#empathy in global development

[jantanow]

करुणा के बिना अधूरी है विकास की परिभाषा: अमन कुमार

आज जब हम बीसवीं सदी के तीसरे दशक की ओर बढ़ रहे हैं, तो ‘विकास’ हमारे समय का सबसे प्रचलित शब्द बन चुका है। नीतियों की घोषणा से लेकर बजट की प्रस्तुति तक और चुनावी नारों से लेकर अंतरराष्ट्रीय मंचों तक… हर कहीं विकास की बातें हो रही हैं। लेकिन एक सवाल जो अकसर अछूता रह जाता है वह यह है कि क्या यह विकास संपूर्ण है? क्या यह विकास सभी के लिए है? और सबसे महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न है कि क्या यह विकास करुणा से…

[raffaellopalandri]

World Book and Copyright Day: An Extended Inquiry into the Profound Significance of Reading and Intellectual Property

Happy World Book Day!!! Image found on Internet Reading books!! That is something I can never get enough of, so today I celebrate the date. Genesis, Evolution, and Multifaceted Significance of World Book and Copyright Day World Book and Copyright Day, a UNESCO-designated observance held annually on April 23rd, transcends the realm of a mere commemorative date. It represents a powerful global…

[zomb13s]

The Power of Knowledge Sharing: An Exploration of Alfons Scholing’s Approach to Learning and Communication

Introduction Knowledge sharing is an essential aspect of human development, enabling societies to grow and individuals to evolve. The ability to listen, ask questions, and engage in meaningful dialogue are critical components of this process. In the context of Alfons Scholing, an individual defined by his capacity to share knowledge, these elements come together to create a powerful framework…

[compassionmattersmost]

Embracing Universal Responsibility: We Humans

Fostering Empathy and Collective Action for a Compassionate World Introduction: One of the Dalai Lama’s central beliefs is this: all people are united in our pursuit of happiness and our desire to avoid suffering. This is the source of humanity’s greatest achievements. For that reason, we should begin to think and act on the basis of an identity rooted in the words “we humans.” This blog series…

[televisionenjoyer]

Literally just a really good exercise to develop genuine empathy for the global south and have your antiimperialist sentiment more grounded and being aware of how you benefit from it is just. Holding a product in your hand and think about all of the people who made it possible. not only who harvested the coffee beans from your instant and who roasted them or who harvested the cotton from your shirt and who spun at and wove it, but also who made the paper, plastic, cardboard, inks of the packaging, who delivered the goods necessary from one place to another, all the way to your supermarket, store of your convenience, or even your home.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Empathy

Empathy - understanding a person from their frame of reference rather than one’s own, or vicariously experiencing that person’s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts. Empathy does not, of itself, entail motivation to be of assistance, although it may turn into sympathy or personal distress, which may result in action.

The term ‘empathy’ comes from the German word Einfuhlung, which means “projecting into” (Ganczarek, Hünefeldt, & Belardinelli, 2018) and may explain why empathy is considered the ability to place yourself in someone else’s shoes.

Part of the difficulty defining empathy is that it comprises multiple components.

For example, Hoffman (1987) argued that empathy in children develops across 4 different stages and that each stage lays down the foundation for the next:

Global empathy or ‘emotion contagion,’ where one person’s emotion evokes the same emotional reaction in another person (or the observer).

Attention to others’ feelings, where the observer is aware of another person’s feelings but doesn’t mirror them.

Prosocial actions, where the observer is aware of another person’s feelings and behaves in a way to comfort the other person.

Empathy for another’s life condition, where the observer feels empathy toward someone else’s broader life situation, rather than their immediate situation right at this instance.

Fletcher-Watson and Bird (2020) provide an excellent overview of the challenges associated with defining and studying empathy. They argue that empathy results from a 4-step process:

Step 1: Noticing/observing someone’s emotional state

Step 2: Correctly interpreting that emotional state

Step 3: ‘Feeling’ the same emotion

Step 4: Responding to the emotion

Empathy is not achieved if any of these 4 steps fail.

This multi-component conception of empathy is echoed across other research. For example, Decety and Cowell (2014) also posit that empathy arises from multiple processes interacting with each other. These processes are:

Emotional: The ability to share someone else’s feelings

Motivational: The need to respond to someone else’s feelings

Cognitive: The ability to take someone else’s viewpoint

Empathy vs. Sympathy & Compassion

The 3 terms are often confused with each other, because they are often used when referring to someone else’s feelings. For example, in response to a friend’s bad news, do you feel empathy, sympathy, or compassion? The terms are used in similar contexts, but they refer to different behaviors.

From the definitions provided above, empathy involves interpreting, understanding, feeling, and acting on other people’s feelings. Empathy is a multidimensional process and relies on affective, cognitive, behavioral, and moral components (Jeffrey, 2016). Remember, empathy is the ability to adopt someone else’s viewpoint or to put yourself into someone else’s shoes.

Sympathy is the feeling of pity for someone else’s misfortune or circumstances.

Compassion is the desire and act of wanting to alleviate someone else’s suffering. Compassion includes the affective components of empathy and sympathy, but it is accompanied by an action to change the circumstances of the person who is suffering (Sinclair et al., 2017). A compassionate act can also result in our suffering alongside the other person; this is referred to as co-suffering. Compassion is also linked to altruistic behavior (Jeffrey, 2016).

Sources: 1 2 ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

[hahahafangirl]

a Revelation i just had from talking with my roommate is that wind breaker is uniquely a story about cultivating, developing, and protecting your *local* community, i.e. in a small town. this may be a response to a cultural climate that is increasingly remote and globalized, where the people around you, especially in a big city, becomes more and more anonymous (the bread sellers, the flowershop owners, the neighbors living next to you, etc— that we see the characters interact with).

specifically, in the shounen sphere, while community, friendships, teamworks are strongly emphasized, they are typically a secondary theme. friendships and empathy are vital to one piece, but its primary motivation and focus are on freedom and adventures. haikyuu, too, and all sports mangas that i have seen, is hinges on teamwork and connection, but the dominant context/motivation is the passion for sports and dedication/conviction towards your dreams. actually, haikyuu quite uniquely insists on teamworks and connections in ways i didnt see (as convincingly, at least) in other sports mangas. nonetheless, the primary focus is not on developing a community that you live in. so on and so forth. here is the difference: while all shounen works necessarily emphasized friendships, interpersonal connections, co-existence and teamworks, most of the time the community is something that the goal necessitates rather than being the goal itself. it’s a tool, not an endgoal.

that is not to say, i emphasize, that these stories are not good. it’s just that the premise of wind breaker is unique in the current narrative climates in a way that is quite reactive, actually, to the cultural climate today.

because the people around us are getting increasingly anonymous. in a big city you are not expected to know who your neighbors are. you are not expected to have meaningful conversations with the flowershop owners, the baristas that make you drinks every tuesday, or, hell, anyone that “serves” you. especially as the cities get larger and you never quite see the same people with any reliable frequency (yet another way in which the current economy (ehem, capitalism) configured our communities and interpersonal connections). this is a problem humanity never have before, in such unprecedented scale— but alack, social changes happen all the time, and most of them are unprecedented.

thats why the premise of a dying town — one that is explicitly ignored by law enforcement, quite literally left behind — is also symbolic of the smaller, more concentrated, and more personal social structure we are abandoning. the smallness is why bofurin knows everyone in town. the constancy is why bofurin and makochi care for one another. the premise basically necessitates the story to occur in this small, abandoned, relic of a town. and bofurin and the friends they made in other teams (that is, other local communities) is what revive these spaces that are on the decline. also, this intentionality of care from the youth (umemiya!!!) is what rescues the town from complete abandon to the cozy, lively place it is. literally, it started with one person, one smaller community— that spreads to the whole town. the smallness and mundanity is the point— things that our socio-economic focus on rapid “growth” and “development” is glossing over, the way makochi was.

do i have a solution for what i am portraying as a societal decay? no. do i expect every place in the world become makochi? would be nice, but probably not. but the narratives do invites and encourages me to notice more of the people i see day to day. maybe this will gets a lot harder once i move out of my undergrad dorms and no longer sees the same baristas, cafeteria workers, custodians, facilities workers that i know by name. but i sure hope i will know the names of the people i live with, in a community, in a new city.

anyway, wind breaker is very refreshing and yet another example of how culture and arts response to and interact with each other 😌 i can only hope that, regardless of whether people read so deeply into this or not, the narratives encourages them to be kinder and more noticing of their community. maybe nurture it too, like ume does and is inspiring everyone in bofurin to be :)

[galaxymagitech]

So i too want to play with bat thematic

For the anti-honesty ask game, can you tell me about batman's children?

