#meta essay | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

andrewwtca · 1 year

Text

a Soriku Endgame, Actually essay on Light and Darkness

Also available to read on Archive of our Own.

Kingdom Hearts, with Sora and Riku in particular, has been on my mind as of late. It’s always been on my mind, to be honest, ever since I first got into the series. It’s grabbed my hand and hasn’t let go, especially with all the new lore. And yet, I’ve been struggling to make peace with myself.

On one hand, I don't want to get my hopes up, thinking that Sora and Riku would ever become something 'more' or that what I’m seeing is anything other than in-depth speculation. I've had my heart broken before and this series means too much to me for me to foolishly dive in like this.

On the other hand, I can't ignore what the story is telling me, as a literary analysis enthusiast and as a diehard fan. There have been parallels established, setups finally going through, and Nomura has said before that “this series is not intended to be child-focused, and so the complexity of the story is purposely made prominent.” I can’t keep turning a blind eye, knowing everything I know, thinking everything I think. If I did, I feel like I would be doing a disservice to both my experiences with the series and my experiences as a person.

So yeah—Soriku Endgame, Actually. Today, I’m arguing its canonicality because of the balance of Light and Darkness (or lack thereof) throughout the series. Please enjoy my messy and impassioned essay!

a sky of falling stars

The Children of Destiny is a new concept introduced to us in the finale of Dark Road. To summarize, they are people with the ability to feel what others feel, connect, and become one with them—empaths with Light.

It appears that the Children of Destiny are all descendants of Ephemer, characterized by silvery hair. There's Ephemer, there's Baldr, there's Xehanort—and, oh yeah, there's Riku.

Upon the release of the finale, a lot of people—myself included—quickly jumped to the conclusion that Sora is a Child of Destiny, which isn't all that wrong. If we're going by what the games have given us, Sora is very special. What other character has housed five different hearts inside his own? What other character had an entire arc in Birth by Sleep talking about how he felt the pain in someone else’s heart?

But Nomura has insisted since the beginning that Sora is an ordinary boy, that he wasn't born with anything special, explaining that he “had the premise that a heart like Sora’s exists within all the players. Sora is ‘ordinary’, therefore everyone is ‘ordinary.” (Before anyone argues Nomura is just going through a retcon, I doubt he would go through with one to this extent, given how he has had the ending to the Dark Seeker Saga in mind for years.)

Riku, on the other hand, has not been given this kind of treatment at all. He's always been painted as a golden child, better than Sora at everything, being the original bearer of the Keyblade. For crying out loud, he had a light in Birth By Sleep that was seen from space, not Sora. If you factor in bloodlines, it wouldn't be too far off to theorize that Riku is a descendent of Ephemer's line. Riku isn't who most look at first, but all signs lead to him being a Child of Destiny.

But that doesn't explain Sora at all. He may not have been born special like Riku, but he's special somehow. After all, Nomura did finish his ‘Sora isn't special’ line with, “I figure even if you’re ‘ordinary’, for something important, everyone can exhibit a special power just like Sora.” Aqua even calls out that Sora is the one who can set things right, the boy who can touch others’ hearts.

And that is where the necklace theory comes in.

Sora has always been associated with royalty, sitting on a throne in box art or having crowns plastered around him—or on him. From his debut, Sora has had a crown necklace that has never been explained. Despite wearing it in every outfit, it's never been addressed how it came to be.

It’s after Aqua and Terra came, judging by the BBS cutscenes of him and Riku. But it’s before KH1, as that's when his journey began. That’s a huge timeframe, from being a kid to deciding to leave the islands, but it's easy to pinpoint a time when considering something the games still never fully fleshed out: the meteor shower.

In Chain of Memories, Sora and Riku fight over this memory they supposedly both had of Namine one night during a meteor shower. One of them promised they would keep her safe, and it's all cute until we remember that Namine wasn't actually in these memories. And Namine can't make any new memories—she can only rearrange old ones.

Sora and Riku both share this memory. And the way they fought over this memory gave it the utmost importance. It becomes obvious at this point that the both of them witnessed a meteor shower, and given what we know about their dynamic (and that's a lot), it would make sense to assume it was Riku promising Sora to keep him safe—almost like a charm.

The necklace theory has been around for years, but it’s only after the Dark Road finale that it was expanded upon (or perhaps it’s just me and maybe three others who think this, but I don’t mind one bit.) It isn't just Riku promising to keep Sora safe. In giving Sora a necklace, a crown, Riku has metaphorically crowned Sora. He has brought Sora up to his status as a Child of Destiny, putting all his love into a charm that he hopes can keep Sora safe.

There’s a flaw in my logic though, trust me, I know. I just said that this meteor shower didn’t happen until after BBS, and yet it’s during the game that Sora feels the pain of others, it’s during the game that Aqua says that Sora is going to be the one to set things right. But I still stand firm in my belief. Riku has always been painted as the golden child, the Child of Destiny, but his love for Sora runs deeper than his love for anything else.

Riku’s light is the one that brought Terra and Aqua to Destiny Island but Riku’s light shines for Sora; sort of like step one to Sora’s crowning. Riku’s light rubbed off on Sora, ever since they were kids—after all, a Child of Destiny’s power is to connect hearts. Why not connect his own with another? Why not share his light?

Further, in BBS, Sora can feel Ven’s pain and take care of his heart, but he isn’t fully aware of this nor is he able to really do anything about this. It isn’t until KH1 that Sora ever exhibits a power of truly connecting to another’s heart when Sora entered the darkness swallowing Riku and touched Riku’s heart’s light to obtain his Keyblade, explained by Nomura himself. And it isn’t until KH3 that Sora finds the power to wake up Ven’s heart.

Regardless of whether or not I’m right about this, it means Nomura isn't technically wrong about Sora being normal. Sora, no matter what, doesn’t have some divine birthright, but he still has the makings of someone who can bring peace to the world—all thanks to Riku.

This helps set the tone of their relationship, of the depth of Sora and Riku’s bond. It also moves the storyline forward to how they will be the ones to instigate change—but I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s first talk about who once were and who they could’ve been.

in another life

Kingdom Hearts is pretty on the nose on parallels between Xehanort/Eraqus and Riku/Sora. Besides personality, Xehanort and Riku are both Childs of Destiny who give in to the darkness and Eraqus and Sora are endless sources of light. But the parallels don't exist to make us empathize with Xehanort/Eraqus: they're to tell us a cautionary tale of what our protagonists could've been.

So it begs the question, what actually separated Sora and Riku from becoming like Eraqus and Xehanort? Let’s start with Riku.

To recap, Xehanort was a student in Scala ad Caelum alongside Eraqus, who watched all his classmates die. He learned from Baldr about their roles as Children of Destiny and in his grief, became obsessed with wiping the world clean. He wanted a Keyblade War to create a fresh start, void of Light and Darkness, so that the world could try again.

Riku seemed to have been walking the same road as Xehanort. He stopped fearing Darkness and started dancing on the line between it and Light. Riku was angry at the world and angry at his friends, and perhaps in another life, he may too have wanted to wipe the world clean.

But every time I compare him and Xehanort, I can't help but think that a cautionary tale isn't what Xehanort/Eraqus is. Because I can't help but think that it just could never have happened to Riku, and it's for two main reasons:

1) Hope.

Riku has hope in the world. When we look at all the other Children of Light, they all had a Darkness that took them down (although in Ephemer's case, it was a literal Darkness that killed him). Baldr lost himself in grief. Xehanort lost himself in rage. But not Riku.

When Xehanort saw that the world couldn't be fixed (to how he believed it should be), Riku did not even see a world that needed fixing. Riku saw the world in all of its complicated glory. For instance, Riku is one of the first characters to acknowledge the feelings of Nobodies; their pain, and their love. He doesn't see them as an extension of Darkness or Light. They simply are.

Riku believes in redemption. It's been his entire character arc, after all, to redeem himself and walk the Road to Dawn, a term coined way back in CoM. Ever since then, Riku has been closely associated with the sunrise—night turning into day. Darkness becomes Light. Redemption. This symbolism is shown in box art, said in interviews, even his Keyblade is called the Way to Dawn.

The fact that Riku was even able to think of the Road to Dawn proves that he's nothing like Xehanort. Xehanort believes that there is no redemption because the world needs to be wiped clean. But Riku believes that there is a road he can walk, a road he can take to salvation because the world is not good or bad, but made for people to live and learn. But how? How was he able to walk that road? He has hope, but how was he able to use it? And that's the second reason.

2) Sora. Riku has Sora.

It may feel a bit obvious to say, but it's true: the fact that Riku is Riku; Sora is Sora; and their relationship is the way it is, is the key to why they would never have fallen to the same fate. We don't know the full extent of Xehanort and Eraqus's relationship, but it's safe to assume it wasn't as kind or loving as Riku and Sora's ever were. The two would play as kids, promise to keep each other safe, tell secrets—the two became princes of destiny together, destined to fight their way home.

I can't see Xehanort and Eraqus as anything more than students in a fucked up situation. Because when things got bad for Xehanort, he didn't think of Eraqus as his guiding light. He only thought of what he lost. There’s even a line in Dark Road of Xehanort hearing Eraqus crying in the other room, yet he never comforts him, never approaches him. They suffered alone, too afraid or perhaps too blind to reach for one another.

When things got bad for Riku, he saw Sora. He saw how Sora loved Kairi and sacrificed himself for her, and he saw that Sora was forgiving towards him. The reason why Riku and Sora didn't end up like Xehanort and Eraqus is that they simply aren't them. Their bond is deeper and their love is stronger, and Riku’s hope is simply stronger than Xehanort’s ever was.

It’s important to emphasize that this truly is a feat that only Riku (and Sora, one day) could’ve accomplished. It's natural to us that Riku, one of the series' protagonists, was able to do this. It's easy to shrug off the balance he managed to strike between his Light and Darkness, but for so many actually in the series, it's an incomprehensible thought. Mickey even stated in CoM, that Riku introduced Light and Darkness in a way nobody has ever seen before. To understand how this affects Sora and Riku’s relationship, it’s important to understand the way things currently are.

the light we pass down

Light and Darkness are the very core of this series. Light represents the connections you make with others, while Darkness represents the lack thereof—those with Darkness in their hearts are those who walk alone, while those with Light are those with many friends around them. Darkness is selfishness, and Light is selflessness.

Darkness is usually framed as an inherently evil source in many stories, but it's something that cannot be extinguished. Light needs to be there to balance it.

But Kingdom Hearts seems to be going down the path less taken—yes, Darkness isn't 'good', and it isn't desirable to isolate yourself from the rest of the world. But the series is asking the question many like to ignore: when does Light become Darkness?

In nearly every game, you can trace one character fed into the illusion that Light is good, everything else is bad, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. MoM to his pupils in Union X; Odin to Baldr in Dark Road; Eraqus to his children in BBS; Yen Sid to Mickey in forbidding him to speak of Aqua; Donald and Goofy to Sora in telling him that their ship runs on happy smiles. It is generational trauma.

A cycle of hypocrisy has been forced on not only the 'defenders of Light' but 'agents of Darkness.' Xehanort doesn't care who he hurts as long as he can get his own idea of balance in the world, believing his judgment to be supreme to others—despite his initial thoughts in Dark Road, that unless someone's heart is pure Light, how can one know for sure what is right and wrong? To which Eraqus responded that they as Keyblade Wielders held the supreme judgment towards morality.

Again and again, this cycle of defending what they believe is good and Light repeats, hurting themselves and hurting others, and even Sora is not free of this hypocrisy. While he doesn't go out of his way to hurt others the way Xehanort has, he is capable of hurting others: Riku was hurt by Sora in KH1 when he was silent when Kairi suggested leaving him behind or when he shrugged off Riku going missing in Traverse Town. In CoM, when the idea of him ‘abandoning’ people was presented, he acted out harshly and completely rejected the idea (this is all another parallel to Eraqus!)

He even denies the idea that Riku has hurt others. Despite Riku acting out of his own free will, the reason he feels the need to atone and walk the path to redemption, Sora believes that the Darkness was forced on Riku by others.

Sora has been carved into the same mindset as so many others, the idea heavily tackled in Dark Road, that Darkness is only brought upon by others, and that it needs to be expunged. Sora is a firm believer that the Darkness is something to be eradicated, such as with his encounter with Vanitas in KH3. When Vanitas states that he is simply Darkness, Ven is quick to understand and even accept. Sora, on the other hand, rejects this and insists that it isn’t okay.

Even our series’ protagonist is unable to shake himself from this self-righteous, black-or-white thinking. Riku is the only character in the series who has formed an actual balance in himself, with all other characters having to pick one side. Lea, Xion, and Roxas leave the Darkness of Organization XIII and become Keyblade Wielders. Terra embraces his Light, Aqua leaves the Realm of Darkness, and Ven is literally separated into a being of Light and Darkness (although not out of his own volition).

The series is not framing any of these things as negative—there’s nothing wrong with embracing Light. However, these characters are falling into the same cycle that the generations before have; they will once again be faced with a Darkness too deep to defeat and ignore. It must be talked to, reckoned with, and faced with open arms. Riku has been the only one able to return the hug and walk away.

We’ve explored what makes Riku’s character arc so significant and what Sora’s flaws are, and it’s time to dive into the murky waters of the future.

when does the sun become the night?

