#survivorship care.

[ifwebefriends]

You like Nagito because you think he’s an edgy depressed bad boy,

I like Nagito because he’s a deeply traumatized and disturbed cancer patient with low self esteem who wants his life to mean something.

We are not the same.

[da-janela-lateral]

Still thinking about the visitors in Survivorship Bias. God they're so : (

[notmuchtoconceal]

to the legion i leave my still beating remains

“Who says you need school…” 🎒

[neosciencehub]

New Dawn for Cancer Survivors

BIACH&RI Launches ACT Clinic in Hyderabad In an era where medical advancements are saving more lives than ever, the Basavatarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital & Research Institute in Hyderabad has taken a significant leap forward. On International Childhood Cancer Day, February 15, 2024, the hospital launched the ACT (After Completion of Therapy) Clinic, a beacon of hope for cancer…

[lindabrown1812]

Empowering Cancer Survivors: The Role of National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship

Cancer is a formidable adversary, affecting millions of lives worldwide. However, in the face of this challenge, numerous cancer organizations are making incredible strides in improving survival rates and cancer care. One such organization at the forefront of the battle against cancer is the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship (NCCS). In this blog, we will explore the vital work undertaken by cancer organizations like the NCCS in improving survival and cancer care.

Cancer Organizations: A Beacon of Hope

Cancer organizations play an indispensable role in the fight against this relentless disease. They are instrumental in shaping public policies, advocating for patient rights, and driving research and innovation in the field of oncology. Among these organizations, the NCCS stands as a beacon of hope for cancer survivors and their families.

National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship

The National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship (NCCS) is a non-profit organization dedicated to advocating for the rights and needs of cancer survivors. Founded in 1986, the NCCS has been a tireless advocate for survivors, working to improve the quality of life for those living with and beyond cancer.

NCCS's Core Initiatives

Policy Advocacy: One of the key focuses of NCCS is advocating for cancer policies that benefit survivors and patients. They work tirelessly to ensure that cancer patients have access to affordable, comprehensive healthcare and that their voices are heard in the policymaking process.

Patient-Centered Care: The NCCS believes in patient-centered care, emphasizing the importance of shared decision-making between patients and healthcare providers. They are champions of open communication, which is vital in delivering personalized and effective care.

Quality Cancer Care: The NCCS is committed to enhancing the quality of cancer care by promoting the use of evidence-based practices and striving for equitable access to innovative treatments and therapies.

Survivorship Research: This organization supports and conducts research that explores various aspects of cancer survivorship. Their work helps to improve our understanding of the unique challenges and needs of survivors.

Improving Survival Cancer Care

As part of the broader spectrum of cancer organizations, the NCCS contributes significantly to improving survival cancer care. Here's how:

Survivorship Care Plans: NCCS has been a strong advocate for the development and implementation of survivorship care plans. These plans help cancer survivors transition from active treatment to post-treatment life, addressing physical and emotional needs along the way.

Emotional Support: Coping with cancer can be emotionally challenging. NCCS recognizes this and works to ensure that survivors have access to emotional support services to help them navigate their journey with resilience and positivity.

Advocacy for Survivor Rights: NCCS is committed to advocating for the rights of cancer survivors, including the right to access quality healthcare, participate in treatment decisions, and receive support tailored to their unique needs.

Conclusion

Cancer organizations like the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship play an indispensable role in improving survival and cancer care. They provide advocacy, support, and guidance to cancer survivors, striving to make their journey a little less daunting. Through their tireless efforts, these organizations are contributing to the ongoing battle against cancer and offering hope to countless individuals and their families.

If you or a loved one is navigating the challenges of cancer, consider reaching out to the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship and other similar organizations. Together, we can continue to improve the landscape of cancer care and support survivors on their path to a healthier and happier life.

To Know More: https://canceradvocacy.org/

[hotpotatopotat]

If merfolk don't name their children, do they just pick their own names? In fact, that post got me thinking about family dynamics.

