Immortality, Motherhood, and Pain: A Closer Look at Annalise and the Doll
Finally revisiting this from ages ago, because the parallels between these two are just SO fascinating. Content warnings for discussions of misogyny, genocide, abuse, and pregnancy/childbirth.
This analysis will cover the parallels between Miss Doll and Queen Annalise through the lenses of the misery of immortality, the trauma of marginalization, and the liberation they find in motherhood. Both the Doll and Annalise are undying, both coded as mother figures, both marked by death, and both very, very alone.
Miss doll and Annalise are the only characters in the whole game who are undying. You can kill them, but not meaningfully - not in any way that matters - and they seem to know it. Neither will try to stop you, nor will they fight back, should you choose to attack them. They will come back, and your violent betrayal will have seemingly meant nothing to them. They both are very aware they will outlast whatever violence you may inflict upon them. It's evidenced in their dialogue:
If you attack, Annalise says:
“Enough. If only Our life was so easily forfeit… Grieve not, for Us.”
“How sad this is. If only Our life was so easily forfeit…”
If you attack Miss Doll, she used to say:
“I must have displeased you. Go on, shut me down… Even so, this vessel will remain in your service… So have no fear."
I think this point of comparison highlights just how deeply they've both been desensitized to violence and abuse. They do not beg for mercy, they do not put up a struggle - they only remark on it with distant chagrin. They both seem keenly aware that their flesh need not be in one piece to fulfill its purpose.
But where Miss Doll was made to embody the Victorian patriarchal ideal of womanhood, Annalise wields womanhood as her last weapon against the dehumanization of the church’s genocide through her queendom. Upon being resurrected the next time you return to the dream, Miss Doll will act as though nothing had happened at all. However, if you bring her flesh to the Altar of Despair, Annalise will call you an arrant fool, and remind you that “Vileblood or no, forget not; We are thy Queen”. Miss Doll kneels to serve the hunter, while the hunter must kneel to serve Annalise. Miss Doll has been conditioned to passively accept dehumanization and submission, yet Annalise demands respect through your submission even in her dehumanized state. Miss Doll is subjugated by the trappings of womanhood, while Annalise is lifted from subjugation by her womanhood, in some ways.
I find this fascinating, however, because while Miss Doll appears in every way as a pure, demure Victorian woman was meant to, they are also dehumanized through the denial of gender. To Gerhman, their creator, they are nothing more than another tool of the workshop. An object. Even the Doll themself uses neutral "I" pronouns to refer to themself in the original translation. I think it is pertinent to note that the only canonical reference to Miss Doll as a "woman" comes from Eileen. In the original Japanese text, she refers to the Doll with a term of endearment reserved for young girls. Miss Doll's appearance is the historical ideal of the subjugated woman - yet when Eileen confers upon her the status of "woman", she does so in an endearing and humanizing way. Therefore, for both Miss Doll and Queen Annalise, the status of womanhood is a rebuttal of their own dehumanizing subjugation: Annalise as "queen", and Miss Doll as "daughter".
Both characters are arguably seeking/find liberation through motherhood. Miss Doll gets "Childhood's Beginning": their creator and animator have both been put down, the hunt is finally over and they are no longer bound to serve its participants, nor must they watch their beheadings. They cradle the newly ascended hunter. It is a highly atypical “motherhood”. It exists in the performance of the role rather than the biology of childbirth. In the same way, the Doll possesses a highly atypical “womanhood” which exists in performance alone, rather than in biology or even identity — but nonetheless, it is real, and it is hers. I, perhaps too optimistically, choose read it as humanizing for them; because unlike their “womanhood”, Miss Doll is allowed to choose this for themself rather than having it imposed upon them.
In the same vein, Annalise seeks to birth a child of blood for a similar but perhaps more somber reason. She wants a child because she wants an heir — which is to say, because it is the only way she may once again have kin. Because it is the only way she may fulfill her duty as Queen. She witnessed everyone she ever knew or loved — surely her own family included — slaughtered before her eyes. Annalise seems to seek motherhood in order to be a homemaker - in the most literal sense possible. She wants to rebuild the community, the home, which was so brutally torn away from her. She wishes to restore honor to Cainhurst. For Annalise, having a child is an open act of rebellion against the genocidal eugenics-frenzied bloodthirst of the Church. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason Alfred is so hellbet on destroying her, why the Executioners imprisoned her the way they did, was to strip her of bodily autonomy so she couldn’t “reproduce”. Her desire for a child is her way of seeking liberation for her and her people.
In this sense, taking up the role of a mother, of "women's work", is what confers the agency upon both Annalise and Miss Doll which had been otherwise stripped from them. Annalise's by the genocidal eugenics of the Church, and Miss Doll by the pact of servitude she was seemingly born into.