Of course! Batman (who has taken on the legal identity of Moose Wayne—no one expects the man named after a moose to be Batman!) has many children, but only three of them are legally his.

Barbara Gordón is Batman's only biological child, conceived during Captain Gordón's affair with Batman. Batman and Captain Gordón fell in love when Batman, still somewhat feral from being raised by bats, bit Gordón. Gordón then made a joke that neither of them can remember, but they both swear was hilarious. For the first time in his life, Batman laughed. He briefly became the Batman Who Laughs and traveled the multiverse, but Gordón cured him and they got married (and then later divorced). Barbara is a technophobe and likes to live in the rafters of libraries, hanging upside down like her Bat father does.

Stephanie Purple is Batman's adopted child. She is a metahuman with the power to spoil any milk—which is where she gets her vigilante name, Spoiler. When Steph was younger, she didn't have control over her powers. She constantly spoiled all the milk in the house, so her father gave her up for adoption. Bruce, being lactose intolerant, adopted her and inducted her into his bat cult.

Wayne Thomas is a kid that Batman adopted because he needed a normal kid to round all the insanity out. Wayne Thomas is Very Normal and would never jump off a bridge. He is constantly horrified by his legal and emotional siblings' antics.

Batman also has many children that are emotionally his, but not legally:

Ric Gayson, also known as Robin, was raised by robins. One day, while the robins were migrating through Gotham, a parliament of owls (one of robins' natural predators) came by and ate the entire flock of Robins. Ric Gayson swore eternal revenge on owls. Moose Wayne also hated owls because they are bats' natural predators as well, so they worked together to rid Gotham of owls. When that was done, he emancipated himself, because he ended up hating Moose Wayne for trying to make him shed his mantle of Robin and become Batboy.

Todd Jason Peters was raised in Gotham High Society. He is terrified of cars, because they go very fast. He is also terrified of bats. Batman keeps trying to kidnap adopt him as a replacement for Ric, and Todd Peters uses his immense wealth to take on various false identities, all of which Batman finds with his amazing intellect. His nemesis is Jimothy Drake, who uses his computer skills to help Batman crack Todd Peters' false identities.

Jimothy Drake was raised by ducks. His parents left him to take care of the house alone at age three, because three is Very Mature and Practically an Adult. Tim wandered into a duckpond and nearly drowned, but the ducks saved him and raised him as one of their own. But because he is a genius, he magically developed a working knowledge of English and hacked into the pentagon with a computer made of mud at age 7. He is obsessed with Todd Peters and blackmails Batman into letting him help track Todd Peters down.

Damien al Ghoul is the sweetest cinnamon roll who would never hurt a fly and hates violence with his whole soul. This is at odds with his ecoterrorist family, so he leaves with a tearful goodbye and a declaration that he will save the Earth through peaceful means. Jimothy Drake, who wants to save the ducks from catastrophic global climate change, is Damien's BFF. And since Damien is BFFs with Jimothy and Batman wants to adopt Jimothy, Damien is Batman's emotional child.

Cass Kane is Batman's niece from Canada who was also raised by bats. Unlike Batman, though, she was raised by vampire bats. Batman constantly has to hold Cass back from killing people and drinking their blood. She speaks English and French fluently, and is in fact a debate champion. She has magic empathy powers and an emotional IQ of 190.

[aquilaofarkham]

Dying Has Never Frightened Us: Intergenerational Trauma, Healing, & the Burden of Legacy in Castlevania

An analytical and interpretation essay that discusses how the concept of family legacy and duty can lead to intergenerational trauma in the Castlevania franchise. Focuses primarily on the Belmont who found strength from his pain by honouring his family’s legacy no matter how heavy it felt or the burden that came with it and the Belmont who found his own strength from the ones he loved and who loved him in return.

☽ Read the full piece here or click the read more for the text only version ☽

THE BURNING NEED FOR RETRIBUTION: INTRODUCTION

The world has trauma. It is deep, collective, spanning its roots over centuries and territories dating back to when the borders of today never existed, and it has largely gone untreated—but not undiscussed.

From children’s cartoons to award winning dramas, trauma has become one of the most common topics for media to discuss, depict, and dissect. It makes sense given the sort of physical and mental gauntlet which society has been through in the past five years. Sometimes even in just the past twenty-four hours. From an uptick in disasters stemming from climate change, the rise of publicised policy brutality, genocide as a result of settler colonisation, new developments coming to light after decades of denial regarding the residential school system in Canada, and of course a global pandemic which is still making ripples. Then there is the recent examination of generational trauma which differs from culture to culture. The open wounds we’ve already left and will be leaving for future age groups.

Seeing how fiction reflects reality and vice versa, it isn’t any wonder that movies, television shows, and video games find ways of processing this worldwide sensation of frustrated ennui along with the need to find answers as to how regular citizens can fix things, including ourselves, when politicians and world leaders cannot. When reality cannot provide satisfying resolutions, when we are left confused and even angrier than before due to the apparent shortcomings of institutions meant to provide relief towards the average person, it’s natural to look towards specific media. Whether for coping mechanisms, validation for this collective and personal trauma, or simply for cathartic release so the emotions don’t have to remain bottled up.

Castlevania , both its original 2017 series and the most recent entry of Castlevania: Nocturne (as well as the video games which the show is inspired by), is no stranger to this popular trend of storytelling and characterisation. Yet this trend also comes with its own controversy. When done with a deft writer’s hand and a layer of empathetic critical thinking, trauma in fiction and how we heal from its intergenerational effects can be a powerful tool in raising awareness in regards to something left forgotten by the larger public or it can allow viewers to look inwards at themselves. Done poorly or with a lack of empathy and taste, then the floodgates open.

But beyond the usual discourse surrounding trauma in fiction (how to portray a “realistic” panic attack, what makes a “good” victim, the problematic connotations of forgiving one’s abuser, etc.), Castlevania has its own things to say about the lingering effects of grief, guilt, and pain over the course of thirty-two episodes (now a fourty episode runtime with the inclusion of Castlevania: Nocturne season one). The series—particularly the first which ran from 2017 to 2021—has now gained a reputation for being one of the darker animated ventures tackling themes of religious corruption, abuse, sexual manipulation, and injustice among many others. The value and thoughtfulness of each depicted theme ranges from being genuinely compelling to delving into mere shock value yet the series is also known for its uplifting ending and cathartic release from such dark themes.