If merfolk have a couple of dozen offspring at once, don't care enough to name them, might even kill and eat a few, and the kids leave home when they're still pretty small, would a mother typically be able to recognize all their offspring when they're grown? Bakumer seemed to have more of a relationship with his mother than I would expect. Was he perhaps like Peaku, staying in the nest much longer than normal?

I like all the thought that went into this! Bakumer's backstory is a bit different than other mer, but to answer some questions 1. They do pick their own names if they're not named. 2. Bakumer's species are a type III survivorship species, which unfortunately means that there are a lot of babies (100s) but few make it to adulthood. Not all mer are like this (kiriseal, for example). 3. Once they get older, if they do interact, they have a basic understanding of their surviving siblings and parents, especially their mother, since female mer often hold more territory and male mer can be frequent interlopers. His mother probably drove bakumer out of her territory more than once, so they're pretty contentious! XD Bakumer differs mainly because the area he grew up in was used by humans as a beach, driving most of the mer far far away, including his mother. Bakumer was still young, so he didn't know to leave. He enjoyed the attention and food he got from humans and he enjoyed being the only mer around, but then the bay became protected and it was no longer a place for people to hang out, so he lost that connection. That's why he becomes very attached to Deku! But, slowly, we will see more mer moving back into the area, hint hint.

[lastoneout]

The worst part is the point they were trying to make(I checked their account) is that people who are dying should get to choose if they want to worry about covid precautions or not because wearing a mask and forcing others to do so is bit of a burden when you're already suffering, and also it would be nice to like see everyone's faces and such if you won't be around long. But instead of just saying that, a fairly reasonable point that I mostly sort of agree with, they said this absolute ableist eugenicist garbage. And then went on to argue "well I actually meant xyz" like that fucking matters at all.

Incredible.

I open twitter. I see a vegan leftist arguing that we shouldn't bother masking around terminally ill people because they're going to die soon anyway. I attempt to nuke Elon Musk with my mind. I close twitter.

[angel-hawthorne]

No, you're seeing the consequences of adults actively choosing to hit children. Every damn time someone bitches and moans about people not being "disciplined", they're quick to blame those who don’t spank for a laundry list of societal ills. Their genius idea is to hit kids even more instead of addressing the root problems. A lot of these youngsters have received a "good ol fashioned beating" once or more than that, and it still didn't do anything.

"I'm not saying you should abuse [children], but..." stop right there, that's exactly what you're suggesting. What exactly do you mean by proper discipline? Or as this person ever so wonderfully puts it "good ol slap on the wrist"? Ah, it's occasionally hitting the young when they say or do things that offends your fragile sensibilities. Adults in positions of power often get away with pulling all manner of fuckshit stunts under the guise of “discipline”. At this point, y'all sound no different from the domineering religious men who think hitting their wives will make them behave aka "Christian Domestic Discipline". Y'all didn't turn out fine at all. Just grew up to be violent bullies and/or enablers.

You hit them once, and it makes you, the adult, feel powerful. Getting that temporary feel-good rush of being in control. That's all it ever does - grant temporary compliance and relief. What will you do then if that one time with the initial amount of physical force doesn't work? Amp up the dosage (pain intensity) until you achieve that same feel-good high? If that keeps up, then these consequences will result: child goes no contact in the future, end up with a # of mental health issues, the child dies from their injuries (or removed from custody if they survive), and the caregiver gets slapped with legal repercussions. No pun intended. In extreme cases, the child will kill their parents/guardians for their own safety when there's no other alternatives.

Funny how it’s only the adults who care about splitting hairs over differences. A child’s brain doesn’t know, nor does it give a shit about “differences” you adults arbitrate. Their brains don’t stop to think “it’s only a smacking, so turn off your fight/flight/fawn/freeze response and halt the cortisol production”.