98 notes
·
View notes
hmm thinking about the idea of love songs. i think the idea of what a love song is that we have in our culture is inherently a little bit flawed because we have the idea that any song written about romantic feelings is a love song and im thinking thats not exactly true because there is a difference between "romance" and "love". what i'm saying is not that love is a broader category and applies to things that are not romantic in nature. this is in fact true, but it's not what makes the important distinction here. the true distinction between "romance" and "love" is that romance is a societally defined type of interest in another person, whereas love is, essentially, a promise that you make when you build a relationship.
as such, what i call "love" here might be better defined as "care", as that implies more time and effort, but that's a different suitcase to unpack and largely unimportant to my point here, which is more about the societal conventions of what we call love songs. the point is, relationships can be built with other people, yes, but also animals, places, organizations, ideas, so on and so on, whereas romance requires another person, hence the difference between the ideas of "romance" and "love".
with that in mind, there are two types of songs we in western, english speaking, society call "love songs":
1) songs that are about a person's romantic interest in someone that is either definitively known to be unrequited (existing monogamous relationship, sexuality that doesn't align, etc) or simply not requited (aka romantic interest being unknown); and
2) songs about an existing relationship (keeping in mind my points about relationships not just being with people, but also places, things, etcetera) as is.
(some examples of the latter category: mountaintop by relient k, which defines the relationship in question as non-romantic; or i miss my mum by cavetown, which is - as the title implies - a song about the singer missing their mother.)
now, the thing that makes distinguishing these two difficult is the fact that songs about an existing relationship CAN be about wanting certain aspects of that relationship to change. in these cases, determining that a song is one or the other will hinge either on a) authorial intent or b) whether the song is more about what the singer wants (thereby implying #1) or the lack thereof in that relationship (which would imply #2).
to get back to the subject at hand: the term "love song", as we think of it, is an umbrella term that include both of these two categories, and i think that perhaps it is reductive to do so. with that in mind, i think perhaps it would be more appropriate for "love song" to mean only the latter, whereas the former is a category of its own. WHICH is not to say that the two can't overlap — just that if a song is about a person with whom the singer has no relationship, it cannot be considered a love song due to the fact that it is a song about infatuation, not love.
(another interesting wrinkle this provides is the fact that a song might start out in the first category and, as the writer develops a relationship with a person, might move into the second category as they write more.)
9 notes
·
View notes
this is very personal to me so im not really sure how to go about this ...
so i definitely identify myself as a c.isgender, het.erosexual woman. i like men. final. i have liked boys in the past and I don't have any bad experiences with past crushes because i never actually had balls to date before lol but it's been years since i actually liked someone so deeply (and then i got ate-zoned but that's okay lol)
but in irl circumstances recently - my best friend and mother kind of brought this up? trying to suggest the idea that i would have a boyfriend or something like that
for my friend, it's like "ooh, you like him don't you? imagine holding his hand, (x, y and z)
and for my mother, it's like "when you get a boyfriend, (x y and z)." (she's been at this for ages because im getting older and she sees this as the phase where i will get a boyfriend)
and how i respond to these?
i always respond so bitterly. I don't know why - I don't physically show it, but in my head it's like - ew, no lol
which is so strange - why did i respond like that? i thought i was interested in being a relationship in the near future? ... am i ACTUALLY not looking for romantic connection?
which, countless of times - made me almost conclude that i, might be on the ar.oace-spectrum ...?
but I don't say it yet, because i somewhat believe in the saying that you can't give your fullest opinion on something without experiencing it - in other words i feel that i cant say im ar.oace without experiencing what was it like to be engaged in a relationship. i genuinely do want to know and feel what its like being in a relationship - and well, i am craving for the affection in all seriousness - laugh all you want, i do want to feel that special feeling of love.
which is led me to guess i could be cu.pio? but i do experience attraction. its just very dormant unfortunately lol
due to the recent talks i had with my best friend and mother - i cant help but feel maybe a little repulsed to feel romantic in my s.elfshipping sphere. maybe i am kind of combatting against what my friend and mother assumes of me by going to my familials from time to time. no i am not romantically interested in someone right now and i can prove to you im not looking for romance irl right now
i remember there was one exchange my best friend had with me, he knows that i'm very loving of steven and red (but more on steven, because he calls out on it jokingly) but i remember that one time he said "it won't be steven for longer" in a joking manner. perhaps im a little affected by that? steven has helped me feel mentally okay in countless of times so it feels like youre tearing away this from me and i felt like i can depend on him more than i can with an actual person so i was a little sour that day. friend doesnt know how much steven made me okay
i remember when my mother criticized me of being so unfeminine and saying how this would severely affect how my potential boyfriend would look at me. i kept screaming in my mind "i'm ar.oace" but am i actually? i domt think so - but in the spur of the moment i so wanted to say that just to make her stop assuming im keen to look for a partner
it's weird. truly weird. i want to prove to them that i can stand on my own without an actual romantic connection but at the same time, i do? want someone? i just don't like it when they think i am desperate to look for someone because it gets so annoying
9 notes
·
View notes