If you can, try to find something to love about every person that you meet.

-People are simultaneously and constantly extremely simple creatures and infinitely complicated ones. If at any moment, you find yourself believing one of these things and not the other about any given person or group, you have fucked up immensely, somewhere.

-Do your best to live up to your word. If not for the sake of others, for the sake of yourself. You are only as reliable as the promises that you don’t keep. To others, and yourself.

-Try to always make a decision when given the option. Even when you truly do not care. Making decisions will help you to gain a better understanding of yourself, and will grant you agency. Consistently outsourcing decision-making to others will rob you of these aspects, and can become a selfish act if done too often.

-Be selfless, but don’t be an angel. Be selfish, but don’t be a devil.

-You’d be surprised at what people will give you if you’d only just ask. Fuck around. Ask people for things you don’t feel like you deserve.

-95% of the time, fear, anxiety, and all other emotions in their family are completely worthless. They will invariably gate you from some of the best things in life and rob you of joy. They are ancient emotions that (usually) fail to apply themselves properly to a modern world.

-Anger can be a valuable emotion, if employed properly and in moderation.

-Love is the only virtue. Indifference is the only sin.

-Symbolism is the most powerful tool in your arsenal, in any given situation. Employ it at every given opportunity.

-Contradiction is also very powerful. I won’t elaborate any further on this.

-People crave genuineness. Especially now. Speak what’s on your mind, as honestly as possible, as often as is appropriate.

-Don’t be afraid to wait and think before responding. A genuine response to conversation will always, always be better than half-hearted and immediate compliance.

-Don’t spend the time during which someone is talking trying to figure out what you’ll say next. Let it happen naturally. Pay attention to what they’re saying.

Continued…

[masterthespianduchovny]

KRATOS x FREYA DISSERTATION:

Whether or not it actually becomes canon, I can see Freya and Kratos ending up together.

Although I’m agreement with the noromos who believe that men and women can be friends, I do believe romance is a plausible path for Kratos and Freya despite him killing her son, their own traumas, and grief.

One of Kratos’ most defining character traits is that he doesn’t trust gods. Even in GoW (2018), he stresses to Atreus not to trust gods, which later included Freya. He’s angry because she omitted her true identity, which circumvented him avoiding her altogether thus establishing the beginning of a friendship and trust of sorts with her. And this is important on many levels:

1. Freya was at an advantage and Kratos was at massive disadvantage.

2. He got to know her to an extent without any presumption on her character and intent.

3. She got to know him to an extent without his guard up.

4. His instincts (and Atreus) opened himself up to trusting her.

We see that Kratos typically has a good read on situations and people, esp gods. So when Freya omitted the truth, he was put in the situation to trust a god again, which angered him. It wasn’t a true deception, but the principle of the matter. This key moment in the relationship actually sets up so much between them because, despite Freya not being forthcoming about her identity, she did nothing wrong and Kratos was the one in wrong. This later prompts Kratos to reflect on his behavior when Freya helps saves Atreus’ life even though she didn’t have to. When he apologizes, she says this,

“No. You were right to distrust the word of a god. No need to explain. Not to me. Not for that.”

At this point in time, Kratos knew that she spoke from experience. She wasn’t blowing smoke up his ass or trying to make him feel better. She got his distrust on a visceral level because she went through SEVERAL betrayals of her own at the hands of a god who was her husband at that!

Even though he’s heard stories about Freya’s marriage to Odin and the events leading up to it, why she agreed to it, and why she stayed, hearing her wave off his apology and understanding the context made him see her in a new light. She wasn’t making him apologize for something that evolved into a survival technique because she learned all too well herself. He hears the sadness and melancholy in her voice—the pain that sticks with her.

Throughout the story, Freya helped him without asking anything in return. Her assistance and friendship was genuine. But the one thing she did ask, Kratos didn’t honor.

This is all important because moments prior to Baldur and Freya’s reunion, he and Atreus weren’t even sure they could trust her. Then, when Kratos saw their interaction: Baldur’s eagerness to harm Freya and her willingness to accept said harm even if it meant death. He kept trying to mind his business, but ultimately deduced that Freya didn’t deserve that fate.