"Let me tell you, we only did it once." I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but your sample size of 1 anecdote does not trump decades worth of empirical evidence. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Plenty of children got that "one time deal", and they learned to repeat the same behaviors without getting caught. Last time I checked, discipline isn't something you DO to people. Just because you were raised to believe that assault is okay, doesn't mean others feel the same way. I'd recommend looking up survivorship bias and appeal to tradition fallacy.

This non-parent thanks you for coming to my Parenting Opinion Ted Talk.

[librarycards]

do you have any book recs on relationship abuse? feel free to discard this question or point me elsewhere

hello anon - i read your other message to and am sending both of you much love. thanks for reaching out.

first and foremost, i am still very much a student of the literature in relationship abuse, not an expert. here are some books that may be helpful, with annotations:

Banu Khapil, The Vertical Interrogation of Strangers. Khapil interviews women from the South Asian diaspora using a set of guiding craft/storytelling questions. i found this book immensely useful for my writing, which is to say, for transmuting the unlanguagable experiences of trauma - including relationship abuse and sexual violence - and restorying them in ways that worked for me.

Eli Clare, Exile and Pride. Clare is a trans survivor of CSA, and writes about the intersection of disability and survivorship.

Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, Care Work: Dreaming Disability Justice, and their other work. They're a decorated writer, performer, and activist deeply invested in a disability justice + femme-of-color oriented approach to community care, and speak frankly and often about intimate partner violence, CSA, and the aftermath, as well as TJ-based approaches.

I have not read Beyond Survival, but tentatively recommend taking a look, alongside my friend's astute commentary about the book's metatext.

Maggie Smith, You Could Make this Place Beautiful. Smith is a brilliant poet, and has written this memoir about her divorce. As we dig deeper, we uncover a context of abuse, exploitation, infidelity, and dangerous envy on the part of her husband; and watch her carve a life beyond him.

Carmen Maria Machado, In the Dream House. A classic in the category of abuse memoir, and for good reason. Machado's insights into the onion of abuse culture in which we currently live –– ownership rhetorics around children, the subjugation of women, the silence around abuse by and of queer women –– are crucial.

Erin Elizabeth Smith, Down. My dear friend and colleague's book of poems that speak to the insidious process of grooming and its downstream effects, as well as the process of finding one's freedom.

And a few works of fiction to offer solidarity & new ways of thinking in this time:

Sayaka Murata, Earthlings

Tiffany D Jackson, Grown

Dorothy Allison, Bastard Out of Carolina

Ruth Ozeki, My Year of Meats

Tiffany McDaniel, Betty

i hope this is helpful. i don't necessarily know if these are the kinds of narratives your friend needs rn, but these are the ones that have helped me begin coming to terms with my own experiences (i have a long way to go) and have afforded me the chance to think critically about relationship dynamics and cultures of abuse that refuse to absolve abusers of responsibility for their behavior.

[whatbigotspost]

What I wish I could get people who didn’t grow up in highly controlled, abusive environments to understand is that when the very people who are forming you are really fucked up and bad, you are FULLY incapable of knowing that as a kid.

You’re not capable of “damn my dad is really not ok” or “mom is toxic” for a long time. It’s years and years of “this is life. That is my dad. That’s my mom. It’s just how it is.” It often takes PAINFUL moments of realization to get to even questioning if your life isn’t normal. In fact, in my experience, it takes many painful moments to eventually get you there. Someone at school making fun of your parents, for example. Or some outside caring adult noticing things they seem worried about w/ you. Or a particularly extreme incident of abuse that shakes you. Or reading/hearing someone recount abuse they survived and you get the sick realization it’s like a mirror for you.

When your primary caregivers are your means of survival, your brain wraps you in many many many protective layers of denial and whatever the fuck else it needs to so that you can get through it. Many folks like myself will spend more time healing ourselves as adults from our childhood than we spent in the childhood of trauma itself.

Also, let’s be real, an implication I’m making here is that a lot of folks don’t even pick at the thread of “was I abused?” because it’s too overwhelming all together. Or even “was my childhood kinda fucked up?”