One could write entire dissertations on each complicated character and their developments. From Dracula’s suicidal tendencies as a result of unchecked grief to Isaac’s conflicted redemptive journey beginning with his unflinching loyalty to the king of vampires and ending with him forging down his own path in life. How characters such as Carmilla, consumed by her inner agonies and burning hatred towards the world to the bitter end, was left isolated from her sisters until she was forced to choose the terms of her own death, while others like Alucard, Sypha, and to an extent Hector rose above their individual torments in favour of hope and survival. However, this examination will focus on the series’ titular family of vampire hunters. Namely, the Belmont who found strength from his pain by honouring his family’s legacy no matter how heavy it felt or the burden that came with it and the Belmont who found his own strength from the ones he loved and who loved him in return.

Note: this essay will delve into speculations and purely interpretative hypotheses stemming from the author’s own opinions in regards to how they personally read the presented text. It will also discuss heavy spoilers for the majority of Castlevania games and the first season of Castlevania: Nocturne.

—

WHAT A HORRIBLE NIGHT FOR A CURSE: THE CYCLE OF TRAGEDY IN THE CASTLEVANIA GAMES

This examination begins in the exact same place as the show began with its inspirations and references: the original video games developed and distributed by Konami Group Corporations. It’s easy to get swept up in the notion that because of the technological limitations with video games at the time, the Castlevania games are devoid of story or characterization. Yet even the most bare bones of a story found in the games can still have something to say about the burden of legacy and how trauma left unconfronted has the possibility of tearing down that legacy. The most prominent example being Castlevania: Symphony of the Night , arguably the first game to begin delving into a deeper story and character driven narrative. It follows the events of Castlevania: Rondo of Blood , a game which portrayed its protagonist Richter Belmont as a force of nature in the face of evil, always knowing what to do, what to say, and emerging victorious without so much as breaking a sweat (or candelabra).

In keeping with the time of its release and the landscape of popular media particularly in Japan, Rondo of Blood feels like a traditional 1990s action anime complete with brightly coloured cutscenes and character designs reminiscent of Rumiko Takahashi and Rui Araizumi (despite the usual classic horror elements present in every Castlevania game). This is most evident with Maria Renard, the second playable protagonist who attacks with her own arsenal of magical animals and even has her own upbeat theme music during the credits when players complete the main story in “Maria mode”. Richter also shares many similar personality traits with his counterpart, namely his optimism in the face of danger and the confidence that he will be the hero of this narrative.

Of course all this changed in the direct follow-up to Rondo of Blood , the aforementioned Symphony of the Night . Arguably the new staple of future Castlevania games to come, not only did it change the gameplay and aesthetic, it changed the very core of the characters as well. The game even begins with the same ending as Rondo of Blood where Richter fights and defeats Dracula with the help of Maria. Then during the opening crawl, we discover that during a time skip, Richter has vanished and Maria is searching for him. Surely this will be nothing less than a heroic rescue and the most powerful Belmont of his century will be restored to his rightful pedestal.

Yet for the first half of Symphony of the Night , the player is faced with a sobering realisation—the villain we’re supposed to be fighting, the one responsible for conjuring Dracula’s castle back into existence, is Richter himself. No longer the hero we’ve come to adore and look up to from the previous game. Of course, the player along with new protagonist Alucard both know that something isn’t right; perhaps Richter isn’t in his sound mind or some nefarious force is possessing him to commit evil deeds. But unless the player solves the right puzzles and find the right in-game items, Symphony ends with Alucard putting down Richter like a rabid dog. However, this ending can be avoided and a whole second half of the game is revealed.

Richter’s canonical ending is left ambiguous at best, tragic at worst. He laments over his moment of weakness, claiming the events of the game were his fault despite Alucard’s insistence that confronting Dracula was always going to be inevitable. Still, the tragedy of Richter’s fate and how he is portrayed in Symphony of the Night comes much later, when it’s implied the Belmonts are no longer capable of wielding the fabled Vampire Killer, a leather whip imbued with supernatural properties that has been passed down generation after generation. One mistake and misjudgment left the Belmont legacy in a perpetual long lasting limbo with the titular hunters themselves seemingly disappearing from history as well, leaving others such as the Order of Ecclesia to pick up the fight against Dracula’s eventual resurgence. It isn’t until the height of World War II (the setting of Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin ) when the whip’s true potential is finally set free thanks to the actions of Jonathan Morris, a distant relative of the infamous vampire slaying family. However, the only way in which Jonathan can reawaken the Vampire Killer is by defeating a manifestation of the person who last wielded it and also whom the whip abandoned nearly two hundred years prior—Richter Belmont.

Yet players and fans don’t get to see it in the hands of another Belmont until the events of 1999 when Julius Belmont defeats the latest incarnation of Dracula and seals his castle away in a solar eclipse. Even then, he loses his memory until thirty years pass and he’s forced to do battle with Soma Cruz, an innocent transfer student who is also the reincarnation of Dracula. If the protagonist of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow succeeds in defeating the cosmic threat that has awakened his supposed “evil” destiny, then Julius can finally lay down the Vampire Killer in peace (until the sequel Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow , of course). If not, the game ends with Julius keeping his promise to Soma should he lose sight of his human side and let Dracula be reborn once again. In a scene that directly mirrors the beginning of Symphony , Julius enters the castle throne room, Soma throws down his wine goblet, and the screen goes black. The cycle continues anew. Julius has upheld the duty of his family name but at what cost.

The theme of tragedy getting passed down through different generations, permeating from person to person even with those who are not Belmonts, is a staple of later Castlevania games following Symphony of the Night . In some instances, pain and trauma is what jumpstarts the story moving forward. Castlevania: Curse of Darkness begins with its protagonist Hector in a direct parallel to Dracula swearing revenge on the one responsible for the murder of his wife; an ultimatum that follows him every step of the way, fuelling his rage and determination up until the penultimate moment when his goal is within reach. Yet even then he cries out, claiming this “murderous impulse” isn’t truly him—it’s the result of an outside force he himself once aided before defecting before the events of the game.

Something similar occurs in Castlevania: Lords of Shadow , an alternative reimagining of the franchise that while still a topic of division amongst most die hard fans has also seen a resurgence of popularity and reevaluation. It begins with Gabriel Belmont grieving over the death of his own wife (a trope which is unfortunately common amongst the majority of Castlevania titles). This is a wound that follows him throughout his journey until an even more painful and shattering twist regarding Marie Belmont’s demise is revealed to Gabriel later in the game.

However, there is one example from the games that stands above the rest in regards to the sort of damage which generational trauma as a result of familial duty and legacy, upheld to an almost religious degree, can inflict. So much so that even a declaration of retribution can evolve into a generational curse.

—

HUNT THE NIGHT: LEON BELMONT & THE MYTH OF FREE WILL

The Castlevania timeline didn’t always have a set beginning. An inciting incident by which all future stories, characters, and inevitable calamities could base themselves off of. Rather it changed from game to game until a definitive origin was settled in 2003 with the release of Castlevania: Lament of Innocence . For at least two games, the starting point was supposed to be with Simon Belmont, making his way through a labyrinth of dark forests and cursed towns, before finally traversing the ever changing fortress in Transylvania to defeat Dracula. He even went as far as to gather the remains and resurrect the eponymous lord of his own choice just to rid himself of another curse entirely. 

Castlevania protagonists are always cursed by something. Whether it be the cause of Dracula’s influence, their own actions as seen in Lords of Shadow , a curse of the flesh like how Simon had to tackle his own ailment in Castlevania II: Simon’s Quest , or something else just as common as Dracula’s curse: the burden of honouring a family duty.