Sora. Oh, Sora. I love you, Sora. Now let me tear you and your smile apart.

The parallels between Xehanort and Riku are very on the nose and easy to distinguish; meanwhile, Eraqus and Sora are a bit more challenging.

In BBS, Eraqus is the Master of Aqua, Terra, and Ventus. He forms a bond between them, as one would expect, mentoring and looking out for their well-being. The Light in his heart is strong due to his connections with them, alongside being a Keyblade wielder. Although not perfect (feeding into Terra's insecurities about his Darkness, cough), he does care for them. But when the world falls to Darkness, Eraqus doesn't hesitate to be selfless, to give up his connections, the Light in his heart, to kill them to save a greater good. As long as someone somewhere can benefit from his actions, he isn't harming.

But is that selfless? Is sacrificing for a 'greater good' truly selfless? Is there a line between the needs of the many and the needs of the few? Or is there a certain ‘darkness’ that comes with these acts? Disregarding yourself, disregarding others, selfless yet selfish; it's not the right thing to do, and the series doesn't hesitate to frame it as that. What Eraqus did was wrong. He hurt others, even if he refused to acknowledge it.

And yet, no one seems to make any noise toward Sora.

Sora is a Guardian of Light. He is the cheerful protagonist who makes everyone smile and feel better. Ever since the first game, when Donald and Goofy (although not with ill intent) told him that the Gummi Ship runs on happy faces, he's been under the precedent that his emotions do not matter in the greater scheme of things. In the long run, what matters is that others are safe, the people he cares about.

Once again, like how Xehanort and Riku deviated in terms of having hope, this is where Eraqus and Sora begin to deviate from their parallels. While both are selfless to the point of ‘darkness,’ they show it in dramatically different ways. Eraqus is willing to hurt the people he cares about (and by extension, himself) to serve this 'greater good', but Sora is only willing to actively hurt himself.

I feel the need to remind everyone that this is a teenager we're talking about. If we weren't in a franchise partially owned by Disney, I feel like more people would be willing to call this what it is: suicidal. This is not Light.

We've already seen ways that this harms Sora outside the narrative and the whole getting sent to Quadratum thing in his Rage form. Sora transforms into a drive form that’s oddly reminiscent of his time as a Heartless and can unleash powerful attacks that lower his HP (hmm). Furthermore, this form only appears when his HP is low (double hmm) and stated by Nomura, “based on him going into a rampage state, controlled by feelings of anger (triple hmm).”

Back inside the narrative, the climax of KH3 was Sora believing that he's worthless without his friends, genuinely worthless, and unable to fight at all. This is the very definition of a Light gone too far when remembering that Light is the connections you form with others. With too much Light, Sora lost himself. He couldn't find himself past who he was for others.

In the section prior that broke down generational trauma as it appears in Kingdom Hearts, I mentioned that Sora does not only end up hurting himself but passively hurting others around him, most notably Riku. Sora is unable to understand that Darkness is not the absence of all good but rather the shadow that simply follows you around. Sora cannot understand that Darkness is not something to be shunned, to never talk about. (This could also be tied back to his Rage form—while he does not actively channel his anger to hurt, that is what happens; only to never be acknowledged by him.)

(Off-topic, but I find it funny that Sora, who is so keen on the idea that Darkness is Not Good, was only ever to have a proper conversation with Riku in the Realm of Darkness. It’s very telling to their characters.)

Kingdom Hearts is setting up a narrative that Light and Darkness cannot exist in excess. That Light doesn't exist to balance out the Darkness, to stop it from becoming too strong—you need Darkness to exist as well.

Sora has gotten this far along the story and still hasn't managed to learn this, because it’s just not something you can learn (or unlearn, rather) on your own. Because this kind of thinking isn’t undone with hours of contemplation; in a fitting Kingdom Hearts fashion, it’s connections that lead to the revelation.

the roads we walk

Xehanort and Eraqus fall out with each other. They stop talking and sever the connection with each other. That was a core reason things got as out of hand as they did for each other; they weren't keeping each other in check. Xehanort's Darkness left him blind and unable to see that there was Light after all, and Eraqus's Light blinded him and left him stumbling with a Keyblade for a 'greater purpose.' Their hearts fell too far to one end of the balance, leaving the scales unbalanced.

Riku and Sora do not have that. They have a connection like nothing seen in this series before—Riku had literally raised Sora to become a Child of Destiny alongside him. The Light of their hearts is just so awe-strikingly bright.

Sora, however, has lost himself in all his light. He is stuck in the same bright room that Eraqus was, stumbling around with his Keyblade. But where Eraqus was forever lost, Sora can be found: because where Riku had Sora to guide him to the Light, Sora will have Riku to guide him through the Darkness.

Riku spends the majority of his character simply proving that he is capable of redemption. It takes him the ending of a game to realize the errors in his ways and another game to figure out the solution he must fight for, and these weren't revelations he finds on his own—he found the first with Sora and the second (in CoM) with Mickey and Namine.

For Sora to even have the revelation that he cannot keep shutting out the Darkness in him unless he wants more pain for himself and others, he needs someone to help show him that is an option. And who else but Riku, who is living proof that existence isn’t just black-or-white, Light or Darkness?

Riku is Sora's foil. A foil is a character who either has pronounced differences between themselves and the protagonist or is so alike that a contrast appears. Riku is the ladder, similar enough to Sora that one can begin to make assumptions about where the story is heading. Their similarities aren't hard to find: they both hail from Destiny Islands, they both have a love for adventure, they both were assumed to walk a path of Light for the rest of their lives, and they both care deeply for each other. The contrast begins in KH1 when Riku begins his fall to Darkness while Sora remains firm in his standing.

Riku’s arc ended with acceptance; he needed to accept the Darkness and the Light inside him to find peace. It’s only natural that his foil, struggling with the same imbalance, would go through a similar arc but still different enough to be his own.

It isn't just the story telling us this. Riku has always been associated with imagery of dawn, the breaking of Darkness into Light, and Kairi is always associated with imagery of dusk, the breaking of Light into Darkness (which is a conversation all on its own). Sora, on the other hand, is associated with a large blue sky (his name, after all, does mean sky.) It's not hinting towards a journey of any kind—not a redemption like for Riku.

He is the daylight. He is the Light in everyone's lives. But ‘Sora’ doesn't mean the day sky. It simply means sky. Sky, at day or night—and I don't mind if you call me reaching at this point, but it feels like it's calling out to the fact that Sora needs to accept that he is both Light and Darkness, the way the sky is both day and night.

Nomura has even stated in an interview before when asked about the two different versions of the Dream Drop Distance illustrations that he “wanted its composition and look to remind [the player] of the title’s catch copy, ‘Darkness becomes light, light falls into darkness.’” The parallel structure of the tagline serves to mirror the parallel structure of Sora and Riku’s paths, Sora’s road to night and Riku’s road to dawn.

But I digress. Exhaustively, it’s very apparent that Sora is heading toward a climax, a Darkness he cannot ignore. His breakdown in KH3 was left unspoken, unresolved, and his disappearance only contributes to the fact that he’s heading toward another breaking point, where the cheerful protagonist can no longer remain cheerful. But like in KH3, something is going to be the same: Riku.

At his lowest point, it was Riku who was next to him, telling Sora that he believed in him. It was Riku who carried on when Sora couldn’t. Riku is going to be key in Sora's journey to night. Riku was able to find his Road to Dawn by remembering Sora. He was able to walk by remembering his love, his passion, his everything, and it was because of Sora that Riku found balance. He found the Light within himself, and he learned to accept that the Darkness would always be a part of him, the way it is for others.

Sora's arc will be spun into motion because of Riku. The next installments of Kingdom Hearts are setting up that Riku's dreams are the key to finding Sora, implying perhaps that it may be Sora and Riku all alone in a world. Whatever the case, Riku is going to be by Sora's side, as that is where they are at their best, to face Sora’s worst.

And it's fitting. Riku had to go from Darkness, defined as a lack of connections, to a balance with Light, having connections. He went from his isolation, wearing a blindfold and not being able to face anyone, to being the charming Riku we all love, fighting alongside the Keyblade wielders. His journey would have him open up, so he would be joined by memories, ghosts, not by people until he began to embrace others.

Sora will be going from Light to a balance with Darkness. He'd be going from connections to a lack (though not in the same extremes that Riku did), in a sense. Understandably, he can’t do it alone, make such a drastic change; he'd need someone.

This change, this balance, this emphasis on connections, it’s guiding us to what the narrative has been trying to tell us all along.

we can be the darkness, and the light, and the sunsets and sunrises too

When asked about the theme of KH3 and the entire series, Nomura answered, “It’s in the title: hearts. The consistent theme across the whole series is ‘What is a heart?’”

Kingdom Hearts is going to be doing something unprecedented in not only a lot of media but in its world itself. While the idea of Light and Darkness existing within characters is not new, the characters aren't exactly behind that idea. Most of the Keyblade Wielders and Guardians of Light cherish the Light above all else—while all the primary villains worship the Darkness. They fight for a balance but don't fully grasp that within (nearly) all of them lies both entities.

Riku seems to be more accepted in the world, as he did join the Light in the end. But what Sora would do is... just absolutely bonkers. He will be embracing a Darkness in him, the same kind that Terra and so many others were taught to push out. Sora will be... well, a teenager. Happy and angsty and all the things teens are.

This is where Kingdom Hearts has the chance to seal the deal, to fully welcome this balance of Light and Darkness: a relationship between Riku and Sora.

For all Guardians of Light, there is a generational trauma hanging over their heads and haunting them, and Sora will need to accept his Darkness to combat it, but the story can't end there. The games have been building up the idea that Sora will be the one to bring change to the world, that Sora will be the one to end this cycle. He won’t just accept his Darkness but lead a new age. He will be the one to show that there's a different way (or really, only one other way) to move forward:

Love.

Unconditional love. Not love depending on whether they fit the wielders' definitions of Light and Darkness, not love depending on the amount of Light in someone's heart, not love clouded by hypocrisy. Just pure love, forever forgiving and growing.

So who better for Sora’s love than Riku?

Let’s get all the arguments for Kairi out of the way first. Some may say that Kairi could still fulfill this role of spreading love in the next games, but that’s only if her role in the story is completely revamped. She represents friends growing apart as they grow older yet remaining close. While Sora and Riku represent a balance between Light and Darkness, Kairi represents holding a Light close to your heart, even when it's so far away; fitting for her story of being ripped apart from her home.

The games keep pushing the friends' growing apart narrative rather than pulling from it, having Kairi remain with Aqua to train while Riku goes after Sora. There is little space for Kairi to suddenly walk a road to dusk that leads to romance. Especially because it’s Sora and Riku who are the Children of Destiny, they are the ones who will connect to other hearts and bring change, not Kairi. Her lesson would be for herself, not for the world to see.

A relationship between Kairi and Sora would just be backtracking on this message. Sora needs to accept his Darkness, but joining forces with a Princess of Light does not challenge any norms, it does not provide a new answer. It makes sense because the core of Kingdom Hearts isn’t a Prince and Princess of Light—it’s two boys who saw the night sky fall one day, two boys who grew up together, two boys destined for something greater who write their own paths anyway. It’s Sora and Riku. Nomura himself has stated that “Sora and Riku represent the theme of the Kingdom Hearts series, which is the ‘light and dark sides of the heart,’” the essence of this essay.

Carrying on, some may stop me here and say that their love doesn't need to be romantic for a point to be made. But I argue that there is no other way.

Romantic love in stories often serves as the culmination of the story’s themes. In Leigh Bardugo's books, her romances serve to show the importance of love and healing. In the Shadow & Bone trilogy, Alina has the options between the Darkling, representing power, Nikolai, representing nationalism, and Mal, representing love. Just love. Not one befitting of a Saint, someone to change the world, but that’s not who Alina wanted to be; she just wanted a happy ending. Shockingly, she picks Mal. In Six of Crows, Kaz and Inej's romance, both traumatized teenagers, serves to show that you can heal and you can love. They're both scared of people, scared of intimacy and yet they still love with all their scars on display.

In Revolutionary Girl Utena, the romance between Utena and Anthy reaches its climax at the end of the show, displaying the vulnerability of both girls and the rawness of their feelings. But most importantly, it drives home the message: that the power to bring revolution is not the power of a prince or a witch. The power to change the world is love. The only way to change the world to be suitable to live in is through love. The power, a revolution, brought by love.

Romance is a revolution. It’s often saved for the last act of stories because of how it acts as a thread between all of the themes. In Kingdom Hearts, the theme needing weaving is balance: balance between yourself and others, balance between selflessness and selfishness, balance between Light and Darkness. Sora and Riku getting together would be Yin and Yang—a boy who had to accept his Darkness and a boy who had to fight for his Light. They complement each other and fill where the other lacks.

Likewise, a relationship between them stresses the importance of connections. Tai Yasue, co-director of the series, has stated that “the theme of the KH series is ‘connections of the heart,’” and the narrative will take advantage of any opportunity to let that theme shine. Previously, many defenders of Light would sacrifice their connections with others for a greater good. But Sora and Riku choosing to love each other, choosing to love the Light and Darkness in each other instead of trying to chase away their Darkness, is showing that love is their other option.