In a sense, he’d been in her position before. He understood what it was like to make decisions you can’t undo. To hate and punish yourself. To want to protect your child at all cost, but at what cost? Hasn’t she suffered enough? Why did this have to end in her death, esp when Odin was responsible for most of her suffering. Baldur was the only bright spot for her in a toxic and abusive marriage—her judgment was clouded due to all her pain, suffering, and losses.

Because Odin stripped her of almost everything minus life…piece by piece. She can’t leave home—bound to Midgard. She literally can’t defend herself, despite being a skilled warrior, which she prided herself on. Despite her circumstance, then and now, according to Mimir’s stories—some of which he experienced himself—she was a largely good and kind person and god. Unlike, the gods in Greece and even her former husband. Only to be robbed of her agency and safety.

Even though in the beginning of the friendship, Freya is the one with the upper hand, by the end of it, Kratos is the one with the upper hand. Freya knew he was a god, but she didn’t know his backstory. Kratos knew all about her in a sense, which is why he’s able to be compassionate and understand that she’s punishing herself for more than Baldur’s fate.

Despite only knowing her for a short time, from the moment he decides she doesn’t deserve to die and was dealt a shit hand during her marriage and made a tragic decision that led to “losing” her son, he basically vows to never allow harm to come to her. He considers her his friend even though she hates him after he killed her child. Even though she has vowed and tried on many occasions to murder him, he refuses to see her anything but as a friend who is experiencing extreme guilt and grief.

Interestingly enough, we see Freya’s perspective shift even before she finds out about Calliope. Kratos saves her life from Atreus and says, “she was our friend.” Freya was determined to see Kratos as this evil, selfish guy and, even in that moment, she sees the gentler, compassionate side of him. It frustrates and upsets her, but she changes course because it’s all too much for her at that moment. She also knows that while her present misery is due to Kratos’ actions, he’s not the true reason behind her misery and unhappiness.

In addition to finding out about Calliope and the circumstances leading up to her (and her mother’s) death’s, she’s also being worn down by Kratos and his reason. This is a man who’s traveled down the road she is on. He’s been there. And the thing that she’s promising herself will bring her peace so to speak, she know isn’t true. The more Kratos refuses to let it go, the angrier she gets. She’s largely had no control over her life for just about a century and the one thing she does have control over (thinking she could kill kratos) is something she deep down knows won’t settle her spirit. Once she actually gets her freedom with the assistance of Kratos, it’s then she admits to herself that she can’t kill him, despite her urge to. And she can’t forgive him because he took away her child—he took away her choice: her life so that Baldur could live.

In the journey, something else is established OR, to be exact, it’s re-established: their trust in one another.

Not only has Freya notice Kratos’ consistency in being honest with her and respecting her decisions, he’s a man of his word. He also allows himself to be vulnerable with and around her. That’s not the same Kratos she met years prior or the one who was angry after he found out that she omitted her godhood to him. Despite the things she’s said and what she’s tried to do on many occasions, he’s always respected her and never treated her with anything less than that. He is not Odin. The things her ex husband punished her for and exploited are things Kratos’ values about her and still sees her as even when she was on her worst behavior.

Admittedly, people can still be friends with someone (again) who wronged them. However, I find it difficult to believe that Freya can be friends with Kratos again even though he caused her immense grief if she hasn’t fully forgiven him. Grief that led her to trying to murder him on many occasions and directly put his child in danger who she very well knows Kratos doesn’t fuck around about.

If Kratos can not only forgive her for that, but not hold it against her, why can’t she eventually forgive him for killing Baldur esp when it was to save her life?

I’d argue we see that after Freya is no longer bound to Midgard. Throughout their journey, we see that she is largely by his side even when she doesn’t have to be. She telling him personal things and being vulnerable with him. I believe she still has ire reserved for Mimir that she doesn’t for Kratos. She genuinely wants him to fight alongside her against Odin and not just because he’s a great warrior and the god of war, but because she trusts him as well. Then asks him to be the general of the army going into war. After the win, she agrees to rebuild the kingdom(s) with him. I find it hard to believe she hasn’t forgiven him for Baldur when she voluntarily spends most of her time with him and is making massive major plans with him. The fact that Kratos even asked her says a lot and she didn’t hesitate in her answer.