A basic yet iconic 1986 entry followed by a sequel that had potential especially with the first appearance of the now famous “Bloody Tears” track but suffered from a rather confusing and lacklustre end product. Then suddenly the starting point for the franchise timeline changed drastically. Castlevania III: Dracula’s Curse despite the numerical inclusion in its title stands as more of a prequel, detailing the exploits of the Belmont who came before Simon. Not much was altered in the grand scheme of things; the titular vampire hunter still essentially slays Dracula with the help of three other playable characters, said final boss having been driven mad and more violent than ever by humanity’s slight against him. However, not only were the methods by which Dracula is defeated changed but players were given more insight into the sort of burden placed upon the Belmont family name.

When the story of Dracula’s Curse begins, protagonist Trevor Belmont isn’t revered as a legend or hero but rather a blight on larger society who the people only turn to as a last ditch effort against rising evil. The regular god-fearing people of Wallachia now fear the Belmonts and their power (it is also implied that some still feared the barbarian-esque Simon despite his legendary status) so the family is excommunicated. Trevor is forced to enlist three other outcasts—or simply two other fighters, depending on which version of the story you examine—in order to carry out the family business. Even when the rest of the world has shunned them and there are plenty of others just as capable of stopping the forces of evil, a Belmont still has a destiny to fulfil. 

Yet once a series has gone on for long enough, things within the established canon are bound to change—again and again. Whether through re-examination in order to line it up better with present day morals and sensibilities, or through good old fashioned retconning in favour of something more interesting, more thought out, or less convoluted. Other times, it’s simply because either the creator or viewers wanted it to happen. In 1997, this occurred with the release of Castlevania Legends on the GameBoy, a prequel to Dracula’s Curse that was meant to serve as the actual origin for the Belmonts, Dracula, and even his son Alucard. Instead of Trevor, the very first Belmont to fight Dracula is now his mother, Sonia Belmont, seventeen years old and already burdened with the glorious purpose of her bloodline.

Sonia is undoubtedly the protagonist of her own story with agency and drive. However, the game ends with a stark reminder of why the Belmonts have a place in the Castlevania universe. The last we see of Sonia in Legends is in the form of an epilogue where she holds her newborn child and states that one day when he’s grown, he will “be praised by all the people as a hero”. Despite her triumph over Dracula—a monumental feat itself—it seems that her purpose in the end (the purpose of most Belmonts other than to forever fight evil in fact) was to merely continue the bloodline so that descendants can carry out a promise made centuries before by another Belmont—someone that neither Simon, Trevor, Julius, or Richter ever knew.

The inevitability of sudden retcons within long-running media was not as kind to Legends as it was to Dracula’s Curse . Because of how the in-game events conflicted with subsequent entries (for example the implication that Trevor is actually the son of Alucard, thus further tying the Belmonts to Dracula through blood as well as duty), both Legends and Sonia were completely removed from the canon timeline. This is merely one reason why the next attempt at creating the definitive origin for the franchise, now a cult favourite among certain subsections of the fan community, was regarded with some animosity. However, twenty years after its release, Castlevania: Lament of Innocence is considered by many as an underrated entry. It is certainly the darker title where both the hero and villain stumble through their own hardships yet neither emerges completely victorious by the end.

The opening narration crawl of Lament of Innocence describes the lives of Leon Belmont and Mathias Cronqvist. They spend most of their lives as reflections of each other; one grows into more of a fighter while the second is coveted for his intellect and ambition. Both are valorous, honourable, and products of their own respective plights. Despite his service to the church, Leon is soon systematically stripped of everything save for the clothes on his back because he wouldn’t follow their orders blindly. While Mathias is forced to watch as an uncaring god (the very same god he serves) takes away a figure of pure virtue and love. This figure, Elisabeta Cronqvist who appears to be a splitting image of Dracula’s next deceased wife Lisa Tepes, was the last remaining tie Mathias still had to whatever bit of morality he still feels, which he eventually throws away when deciding to drag his only friend and everything he holds dear into hell alongside him.

The difference is how both men react to those personal horrors and how they let it govern their pasts, presents, and futures not just for themselves but for others who follow after the dust has supposedly settled. Two men, two best friends turned hateful enemies because of an interlinked tragedy. Not only that, but also because of their perspectives, morals, and the way they view a world that is unkind to them. Both were spurred by the death of loved ones, both used it as a conduit, or rather a catalyst for the radically opposing directions in which their choices take them and their families. Leon chooses to struggle onwards towards a world free from darkness and horror despite his pain. Mathias chooses to revel in that very same darkness and pain with a fire that would burn for aeons. In the end, one thing is absolute. A single thing the two men can agree upon as they flee down adverse paths: one of them will destroy the other.

Yet the timeline of Castlevania proves that this choice comes at a great cost for the Belmonts in particular. By the end of Lament of Innocence , Mathias has revealed himself to be the great manipulator pulling the strings behind the scenes. Due to the immense grief he felt over losing Elisabeta to a presumably common illness made untreatable because of the time period’s medical limitations (coupled with his own arrogance and narcissism), Mathias finally becomes Dracula. Dominion over death and even god by has been achieved by doing what Leon’s righteously moral mind cannot comprehend: transforming himself into an immortal creature driven by bloodlust. All he had to do was lie, cheat, and cruelly outsmart everyone else around him. That of course includes Leon as Mathias’ manipulation tactics were also the cause of the mercy killing of Sara Tarantoul, Leon’s fiance, to stop her from turning into a vampire herself. After watching his former friend escape before the sun can rise and disposing of Dracula’s constant right hand man Death, Leon finally feels his anger over such a betrayal boil over. He gives one final message to Mathias, now the new king of the vampires: “This whip and my kinsmen will destroy you someday. From this day on, the Belmont Clan will hunt the night.”

This is how Castlevania: Lament of Innocence ends. Unlike other entries like Symphony of the Night, Aria of Sorrow, or Harmony of Dissonance , there is no good, neutral, or bad ending that can be achieved if the player is aware of certain secrets and tricks. There is only one for Leon and Mathias. The inclusion of multiple endings in some Castlevania games versus a singular set ending in others may seem like a small coincidental narrative choice in conjunction with evolving gameplay, but it matters in the case of Lament of Innocence. From the moment Leon enters the castle to rescue his fiance, the wheel has already started turning and his fate is sealed. Mathias has already won and Sara, along with future Belmonts, are already doomed. And Leon’s ultimatum made in the heat of the moment would go on to have repercussions centuries later. “Hunting the night” gave the Belmonts purpose but it also burdened them with that exact purpose. While Dracula deals in curses, so does the Belmont family—a curse of duty that gets passed down throughout the bloodline.

Leon Belmont was of course never malicious or cruel like Mathias was. He never wanted to deliberately curse his family because he suffered and so should they. His choice was made out of anger and retribution. Still, it goes on to affect Simon, Sonia, Julius, and others in drastic yet different ways. Yet in the case of specific Belmonts like Trevor and Richter, we see how this family legacy can have varied consequences in far more detail through the introduction of animation and serialised writing into the Castlevania franchise.

—

SOMETHING BETTER THAN A PILE OF RUINS: TREVOR BELMONT & STRENGTH FROM LEGACY

If there’s one thing that Castlevania makes abundantly clear with its four season runtime, it is that trauma does not inherently make people better or more virtuous. We of course see this from the games with Mathias and his personal crusade against god which leads to the complete dissolvement of his closest friendship. Or with Hector and the rage he feels towards his wife’s murderer, who also happens to be his former comrade under Dracula’s employment. Even Leon’s promise to both his friend, now his most despised enemy, and future descendants can also be an example of how gut reactions to pain, grief, and betrayal can have damaging consequences in the long run. This particular dissection of trauma when it affects a survivor negatively and in almost life-altering ways while still giving them a chance at achieving their own method of healing is most apparent with the animated representation of Trevor Belmont.