Spoiler alert. If your childhood was kinda fucked up, it’s better, in the long run, to acknowledge and address that. Anyway, this is my characteristically long winded way of wanting to recommend some books on the subject that I have found deeply relatable and meaningful:

•Jeanette McCrurdy’s memoir I’m Glad My Mom Died: If you’d be up for an unflinching look at a deeply difficult childhood that includes physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and neglect and disordered eating in the Disney-universe, this is your read. Thinking about what McCurdy has had to overcome chills me to my core but the feelings she shares in words felt deeply relatable and I know they will help many.

•Ashley Ford’s memoir Somebody’s Daughter: I’m biased to love her because she’s a fellow Hoosier but you will love her too. Incredibly well written and deeply moving, Ford’s memoir covers her childhood with an abusive mother, a father in jail for rape, and survivorship of her own rape, as well as her place thriving now. She offers us such meaningful processing of her story. (And just writing style wise, this one is a mega fave.)

•Grace Cho’s memoir Tastes Like War: this one is a deep dive into Cho’s upbringing with a mother (who like one of my parents) has schizophrenia. I found her account of having a first hand seat to a parent’s mental health decline too relatable. The components of her story that focus on her mom’s experience of war and immigrating from Korea and the role that Korean food plays in their lives, are moving beyond words.

•Tara Westover’s memoir Educated: having been raised in a very isolated, survivalist Mormon family and tiny community in Idaho, Westover shares her personal story of a quest for escape and education. Although my family was nowhere nearly so unusual and isolated as Westover’s, I feel what she chronicles will highly resonate with anyone raised by someone who seeks to keep you away from “mainstream influences” or who is any level of survivalist.

Obviously, these are heavy reads and DO NOT check them out if you don’t feel in the right headspace. Each one moved me to tears multiple times. But if your awful/strange childhood and leaving it (them) behind makes you feel alone trust me YOU ARE NOT ALONE ❤️

I also recommend these reads for anyone who wants to see at an anecdotal level what are experiences of people raised in highly abusive environments and/or raised by parents struggling with mental illnesses and/or people raised in high control situations. Chances are you know/love someone who fits that description and you may gain helpful insights.

[chocolatepot]

Last night/this morning I was being grumpy about "survivorship bias" arguments re: historical material culture, and in order to stop being grumpy about it, I promised myself I'd write a post.

The concept is based on a famous anecdote about analysis of military planes in WWII. Analysts were looking at the planes that returned with damage and assuming that the damaged areas needed more armor until they realized that actually, the undamaged areas on those planes were the issue as the planes getting hit there were simply not coming back. So the idea is that if you're making judgement calls based on what survives, you are inherently missing what failed to survive and therefore your judgement may be off.

When this comes up in topics like old houses, antique clothing, furniture, sewing machines, etc. the very very clear subtext of a dismissal on the basis of survivorship bias is "you fucking idiot and probable right-winger, you inherently have only a superficial knowledge of the past, and my logic defeats both your personal opinion and your reasoned argument." This isn't entirely fair of me, as I've seen knowledgeable people make the point as well, but typically it comes as a smug discussion-ender from people who know relatively little about the topic in much the same way some use other named fallacies on the internet.

Survivorship bias makes sense when it comes to downed planes. It makes less sense when it comes to material culture. Why? Because the idea that only the best material culture survives is bullshit.

Sure. Yes. Wedding dresses tend to get saved more than everyday dresses. The best silver and china tends to get put away in a cupboard rather than used to bits. Mahogany furniture has been cared for better than deal (cheap softwood). If you attend a museum exhibition, yes, you will tend to see the Best Stuff put on display, and Victorian mansions tend to get put on historic registers.

But!! There is sufficient of the everyday stuff still extant for scholars and researchers to have a pretty good idea of the norm. Most of it is being sold in small antique shops around the world, but there's also a lot in museums - held in the collections storage and not brought out for shows because it's not "nice enough", except in local historical societies where the collection may largely be this kind of thing. There are plenty of bottom-range houses built before 1950 still around, although they might not be obvious at first glance to a layman because they're often covered in vinyl.