Sora getting with Kairi challenges nothing. It tells the others that Light must be with Light, that good must be with good. Even their grand attack in Re:Mind is two giant angel wings where they proclaim, “Light!” Sora and Riku, however, show that Light does not mean good. It shows that people can do bad things, and it doesn't make them bad, because people are not black and white. Like two kingdoms forever at war with each other, finally coming together and realizing that the other side is human and that you can't simply demonize them.

Sora and Kairi say there is nothing wrong with the world. To carry on. Sora and Riku say that there isn’t anything wrong with the world; it’s the people looking the wrong way. There is nothing wrong with what’s around us. Nothing wrong, nothing right. “Nothing is whole, and nothing is broken.” It’s simply being: being Darkness, being Light, being both, being neither.

It has to be Sora and Riku. It's always had to be them. Riku brought Sora up to the status of a Child of Destiny, and their journeys were led by each other, their character development taught by one another, and their acceptance will come from (an eventual) conversation between the two about their pain and hurt and Darkness, it’s all always been leading here. To this moment in time where they show the world all the hurt they hold and how they carry on with.

All of that, and loving each other?

They are crossing the line, as Hikaru Utada sings in Don't Think Twice. They are going to be crossing every line established in Kingdom Hearts, and this is their power. Their revolution. Their predetermined yet self-made destiny. The payoff for years and years of searching and yearning and pining and chasing is a love that brings revolution, and oh...isn't that just romantic?

That is the answer to “What is a heart?” The heart is the love you have, despite it all. The heart is the connections you make, despite it all. The heart is your Darkness and your Light and your experiences and your fights, despite it all. The heart is Sora and Riku, despite it all.

grant us the power to bring the world revolution

A lot of this analysis really depends on whether or not you believe Sora and Riku are in love with one another, I realize. You may agree with me that it seems fitting that their coming together as a pair would catalyze all the themes in Kingdom Hearts, but you disagree that it means they'd ever be a pairing. Which, I'd like to thank you for at least hearing me out.

The queerness of their relationship means there will always be naysayers to them getting together, there will always be people claiming that I'm reaching. I do not care if you see them as brothers or ‘just’ really good friends. I see a love story. I see a love story and a love story saying to love, above all else. Do not judge others for you don't know what is wrong or right, for you are biased, for you are flawed, for you are human. Love others for that is the heart's will. Love.

I see that their getting together would be a testament to that love. To that forgiveness, to those flaws we have. It would be an acceptance of Riku's pain and Darkness that he mysteriously doesn't want to acknowledge, it would be an acceptance of Sora's pain that he's been bottling up ever since the beginning of his journey, and it would be an acceptance to the Light they both share. It would be the balance that so many generations have looked for and couldn't find because they did not practice acceptance, only judgment.

Sora and Riku getting together is acceptance and it's proof that love is the answer to a generational trauma that has been around ever since the beginning of time. So yeah: Soriku Endgame, Actually.

Thank you so much for reading! I’m a really big fan of stories about light and darkness and the balance between them, stories about love, and just Kingdom Hearts in general. I didn’t want to keep these thoughts in the back of my head and I’m glad I wrote them all out, even if it’s messy (and a shocking 6k words long...) Kingdom Hearts is a bit messy, after all.

If you're interested in more about Sora and Riku's relationship or just literary analysis of KH in general, please check out Constructing Kingdoms on YouTube, as it helped give me the words to write a lot of this essay. Further, if you're in total denial that there is any queer text in Kingdom Hearts, please check out this amazing video essay on Riku being gay.

That's all I have. Please feel free to share if you have any disagreements or if any parts really spoke to you, or if you have anything to add, or anything really. These two live rent-free in my mind, and I don't mind talking about them or about how they're just so perfect to change the world.

Thank you. Spread love (and the Soriku agenda.)

#kingdom hearts #sora #riku #sora and riku #soriku #soriku endgame actually #media analysis #literary analysis is my special interest #andrew's essays #meta essay #kh meta

261 notes · View notes

leovoid · 2 years

Text

Johan did NOTHING wrong...

Hey you guys, I was in the middle of writing a script for a Monster analysis video I was making towards Johan's character, for a while I've seen many different kinds of interpretation of Johan's motives and character, but I find myself questioning a lot of them, not to say that they are wrong, as these are all interpretations at the end of the day, including my own, but I strive to find the interpretation that sounds the most logical.

As such I strived to create a video that can perfectly explain everything there is to understanding Johan as a character, and the nuance to his place in the story.

*******YOU CAN FIND THE VIDEO HERE*********

THIS IS THE START OF THE VIDEO

Despite being over 20 years late to the party, I had decided to finally watch Naoki Urasawa's Monster last year and I loved it. Granted, being a fan of manga like Berserk, Vinland Saga, and Homunculus it was quite common to see recommendations or parallels be drawn frequently between the manga shown and Monster.

Oftentimes stated as being a masterpiece, and they weren’t wrong.

Not only does Monster tackle incredibly dark themes, filled to the brim with realistic characters, and has beautiful sounding music that compliments its settings.

But narratively, and thematically speaking, Naoki Urasawa's Monster is a very deep and arguably complex character study, as Urasawa tends to utilize subtlety to convey information to the viewer.

As a mystery and psychological thriller, Monster was always meant to be a story that provoked thoughts and intrigue us as the story progresses, however, Naoki Urasawa never gives the answers out right, as I believe, as much as he leaves the information to be figured out towards a conclusive answer, he utilizes those subtleties to allow the viewer to reach their own conclusion of the messages and themes that is Monster.

Unfortunately however, it is within those subtleties where a lot of criticisms and

misunderstandings lie

The ending of Monster is notoriously known for being inconclusive and ambiguous, where fan theories and interpretation takes the forefront of what exactly the last few minutes of the series meant. Usually leading to frustrations and criticisms for its ambiguity, or misunderstandings due to its nuance.

But to its credit, the entirety of Monster is a story meticulously wrapped around those delicate subtleties and nuances that as a whole reinforces the amount of philosophical and thematic impact this story continues to demonstrate and remains actively compelling for well over 20 years

And this is not to say that the criticisms and frustrations that Monster is met with aren’t justified, however I believe that most of these frustrations, at the risk of sounding pretentious, has to do with a lack of understanding of what Naoki Urasawa is attempting to portray with the character, Johan Liebert.

Forgive me if I sound like a broken record… But Monster was never a story that gave you all the answers at face value, leaving us hints and abstract clues alluding to the questions that the viewer may have.

Johan Liebert, for all intents and purposes, is the antagonist of the story, and is the central focus to the questions the story invokes.

The initial perception of Johan is that he is evil incarnate, wherever life is, in his presence, life is brought to ruin.

And despite Johan Liebert's place as the antagonist of the story and rarely being seen, the amount of depth to his presence in Monster is staggering, overshadowing Kenzo Tenma as the main character, as while the overarching narrative is centralized around Tenma's fetch quest for Johan's tyranny to end, the narrative overall is entirely predicated on Johan's history, both past and present circumstances, and the end goal towards his actions.

And while that end goal in question isn’t nearly as conclusive or apparent as we would like it to be, the initial perception and perhaps even some current perceptions would commonly align with the notion that whatever the end goal is would bring devastation, the narrative of monster constantly alludes to Johan's presence being one filled with apprehension, as simply his existence being known or even the utter of his name bends people to their knees, depicting a foreboding looming evil that they can only be described as a monster.

But synonymous to the monster are those like him, who are known or perceived as psychopathic criminals. However, in the narrative of Monster, Naoki Urasawa constantly substantiates their actions with motives and reason.

To be human, is to have morality and to have morality is to have the ability to reason.

And this facet extends not just to the labeled criminals of the show, but to even the like minded and personal companions of Dr.Tenma Lunge and Eva's motive to find Tenma, Grimmers motive to expose the truth of Kinderheim, to even Dieters motive to be the shows absolute badass.

But for those who have fallen to the abyss, when we gaze at them, the abyss looks back.

At the potential risk of compromising one's sense of morality, we can find ways to rationalize the inhuman behaviors these characters set before us.

Peter Jurgens extremely abusive environment from his mother, to Reinhard Dingers hate for those who do not conform to his obtuse sense of ethics, to Muller and Messeners desperate act to hide their crimes, to even Adolf Junkers initial desire for something as immaterial as a common nutcracker clock.

And in no way am I attempting to persuade anyone in finding sympathy for criminals or even murderers, but to set the precedence of what Monster is attempting to demonstrate. As inhuman or downright insane these criminals' actions were, they are not void of the one thing that rules over their actions; their motives, their reason.

It is a common perception among many, that when one takes another's life, regardless of the reason it is painted in a negatively unexplainable connotation, making it near impossible to sympathize with such a cruel act or to believe that these people could hold a semblance of humanity within them. Saying such things like “He killed because he is pure evil!” or “He commits murders because he's insane!”

Labeling them as psychopathic monsters, for the sole fact that some of us would never dare to see or even TRY to see how an individual is able to commit such a heinous act.

Sounds familiar doesn’t it? (Johan Liebert)

Monster challenges this stance, as the show constantly drives to the forefront that these “Monsters” were compelled by a very human influence.

Every villain in the series, with the exception of a few minor characters, is never directly placed in a black and white setting, instead, even though these people have committed heinous crimes, we are still given an opportunity to see them under a sympathizable and arguably an empathizable perspective.

Naoki Urasawa clearly respects and adheres to the moral disposition of the common man, as he never blatantly attempts to make you think differently from yourself, but instead allows you to take the narrative as you will.However, if you are willing to compromise your moral compass and gaze into the darkness for the sake of understanding or rationalizing, will you be happy with what you may find?

Detective Muller for example was responsible for murdering the Fortners, however it wasn’t until we see him with his family, and the guilt that sets in once he gained a family of his own that he was afraid to lose, as he saved Annas life where we were able to see him in a moment of redemption just before his final moments.

And with Mr. Rossos bubbly and cheerful demeanor, only to spine chillingly reveal that he used to be a cold blooded killer, shattering our possible initial perception of his character, which begs the question, which part of our impressions were true, what picture is Naoki Urasawa trying to paint here with his characters?

What does this mean for the antagonist of the story, Johan Liebert?

Johan's motives are mostly….unconventional. Always being alluded to but never to be clarified; shrouded around the perception of fear and evil, even by those who some would consider monsters themselves.

But this does not mean that Johan is free of the motives and reasons for his actions, and the criminals mentioned before are Naoki Urasawa subtly pushing the envelope of what he strives to get his viewers to understand.

From its narrative, all the way down to the stories title is a subtle attempt at asking the viewer a question:

Who or what is the real Monster?

On the surface a title like Monster seems self explanatory, and the way the narrative shrouds Johan with the term and the reactions he receives upon his presence may lead to the initial interpretations such as, Johan is the villain, Johan is evil, Johan is the Monster of Monster.

But that is far from the truth…

Upon closer inspection, the story shows us that Johan does indeed have motives, not nearly as vague as we are initially introduced and while the title of the video may say differently, I just want to preface that Johan Liebert has done plenty of wrong but that does not mean we cannot try to make sense of his actions, and upon doing so...

you may come to find that the monster is more human than we may have initially thought.

Kinderheim 511: Empiricism vs Rationalism

To this very day, Johan's motives, emotions and his very thoughts are mostly unknown, kept away from the viewer to further compliment the subtlety that Urasawa incorporates in Monsters Narrative.

To its credit, for Urasawa to be able to create a character with so much intrigue without explicitly revealing anything around a narrative that demands answers is a stroke of genius. Creating a story where each episode carries a multifaceted weight, depending whether this is your first or second time watching it.

As children, our parents and the nature of our environment helps build the foundation in which we can begin to establish our personal sense of morality, but what happens if you strip a child of those basic necessities, nurture, and identity?

What is Naoki Urasawa trying to say when you rob a person of everything?

Johan Liebert is the antagonist of the story, the narrative constantly portrays him as a serial killer, a demon, a monster…

In a story completely immersed in subtle conveyance, is it possible that the focal point of the entire story may be more than what the narrative is giving us on the surface? Upon closer inspection, one may find out that Johan Liebert may not be the monster that the story is initially making him out to be…as we take a look at the story through the eyes of the monster

One of the most contentious issues in society is how we react to a situation or circumstance that oversteps the boundaries of one's personal moral disposition.

The virtues and vices that comprise one's moral character are typically understood as dispositions to behave in certain ways in certain sorts of circumstances.

For example, an honest person is morally obligated to speak the truth when asked, but when acting in complete opposition to one's moral disposition the individual in question may begin to feel guilt or shame. Sticking to one's own personal sense of life and morality is commonly associated with finding a greater sense of happiness and pride towards the self.

Kantian ethics would argue that there are universal sets of moral principles that apply to all people, such as not wanting to feel pain or for their life to be extinguished. So with that said, the circumstance of an individual committing murder would usually be met with hostility from an outside perception, as it conflicts with the arguably hereditary morality of the preservation of life.

Moral Rationalism is the concept that moral principles are known by reason alone, this refers to the idea that if something were to be proven to be ethically or morally good, then it must be so. For example, if one were to kill another, the affected parties response to it would prove whether or not it is morally just or not.