At its core, the first season of Castlevania airing in July of 2017 with four episodes in total is inspired by the events of Dracula’s Curse with the following seasons taking more from Curse of Darkness along with original story elements. It begins with the brutal execution of Lisa Tepes after she is falsely accused of being a witch. Shortly afterwards, Dracula declares war on all of humanity in an explosion of grief-riddled vengeance (a declaration that is not dissimilar to Mathias’ cursing of god after Elisabeta’s admittedly more natural death). Hundreds of civilians are slaughtered in the capital city Targoviste and hoards of night creatures descend upon more townships across Wallachia. 

This would be the perfect opportunity for a Belmont to stand up and fight back except there is one problem: the Belmonts have been eradicated from this world on false grounds of black magic and aiding the vampire lords instead of hunting them—much like how Lisa was slandered and paid the price with her own life.

The only Belmont left surviving is Trevor himself and his introduction does not paint him in the most optimistic or even heroic light. In the midst of being excommunicated by the church, he’s been wandering aimlessly for the past few years while languishing in whatever tavern he stumbles upon. In one particular bar Trevor finds himself in, he overhears the other patrons cursing the Belmonts and blaming them for Dracula’s siege upon humanity. He tries to stay out of it and not bring too much attention to himself until one glance at the family emblem stitched into his shirt breast is enough to ignite an all out skirmish.

Trevor hides his true identity not because he’s ashamed of it, but for his own safety and self preservation. In fact, the opinion he holds of his family is the total opposite from disdain for the sort of legacy they have saddled him with even in death. He reacts strongly to false accusations directed towards the Belmonts, angrily correcting the bar patrons by stating that his family fought monsters. However, he quickly realises he’s said too much and tries saving face by once again detaching himself from possibly being connected to the aforementioned Belmonts.

It’s only when Trevor is backed into a corner and is fresh out of snappy drunk retorts (thanks to a few hard hits to his nether regions) does he finally admit to his real lineage. As mentioned earlier, Trevor finds himself caught up in the first real brawl of the series not because of the pride he feels in himself but the immense pride he feels for his bloodline. All the while, he’s given up trying to hide what he is—a Belmont—and what he was born to do—fight fucking vampires.

Every time Trevor has the opportunity to bring up his bloodline whether in a fight or in conversation, it’s usually spoken with some bravado and weight even when he’s inebriated. However, when visiting the ruins of the Belmont ancestral home in season two and thus directly confronted with what little remains of his family legacy, Trevor loses all that previous bluster and becomes far more contemplative. He doesn’t reveal much of what it was like to actually live as a Belmont, only that it was “fine” and “no one was lonely in this house”. Even when staring up at the portrait of Leon Belmont, he says nothing and instead firmly  grips the very weapons which his ancestor must have also wielded.

It’s clear that Trevor feels no shame, bitterness, or lack of respect towards his family history despite the hardships that have come with it. Still, it’s difficult for him to truly accept the duty of being a Belmont and Trevor continually struggles with it over the course of two full seasons. Upon arriving at the ruined city of Gresit which is under constant threat of night creature attacks, Trevor doesn’t seem particularly concerned with the people’s plight or with helping them. He inquires about what’s been happening by speaking with a few local merchants but it’s only in order for him to gain a better picture of the situation that Gresit finds itself in. Otherwise, he’s simply passing through on his way to another tavern, fist fight, sleeping spot, or all three. Until he puts aside his own needs for self-protection in favour of saving an elder Speaker (a fictionalised group of nomads original to the Castlevania show who have made it their mission to help less fortunate communities and pass on their histories via oral tradition) from a potential hate crime committed by two supposed men of the cloth.

This moment acts as a representation of the first chip in Trevor’s carefully maintained armour. During the bar fight, he claimed over and over again that he was a Belmont in both skill and purpose. However, Trevor hasn’t done much to prove such a proclamation. Because of his ennui and poor coping mechanisms due to lingering trauma, he’s been all talk and not a lot of action—until this point. At first he tells himself to walk away, this sort of confrontation doesn’t concern him. Then he remembers where he comes from and uses the very same family heirloom to help someone physically weaker than himself.

Yet when he accompanies the elder back to where the other Speakers have found shelter from the monsters repeatedly demanding their heads as well as future night creature attacks, Trevor’s metaphorical walls are erected back up. He won’t take any part in this eradication of humanity whether as a victim or perpetrator and especially not to stop it. The people of Wallachia made their choice in the unjust murder of Dracula’s innocent wife, they made their choice when they decided to massacre what was left of his family, and the church made their choice when they decided to fight Dracula’s armies themselves without the Belmonts. Why should he lift a finger (or whip) to save the masses?

Despite this nihilistic attitude, Trevor proves to be a poor defeatist. He still desperately wants to protect the Speakers and warns them of an oncoming pogrom planned for them. A massive hate crime fueled by superstition and facilitated by the corrupt Bishop of Gresit which will supposedly save the city from night creature ambushes (this can be interpreted as a direct allegory meant to comment on how minority groups such as Jewish and Romani communities were used as scapegoats during the Mediaeval period). However, the Speakers refuse to budge and decide to face the angry and misled crowds head-on. They instead tell Trevor to leave in their place which, in a burst of frustration, spurs him to finally act like a member of his clan should. 

What follows next is one of the most defining moments of the series for Trevor, cementing his place as a Belmont. Another corrupt member of the church demands to know what he could possibly stand to gain from fighting back considering his downtrodden state and the fact that he’s entirely outnumbered. Trevor’s answer is simple: nothing. The Belmonts don’t protect everyday people for any great reward or because of any strong personal ties. They do it because it’s their duty and the right thing to do. Trevor even mirrors something which the elder Speaker told him; a family mantra that encompasses the very purpose of the Belmonts, dating back to Leon: “It’s not the dying that frightens us. It’s never having stood up and fought for you.”

Trevor’s healing journey does not end at this moment. He still has moments of hesitation where someone like Alucard has to forcibly remind him of his place as Belmont, saying he needs to choose whether he’s really the last of a long line of hunters or a drunkard. This leads to a fight sequence that nearly spans the length of an entire episode where Trevor further proves himself by taking on at least three different creatures all with varying degrees of strength, skill, and fortitude. Episode six of season two is the ideal example of not only Trevor’s determination but also his quick thinking. Moments such as him wrapping his cloak around his hand so that it doesn’t get cut while his sword slices through the throat of a minotaur or using a set of sticks to beat against an adversary when his whip is knocked away. Being a Belmont means using one’s intellect (no matter how unconventional it may seem) as well as one’s muscles. 

There is also another albeit less violent instance at the start of season three where he still feels the need to hide his surname while in an unfamiliar village. Then there is the revelation that malicious stories about the Belmonts and their supposed demise still circulate amongst rural Wallachian communities. Yet despite coming from a family of old killers (a term Trevor uses before facing off against Death in the final season) his family name remains his strength and the weight of both the Vampire Killer and Morningstar whip keep him grounded rather than burden him. The Belmont name carries such weight throughout the series that by the end, there is strong consideration from Alucard of naming a new township nestled in the shadow of Dracula’s castle after that family.

Trevor deals with his pain and trauma quietly, almost numbing it with the assistance of alcohol and dodging the harder questions regarding what his family was really like. He still finds strength in remembering what the Belmonts are here for despite the tribulations that come with the family name. Hardships that continue and evolve nearly three hundred years later.