If someone is waxing lyrical about how weren't people so much more refined and elegant back then, yadda yadda yadda, sure, point out that their idea of the past is likely more about fiction and/or the upper and middle classes. If someone is talking about how plastic, polyester, and particle board are not great materials and how things made before they were common hold up better, or how things used to be deliberately made to allow for repair/alteration rather than replacement, though, stop giving them shit for it.

[da-janela-lateral]

very curious as to what you mean by esper survivorship bias! there’s a couple things i’ve noticed that could be related (like how other than the obviously powerful teru, mob, ritsu the only child espers we see are the awakening lab kids whose powers are so limited that if they’re the baseline most espers would probably never find out they have powers at all) (or how other than the main 4 esper teens and the awakening lab kids and sort of takenaka the only psychics we see are adults that are part of claw) (sorry. my adhdemons)

FINALLY MORE EXCUSES TO TALK ABOUT MY HYPHOTESIS.

I first adressed it in this post, little time after I read some fics focusing on Teruki's relationship to Claw and started wondering about some stuff. After reading (part) of the World Domination Arc in the manga, I got more questions, which I'll explain here:

The Esper Survivorship Bias Theory

Contrary to the norm in works focused on the paranormal, in Mob Psycho 100 society overall doesn't care about espers. This is of course related to the main theme of "nobody is special" and the story's tendency for desconstructing shonen tropes, but it also implies that while rare, espers aren't seen as a big thing. This can be seen in the following details:

While describing Mob's powers, Inukawa treats them as only something unusual.

The Kageyama family, their friends and their acquaintances find Mob's powers ordinary.

Espers are a known phenomena (for an example, Mr. Asagiri looks for dozen of psychics on the start of the Mogami Arc).

Even when people don't believe on psychic powers, they don't insist much on this view after tiny proof (that is, powers are somehow beliavable).

Espers existing at all doesn't change how society works.

For that to happen, there must be a condition: the occurrence of psychic powers is common enough so that people acknowledge them AND usually don't mind their existence. They are like a weird, yet mundane fact.

This may contradict the canon's premise that psychic powers are extremely uncommon, but in the Seasoning City region alone we see several characters with them. Toichiro affirmed Claw has about 700 members and that he had hired international mercenaries, which in turn may mean there is a significant esper population out there. So why are there so few espers in-verse, they take years to meet people like them?

Simple. They aren't as extremely rare as people think. This is survivorship bias.

Most espers on canon are adults over 20 years old, and even a great part of these are members of Claw. The only psychic children we see are the main cast, the Awakening Lab kids and Takenaka. What a interesting coincidence that Claw too is 20 years old...

It's not that young espers are ultra uncommon nowadays, it's that as soon as they're obvious, Claw takes them.

This is not limited to powerful people, as the organization went after the Awakening Lab kids even though Claw either knew they had insignificant powers, or had no information on the level of their abilities at all. Any esper youth that enters their radar is a valid target.

Besides that, it's essential to remember Teruki is an exception to the rule. He survived being hunted down by Claw since childhood, but he also lived in dire conditions and was obsessed with being stronger than the criminals who went after him. Despite their powers, most esper children are normal. They wouldn't have an idea Claw existed. They wouldn't be prepared for a kidnapping attempt. And considering espers tend to feel socially alienated, lonely children have bigger chances to trust the Claw officials if they presented themselves as "someone who understood them".

In other words: espers aren't as rare as people believe. It's that as soon as they show their powers, Claw takes action. This is why there are so few characters under 18 who have psychic powers.

Final comments

Of course, many of the arguments I have mentioned could mean other things. MP100 has a pretty soft worldbuilding after all because psychic powers aren't the main focus, but rather a pretext for developing each character's perspective and inner turmoil, as well as the story's themes. Lot's of things are also played for humor and don't have real relevance. Furthermore, one could mention how the audience's view over MP100's world is limited to Mob's very uncommon life, and how some elements we've seen aren't the standard.