Omitting the circumstances of the Antagonist Johan Liebert for example, most people would commonly align themselves in the position of ovation at the circumstances in which ended the reign of Johan's murderous spree, in Utilitarinistic fashion, one could argue to point that the elimination of Johan is the morally correct choice. Obviously this opinion may vary based on the majority vs. minority argument however…Moral Empiricism is the idea that all concepts of morality originate completely from experience, that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. Using the same example stated previously, while there could be those who see Johan's death as an auspicious moment, there could also be those who mourn and grieve, challenging the idea of what is truly morally just in this world.

Obviously the further we probe this line of thinking, the more flawed it becomes, but I believe to find the best choice, a balance of both is needed.

For all intents and purposes, Johan Liebert represents empiricism while Kenzou Tenmo represents rationalism initially.

As a rationalist, Kenzou Tenma is under the belief that as long as he follows orders he will be able to move up in the world and live a happy life developing his research, not too long afterwards we see that belief challenged when a Turkish woman meets Dr. Tenma with immense grief at the loss of her husband in which could’ve been prevented had Dr. Tenma operated on the husband instead of the opera singer.

At this point, Dr. Tenma's frame of mind shifts slightly, instead of his own personal gain at the forefront, saving the lives of whoever he can takes precedence; supporting his personal logical belief that “All lives are equal”

As an empiricist, Johan Liebert is under the belief that all lives are not created equal, and instead the only thing man can be equal in is death. His personal belief given birth from the history and circumstances of Johans environment, in which we’ll get into later.

Upon meeting each other, both of their beliefs are put to the test Johan's empiricist circumstances leads him to embody nihilism, that all life is meaningless, while Tenmas' rationalist mindset leads him to embody stoicism, in which promotes the values in life, starting the ideological battle against the Dr. Kenzou Tenma, and the monster Johan Liebert.

Now what does any of this have to do with Kinderheim 511?

Well this has little to do about Kinderheim 511 and more so how you the viewer responds to the information presented to you of the experiments within the orphanage and its aftermath.

Kinderheim 511 in my opinion is where most peoples misconceptions of Johan's character begins…

At this point in the story, we are given information that Kinderheim 511 was an orphanage where our serial killer Johan resided in before he was adopted by the Lieberts.

We soon find out that horrible experiments were done on the children there, however the exact contents and procedures of those experiments are mostly unknown, instead of explicitly detailing what transpired, Monster instead allows our minds to sink into the abyss as to WHAT horrors that could’ve possibly taken place that ultimately ended with the death of everyone involved in the orphanage.

At this point it wouldn’t be a surprise if we could surmise that Johan became the monster he is due to the events of Kinderheim, but we soon find out that Johan has always been the Monster before he ever came to Kinderheim, and that he himself caused the uprising within the institution.

At this point in the story, a lot of peoples arguments on Johan's nature is met with several logical fallacies which determines what side of the argument they may fall in. For example there are those who believe that Johan was simply born a psychopathic killer, and while the argument of if that is realistically possible has no concrete evidence, In Monster, Naoki Urasawa does not humor the idea of any person being born inherently evil.

If we take a look at the criminals of the show, all of them share similar environmental circumstances in which lead them to commit the crimes they did.

I often see several opinions of Johan's character usually leading to the idea that he is the anti christ, or that he every action he took in the story was simply Johan toying with people, wanting to manipulate Tenma and Anna, driving Anna to insanity in order to kill her, but that is far FAR from the truth

The truth is that those conclusions are typically drawn while missing integral pieces of Johan's characterization, and/or the themes and messages that Naoki Urasawa is attempting to demonstrate not just with Johan Liebert, but the rest of the cast as well, each character, both main and side characters development dualistically juxtapose themselves with what Naoki is attempting to paint around Johan Lieberts character in some manner or form.

For example, Tenmas fear of loneliness or his perception of the value of life, while it may draw parallels to Johan, it serves as the groundwork towards putting the pieces together of understanding just who Johan is

For example, the common idealistic perception of life is that all lives are equal, however those who think differently are usually either of privileged circumstances, or able to disregard those values all for the sake of some monetary or political gain.

Naoki implies early on of the motives and reasonings to have such a perception, but does Johan Liebert have any of that?

Monster: A Story about Love

Johan does not have a personal motive to obtain a large sum of money, or to advance himself in a political world in a world he does not care to exist in. At this point most people would conclude that the actions he takes are simply for his own personal enjoyment, but that never is and will never be the case.

To understand Johan is to come to terms with the almost impossible perception of Johan's reasonings, the integral part that most are missing towards his character is that everything he did, all the blood he shed, the people who were destroyed or manipulated, was all for the sake of love.

In a story plagued under abysmal levels of pessimism and cynicism, Naoki Urasawa's Monster melancholically explores the concept of love and the dualistic ramification it imposes. Despite being a narrative surrounded around death and nihilism, characters such as Dr. Tenma, Dieter, Grimmer and more set the undertone of hope in the face of a world wrapped in despair

But on the opposite side of the same coin, because Monster IS a narrative surrounded around death and nihilism, Roberto, Franz, and Johan shroud themselves in the despair the story prevalently finds itself placed in.

But regardless of the setting Monster finds itself in, Naoki Urasawa establishes a bitter sweet and yet beautifully poignant theme such as love into a setting where it shines dimly but yet casts a shadow that envelopes completely.

I’ll try to keep this part brief as I feel this point could make an entirely new video, but to better understand my point, we first have to recognize that love plays a very integral part towards Monsters themes and its characters.

Love is considered to be both positive and negative, with its virtue representing human kindness, compassion, and affection, as "the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another" and its vice representing human moral flaw, akin to vanity, selfishness, and egotism, as potentially leading people into a type of mania, obsessiveness or codependency.

What this means is that dualistically, while love is most commonly seen in a positive light, it can also drive those to do the impossible.

For example, Tenma's love for life drove him to be a doctor, ultimately finding fulfillment when a life in his hands has been saved, however, it wasn’t until Johan, a life that Dr. Tenma had saved in the past, resulted in Dr. Tenma shouldering the responsibility of bringing a harbinger of destruction back to life. In utilitarian fashion, Tenma's devotion towards his love has driven him to ultimately take Johan's life to prevent more people from dying.

And this facet can be extended to every character in the show if you look hard enough, that in some shape or form, Love is the driving force behind both positive and negative actions.

Eva's love for Tenma, Lunges love for his job, Richards love for his daughter to end his addiction, to even the darker side of the spectrum as the counselors radical love for their country To The Baby's extremist affection towards his race, to even Jurgens insatiable lust for murder.

In many different ways, love compels us to do many different things, for better or for worse.

So in what way does love coincide with the charming blonde?

There is a saying recently that I feel coincides quite well with what I am trying to say

““A hero would sacrifice you to save the world but a villain would sacrifice the world to save you ”

But perhaps this evokes even more questions towards Johan's character…

For what reason does he devote himself to these atrocities?

What love does he have that compels him to take the lives of many at seemingly random with no apparent connections with each other?

For what reason does Johan want to die?

Everything can be answered with one sentence.

Everything Johan did was for Anna…

Thank you for reading my mess of a script, this is still in the rough draft phase and I have a ton more to write, but I hope you enjoyed it none the less, I'll be working hard on this video in hopes to do Naokis Urasawas work justice ^3^

#Johan Liebert #Naoki Urasawa #Naoki Urasawa's Monster #anime meta #meta #anime essay #anime analysis #Anna Liebert #Nina Fortner #Dr. Tenma #kenzo tenma #Monster anime #Johan and Anna #monster meta #meta essay #anime discussion

170 notes · View notes

spite-and-waffles · 1 year

Text

Don't mind me, just thinking about how Talia is the female version of Jason.

She grew up taught to kill or be killed, every bit of trust or vulnerability she has ever dared show, have been swiftly and violently been punished by both the League and fate. Her natural compassion and empathy is a liability she needs to throttle again and again, she can't afford to care or show she cares for anyone or anything lest they either exploit it as a vulnerability or become targets themselves. She doesn't believe in her father's mission but knows nothing outside of it, and anyway, leaving it all behind, even if it was possible, would leave her far too vulnerable. Tried that, got several metric tons of trauma for her trouble. She's forever torn between helpless loyalty, love, rage and yearning for the unconditional love and approval of a father too much of an exacting, unyielding and obsessive control freak to ever give it to her. Her mother was the only person who gave her a taste of a soft, nurturing heart and unconditional love, who she lost young and violently.

Damian was the one thing she had that was hers and only hers, and she had to keep her distance and raise him in a viper pit to obsessively craft him into something that would stand him the best chance of surviving anything that could take him away from her, and also be good enough to win the love and acceptance of both his father and hers. It's the only way she and Jason diverge. If Jason had a kid he'd either leave the biz entirely or give them up to an ordinary family, no half measures. The latter is in fact what Talia did at the end of Son of the Demon, even though the way she did it left a lot to be desired; in canon continuity it might not even have been a possibility given her father's obsession for an heir and the unlikelihood of their enemies never finding and pursuing the grandson of the Demon's Head.

All in all, even while her (pre-Morrison) actions can't be excused, Talia is exactly as tragic and traumatized and confused as Jason, and even more trapped. It would be bizarre how unwilling fandom is to see that and treat her with half the sympathy they do Jason if we didn't know exactly why that is. 🙃

#talia al ghul #ra's al ghul #damian wayne #jason todd #misogyny #racism #women of colour #characters of colour #bat meta #character study #meta essay #batfamily #dc comics #dcu #women of dc comics #spite waffle

63 notes · View notes

hordebreaker · 1 year

Text

Jaina was never supposed to be a villain. She did not destroy Orgrimmar, although she had every right to do so, and as time proved, this is exactly what should have done, but she decided to spare the horde, because Thrall said that she would become like Garrosh (Blizzard has interesting priorities, starting wars is ok, revenge is bad). Thrall is a villain in this story more than Garrosh, because he literally told Jaina when she suggested that he discuss the Ashenvale/barrens war, he said "not my problem anymore"). She lost many people she took responsibility for when they followed her to Kalimdor.

In the days to come, Jaina worked tirelessly to rally as many refugees as she could. Not everyone she met agreed to go with her, but many did. When she finally set sail for Kalimdor, her force included members from nearly every Alliance race. Some were survivors from Lordaeron and Quel’Thalas. Some were dwarves and gnomes from the Alliance military. And some were humans from Stromgarde, Kul Tiras, and other nations in the region. Though they came from different places, they followed Jaina Proudmoore for the same reason. She represented something that had almost entirely vanished from the Eastern Kingdoms. She represented hope.

And yet, when she agreed to become the leader of Dalaran, she decided that the city would stay neutral because she wanted to continue Rhonnin's work to preserve the unity of the Kirin-Tor and protect magic from all sorts of Kael and Kel-Thuzad 2.0. Despite her feelings and wishes, she still believed if Dalaran survives, then the rest of Azeroth would have a chance. She still believed in "sane" horde.

What if the Horde killed your friends? Your family? Destroyed everything your had. Could you maintain your conviction even then? To be honest, I struggle. Every. Day. You seem to understand my struggle. Every day, the hard decisions. Every night… the nightmares. But I have a responsibility to preserve the Kirin Tor. - ''The Fate of Dalaran."

But Jaina did not take into account that the Kirin-Tor is not really united and the elves continue to help the horde steal valuable artifacts that can arrange another Theramore bit worse.

The night elves learned that the Divine Bell was stolen. This much we anticipated. However, they've also found out that the "neutral" SunreaverS of Dalaran were complicit. Now, we've got a situation. - 'The Situation In Dalaran'. We know where the Alliance have hidden the Divine Bell. We've already inserted an agent into enemy territory, we just need you to help him execute his mission[...]Furthermore, the SunreaverS of Dalaran are risking their neutrality by assisting the Horde with this operation. - 'Insertion'.

The Alliance obtained the bell and brought it to Darnassus in order to keep it out of the war and Garrosh. The night elves called Jaina to put up a barrier around the city so no one could carry it out of the city. And you can't say that Jaina violated her neutrality, because she didn't. She did the same what Rhonnin had done:

“I and several others will be arriving shortly to lend our assistance in the defense of Theramore. I stress the word ‘defense.’ We will protect, but we will make no offensive moves. Our greatest hope is that our presence will serve as a deterrent. Is this fully understood?” - Rhonnin, Tides of War.

“Dalaran is neutral,” said Modera. “We went to Theramore only to protect and advise.” - Modera, Tides of War.

and Aethas (who did much more, but Jaina did not expel him for this. So, draw the conclusion, assistance of this kind does not equate to participation in the war):

We are trying to uncover the secrets of one of the mogu artifacts Garrosh insisted we investigate. It is proving most difficult, as anyone who probes it magically is greatly affected by raw, negative emotions. I called in the assistance of Arch-mage Aethas of the Sunreavers in the hopes that he and Rommath could crack this puzzle. They asked for you specifically - apparently you have some relevant experience? Go to the chamber below Farstrider Square east of here and see if you can assist them. - 'What's in the Box'.

But the Sunreavers (this is not a bunch of random elves, but a political organization) still stole the WMDs. AGAIN. Aethas is well aware of this, but decides to remain silent. Jaina at first believes that "locals' did it, but when she finds traces leading to sunreavers she understands everything perfectly and decides that she's done with their shit.