—

THE THINGS THAT MAKE ME WHO I AM: RICHTER BELMONT & STRENGTH FROM LOVE

Depending on what sort of mood you might find the author of this essay in, their favourite Castlevania game will vary. At the moment, it’s a three way tie between Symphony of the Night for its artistry, Lament of Innocence for its story and characterisation, and Aria of Sorrow for its evolved gameplay. However, one personal decision remains relatively consistent no matter the mood or time of day: Richter Belmont is the author’s favourite Belmont and the inclusion of him in the latest animated adaptation Castlevania: Nocturne has only cemented that fact.

It makes sense from both a narrative and marketing standpoint as to why we’ve suddenly gone from the events of Dracula’s Curse/Curse of Darkness depicted in the previous series all the way three hundred years later to Rondo of Blood . Narratively, Richter and his companion Maria Renard already have a direct link to Alucard through the events of Symphony , which Nocturne will most likely cover and be inspired by in its second season. Marketing wise while also appealing to the largest demographic possible (even those less familiar with the games), amongst more recurring characters like Dracula and Alucard, Richter is arguably one of the most recognisable Castlevania figures right down to his design.

Certain traits and visual motifs of other Belmonts have changed drastically over the years and with each iteration. Meanwhile, from Rondo and Symphony , to Harmony of Despair and the mobile game Grimoire of Souls , to finally Nocturne and the inclusion of Richter as a playable character in the fighting game Super Smash Bros Ultimate , specific elements of Richter never waver. This includes his blue colour scheme, his tousled brown hair, and his iconic white headband. All of which carry over in the first season of Nocturne which not only expands upon Richter’s character first established in Rondo of Blood but also further examines said character.

For example, Richter’s true introduction directly following the downer cold opening is without a doubt the farest cry from Trevor’s. While Trevor’s first scene acted as a sobering depiction of what happens when physically/mentally damaging coping mechanisms mix with unacknowledged grief, Richter’s first fight gets the audience’s blood pumping, complete with a triumphant musical score and a showcase of his skill with the Vampire Killer. Richter is cocky, but not reckless. He’s sarcastic, but not sullen like Trevor was. Because of his upbringing after the death of his mother, filled with positive affirmations, he values the wellbeing of others along with their fighting experience. Yet his confidence does not overshadow his acknowledgement of the family burden. Richter is well aware of how heavy the Belmont legacy and duty can weigh upon an individual’s shoulders along with how closely it can tie itself around a person’s life and their death—a reminder as well as memory which haunts him for nine years.

When Nocturne begins, its first major fight sequence takes place between Richter’s mother Julia Belmont (an original character for the show) and the vampire Olrox, an enemy taken from Symphony of the Night now reimagined as a seductive, complex Indigenous vampire on his own path towards vengeance against the very person who took away the one he loved most in this world—just one of many thematic parallels to the first series, this time referencing Dracula’s motives and justification for his grief. Just when it seems like Julia has the upper hand thanks to her magical prowess, Olrox transforms and ends her life in a swift yet brutal manner. All of which happens right before ten-year-old Richter’s eyes.

Julia was simply doing her duty as a vampire hunter and her life as a Belmont ended the same as most of her ancestors did: in battle while fighting for the life of another. Why then did it hurt Richter most of all? Why does it haunt him well into his early adult years? And why was it seemingly more so than how Trevor’s trauma haunted him? There are two probable answers to this, one being that Richter was only a child, directly confronted by the cause for his mother’s sudden and graphic death with no way of fighting back despite being a Belmont.

In the case of Trevor, although he was a few years older than Richter when his entire family and ancestral home were burned in front of his eyes presumably by the same people they were supposed to be defending, the circumstances which followed them afterwards are vastly different. For nine years Richter was surrounded by those who loved and cared for him whereas Trevor only had himself and the hoards of average Wallachians who hated him because of superstitious rumours and the church’s condemnation. Trevor had over a decade’s worth of experience in becoming desensitised to his pain and trauma, masking it beneath self deprecation and numbing it with alcohol. He wasn’t even aware of the fact that he was a deeply sad and lonely individual until Sypha pointed it out to him.

Despite his bravado and brighter personality than his ancestor, Richter is also an incredibly sad, hurt person who suffers somewhat from tunnel vision. He obviously has empathy and wants to protect people from monsters, vampires, and the like. More so than Trevor did during his introduction before his moment of self-made rehabilitation. However, he doesn’t seem to care much about the revolution itself or what it stands for. He attends Maria’s rally meetings but he doesn’t take active part in them, opting to stay back and keep a watch out for any vampire ambushes. He admits that he doesn’t really listen to Maria’s speeches about liberty, equality, and fraternity. And in the most prominent example of his disillusionment with fighting for a larger righteous cause, when given a revolutionary’s headband, he shoves it into his pocket and mumbles about how tired he is of everything.

This could be interpreted as defeatist if Richter wasn’t already trying so hard to uphold his family duty and maintain a level head. He needs to have a sense of control and almost achieves it until Olrox so casually confronts him in the middle of a battle which Richter and his friends seemed to be winning until they’re forced to flee close behind him. When Richter runs away and emotionally breaks down the moment he’s finally alone, it isn’t because he’s weak or cowardly. On a surface level, it was due to his fear and panic over not being able to face his mother’s killer (someone who has proven to be much, much stronger and more powerful than any Belmont). Yet it was also a form of harsh admission to himself. He couldn’t maintain that aforementioned sense of control and perhaps he never will, not where he is right now at least.

It isn’t until he’s reunited with his grandfather Juste Belmont (long thought to have died, leaving Richter as the final Belmont) that this negative mindset brought on by unresolved trauma begins to shift. In many ways, Juste is another callback to what happened with Trevor. He suffered an immense tragedy in the past and has since spent his entire life drifting from tavern to tavern, avoiding his own grandson and instead leaving him in the care of people far more capable of raising him and instilling better morals within the youngest Belmont.

Other mentor-esque characters appear in Nocturne such as Tera who raised Richter alongside her biological daughter Maria. There is also Cecile, the leader of a Maroon group which Annette joins after escaping slavery. Despite their individual pains, these two women maintain the hope that humanity can be changed and the evils of the world can be defeated. Meanwhile, Juste has thoroughly lost his own hope. He reveals to Richter that “evil will always win” because of how it permeates everything and is far stronger than any Belmont, even the most magically inclined members. No matter how many Draculas, Carmillas, or Lord Ruthvens are defeated, it will always find a way to creep back to the surface whether through the upper class of France or through the very colonisation that nearly wiped out Olrox’s people or enslaved Annette’s family. 

One of the first things that Juste says to Richter directly references the sheer weight of the Belmont legacy, all of which culminates within the whip itself. This can also be a reference to the Vampire Killer carrying a living soul as Leon Belmont was only able to awaken its true power by sacrificing Sara Tarantoul. The whip has both a metaphorical and literal weight which the Belmonts must come to terms with.

Yet for Richter, family is maintained not through blood ties, which can easily die out or be abandoned because of generational trauma, but through the people we find and attach ourselves to. Under the immediate threat of losing his found family, all of Richter’s pain and anguish explodes when his magical powers violently return to him in one of the most visually impressive and cathartic moments of Nocturne season one, complete with an orchestral and operatic rendition of “Divine Bloodlines” taken straight from Rondo of Blood as he ties the same headband he nearly discarded earlier around his head. Then once the dust settles and Richter is asked by Juste how he managed to tap back into that great power, he simply responds with the most obvious answer he can come up with: there are people who love him and he loves them in return. 

