#basically he refuses to admit that he's feeling bad about it bc that requires emotional honesty and the ability to handle trauma

[ridiasfangirlings]

Inspired by the recent ask , can we have something about burden of killing a king on Fushimi in more details ? ( the one where he kills mikoto )

Continuing with this ask, I think Fushimi would just continue to be a mess about this one for a while. As far as the burden of the physical action he's mostly fine, both arms intact and since he's not a King himself there's no worry about a second Damocles Down like what happened with Munakata either. I do like to think that there would be some physical consequences though, especially since technically the King power is such that it should be able to turn back something as simple as a sword thrust even if the King himself was willing to be stabbed. Maybe Fushimi just ends up with a lot of physical scars from what happened (I went with this idea in that one fic I wrote where Fushimi had to kill Munakata, the idea that he has scars all over his arms afterward) and of course Fushimi being Fushimi he is constantly picking at each and every one of them, not allowing them to close or to heal because he figures this is the sort of thing he deserves, more scars that don't fade.

Obviously this would affect his mental state a lot too and I imagine Munakata in particular trying to do what he can to ease that burden, still feeling the sting of his own failure in that sense because he had to let his own clansman do the duty that should have fallen on him. Fushimi likely wouldn't be very open to Munakata's efforts though, I think he would just be very focused on taking all the blame for Suoh Mikoto's death even as he tries to convince himself that this is what he wanted, that he hated Mikoto anyway and that this was almost a good thing for him that he actually got to kill that guy. Really though I could see Fushimi just having nightmares about the whole thing, recalling again and again what it was like having to be the one who ran Mikoto through, and basically doing his level best to deal by refusing to let himself actually deal with any of the emotions that keep threatening to overwhelm him because that's how Fushimi basically handles anything that requires him to confront his own feelings.

From an outside standpoint it would be interesting to see how Fushimi's viewed too in that sense, like obviously characters like Yata, Kusanagi and Anna are going to have more complicated feelings about this but I wonder if Fushimi would even find himself targeted by the Homra rank and file afterward for being 'the man who killed Mikoto-san.' On the jungle end he probably would be worth even more points and when he later joins them Sukuna is quick to point out to Hisui that this is the guy who killed a King and can they really trust him. Fushimi just leans into that again though, grinning and saying that's right, he did kill a King, and Sukuna's even more distrustful towards him – especially knowing that Fushimi was once in Homra, like now not only has he betrayed two Kings but he's killed one too. Hisui would probably be more chill about it though, like if Fushimi wants to try and kill him he's welcome to try, that's part of the game too after all. (And then imagine at the end of ROK when Anna's summoning all her power it's Fushimi who sees that vision of Mikoto, smiling at him and telling him he's fine just the way he is, and Fushimi just looks away and mutters that he won't apologize for it, and Mikoto's not forgiven for it either).

#Fushimi Saruhiko #Talking K #yeah Saru doesn't deal with this at all #basically he refuses to admit that he's feeling bad about it bc that requires emotional honesty and the ability to handle trauma #none of which he is equipped to do #I feel like he might even be more willing to die in jungle feeling like this evens things out #and then he's even more shocked when Yata shows up to save him knowing what Fushimi did #and Yata tells Fushimi that he understands now that Fushimi only did what Mikoto wanted and he doesn't deserve that blame #also sudden idle wonder if Zenjou would try to talk to him about this or if he would just leave things be #I imagine Munakata would ask Zenjou about it at least

[oldtestleper]

Ive been thinking and I will be frank here... I know y’all make a distinction between kal and vau based on narrative treatment n fuck idk maybe after all the shit with kal it’s enough just to see a banished prince antihero and say ‘this guy whose wards live in terror of his violence is abusive’ and to have the narrative go ‘yeah! he sure is!’ but tbh that distinction is just not at all a meaningful one for me bc I don’t think the narrative actually makes it successfully and when the narrative is saying ‘this guy is an abuser’ about Vau I don’t think that bears out any more meaningfully than it does when it points to kal and says ‘this guy’s a tough old soldier dad with a heart of gold’

like with kal it’s clear that kt was never intending to write an abusive character—that in fact the opposite is true. therefore while kal behaves in abusive, cruel, manipulative, and selfish ways, the narrative never acknowledges this as harmful or unjust, and therefore the harm is never addressed, kal never changes, and his victims never recover or receive justice.

whereas vau is like... obviously intended as a foil to kal. he’s the bad cop. he beat his cadets, he’s pragmatic to the point of being cold, he’s stuffed to the brim with over the top Evil tropes and obviously abusive in a way that the text is happy to recognize… basically when vau behaves in abusive cruel ways the narrative not only presents it as such but also sheds light on the harm he caused to his victims, which obviously it never comes within a hundred miles of doing for kal. but critically, despite this willingness of the narrative to actually portray and condemn his abusiveness, vau never faces true consequences for his actions. instead of anything like that, he (sort of) recognizes the harm he caused but won’t admit fault, justifying his actions on the basis of necessity and his own overtly abusive upbringing. ultimately the narrative forgives him solely on the basis of his recognition of his own cruelty, his emotional suffering over his cadets/professed love for them, and his arguably noble intentions. but the harm he caused is never addressed—really it hardly even acknowledges that the harm exists. vau’s cruelty and the fact of his abusive actions, sure, but the ongoing harm he is directly responsible for? don’t make me laugh!! anyone else remember actin’s entire arc?

exactly as with kal, vau never truly changes, his victims never recover or receive justice, and by the end the narrative is doing little so much as gently polishing what it thinks is glowing portrait of a morally gray character who was occasionally cruel or vicious but was redeemed in the end by his love for his sons.......... despite the narrative actively refusing to address the ongoing harm caused by both kal and vau and entirely without either of them having actually been redeemed in anyone’s mind but his own. sure maybe vau could have been a really valuable foil to kal IF the narrative were willing to understand kal as abusive and to understand that redemption requires more than just feeling really sad that you hurt somebody 🥺 but obviously it would never do either of those things, and ultimately vau fails to be significantly juxtaposed against Kal instead he just becomes a parallel figure who gets raked through shit a LITTLE more readily, who is more clumsily and stereotypically abusive and who is just as baselessly forgiven by the narrative.

#hes fun... i know hes fun..... hes a banished prince with a sword and a six legged flying hyperintelligent dog #but 1) ultimately i think hes loathsome. no getting around that. and 2. he really isnt a significantly different abuser from kal #it was never going to happen because ultimately the way kt understands things like harm and abuse and redemption is deeply flawed #repcomm #star wars #abuse