The night elves learned that the Divine Bell was stolen. This much we anticipated. However, they've also found out that the "neutral" Sunreavers of Dalaran were complicit. Now, we've got a situation. - 'The Situation In Dalaran'.

For too long, I have toiled to mend fences between Alliance and Horde. Time and time again, I've given the Horde the benefit of the doubt - and time and time again, they stab me in the back. I refuse to be betrayed again! If the Horde intends to use the Kirin Tor as a weapon against the Alliance, then they have no place in Dalaran. - 'Jaina's Resolution'.

She gave them a choice twice: 'Compliant Sunreavers will be sent to the Violet Hold. Defiant ones put to the sword. Jail or death, their fate is in their own hand'. Jaina walked around the city and teleported the elves and killed those who raised weapons at her. Most of the work was done by the high elves, who were not averse to kill their enemies.

Jaina's gone over the edge. She's imprisoning the Sunreavers and attacking those who resist. What's worse, the Silver Covenant has seized the opportunity to join the bloodshed. - Rommath

Tyrande kills her own people to free Illidan (who was banished later) - this is fine, good girl, Jaina does the same but after second betrayel - eViL and villian!

This selective blindness pisses me off. Oh, why so cruel to the poor sunreavers? The Sunreavers provided the aggressor with weapons of mass destruction that destroyed an entire city. Ah, don't you feel sorry for all those inhabitants of Theramore, only the poor elves?But the sunreavers had not stoped there, they stole another dangerous weapon for the aggressor, what threatened to turn into no less victims. The prince himself almost died correcting their deeds.But no, you only feel sorry for the elves, who did nothing but turned out to be guilty of the death of thousands of people.

The soft purple glow heralded the blanket of arcane energy that enveloped Theramore. The mana bomb, so thoughtfully provided by the blood elves—who stood cheering with other Horde members who somehow felt that what Garrosh had wrought was a good thing—had exploded over an entire city and had not just harmed its citizens and buildings but crushed them utterly. - 'Tides of War'.

It's all nonsense. Aethas was a member of the council. But Aethas betrayed Dalaran by knowing about the crimes committed by his subordinates, he hid it, and did nothing at all. He fled, abandoned his elves, though he could have done anything for those who had suffered innocently for his mistakes. But Aethas only fooled and lied to his own lord that he knew nothing about the crimes of the sunreavers.

Ah, yes, all imprisoned elves Jaina sent home to Silvermoon long ago. But no one will return the dead Theramorians. Most of all, I feel sorry for those who ended up in Orgrimmar. And even here, Jaina only offered to dismantle the horde. It would've solve all problems in general. But noooo, it's not allowed.

She didn't say kill. She said dismantle. She asserted that the Horde should no longer self-govern. Not at all, man. Jaina doesn't trust the Horde to self-govern... Can you blame her?

Next up is Garrosh' stupid trial, written by stupid Christie Golden. Jaina "silently" reconciles with Thrall, but they do not become friends again. Kalec tells her that if she doesn't stop wanting revenge on Garrosh, because of her feelings hurt HIM and Jaina… agrees (great message, christie). Why the hell did she help him in the Dawn of the Aspects, it would be better to throw him right in Northrend. Jaina is almost killed, then healed, the Red Crane gives her (and everyone else) the appropriate buff, and Jaina feels happiness (it's a buff, remember). However, she does not forgive the horde and does not begin to collect flowers with the horde from the same field, but leaves revenge behind.

She helps both the Alliance and the Horde to make the ring more powerful . She does not want to help the horde and makes it clear with her whole appearance and she says that she will watch over the Horde, but still helps. But no, that's not enough for you, she's been rude to the horde!!! - eViL and villian!

She is annoyed by another betrayal and says that the alliance should be ready for war with both legion and the horde, because the horde will be plotting against the alliance. Dalaran will protect the territory of the alliance, but Jaina will not let the horde come close to the city How eViL she is! Doesn't want to trust the horde. And guess what the horde did when when they were allowed to return?

The saboteur was from the Horde - one of my own Sunreavers, in fact. There are those on the Council who strongly opposed allowing us back into the Kirin Tor in the first place. As you can imagine, this gives them all the ammunition they need to lobby for our expulsion yet again. And if that happens, our truce will shatter and Azeroth will surely fall to the Legion. - Aethas Sunreaver.

And what did the horde do next? They Immediately started a new war. Because the Horde has always done this, from the very beginning of the story, and majority members of the Horde never regret anything.

When the Horde set fire to Stormwind, Jaina chose to help save the citizens instead of killing some horde leaders. When the alliance attacked Dazar'Alor, she gave the order not to touch civilians, and Genn gave the king a choice - surrender or die. How eViL and VilLiAn!

The only crazy part was when Afrasiabi unofficially left the team during the development of 8.1.5 and he was replaced by Steve Danuzer. Then, Jaina made 360 and forgave the horde, ruining all her development in almost 10 years.

Jaina did not spread the plague, she did not destroy cities using it, she did not raise the dead, she was not a tyrant in relation to her own people, she did not deprive the living of their mind, she did not send her soldiers to torture for the slightest disobedience. And some believed that she burned Teldrassil to frame the horde, while not having any basis for this at all. Jaina had never done such a thing and didn't even want to. She was never supposed to be a villain.

wow metas: Peace treaty between the horde and the alliance, war during cataclysm, Theramore was a part of the alliance

#jaina #jaina proudmoore #warcraft #world of warcraft #meta #meta essay #the daughter of the sea #wow #bfa #cataclysm #the alliance #the horde #stop lying #: warcraft

9 notes · View notes

spn2006 · 4 months

Text

the fact that eric kripke isn't even christian really adds something to the way christianity is depicted on supernatural. because its really not about being christian at all, but about living in america, a country dominated by christianity, and having to decide for yourself how to handle that. faith is huge in supernatural, and the mythology of the show is very bible-centric, but notably, christ is never there. even sam, who starts out revering the angels, who once said he prays every night, doesn't actually call himself a christian or imply that he believes in jesus--the show is steeped in christianity and biblical lore and yet neither sam nor dean are christians. in fact, over and over again the church itself is depicted as a haunted house that sam and dean will only ever enter as strangers, as outsiders. priests, preachers, faith healers, chapels, crypts, etc. are all just iconography that create an intense sense of unease that sam and dean respond to instantly. as a jew, its very relatable. an essential part of living in america when you're not christian is that exact sense of unease, of knowing that the culture of your country has ensured that you'll get knocked over by christianity no matter where you go, that you'll see hundreds of people truly believing they're good people while doing awful things in the name of their god, and you have no choice but to confront that. kripke gets it

8K notes · View notes

krummholz-go · 4 months

Text

The Final 15 - Aziraphale’s Perspective

I see a lot of empathy for Crowley’s experience during the final 15 minutes of season 2 and it makes sense that we feel deeply for him. What he is experiencing is very human - acknowledging the depth of his own feelings, plucking up the courage to say something, having it come out all wrong, feeling utterly rejected, and then walking away in a mix of pain and anger. Who among us hasn’t been there?

But Aziraphale is experiencing something more complicated, something fewer of us have analogs for. Aziraphale has internally acknowledged his feelings for Crowley for some period of time, probably at least since 1941. Michael Sheen confirms this mental state in a NYCC 2018 interview:

“I decided early on that Aziraphale just loves Crowley. And that’s difficult for him because they are on opposite sides and he doesn’t agree with him on stuff. But it does really help as an actor to go, ‘My objective in this scene is to not show you how much I love you and just gaze longingly at you.’”

Unlike Crowley, Aziraphale’s struggle isn’t acknowledging his feelings. His struggle appears to be two-fold: 1) believing that Crowley could ever love him back and 2) even if Crowley did love him, believing a future for the two of them together could exist within the restrictions of his larger world view.

Can Crowley love?

Angels are, traditionally, beings of love. We see Aziraphale embody this time and again, showing kindness and support to almost everyone he meets, including the amnesiac Gabriel who has treated him abominably in the past. He is attuned to love, remarking on how the area around Tadfield “feels loved” twice in Season 1. As for how Aziraphale personally understands and expresses love, he shows his love to others through verbal affirmation and, to a lesser extent, physical touch. There are many examples of Aziraphale expressing his love for Crowley through positive verbal affirmation, typically by praising him for instances where he has been kind, nice, or good. And on the rare occasions when Aziraphale receives verbal praise, he absolutely interprets it as an expression of love, blossoming with happiness.

But from Aziraphale’s perspective, it may be unclear if Crowley can feel love in the same way. Can demons love? Did he lose that capability when he fell? Crowley can’t feel the aura of love in Tadfield that Aziraphale remarks on, and his reactions to Aziraphale’s praise are always to shrug it off, tell Aziraphale to “shut up,” or in the most extreme case to physically slam him against a wall and get in his face about it. In this last instance he tells Aziraphale, “I’m a demon, I’m not nice. I'm never nice. Nice is a four-letter word.” A four-letter word, like love, that is not in Crowley’s self-defined vocabulary.

If Crowley can feel love, does he love Aziraphale?

Even if Aziraphale believes Crowley is capable of feeling love, he does not always recognize how Crowley expresses it in the moment. Crowley shows his love for Aziraphale through actions, but Aziraphale often misconstrues Crowley’s motivations. In 1793 when Crowley rescues him from the Bastille, Aziraphale initially assumes Crowley is only there because he is responsible for the Reign of Terror. Similarly, in 1941, Aziraphale’s reaction to Crowley’s appearance is to assume he’s just part of the Nazi gang, saying,“I should have known. Of course. These people are working for you!”

Crowley doesn’t help matters in this regard because he is constantly muting and undercutting his signals to Aziraphale. Every time Crowley expresses his love for Aziraphale through actions - rescuing him, saving his books, even taking him to lunch - he does so in a nonchalant, dismissive manner, indicating he ascribes little value or importance to the actions he has performed. “I just didn’t want to see you embarrassed,” he says when he appears in 1941. And when Aziraphale positively glows with happiness about his books being saved, Crowley tells him to “shut up."On top of these confusing signals, Crowley is almost pathologically incapable of expressing his feelings in the verbal love language that Aziraphale can understand. This is heartbreakingly demonstrated in this scene after the bookshop fire:

Crowley can’t even say “I lost you.” Instead he speaks of Aziraphale in the third person while sitting in front of him, saying, “I lost my best friend.” The little hitch on Aziraphale’s face when he hears this is just devastating. Who is Crowley talking about? The last conversation they had before this scene was when Aziraphale called while Hastur was in Crowley’s apartment and Crowley said, “Not a good time - got an old friend here.” Aziraphale is left to wonder - is that who Crowley means when he says "best friend?" Crowley is everything to Aziraphale, but what is he to Crowley?

How Would It Even Work?

Even when Aziraphale does get flashes of the possibility that Crowley may care for him he immediately runs up against his second mental block - there is no world he can imagine where they could be together. When Crowley first suggests running off together in the bandstand scene in S1E3, Aziraphale collapses under the thought: “Friends? We aren’t friends. We are an angel and a demon. We have nothing whatsoever in common. I don’t even like you.”

While he is obviously in denial, Aziraphale is also under tremendous stress in this moment and is desperately trying to hold onto some stability by falling back onto his world view and ideology. In this state he backpedals all the way to “I don’t even like you.” In his understanding of the way the universe is supposed to work, he and Crowley are hereditary enemies and should not even be friends, much less in love. Aziraphale expresses this core belief throughout the series. What kind of existence could they ever have together in reality?

The Final 15

With this as a background, we can better understand what Aziraphale experiences in the final 15 minutes. Even before the Metatron enters the scene, Aziraphale begins to have his fundamental beliefs challenged which puts him off his footing. The revelation that Gabriel and Beelzebub are in love is deeply impactful. When Beelzebub says “I just found something that mattered more to me than choosing sides” and takes Gabriel’s hand, Aziraphale immediately reaches out to make contact with Crowley, a look of incredulity on his face. Here is proof that demons can feel love and that an angel and a demon can carve out a space together. The road may be difficult, but it is not impossible.

Before Aziraphale can digest this revelation the stakes are ratcheted up: Michael threatens to erase Aziraphale from the Book of Life due to his part in hiding Gabriel. The future that Aziraphale has just barely glimpsed is already under siege. It is at this point that The Metatron enters, offering Aziraphale not just survival and protection, but a version of everything he has ever wanted.

If Crowley is reinstated as an angel, Aziraphale will no longer have to wonder whether Crowley is capable of feeling love. And if they are both angels, there will be no conflict inherent in having a life together. In one fell swoop, the Metatron entices Aziraphale with a future where there are no remaining blockers to an eternal, loving existence with Crowley. It will be “like the old times, only even nicer” because they now have millennia of their shared history to build on together. Of course this logic is horribly flawed and does not take into account at all what Crowley wants, but in the moment it must feel like an enormous gift to Aziraphale.

Unfortunately, not only is Crowley’s reaction to this “incredibly good news” not what Aziraphale expects, the conversation quickly takes a baffling turn for him. Crowley shuts down the talk about returning to heaven and attempts to say what he wants to say. Sadly he once again utterly fails to speak in a way that Aziraphale can understand.