Now, there are those who say it’s too soon for Kratos to get back into a relationship or he wouldn’t, which I disagree with. It’s been 3+ years since Faye passed. Although he’s still grieving her, that doesn’t mean he can’t enter into a new relationship. You don’t stop grieving a loved one or spouse just because you’re dating again. Grief sticks with you and it’s ongoing. After the passing of his first wife, I don’t think he actively dated or sought out women romantically. Keep in mind, Faye flat out said they fought when they first met, I believe. It took them time to get where they were. I don’t think Kratos even entertained dating her until some (significant) time passed, which she may have facilitated him properly asking her out or straight up marriage—whatever it is they did in those days. So the idea that that’s not an option for him and Freya doesn’t pass the sniff test imo.

I don’t believe either Freya or Kratos will suddenly develop romantic feelings or even get together right away, but a final, gradual shift in their relationship happens. When they realize this, it’s something they fully embrace, but step carefully into.

It would likely be due to familiarity and spending so much time together. Again, they will be rebuilding a kingdom or kingdoms together. He likely will help her around her place and with her different concoctions. She’d likely cook for him even though he can cook for himself and openly admit to enjoy sending time with him. Eventually, they’d be spending most of their time together, which is how they’d prefer it. You know Mimir’s nosey ass would most likely say something to Kratos, but not too much because he wouldn’t want to incur Freya’s wrath.

I can see them having though hard conversations about their children and forgiving themselves for their roles in said children’s demise as much as they can. I can see them fully forgiving each other for the transgression committed against one another because…look at all they’ve been through together. Not only did they fight side by side during Ragnarok, he kept his promise to her about never taking her decision away from her again.

These are two people who get each other in a way that no one else does.

We get the callback after Freya’s no longer bound to Midgard—Kratos doesn’t entertain Freya apologizing about “everything that happened between us” and says, “No need to explain. Not to me. Not for that.”

Like, come on!

There is this gentleness and vulnerability they express to me another that doesn’t exist with anyone else outside of their kids.

As Dana Scully once said, “the best relationships are often rooted in friendships.”

Freya was experiencing so many feelings at once and even though it’ll always hurt to lose Baldur, she’ll realize that she’s forgiven Kratos. He was put in an impossible situation and made the best choice born of compassion.

In time Freya would come to see, that not only is Kratos everything Odin wasn’t, he meets her needs in a way that she never realized. That he’s forgiving and kind and supportive and her rock. Could she get that from someone else? Sure. Could she get that from someone who gets her in a way that Kratos gets her, which is what allowed her to be vulnerable around him more than she was around others, most likely no.

But also, Freya is Kratos’ type: Fierce, tough, compassionate, bold, independent, nurturing (as in caring for others), etc. She is honest, direct, and says how she feels. He doesn’t need someone who sees him as a clean slate, he needs someone who knows him and embraces that part of him because it’s him. Two people who carried immense pain found one another and, inadvertently, helped each other heal and grow.

They have these commonalities in spades.

That in and of itself doesn’t mean they should be together, however, imo, tension has always existed between them even before Kratos found out she was a god. It’s been this undercurrent for the entirety of them knowing one another. It wasn’t sexual, but it wasn’t platonic either, however, I believe it’ll manifest into romance—this is, of course, apart from the driving tension at the end of the first game and into the beginning of the second game.

“Open your heart to the world as you have opened it to me, and you will find every reason to keep living in it.” -Faye

You have a man/god that is first introduced to us as throwing himself off a cliff because he can no longer live with his nightmares. A man/god who later tries to take his own life on another occasion or two after surviving his first ordeal. Who tells his second wife that he doesn’t want to live in a world without her and later prepares his son to live in the world without him because he believes he’s going to die. Only for him to look forward to rebuilding society with Freya, the person he’s opened his heart up to the most since this new journey began. Freya is almost always treated as a partner and an equal.

Kratos allowed Freya and Atreus to get close, despite his protectiveness of him. Noticeably, they have a mother-son-esque dynamic by the end of the game. We have seen Atreus befriend adults and it’s treated as a friendship. Despite initially referring to her as a friend in the beginning, but the end she definitely serves as a mother like figure, which is in no way an insult to Faye nor is she replacing her. Atreus literally tells Mimir he’s a second father. So this shows us there’s nothing wrong with having multiple parental figures, living or dead. Typically when a piece of media is setting up a woman as a mother like figure to a child, romance is brewing on the horizon.