This is reiterated when Richter is reunited with Annette and describes the same revelation when she asks how he was able to regain his magic. Not just a mental revelation but for Richter, it was a physical sensation as well. Just when he believed he had lost everything, something reminded him of all the things worth protecting in his life and all the pain he’s had to endure.

Richter finally donning his iconic white headband is symbolic of not only his decision to actively join the French Revolution but also his revelation that the love he feels for Maria, Annette, and Tera is his own righteous cause. That, to him, is worth defending just as much if not more than the concept of a centuries old curse turned legacy.

—

SLAVES TO OUR FAMILIES' WISHES: CONCLUSION

Richter, both his game depiction and his recent Nocturne iteration, acts as a reflection and subversion of what a Belmont is along with what that family duty means to different members. Trevor found healing from his trauma through his duty. Richter found his healing through love. Of course Trevor loved Sypha and Alucard in his own way, but throughout the entire first series, from the moment he removed his cloak at the end of season one to standing up against Death in the finale, his driving motivation was always to preserve his family’s legacy despite his own shortcomings. The Belmonts were all but gone and Trevor had been exiled, excommunicated, and turned into a societal pariah. Had he given into despair and continued with his vagabond ways, who else would wield the Morningstar, the Vampire Killer, or any of the knowledge cultivated by previous Belmont generations?

But for Richter, family legacy is more of a nebulous concept. It gets mentioned in conversations and we see its varying effects on individuals, but even when Richter is reunited with Juste, the immediate priorities of his found family takes the place of his blood family. This, according to him, makes him a Belmont. 

It is also important to consider that we are still only on the first season of Castlevania: Nocturne with season two having been renewed and in production merely a week after its initial premiere. With the reveal of Alucard as a last minute cliffhanger in the penultimate episode, it will be interesting to see how his own characterisation as well as his close tie with both the Belmonts and his own family burden will further develop especially after three hundred years within the show’s timeline. One of the biggest possibilities is that in contrast with his youthful brashness and instability that was the crux of his character in the first series, Alucard might serve as a sort of mentor figure or perhaps his own generational pain will bond him further to Richter and Maria, more so than he was in Symphony of the Night . Then there is the question of whether Richter in the midst of the apparent losses he suffered during the finale of season one will follow down the same path that his video game counterpart did.

In 2020, the author wrote another Castlevania -centric essay which detailed the visual, thematic, and aesthetical shifts of the franchise from its inception during the 1980s all the way to the 2017 adaptation through focusing on how these changes affected Alucard. By the end of that essay, it was mentioned that despite the show being renewed for at least one more season, the overall future of Castlevania remained unknown. This is still the case for now. 

Though one can make educated assumptions and theories, there’s no way of knowing what sort of direction season two of Nocturne will take with its themes and characters. This is doubly true for the games themselves. Despite the anticipated releases of the Silent HIll 2 and Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater remakes, as of now Konami has not revealed any official decisions to remake, rerelease, or produce new Castlevania titles. One can hope that due to the success of both shows along with the anticipation for Silent Hill and Metal Gear Solid remakes that something new will be in store for Castlevania in the near future.

Castlevania , both its games and animation adaptations, prove that there is a place in this world for every kind of story. In the last episode of season one airing in July 2017, Alucard states what could very well be the thesis of the entire franchise: “We are all, in the end, slaves to our families’ wishes”. Yet even if we cannot escape the narrative we’ve been latched onto or, for dramatic purposes, cursed with, there are ways in which we can combat it and forge our own healing process.

—

MEDIA REFERENCED

Castlevania (1986)

Castlevania II: Simon’s Quest (1987)

Castlevania III: Dracula’s Curse (1989)

Castlevania: Rondo of Blood (1993)

Castlevania Legends (1997)

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (1997)

Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow (2003)

Castlevania: Lament of Innocence (2003)

Castlevania: Curse of Darkness (2005)

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow (2011)

Castlevania (2017—2021)

Castlevania: Nocturne (2023—)

[decafcatfeen]

Project eclipsis will primarily target the following areas

WARNING

THIS IS A SPOILER AND CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO PREPARE IN ADVANCE

I'm looking at you beans, sevcon has no idea this is even happening since anchorridge didn't record it.

LAMINAX LABS

ANCHORRIDGE-DEEP FACILITIES ITERATION-SPACE WIDE

ANCHORRIDGE-DEEP AS A WHOLE

THE MOON

EARTH AND MARS

POTENTIALLY SEVCON

HUMANITY AS A WHOLE.

Laminax labs will have the elevator power restored, leading to a massive breach as the gootrixians developed down-there, with the now banded together, humans will assault the bases and overtake them with gootrixian aid

many anchorridge employees, most of whom are "not" magically gifted or divinely gifted, will awaken powers hidden within them, as divine blood is bound to spread everywhere.

Earth will have a chunk of the moon land in the Antarctic, creating the antarctic exclusion zone.

A small island will also be impacted by a reflection by moon crystal growths, creating the Atlantic exclusion zone.

The moon will be permanently altered by this event, and the tides will be permanently 5% stronger, and the effects of global warming will have been impossibly dropped by 47%.

Sevcons status and reactions are unknown, and debris may strike near the hq.

Humanity will, for certain, notice this event, new life will evolve from this, and human kind will also be shifted to have their life span increased, along with the empathy increased by 37%

[vanillatwistgirl]

Numerology Observations:

Numbers are literally everything, they have their own meaning. Remember when you see synchronized numbers yeah even them. Every number has their own purpose and here the observation on what these mean exactly.

Life Path 1: A natural-born leader, someone who is self-reliant, independent, and driven to achieve. You might thrive in entrepreneurial roles or in situations that require innovation.

Life Path 2: A peaceful, diplomatic soul who seeks harmony in relationships and values cooperation. You might be naturally drawn to roles where empathy, understanding, and teamwork are essential.

Life Path 3: The communicator and creative spirit. This number thrives in artistic and expressive endeavors, such as writing, performing arts, or speaking.

Life Path 4: Practical and stable, someone who is grounded, disciplined, and focused on building lasting structures, whether in business, relationships, or personal development.

Life Path 5: Adventurous and versatile. The 5 is all about freedom, change, and movement, often excelling in environments where unpredictability or novelty is present.

Life Path 6: The caregiver and nurturer. Life Path 6 is often responsible, empathetic, and deeply caring for others, thriving in roles that require a protective and nurturing touch.

Life Path 7: Analytical and introspective. The 7 life path is drawn to intellectual pursuits, often excelling in philosophy, research, or spiritual development.

Life Path 8: Powerful and authoritative, 8s are typically driven to succeed in material and business realms. They often have a strong ability to manage, organize, and lead.

Life Path 9: Compassionate and humanistic, 9s are often focused on service to others and making a difference in the world. They tend to have big hearts and global ambitions.

If you’re looking for a numerology reading, I can provide a personalized reading based on your birthdate and name.

Here is an example on how it's calculated, I'm choosing only date of birth.

Birthdate 22/10/2001 Add, all the number 22 (Date, keep as it is because it's a Master number)

10: 1+0 = 1

2001: 2+0+0+1 = 3

Now add: 22 + 1 + 3 = 26 → 2 + 6 = 8

Your Life Path Number is 8.

And what it means: You were born to lead, build, and manifest abundance. You have the rare combo of vision and execution. Think CEO vibes, boss energy, or someone who can handle both the spreadsheet and the soul-searching.

Note : 22 is a master number and it represents the Dream Builder (divine purpose, higher mission).