The audience knows what Crowley is trying to say because we have the context of his earlier conversation with Maggie and Nina. But Aziraphale lacks that and thus can’t understand where this is coming from or what it means. Rather than expressing his feelings as Beelzebub and Gabriel did, Crowley recites facts: we’ve known each other a long time, we’ve been on this planet a long time, I could always rely on you, you could always rely on me. He can’t even say the word “couple” when he describes them, referring to them more as colleagues with words like “team” and “group.” And the one time he does try to express his feelings and desires he is physically unable to get out the words: “And I would like to spend—.” He then retreats into his old plea to turn away from heaven and hell and run off together. Nowhere in Crowley’s confession does Aziraphale hear “I love you” or even “I want to be with you.” What he hears instead is what he’s heard multiple times before - Crowley wants to abandon both heaven and hell and default to just the two of them. From Aziraphale’s perspective this will not solve anything for them. They will still be an angel and a demon, at some level fundamentally separated by their very natures.

Having failed in his speech, Crowley then does two things in rapid succession that must be excruciatingly painful for Aziraphale. First, he does the opposite of verbal affirmation by calling Aziraphale an idiot. We have seen Aziraphale become physically radiant in the rare instances where Crowley has praised him, so a direct insult like this must feel poisonous. Then Crowley makes a last desperate attempt to communicate through Aziraphale’s other love language - physical touch - by initiating the kiss. But without context or understanding of what is behind it, Aziraphale can initially only experience it as forceful, angry, and shocking. With more time to parse it I think Aziraphale will come to understand Crowley’s meaning, but in the moment it must feel manipulative and borderline cruel.

The Results

In a very compressed time frame, Aziraphale has to move quickly and radically through multiple mental and emotional states. For 6000 years he has believed he and Crowley cannot be together. Suddenly, with the revelation of Gabriel and Beezlebub, that foundational belief is challenged. Before he can work through what that could mean for him and Crowley, the Metatron offers an even cleaner solution - they can be protected from retribution and be on the same side again. When Crowley rejects reinstatement wholesale, it makes Aziraphale feel that he and his loving offer of a life together have been personally rejected. Then that rejection is further confused through the shocking experience of the kiss which Aziraphale does not have adequate context for or time to understand and integrate. In his emotional turmoil, Aziraphale falls back on his default crutch for dealing with sadness and anger - forgiveness - which further cuts him off from Crowley. Taken all together, this is a tumultuous rollercoaster of whiplash emotions that pull at every part of Aziraphale's self- and world-views.

Compared to what Crowley is going through, I think Aziraphale is going to have the tougher road in Season 3. Crowley may still need to better reconcile and integrate his feelings for Aziraphale, but Aziraphale has 6000 years of foundational ideology to challenge and evolve to reach a place where he and Crowley can be together as their authentic selves.

#good omens #aziraphale #crowley #aziracrow #ineffable husbands #good omens meta #good omens 2 #gomens #essay #final 15 #crowly x aziraphale #good omens s2 #good omens season 2

1K notes · View notes

aroaceleovaldez · 7 months

Text

reminder that the only reason the "ADHD is actually demigod BATTLE STRATEGIES" and "dyslexia is DEMIGOD BRAINS HARDWIRED FOR ANCIENT GREEK" things exist in the PJO universe is because it's a very direct reference to early 2000s teaching/parenting techniques for neurodiverse and disabled children, which aimed to frame childrens' disabilities and hardships as a "superpower" or strength so that the children would feel more positively about their disabilities or situations. This technique has fallen out of favor since then for the most part since more often than not it just results in kids feeling as though their struggles are not being seen or taken seriously.

Yes, demigods are adhd/dyslexic (and sometimes autistic-coded) in the series. This is extremely important and trying to remove it or not acknowledge it makes the entire series fall apart because it is such a core concept. Yes, canon claims that their adhd/dyslexia is tied to some innate abilities, which is based on an outdated methodology. It's important to acknowledge that and understand where it comes from! But please stop trying to apply it to other pantheons in the series like "oh, the romans have dyscalculia because of roman numerals!" or "the norse demigods have dysgraphia for reasons!" - it's distasteful at best.

A better option is to acknowledge the meta inspiration for why that exists in the series, such as explaining potentially that Chiron was utilizing that same teaching methodology to try and help demigods feel more comfortable with their disabilities and they aren't literal powers. In fact, especially given Frank, there's implication that being adhd/dyslexic isn't a guaranteed demigod trait, which means it's more likely to be normally inherited from their godly parent/divine ancestor as a general trait, not a power, and further supports the whole "ADHD is battle strategy" thing being non-literal. It also implies the entire greco-roman pantheon in their universe is canonically adhd/dyslexic - and that actually fits very well with the themes of the first series. The entire central conflict of the first series fits perfectly as an allegory about neurodiverse/disabled children and their relationships with their undiagnosed neurodiverse/disabled parents and trying to find solutions together with their shared disability/disabilities that the kid inherited instead of becoming distant from each other (and this makes claiming equivalent to getting a diagnosis which is a fascinating allegory! not to mention the symbolism of demigods inheriting legacies and legends and powers from their parents and everything that comes with that being equivalent to inheriting traits, neurodiversity, and disabilities from your parents).

anyways neurodiversity and disability and the contexts in which the series utilizes representation of those experiences particularly during the 2000s symbolically within the narrative is incredibly important to the first series and the understanding of what themes it means to represent. also if i see one more "the romans have dyscalculia instead of dyslexia" post in 2023 i'm gonna walk into the ocean.

#pjo #riordanverse #percy jackson #analysis #meta #adhd #dyslexia #also this symbolism recontextualizes the relationship between demigods and their godly parents so much #particularly Percy and Poseidon and the whole ''I'm sorry you were born thing'' like DAMN that's an ENTIRE DIFFERENT IMPLICATION #honestly in general the first series' meta analogy of being a demigod as symbolism for being neurodiverse/disabled ROCKS SO HARD #that's SO COOL and im SO SAD NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT IT #i could write a whole essay on that alone like COME ON GUYS #can we PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THIS I WANNA TALK ABOUT THE COOL DISABILITY METAPHORS....#anyways i didnt proofread this cause. re: dyslexia so if it doesnt make sense dont worry about it #i can try to explain further in supplementary posts if people so wish

2K notes · View notes

wutheringskies · 9 months

Text

The XuanWu Cave Scene is basically Lan Zhan absolutely losing it

Lan Wangji really just saved Wei Ying's life, screamed at Wei Ying, shoved him like thrice, told him not to flirt with people if he doesn't mean it, bit him like a dog, cried, told him to shut the hell up and that he is a fucking menace, took his underrobe, then apologized to him twice sincerely, then told him not to over think anything, then saved his life, then made him rest and grill him upon his sleeping schedule, then antagonize him, then stroke his hair while he's sleeping and let him roll about in his lap, then be angry at being called boring and then sing a song he'd written for Wei Ying to profess his immense love for him.

lan wangji is a fucking 13 year old teenage girl in love with that one popular guy in school. he's LOSING his goddamn mind. it's on "red hot alert" and alarm bells screeching in his head.

#canon lan wangji #lan wangji #wangxian #mo dao zu shi #mdzs #wei wuxian #mdzs meta #my meta #my thoughts #my essays

2K notes · View notes

toffeecoco1 · 28 days

Text

@perpetualgrey's comment on this post

Ok my first instinct was to laugh, but then I realised you might be onto something???

Shen Yuan is LITERALLY an impostor, who’s more far more kind and beloved by Binghe than the original. The Guanyin pendant is a counterfeit, but it carries the love of Binghe’s mother and is far more precious than any real jade could ever be.

The heartbreak Binghe’s mother felt after realising that the Guanyin pendant was fake and she’d been tricked was part of what lead to the gradual decline of her health.¹ In wanting to do something kind for Binghe, she felt that she’d failed, and this led to her demise. What is Shen Qingqiu’s entire story, but trying to be kind to Binghe, feeling inadequate at this, and dying? (More than once!!)

Guanyin is a Bodhisattva associated with mercy, kindness, compassion and unconditional love. She is a patron of mothers, and is called upon in times of fear, uncertainty, and despair. The Bodhisattva she originated from is seen as a saviour, through whose grace even those with the most negative karma can achieve salvation. Even when she is not worshipped as a goddess, she is revered as the principle of love, compassion and mercy.² From wikipedia, “The act, thought and feeling of compassion and love is viewed as Guanyin. A merciful, compassionate, loving individual is said to be Guanyin.”²

The original Luo Binghe appears never to have lost his pendant. Shen Qingqiu tells us: “It was the only bit of warmth in Luo Binghe’s dark world, always by his side, and even in the future when he was at his darkest, it could summon up his last dregs of humanity.”¹ He also states that “it was Luo Binghe’s biggest berserk button.”¹

Our Luo Binghe does not cling to the pendant when he’s at his darkest: he clings to the love he has for his shizun and to memories of his kindness, and later, to the lifeless body of Shen Qingqiu himself. His biggest berserk button isn’t when people insult the pendant or his mother, or try to take it away; it’s Shen Qingqiu: when people insult him or try to take him away.

From the start, Shen Qingqiu expresses truly unconditional love for Binghe. He spends three years showing endless compassion and kindness, actions which feel insignificant to him but are more than enough to completely change Binghe’s life. He holds no blame or resentment for the things he fears Binghe will do to him; though he doesn’t want to be tortured, he forgives Binghe for it nonetheless, before it has even happened. He sacrifices himself to save Binghe as his mind is eaten away at by Xin Mo, when he believes that Binghe just slaughtered a hundred Huan Hua Disciples, when Binghe’s reckless use of the sword is putting countless more lives at risk.³

Shen Qingqiu is a counterfeit that is more precious than the original could ever be. For Binghe, he personifies kindness, compassion and unconditional love. His regrets over his treatment of Binghe lead to his temporary demise. Binghe clings to him in his darkest moments, and he is that which Binghe protects most fiercely.

I always found the pendant’s role in the story to be almost lacking: it’s treated as such an important item to Binghe, yet in the end its return is almost anticlimactic. But perhaps this is because the role the pendant played in Bing-ge’s story has been overtaken by Shen Qingqiu. When he returns the pendant, Binghe is relieved and appreciative: but his joy seems to stem more from the fact that Shen Qingqiu held onto it and cherished him than from the pendant itself. The pendant doesn’t matter all that much to him anymore, at least not compared to how important it seems to have been in PIDW. Binghe doesn't need an object to symbolize love and kindness; he has a person to love, who loves him back.

In conclusion: Shizun was in fact the fake jade Guanyin pendant all along!

sources cited below :)

1. Seven Seas Volume 1, Chapter 1: Scum. Pages 40-41.

2. “Guanyin,” Wikipedia. There’s a lot more to her than what I mentioned here, she’s quite interesting.

3. Seven Seas Volume 2, Chapter 8: Death. Pages 154-156.

#svsss #shen qingqiu #luo binghe #bingqiu #svsss meta #meta #scum villain’s self saving system #i can’t believe i wrote a 650 word essay with citations instead of doing my coursework

849 notes · View notes

direquail · 8 months

Text

the thing that people are missing about TLT—what makes it so good and so extremely affirmingly gay—is that it is layered through and through with queer desire of all kinds: Sick desire, wrong desire, desire that will never be voiced let alone fulfilled, desire that CANNOT be spoken of, desires that shouldn’t be fulfilled or run counter to social mores of the setting in ways that are alien to the reader’s own. It is So. Horny. People are horny for corpses. They’re fucking using other peoples’ bodies (without consent). They’re subtextually fucking their siblings. The core homoerotic relationship is a necro/cav relationship, which in the book’s setting, romantic or sexual necro/cav relationships are considered repulsive.

And it will never be fulfilled or consummated in the sense that most people imagine them. Nobody is getting what they want. Girls are kissing girls who are in love with someone else’s corpse. Girls are lobotomizing themselves to save other girls’ souls. Girls are spearing their hearts on iron fences and offering their souls to other girls to eat. They are both profoundly Not Getting Laid and also having intimacies and consumptions that make sucking and fucking seem about as profound as a puddle. The penetration metaphor of Naberius’ death and the bottoming metaphor of Gideon’s cannot be overstated. Someone’s arm is amputated and it’s the closest thing that book has to a sex scene.

And somehow, even though it portrays repression in some cases, it is not Repressed(TM). The girls are Jesus; the girls are reading porn rags; the girls are dying as virgins. Someone tries to fuck a hallucination that is also the ghost of the Devil and also of the Earth. The ghost of the Earth and the Devil says “Huh. One moment, I have to cross time, space, and the River beyond death” and roughly… a day later, fully possesses their body.

Sex doesn’t begin to describe it. It is sublime; it is spiritual; it is as crass and visceral and compulsive as whatever sick pornographies anybody gets off to; it is as grimy and solipsistic and subterranean as any human unconscious.

You simply could not get that in a light and happy “found family! ✨” rainbow sci-fi

#the locked tomb #tlt meta #one of these days i will pull out my queer theory readers and do an essay #nona the ninth spoilers #tlt spoilers

3K notes · View notes

andrewwtca · 11 months

Text

the Aubrey problem (or how Omori's writing failed her)

Also available to read on Archive of our Own.

I really like video games. If the fanfiction, theory posts, and occasional essays weren’t enough, here’s me saying it—I really like video games! They’re a conversation between writing, art, music, and human interaction, between the player, the game, and the characters in them. Of course, not all games have all of that, some being only text-based, some being lifeless wastelands, but whatever they end up choosing to work with, they often do something amazing.