I'm just thinking a lot about the Claw targets' families. What did they know about the kidnappings? What did they do about them? How did the authorities investigate these cases? Have they found any closure? Have they connected the dots about the nature of the disappearances?

And what about the targets in question? How did their recruitments work? What they thought about what happened to them? Did they miss their loved ones? How many of them went on and kidnapped more kids? How many of them survived? Did they get to reunite with the people they loved and have a chance on a normal life?

Some food for thought.

[deathbydarkelves]

I know I said the kaldorei minimize metal usage in my AU but as I'm looking at these museums' collections and realizing just how unlikely it is to find ancient wooden artifacts (obvious in retrospect, just bear with me), I've settled on some things:

The Kaldorei Empire, as empires do, did scour the earth for all it held, and there's a lot of metal artifacts from that time scattered all over. This may have even contributed to the "modern" sentiment that using metal where it's not needed is a symbol of overindulgence to the detriment of everything else. The weapons, furniture, cups and dishes, and jewelry of the Empire quite literally litter Azeroth. That's in addition to how they blew it the fuck up. Perhaps there's a genuine shame there motivating the modern (relative) asceticism, at least in the older generations, and avoiding using metal whenever possible is part of that.

The move towards druidism heavily motivated it as well -- being able to communicate with the trout in the rivers which you're polluting with your mines would definitely change how you see things -- but now I'm thinking it wasn't the only reason.

There's a survivorship bias as there is in real life. The Empire did of course use wood, and bone, and fur, and these things in their homes and palaces. It just doesn't preserve anywhere near as readily.

But my point here is that the modern kaldorei culture will never leave as deep or permanent a footprint as the Empire even if they exist for three times as long, because they're choosing to walk where the tide will reach. Most of their wooden jewelry and musical instruments, leather armor, and such will decay and be lost eventually.

Not that the fish or birds leave much of a mark on the planet either. But having sapient contemporaries who carve their marks into history without a care, as wasteful as it may look, while intentionally refraining from doing the same, has got to be an odd feeling sometimes. The desire to be known by the future as who you've chosen to be, but who you've chosen to be chooses to play with nature and not against her. And unless it gets lucky and fossilizes, nothing in nature ever lasts too long.

[felixcloud6288]

PMMM episode 9-12 recap

Mami's story is about how being a Magical Girl is tragic. Sayaka's story is about what happens when a Magical Girl cannot handle the despair of their life. Homura's story is about clinging to hope even in a hopeless situation.

Prior to this point, the Magical Girl system was presented as flawed and broken. Girls are chosen to protect the world from witches and in exchange, they are granted a wish to fulfill some great desire of theirs.

However, being a Magical Girl is an ultimately thankless job fraught with peril both from witches and other Magical Girls of dubious morals.

But with the reveal that Magical girls are just juvenile witches, we learn that the system is neither flawed nor broken. It is working exactly as intended. And now the mask comes off.

If I had prior knowledge of the series, it would be more appropriate to include episode 9 in the previous recap because episodes 5-9 are a whole arc to themselves. But I guess that's what happens when you do blind discussions.

Sayaka and Kyouko's arc is focused on the duality of hope and despair. Both made a wish to bring hope to someone only for that wish to bring them despair. And they had opposite reactions to it. Kyouko decided to shut herself away and live only for herself while Sayaka doubled down and continued to let herself be hurt in some vain attempt to say her life has meaning.

If I were to make an allegory to any real world aspects, Sayaka and Kyouko's story is about suicidal depression and episode 9 is when it reaches that point where the victim has decided to go through with it.

Kyouko's entire strategy to save Sayaka essentially boiled down to bringing the people who care about her together to help Sayaka recover from her heartbreak and sorrow. But when that fails because everything has become too much for Sayaka to handle, Kyouko chooses to stay by Sayaka to the end so that she won't die alone and think she wasn't loved.