Lastly, in both games, Freya is deeply tied to the main narratives and is involved in the final battles in some way. In the first game, she’s one of the first people we meet and a selfless companion. In the second game, we meet her first and she’s an enemy. In the end of the first game, she’s become his enemy. By the end of the second game, she’s his partner and ally in rebuilding the kingdom. While the games focused on the things they have in common, their connection, and vulnerability with one another, I’d argue it doesn’t stress the friendship angle. They are friends, but the way these two are compared and contrasted and positioned against one another, it feels like a romantic relationship is possible being set up.

I also find her line to Kratos about having another child if she had the opportunity to have one again interesting. Although I don’t think she’s hinting anything to him, why she is telling the man who killed her child, casually, that she wants another child? Why not her brother or the shapeshifter or Sigrun?

[madnessofthespirits]

2, 9 and 17 about Diar and Alter for the character ask game 👀👀👀

2. A canon or headcanon hill I will die on

cu alter: ummmm i'd die for anything. for example:

he's not lancer but he is very much cu chulainn

in EPU (and to a certain extent post-EPU too) he's basically just a guy trying to give himself agency in a situation where he's been robbed of his agency. this makes him act really weird

nothing about him has anything to do with warp spasm cu, even on a meta level

he's got that dissociative ptsd

whenever he's kind or caring i find it moving because he's quite literally been altered to suppress those parts of himself, which goes to show that they're actually too strong to be suppressed completely at all, and that he's fighting extra hard to be that way

(i may be interpreting this question as an opportunity to just share random opinions but hopefully that's okay)

diarmuid: the worst things that ever happened to him were ultimately the fault of awful old men with too much power and if fate would actually notice that and try to do something with what that might mean about him i think that would be a much more interesting thing to explore in regard to his character in fgo (or any other post-f/z media he could potentially be in) than well, most of the other things they've done with him post-f/z instead

also *straight guy voice* he's way stronger than either canon or fans usually treat him as being. urobuchi (or someone else on the f/z staff, i forget who) said he might have won the grail war if it weren't for kayneth being a fuckwad. all of the stuff he's done in his legends is at least as impressive as anything cu has ever done.

9. Scene that first made me love (or hate) the character

cu alter: honestly i think it was during the scene where he fights nero and she's trying to understand his motives and nothing he's saying really makes much sense and she points out that he's not even enjoying what he's doing, which he implicitly agrees with, and then tells her that his only goal is to just keep fighting until he's dead. i remember thinking to myself stuff along the lines of "wow bro that sounds Bad what's your problem" and "oh he's like Fucked Up fucked up i can't not care about him" and really it just made me want to understand him so bad

and then there's the finale scene where he finally admits that he's being forced to do what he's doing because medb used the grail to place him under a geis and it's like sad as fuck because he's been forced to sacrifice the parts of himself that feel joy and love just so he can maintain his honor, and therefore it's also heroic at the same time (this is what i'm talking about when i say that though he may not be lancer he is very much cu chulainn). also the part where's he kind to medb while she's dying in spite of having little reason to be and actually holding clear dislike for her is very touching

diarmuid: i definitely liked him from the start - like he so clearly just wants to do the right thing and have fun at the same time in spite of the fact that he has this horrific past and got saddled with this shitty master - like how could i not care about him? but it's definitely the last couple of scenes he appears in that sealed the deal for me. just seeing him walk away from that shitty encounter with kayneth and turn around and decide he's not gonna let that stop him from enjoying an epic fight with his best friend - and then he experiences one of the most awful fictional deaths i can think of and we learn that this whole time while he's been smiling and taking the high road at every turn he's actually been building up this whole volcano of grief and resentment. the whole thing is just as brief as it is powerful. it's a moment of honesty, it's touching, it's relatable, it's the closest thing to justice he's allowed. it contrasts so starkly with the side of him the audience sees up until then that it comes off as genuinely shocking, and it shows that he is just as glaringly human as he is a perfect knight, and therefore what makes him such an interesting and lovable character. can't imagine how hard your heart has to be to see all that and not care for him at least a little