Sunny is one of my favorite protagonists in any realm of media—video game, movie, book—and he genuinely changed the way I view the world. Not just him, but the entire world built around him, Headspace and its charming inhabitants and the wondrous sights and music, the creative bosses that leave so much insight, the beautiful overworld that is Faraway and a nostalgic look into what we leave behind, and what we return to.

So that’s why I’m so disappointed I don’t like Aubrey.

This game blew my mind away when I first saw it—my first experience with the game wasn’t even my own playthrough, but sitting through a 20-hour longplay!—and I lost so many hours of sleep twisting and turning and trying to make peace with the grief it left me feeling. And after finishing, I realized that its flaws were plenty, but not enough to drag me out of my enjoyment. But Aubrey? Aubrey didn’t make me feel the way I knew she was supposed to.

That frustrated me, especially as I became a bigger and bigger fan of the game. I had no qualms about liking her archetype, the feminine bully with a tragic backstory, and yet I do with her.

As someone who craves literary analysis and in-depth looks into every media I consume, I just needed to know: what made me dislike Aubrey?

And after over two years of being a fan of the game, I’ve finally figured it out: it’s a good mixture of 1) lack of explanation, 2) rushed self-awareness, and 3) lackluster narrative choices. And I’ve found the words I needed to explain these concepts, so please join me on my messy journey to understanding what went wrong with Aubrey.

preface

If you’re an Aubrey apologist, this essay is not for you. I’ve heard plenty of arguments about why Aubrey was actually in the right, not limited to “Basil deserved it,” and, “Aubrey was hurting too,” so I’d like to begin by stating that Aubrey was a bully very clearly.

Rejecting the notion that she actively harmed others is rejecting a core component of understanding her character. Before we dive into her character and how the writing failed her character arc, I would like us all to be on the same page: she physically, verbally, and socially bullied Basil. It was not Basil’s fault, and it will never be a victim’s fault to get bullied. She is not the victim of her own crime, just like how Sunny is not the victim of Mari’s death, and Basil is not the victim of Mari’s hanging. We, as the player, are to recognize their responsibilities in their actions. The same must be extended to Aubrey.

Some people feel the need to deny this aspect of her character to justify her actions and/or justify liking her. Firstly, the purpose of this essay isn’t to villainize anyone for liking Aubrey. I’m simply analyzing what was attempted with her character and why it didn’t strike a chord with me and so many others. Secondly, as Kel wisely said, “Just because you did something bad, doesn't make you a bad person.” I’m not here to say that Aubrey is a bad person—no, nobody in Omori is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and labeling characters as such is taking away the nuance they possess. And I’m certainly not saying liking a character who did something bad makes you bad, either!

Liking Aubrey is in no way a problem (which makes me a tad bit sad that I need to clarify), and I’ll even go as far as to say kudos to you, but if you bend and twist to stop her from holding any responsibility for her actions, that’s when problems arise. Basil is a fictional character and won’t care if you think it was his fault he was bullied, but for the people around you who may have been in similar positions to him?

And lastly, I want to say that if you cite sexism as the reason people don’t like Aubrey… actually, this is the perfect transition into the analysis.

gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss

Femme bullies are not a new phenomenon. Perhaps it’s the break from the stereotypical sweet feminine girl that makes them so fascinating, using their femininity to not sing to animals or wish for a man, but pull down others and advance their status.

I, for one, adore the femme bully trope. Especially if they’re one who used to be extremely kind and underwent some sort of ‘fall from grace’ that led to a bastardization. But, as for all bullies, if they are left without a proper backstory and motivation, I’m turned off from them. Most humans are not mean just because they can be but rather are products of how they were raised. When these causes are ignored, the trope falls flat, and instead of being a good reconstruction, it’s a flat stereotype.

The best way to analyze this is by comparing Aubrey’s character to good examples of femme bullies in the past. Specifically, I’m picking my favorites: Asuka from Neon Genesis Evangelion, Nanami from Revolutionary Girl Utena, and Sophie from The School for Good and Evil. I’m going to do a quick (and a bit sarcastic) overview of their characters in their respective media, but a quick warning for suicide in Asuka’s overview, and animal cruelty in Nanami’s.

Asuka is a pilot for one of the mechas, the Evangelion, and she always thought of herself as better than everyone. Well, of course, she would: she studied hard, worked harder than everyone around her, and she’s just naturally talented. And yet, she’s still always threatened by others and how they can ruin her status. Specifically, for the course of the show, she targets Shinji—he’s this nobody from nowhere who could suddenly pilot an Eva, while she had to fight her whole life to get here! How is that fair? And what has that asshole been through anyway? Did he have to see his mother’s corpse after she committed suicide as a small child? Did he fight for his mother’s love his entire life just for her to kill herself? Does he have to fight for male attention just so he isn’t thrown aside? No, of course not! So how is any of it fair?

Nanami is the sister to the wonderful student body president Touga, and she wants nothing more than his attention. And with her being the youngest of the cast, one cannot be mad at her for not understanding the severity of violence and finality of death, so her anger as a small child with a kitten whom Touga adored is also understandable. One simply cannot be mad at her for drowning it. So, of course, you cannot blame her for wanting to punish the ever-elusive Anthy and Utena, who Touga has become fixated on. What does Anthy or Utena have that Nanami doesn’t? They’re stupid girls, not Touga’s sister. No matter what, Nanami is going to win her brother’s affection (and in her pursuit, ignore how horribly he’s been manipulating her the entire time).

And Sophie is the Witch of Woods Beyond, capable of powerful spells beyond the imagination, from a place that few know of. And she wants nothing more than for her own fairy-tale ending—why do all the princesses around her get princes and castles and beautiful dresses, and she’s doomed to being hideous and alone for the rest of her life? Who decided that for her? She’s beautiful, after all, so she should be a princess! It doesn’t matter who stands in the way of her happily ever after; especially not if it’s Agatha, her lifelong best friend. No matter what, Sophie will not end up like her mother who died all alone, with her husband forgetting her and moving on. Sophie will be loved, no matter who she has to hurt.

What do they all have in common? Firstly, they’re all girls. As stated, femme bullies are different from masc bullies, especially as they reveal aspects of femininity and womanhood in general that many people—see, a male audience—will neglect to face, and overall uncover sexism that's still present in both media and society. Secondly, they’re all bullies, and they targeted someone in particular who they saw as detrimental to their happiness. And thirdly, they all had specific upbringings that conditioned them to have their ‘falls from grace’. What is this third, unidentified thing?

Mommy issues!

(Sorry, I know Nanami technically has a brother complex, but I just wanted to say mommy issues.)

A pattern has been developed with all of these girls. They all start fairly, what one can call, ‘feminine’ or at least, per standard stereotypes. They’re gentle and sweet and shine when needed. And they all have a ‘fall from grace’—a moment, or sequence of moments, that leads them to reject traditional femininity and embrace a more vengeful version of it. And a final moment, where they are faced with their opposite, who represents all that they do not have.

Asuka was sweet and kind and bubbly until her mother killed herself. After that, she dedicated herself to her studies and getting adult male attention through means of the over-sexualization of herself. And then, she began to bully Shinji.

Sophie was sweet and kind and bright until her mother died. After that, she idolized her mother’s false display of femininity and became obsessed with becoming a princess. And then, at the School for Evil, she began to bully Agatha.

Nanami was assumedly sweet—she deviates from this pattern slightly, being built off assumptions of a good past rather than showcases—until she was brought into this family and became obsessed with her brother and was manipulated by him. After that, she became desperate for his attention, fighting any other who could take it. And then, she began to bully Utena (and Anthy.)

While Nanami does deviate from this pattern, they all have clear origins. They were not bullies from the start. As aforementioned, in the face of an adversary, the majority of people do not turn to hurting one another. Something in their pasts, their ‘falls from grace’, was the foundation of their actions, what led them to believe what they were doing was okay. It’s not justification—it's a much-needed explanation. After all, if you do not understand, how can you empathize?

Still, you may fail to see my point. The game has lots of hints of Aubrey’s troubled upbringing. And that’s exactly what the problem is. These girls have clear origins while Aubrey’s is muddled.

Of course, I don’t expect Omori to have spoon-fed me details of her past. You can put the pieces together by walking through her home and seeing bottles laid on the ground. But, even in a game dependent on nuance and having the player put certain things together, it’s better to leave things out directly rather than to work a way around.

To build up a good femme bully, we need a good origin story. What happened to her that made her turn to violence? Why should we care? We know Aubrey probably had a troubled childhood. But the game doesn’t supply enough. It leaves too much to fill in the blanks. I know that Asuka saw her mother’s corpse, I know that Sophie was forced into a misogynistic viewpoint upon her mother’s death, and I know that Nanami was manipulated to hell and back. I know what these girls have been through so I know why they ended up walking their paths.

But the game simply doesn’t reveal enough about Aubrey. Fan speculation is not enough. Canon interpretation should not be confused with fan interpretation—according to the fans, Aubrey’s father is a deadbeat, and her mother is an abusive, neglectful alcoholic. According to the game? Aubrey’s dad is “strict”, and her house is an absolute disaster. The house is one of the biggest clues as to Aubrey’s childhood, and while some may praise this as ‘showing and not telling’, the game never tries to make workarounds for the other characters (which I will dig deeper into later). I can assume what happened in her house but it’s not my job to find ways to empathize with the character; that is the story’s job.

This is the first of Omori’s three sins and we haven’t even scratched the surface.

actions speak more than words, or something like that

I recently saw a post that I thought would make a good intro for this section. It’s an apologist post for Aubrey, discussing how the game did treat her with just enough harshness—that because she’s been beating herself up, because she’s suffered a public breakdown, because it took kindness to help her heal, it’s proof of her regret. There’s some good Basil blaming in there too, with a strange turn saying that she refused to leave Basil’s house because of her willingness to turn over a new leaf. And it ends with a weird claim that she was a “good person all along,” (implying an argument otherwise), but I’m not here to rat on that post.

Despite how frustrated the post made me, I am inclined to agree. It’s black-and-white to state that Aubrey didn’t change at all. If you compare her first Faraway appearance to her final scenes, she’s a completely different person. Which would've been nice if the change didn’t take two scenes.

Much like how I compared Aubrey’s backstory to that of other femme bullies, I’m going to compare Aubrey’s redemption to that of my favorite redemption story in all of media: Riku from Kingdom Hearts (the fact that I’m so in touch with his story may also explain some of my disappointment with Aubrey’s).

Riku starts off his journey on Destiny Islands. He’s always wondered what lies beyond his small home and dreamed of taking a sailboat with his best friends, Sora and Kairi. However, jealousy is an awful thing—Sora and Kairi are close. And it seems that Riku has been hearing about how they’re thinking of leaving him behind. So, he does what any teenager dealing with larger-than-life feelings does: he gives in to the magical Darkness and effectively kills everyone on the islands, separating him, Sora, and Kairi (don’t worry—everyone comes back.)

By the end of the game, he’s come to his senses, but it takes a lot of time. He fights with Sora a lot because he just knows, deep down, that he’s right and Sora is wrong, and if Sora would just listen…but no. Sora keeps abandoning him. So he has to work through that and all the feelings that accompany those abandonment issues, he has to work through the question of “What is even making me want to kill my best friend, anyway?”, and he has to work through “Wait…can I kill my best friend?” So, it takes a lot of time for him to get to his senses.

And then, he goes through hell. Literally and metaphorically. He dedicates himself wholly to making up for what he did. How? Well, he first identifies what he did wrong—he separated from his friends, he gave in to his jealousy, and he submerged his home in Darkness. He apologizes for it directly—although he doesn’t have a chance to speak with Sora right away, he's constantly apologizing for the fact that he gave in to the Darkness, so much that it became a running gag to some fans. He put up distance—he didn’t feel like he was owed forgiveness right away (or at all, but that’s a different matter) and didn’t stick at Sora’s side to wait for his best friend to forgive him. He worked hard to show that he’s changed—it would be a much longer essay if I attempted to explain the lengths he went through, but it’s not limited to allowing himself to be possessed, going to literal Hell, forcing himself into isolation, and enduring multiple handicapping injuries.

Long story short? He really, really tries to make it up to Sora. And when he and Sora finally talk (it took three years in real life, took perhaps a year in the game), Sora doesn’t even hesitate to forgive his friend…though it may be in part to Sora just being Sora. Nevertheless, Riku had earned that forgiveness.

And then, after that, Riku continues to give himself hell! He never stops to sweep what he did under the rug. It’s a part of him, after all, an ugly past but his past nonetheless. It does not define him but it cannot be forgotten, otherwise, he hasn't learned anything at all.

Deep breath. We talked a lot about Kingdom Hearts in an Omori essay. But it’s important to understand the sheer depth put into his redemption: identification, distance, and work.

What’s most frustrating about Aubrey’s arc is that fragments of this good writing exist, but that’s what they are: fragments. I would like it to be stated for the record that everything I explained for Riku’s arc wasn’t me creating speculation based on what the games said. It’s what the games literally came out and said. Aubrey however…

Identification—she apologizes to Sunny, Kel, and Hero by saying “I’m sorry, guys… I’ve been acting like such a jerk.” While I may give her grief for the usage of the word ‘jerk’ when perhaps a stronger, more evocative term would’ve done a better job, it’s certainly better than what she said in front of Basil’s door: "I just wanted to say that… I’m sorry for the way I’ve been treating you.” Completely separating herself from the issue at hand.