With each episode, Kyubey becomes more and more open about how the entire system is intended to exploit girls rather than help them. And he ultimately intends to abandon humanity to be destroyed by the witches created by this system when he has everything he needs.

It's kind of like a corporation coming in saying it will boost the local economy so you should let it do as it pleases. And over time, it drives out the local population because people start moving in to work there, land is torn down to make more room for the corporation, and the soil, air, and water become polluted because the corporation controls the system and can do what it wants.

But all the money goes to the executives and when there's no more value to be had, the corporation abandons the area leaving behind destroyed land and a destroyed community that will now die because of what the corporation did.

Kyubey's remarks that his species calls emotions a mental illness just adds even further to the exploitative nature of the system. The system is meant to target beings who by his definition would be more vulnerable.

And his method of only giving half-truths or withholding information unless explicitly asked is an aspect of this exploitation. He's deliberately presenting things in a way that preys upon human vulnerabilities. He even admits that his species studied humans and found that young girls going through puberty were the ideal targets and then catered the system specifically to target them.

Kinda like how games with gacha elements are designed to exploit people with gambling addictions.

And since the power that is made from a magical girl becoming a witch is tied to her role on fate, Kyubey is really only interested in targeting people born into high positions or with great skill. Basically, Kyubey is propping up those who exist because of survivorship bias.

I'd wondered why he didn't just go to some war-torn nation and offer a contract to every girl about to die, and I guess it's because they would offer so little power that Kyubey deemed them worthless.

Meanwhile, girls from prosperous nations have far more potential to have an impact on the world, so Kyubey hangs around nations like Japan where he can look for big potential targets while also getting some decent secondary targets.

Anyway, I'm going to move onto Homura. I got really into talking about episode 10 and how it recontextualizes the entire series so I'm going to focus more on episodes 11 and 12.

Everything Homura is doing is to save Madoka. At first, she wanted to restart when she met her so they could fight side-by-side. But then she discovered the truth of the system and fought to save Madoka from her fated death or transformation after the walpurgis night.

And since hope and despair exist together, the more Homura fought to save Madoka, the more aggressively Kyubey tried to make Madoka a magical girl. With each new timeline formed, Madoka's potential grew because every timeline tied back to her.

Homura's story is about her fighting against the despair that comes with being a magical girl. She tries to cling to hope in a situation that is hopeless. Each time she fails to save Madoka, she tries again, only for the next attempt to become even more difficult than the last one. She always managed to push back the inevitable, but in the end, she always lost.

And at the end of this story, Homura still never achieved her goal. She never managed to stop Madoka from becoming a magical girl, and it ultimately resulted in Madoka vanishing from existence. This should be the moment of ultimate despair for Homura where all her efforts come to nothing.

Madoka struggles with feeling inadequate. She initially wanted a rather tautological wish. She was going to become a magical girl by wishing to be a magical girl. She thought being a magical girl would give her the chance to help others, make the world better, and ensure her life mattered in some way. And her wish ultimately is an extension of that. She wished to be helpful to all magical girls who ever did and would exist by becoming the hope that drives them and chases away despair.

In the new world Madoka created, Mami, Kyouko, and Sayaka still became magical girls; and Sayaka still despaired over how her wish turned out. But instead of becoming a witch - a being that represents despair - Madoka took Sayaka from the world and showed her what happened to Kyousuke because of her wish.

Madoka showed Sayaka that her life mattered in some way.

Homura's wish and desires ultimately can never come true. But instead of giving into despair as she would in the old system, she's been given a new hope and purpose. Madoka became the very embodiment of hope thanks to Homura's efforts. And as the only person who will ever remember Madoka, Homura is now able to start the next phase of her life where Madoka's words echo in her ears and she shows that Madoka's life matters.

Homura should try spreading Madoka's name around as the patron saint of magical girls. Madoka is literally the goddess of hope who protects magical girls in this new universe.

back