17. Quotes, songs, poems, etc. that I associate with them

cu alter: i think you will either get it or not, but out of all the songs i associate with him, of which there are many, i think of this one as being the most "his" of them all

diarmuid: i know i've already brought this one up before but:

"when i choose to see the good side of things, i'm not being naive. it is strategic and necessary. it's how i've learned to survive through everything." -- waymond wang in everything everywhere all at once (excellent film btw if you haven't seen it)

also:

[aaronstveit]

Hey Jamie, I was thinking of watching the RWRB movie and since I’ve seen you didn’t like it I wanted to ask if you think I should only read the book instead? I don’t mind spoilers and I wanted to know what do you think they failed to adapt to the screen. (Also, if you think people will annoy you if you answer this with the things you disliked you don’t have to answer, ok?) I love your blog! 🫶🏻 Hope you have a great week ahead of you!!!

hi anon!! i'm going to answer this beneath a 'read more' so people who don't wanna see negativity about the movie don't have to read it🫶🏻 trigger warnings for discussions of sexual harassment & assault and forced outing.

obligatory disclaimer that the book is not without its flaws & there are very valid criticisms of it!

a big part of the RWRB book is the main character, alex's, journey through realizing he is bisexual, and pretty much all of it was cut out of the movie — for what i consider to be completely ridiculous reasons. the director said that the characters were older in the movie than in the book — which i don't think is actually true? alex is in law school in both the book and the movie so idk what this guy is going on about — as if someone in their midtwenties couldn't possibly still be discovering their sexuality. he also said he wanted alex's "angst" to only be related to henry and not his sexuality. lol.

almost all discussion of race is also taken out of the movie. for context, alex is a biracial Mexican American, and this shapes a lot of his journey throughout the book. aside from one line, all of this is taken out of the movie.

also taken out of the movie are two big characters from the book: june, alex's older sister, and rafael luna, alex's mentor. june's absense is explained by the director (in the same article linked above) as being about not wanting "two young actresses who are each being given half a meal." so he keeps nora, alex's best friend, and cuts out the sister, but funnily enough, nora doesn't even get half a meal. pretty much all of her personality & story are cut out of the movie.

rafael luna, in the book, is a gay senator who takes alex under his wing. he isn't in the movie because the director said, and i quote: "Anything that isn’t about Alex and Henry and their relationship and their own personal journeys to the narrative doesn’t belong in the film." i don't know how he can explain rafael (or june) as not being about alex's personal journey, but whatever lol.

[this is where the big spoilers start] the climax of the book is when the emails that alex and henry have been sending each other are leaked to the public, outing both of them. in the book, it is revealed that the emails were leaked by the republican running against Alex's mom in the 2020 presidential election. it is also revealed that he has a history of sexual assault & harassment, and that rafael luna is a victim of his.

in the movie, though, they scrap that whole plotline and imply that the emails were leaked by a jealous gay reporter who used to hook up with alex and is mad that alex isn't in love with him. aside from just being a stupid change to make, this is a genuinely harmful & homophobic stereotype, and honestly it really upset me. taking out the entire plotline on institutional homophobia and making it all about ~jealous gays~ is just sickening imo.

i was also annoyed at how characters like henry's sister bea and his best friend pez were given almost no personality or screentime when they were, in the book, fleshed-out and lovable people. henry's mother was also removed from the movie — in the book, she has a bit of a rocky presence, but ultimately stands up for henry against his grandmother — because the director felt that "robbed henry of his agency." which is an especially interesting take from the person who changed alex's coming out scene in the movie so that he comes out publicly and tells the world that he and henry are in a relationship without talking to henry about it first, giving a speech on how "queer people deserve to come out on their own terms" while doing that exact same thing to his boyfriend. but whatever!

on a more petty note, i just think the movie is extremelyyyyy cheaply made, that the actors playing henry and alex have absolutely no chemistry, and that uma thurman's texan accent is godawful. but i could live with all of that if the movie had literally any of the heart that the book i had! but i think "gay media should be allowed to be bad or silly" only goes so far.

ultimately, i would definitely recommend just reading the book & skipping the movie entirely, but it's up to you! i'm sure there are other people who would say it's a perfect movie and they loved every second of it. but it couldn't be me lol

i hope you have a lovely day/evening, anon!! i hope your week is lovely💛💛