Distance—none. She's immediately reintroduced to her old friend group, at a rate that ended up giving me whiplash the first time around. The question, “What about the Hooligans?” is never brought up, and things are back to how they always were, with no problems at all.

Work—Aubrey stayed the night at Basil’s house, wanting to make sure he was safe. To which, if you end up getting the neutral ending, you get the most insightful message of Aubrey’s arc (which is technically non-canon): “I'm so sorry, Basil. Please forgive me…” If getting the good or bad ending, her staying the night meant literally nothing, as Sunny’s fight took the reins.

These are fragments of a character arc. These are fragments of good characterization. While I praise Omori for how often it appears realistic, this kind of exponential growth simply isn’t. In what world, does someone who’s been bullying someone for four years, take less than two days to realize she’s been a bully and decide to change the entire course of her life?

While I could rat on Aubrey, this isn’t her problem. This is the game misreading what makes a good redemption. Redemption means work. It means effort. It is not a character simply changing their ways. Those characters feel cheap and empty—there’s a reason, after all, why the majority of fans always characterize Aubrey as the mean girl she’s shown to be when she first appeared in fan works. It’s because the ‘new’ Aubrey, the Aubrey buried under layers of hurt, hasn’t earned the right to exist.

The Riku I love in Kingdom Hearts III has earned the right to be angsty and gay and happy and his new self because he’s put in 17 years' worth of effort to become that person. It’s beautiful, it’s inspiring, it’s hopeful—you can make a mistake and go past it. It doesn’t define you. You can be forgiven. You can have hurt and have been hurt and still be worthy of love and loving.

The Aubrey at the end of Omori has not earned the right to be there, simply put. She’s the product of lazy, or ignorant writing, and it feels harsh to type out, but there’s no other way to describe it. Her self-awareness happened too quickly. She passes by Sunny’s house every day, sees Kel playing basketball every day, and could freely visit Mari’s grave whenever she wants—there were four years for her to change who she was. If Kel wasn’t able to give up his toxic positivity until the bitter end of the neutral ending, it’s quite hard to believe that a few hours of just talking made her change her ways. Especially considering that the Hooligans were characterized as her new, accepting friends, who love her and hear her out.

And again, the best fragment of an arc that could’ve been appears in the neutral ending! While it was not directly Aubrey’s actions that led Basil to take his life, it’s very impactful to see her begin to blame herself. It’s not right for her to blame herself—but that’s perhaps the only scene in the entire game where I really sympathized with her. It’s the only scene in the entire game where I truly saw that she wanted to change.

A quick note I wanted to pull out before finishing: the inclusion of the Hooligans. They were, again, fragments of an amazing arc. While they could’ve been a good way to show how kind Aubrey still is, they are thrown aside and mainly included in scenes where Aubrey is still being a bully. It’s in content outside of the game (see: Aubrey birthday comic) that they contrast Aubrey’s harsh exterior and show her sweet insides. But no, they’re underdeveloped and unutilized to make Aubrey’s arc feel doable.

There seems to be a very clear culprit to both this and the femme bully problem, and a solution that should’ve been considered more deeply.

rome wasn’t built in a day

There’s a loud rumor in the Omori fandom that Omori was originally supposed to take place over ten days rather than three days. While I’m not sure how much merit this rumor has, the fact that it exists leads me to my ultimate point:

Omori should’ve been longer.

Specifically, Omori should’ve taken place over a longer period.

EDIT: Before we continue, I just had an excellent conversation with a friend ( /ᐠ ._. ᐟ\ﾉ ). This solution only applies to if one is unwilling to change Aubrey's core character; essentially, the extent of her bullying. By making her someone who goes out of her way to torment Basil, significant screen time is going to be needed to properly unpack all that's been given. Making the base game ten days is only my opinion of the best choice, but there are other ways to solve this. However, the best course of action would be to change the extent of Aubrey's bullying on Basil—in other words, changing how Aubrey's anger presents itself.

For example, she would simply hold a grudge over what she believed was Basil destroying the photos, being extremely passive aggressive towards him. It would make a reconciliation between her and Basil, much, much more doable as well, perhaps him seeking her out in the first place in a peaceful manner to look for the photos. The lake scene could be an emotional explosion for her, perhaps finding out Basil just gave the photo album to Sunny, who is literally about to leave, and then pushes him into the lake. Then, the reflection she has next would fit what has tonally been established, seeming doable. She had, after all, been on good terms with Basil, even if for a little while.

By ‘lackluster narrative choices’, I am referring literally to the belief that Omori should not have been a game that took place in three days. I’m not here to argue about the game's mechanics—should Headspace have been that long? What is the point of a world created to serve as escapism, which should be fleeting moments of happiness, when it ends up being longer than the real world?—as much as I’m here to argue that this is a flaw of the game’s writing as opposed to a game design standpoint.

I’m not going to pretend I know how to make a video game. I’m enthusiastic about them, I follow their development and creation, and I strive to learn as much as I can about the ones that are dear to me, but I’m not going to pretend I know the first thing about making a video game. Omori’s development is one of the most infamous parts of its legacy, and the notion of extending the game would’ve only been another strain on the extended period between its announcement and its final release.

But, I know how to tell a story. Or, at the very least, I know what makes a good story. Now, the three days format of the game serves its other protagonists amazingly.

Sunny, whose arc mainly develops through the interfering ideas established in the real world and the ones previously established in Headspace, doesn’t need an extended time in the real world. His story takes place in his dreams, and the foundations of Headspace are already extremely insecure, based on the idea of covering up the truth. But when faced with a separate truth in reality, despite only a brief exposure, the lies created to protect Headspace fall apart. So Sunny’s arc does not depend on how long he spent in the real world.

Kel and Hero, on the other hand, have a very small arc. They are not flat and are very much dynamic when you compare how they started and how they ended up. However, the majority of their arc had taken place off-screen. The majority of their characterization does not occur through direct interaction with Sunny—we don’t learn about Hero’s depression because of him having a breakdown, but rather Kel discussing it. And in that same scene, we learn about Kel’s toxic positivity and the strain it’s taking on him, rather than through the game. This recontextualization is perfect for Kel and Hero. The change that occurred after Mari’s death is not easily seen by Sunny, and through it being slowly revealed instead, we learn the nature of their changes. Nonetheless, their changes occurred after Mari’s death and another change will occur most likely after the revelation of the truth—either way, their character arcs do not depend on the length of the three days. No amount of time would’ve changed them without Sunny revealing the truth (and as aforementioned, Sunny’s time was well spent in Headspace).

And finally, Basil. He's in the same boat as Kel and Hero, having an arc that occurs entirely off-screen. The difference is, however, the amount of emphasis the game puts on what happened to him as opposed to a few cutscenes with the brothers (though it is understandable, given his role as the game’s deuteragonist). His arc is a downward spiral, from an already unstable boy to an insecure mess who becomes obsessed with the sole idea of keeping his best friend safe. While it’s a progression of who he used to be, it’s development nonetheless, and it also happens off-screen. Given Basil’s fragile mindset, furthermore, the appearance of Sunny suddenly was enough to throw him off, given he was already planning on taking his own life. His rapid spiral into an even worse mess which leads to the fight between him and Sunny, therefore, is understandable. And, similarly to Kel and Hero, his real change will only occur after Sunny reveals the truth. Basil’s character development does not at all depend on how long the game would be.

The simple fact is that the other characters do not go through a drastic change on the days that Sunny comes out, and Sunny’s change was fueled by the existence of Headspace, not by the real world. The game taking place in three days does not affect the others. That is good storytelling. Using the game’s time frame to properly convey their arcs having occurred off-screen.

Aubrey, however, is not subject to that same praise. Her arc occurs on screen—while she descended to becoming a bully after Mari’s death, the arc we the viewer are supposed to acknowledge is her redemption. And three days just isn’t enough time.

The last two problems I covered, a lack of detailed backstory and a general lack of redeeming actions, lie in the same problem: the game went past those scenes far too quickly, as though Aubrey’s redemption is not essential to understanding her. It’s as though the game is trying to place importance on relationships and the joys of rekindling, rather than having to actually rekindle a relationship, having to put in the work. If the game had been slightly longer, Aubrey’s story could’ve been dealt with in a far more effective manner.

I am not Omocat, nor am I a part of the development team. I do not have the ideal solution for what could’ve been. I do, however, have a few ideas that I’d like you, my audience, to consider. How much do you think the game would’ve changed if it was ten days instead of three?

As already explained, Sunny, Kel, Hero, and Basil would not have had any significant difference if the game took place longer. Perhaps, there would’ve been a more natural awkwardness present that accompanies talking to someone for the first time in four years, but aside from that, the events of the game would’ve just taken longer.

Aubrey, however, would’ve had some actual thinking time. Her fight in the church would be her turning point, and her then isolation would feel like she had time to think things over. For a few days, Aubrey would have to be absent, and given the impression she left on the players, this absence would be heavily felt. It would be her return so much more effective, especially if she returns as someone who is unsteady due to their actions.

For the next few days, leading up to Aubrey deciding to stay the night at Basil’s house, we have the chance to know and forgive her better—perhaps, similar to Kel talking to Sunny about Hero’s depression, Aubrey can explain what it was like growing up in her household. Not as a defense, but as an explanation. She would do things with the rest of the group, and she would at a more natural rate, be integrated once again. And not just anything! She would actively help them with whatever the ten days would have to offer, and it would show that she is hurting over her actions.

And, finally, when she would decide to stay at Basil’s house, it wouldn’t feel like the game was just trying to have the cast together for one last moment, but it would feel like she’s trying to bridge the gap of all the hurt she created. When she would go to Basil’s door, it wouldn’t feel like the game was just trying to convince us to forget about her actions, but it would feel like she’s reflected and attempted a new leaf. And hopefully, the game would offer a more heartfelt apology, given more context and material to work with.

Four years of bullying can’t go away in ten days. But that’s not what the game was trying to argue in the first place—it wasn’t fully erasing Aubrey’s action, but trying to create the stepping stone for a way back. But the three days poorly argued her case, with a rushed and lacking version of redemption, and it made her ‘final character’ feel poor.

At the very least, ten days would have allowed the audience to empathize and begin to understand her. And, more importantly, it would’ve made sense that she understood the weight of her actions. And the Aubrey she became, whoever that girl would be?

She would’ve been so, so loved.

a little love in our lives

This has been on my mind for an awful lot of time. Sunny, as aforementioned, is one of my favorite characters of all time (if not my favorite), but the entire cast has a spot in my heart and is very dear to me. That includes Aubrey, but she benefits from association, which hurts me—I hate when girls in media are defined by their relationships with other guys. I wanted to get to the heart of why I couldn’t get her to stand on her own.

To summarize: Aubrey’s character was criminally mismanaged. Instead of it being a hopeful story of redemption, someone finally breaking the cycle of abuse and breaking free of her toxic household, seeking forgiveness by taking an active part in Basil’s healing, she is let off too quickly and makes all her further scenes feel twice as empty. The ideal solution would have been to have the game take place over a larger period, rather than a rushed three days, to allow the audience to empathize and relate to her.

Aubrey apologists truly astound me. I find so many flaws in her writing, and yet other people manage to see those flaws as perfections. I see people making very absurd, ableist arguments, and it makes me question the humanity of many fans, but I’ve always been intrigued by how many different perspectives there are surrounding her. I’ve seen some who relate to her because they were bullies or because they’ve been abandoned by others; so some valid reasons, and others very concerning. But it’s telling how our own experiences make us relate to different characters and help us understand why someone stands in the places they do.

…do you see what I did there? I started talking about relating backgrounds and how that benefits our understanding and— yeah, I suppose you understand, if you got this far (almost 6k words, you should be proud of yourself). If you’re still unfazed and believe that Aubrey’s writing was splendid, all the power to your fannish behaviors. But if I’ve opened your eyes a bit as to the flaws in her writing or if I’ve been able to explain your dislike of her, then I’m glad. It’s important to discuss things that didn’t stick the way they were meant to so that we can do better and we can learn.

Omori’s writing failed Aubrey. Some fans took that as a challenge. I’ve said before that canon interpretation should be separate from fanon interpretation, but I’d have to be heartless (Kingdom Hearts pun intended) to say that many fan’s interpretations didn’t get me to feel with her. I think Aubrey could’ve been brilliant, and while Omori didn’t fully capture that, a lot of fans did. So to everyone who makes art, whether it’s a drawing, a written work, a video, a song, an edit, or whatever, thank you for sharing it. Thank you for telling your stories.

I feel like writing these analysis pieces without connecting them to our own life experiences is pointless. So, to everyone else, please tell your stories. Tell your stories of redemption and love and forgiveness, because that’s what Aubrey’s story was meant to be about, and that’s what we all need in this world. Tell your stories, no matter what they are, because that is what ties us all together. We are made of stories and we return to them. We learn from them and we become better people. We become kinder—and we could all use a little more kindness in the world.

Thanks for reading!

#omori #omori meta #omori analysis #aubrey omori #media analysis #meta essay #literary analysis is my special interest #andrew's essays

177 notes · View notes