[maxdibert]

When I voiced my issues how the slytherins are othered in how they're described, the justification was "they othered themselves for being racist" and "Harry is judgemental"

My thing is

Rowling chose to wrote Harry that way, she chose to used racial otherization and ugly descriptions for the Slytherins.

That was a choice.

The thing is, I wouldn’t find the ostracizing of Slytherin so problematic if we were talking about adults, but Rowling starts sidelining them when they’re just a group of 11-year-old kids. And sure, I get that’s how children’s stories often work — there’s always an ancestral rival or a designated antagonist — but the problem is that she keeps pushing that narrative throughout the entire series. What could’ve been portrayed as Harry’s childish prejudice in the first book becomes a permanent message: that these kids, from the age of 11 to 17, are inherently bad. If a hat decides to place you in that house at 11, you’re doomed to be a sociopath or a terrible person — there’s no other option. And honestly, it’s pure determinism.

When I say people in this fandom need a lot more education in humanistic thinking, this is exactly what I mean. Some people claim that Slytherins choose to be racist, so they deserve to be marginalized. But anyone with basic humanistic training in different fields would know that an 11, 12, or 13-year-old child doesn’t choose to be racist because they don’t even have political awareness yet. Their worldview is entirely based on what they hear at home. And the role of an educator and a responsible pedagogue is that when you see a group of kids vulnerable to forming a kind of sect or developing disruptive attitudes, you intervene to stop it as soon as possible. But at Hogwarts, not only did they fail to stop it, they didn’t even try to educate those children — they actively encouraged their radicalization by marginalizing them. And by doing that, you only create a sense of isolation, of us against the world, of if they hate us for no reason, then we’ll give them a reason to hate us, and of complete radicalization. It’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy, and ignoring that is just a sign of lacking common sense, global vision, and — above all — empathy.

[awanderingtortoise]

i really love how much jack and belle complement each other with how polar their strengths and weaknesses are. it goes so deep into the relationship but ill discuss two examples: for one, the learning styles. so belle's very theoretical/educated approach as to jack's experience-based and hands-on learning. jack is very much hands on, kinesthetic, and experiential in his learning. thats because of his circumstances, not just the fact that hes dyslexic and really struggles to learn text-wise, though thats a factor. life in london with fagin-- from the beginning he had to learn on his feet. thievery is very much a hands on learning thing. then he goes on TRANSFERRING those skills of quick thinking, adaptability and quick fingers when he is thrust all of a sudden into surgery and war in the navy. thats really proof of how intelligent he is, that speed of learning and transferring skills, though its not a 'traditional' kind of smart. his physical dexterity is very much echoed in his mental dexterity, an aspect i love in how his character was built.

BELLE, on the other hand, total opposite. she literally cant get experience; shes a woman, shes a governor's daughter expected to live and act like a proper woman. though her headstrong nature and the way she swings around her privilege like a flaming torch lets her get experience later, she spent most of her pre-show life learning from books because that was the only resource she had. she's educated, she's rich, and she's really really smart and really really determined, so she CAN and WILL learn.

another thing is their worldview. belle's very much visionary and idealistic, jack is a realist. theyre both limited by society (not EQUALLY, and not in the same way, but they are both limited by society), but they respond in opposite, and equally flawed but valid ways, and its literally only with each other that they are able to balance out that response to the world and be the best they can be. they learn from eachother: belle gets a crash course in the reality of abusive governance and empathy for the realities of the lower class, jack is able to open his eyes to how much he can initiate change on the global scale with his skill.

belle's upbringing makes it so she has the social power and desire to fight and advocate for herself, something evident from the moment she threatened jack in episode 1 (essentially 'teach me or go to jail, fucker'). now the morals of that im not going to get into, but its a kind of power jack never had. because poverty. hence his complacency to hospital standards he doesnt agree with, because while belle can afford to fuck around and find out, he could lose his job with a single misstep.

BUT BUT BUT, with her at his side; his experience plus her social status and her idealistic vision for the world, theyre able to do SO MUCH GOOD! for the world, for eachother. she pushes him and he balances her out and opens her eyes to reality. he doesnt shatter her idealism but shes exposed for the first time to the dark side of the system her father runs: why people steal, why its not as morally black and white as theyd like her to think. but they literally couldnt do any of this: the revolutionary surgeries, the personal development, without eachother.

they change each other, irreversibly, for the better. thats a powerful relationship.

[thaltro]

Hey there! I've been following for a while bc I saw your absolutely gorgeous bad sans ref for Nightwatch and upon finding more content and context i am so excited for the comic- I love the characters and worldbuilding- I wanted to ask a few questions bc I've been loving this everytime I see new art I eat up the new meal :D no pressure to answer all of them ofc! Take your time if you need it-

Will you post the comics on tumblr or a different website?

Was there something that inspired you to make this comic/Kickstart the want to make it?

As someone who really struggles with motivation to do stuff does anything motivate you to draw and worldbuild? Or does it just come to you?

Not sure if anyone has asked this yet but do have a favorite character you made or are making for Nightwatch?

Like I said no need to answer all the questions, love your art and content! :)

Ooh a QnA ok

1) I’m definitely posting the comic to tumblr, but also on my toyhouse! I won’t just suddenly post it though, before that I’ll release pmv trailers which should be very soon.

2) for inspiration I’ve always loved horror- what started the idea of nightwatch was reading I have no mouth and I must scream, the idea of perpetual inescapable torture is fascinating, especially personalized hellscapes. I also really liked AM as a character and he heavily inspired Atrophy (I headcannon his voice to be AMs) (wait I guess it’s not a headcannon hm)

3) I love world building, im a history major and also studying sociology and psychology- I’m definitely inspired from human history and global cultures. Nightwatch’ s world building is a conglomerate of different social stratifications, but leaning heavily towards conservative religious cultures. For world building I really recommend learning history- it makes you passionate about the patterns of humanity and more aware of the tropes you can use.

But for characters it just comes to me naturally (literally) most characters are based off of my Alters haha. So a lot of them like dream, psych, atrophy, memory, killer, horror etc are all aspects of myself. As the host I hold our productivity, our ego, and our low empathy- that’s what psych is heavily based off of. Dream is based off two parts who hold a lot of of our childhood trauma and religious trauma, likewise Atrophy also is based off of alters who hold childhood trauma. When your a system you go typically through some crazy stuff, when I’m done nightwatch I plan in the future to write horror stories based off it but yeah. Aside from system experiences a-lot of the characters who will experience ableism like memory does, is based off my experience with how people treat my physical and mental disabilities.

Suffice to say, I’m an angry person and I hate the world around me. Nightwatch let’s me vent that hatred in a coherent artistic way. I have a big ego and like to think I’m an interesting person so I write stories based off that because I think it’s interesting. My hatred for pop psychology, ableism, child abuse, and religious abuse is pretty obvious in it I guess. If your struggling to write the easiest thing for me at least is to write about what you hate or are scared of the most- then develop a world around it.

4) my favourite character is Dream probably- I mean I never stop drawing him, Atrophy comes close too. Though there are alot of characters I enjoyed writing like Fresh, Dr. Fell, Dust, Epic, Error yk- I like writing comedic characters. But what I’m most proud of writing it’s probably just Psych, Dream, and Atrophy as I put an equal amount of effort into writing both.

Thanks for the questions it feeds my ego nom nomnomnom- kidding I just genuinely like not shutting up and it’s weird that people actually care to ask

[drdemonprince]

Just chiming in to agree that that person is not a selfish bitch. I'm also really put off by moralistic performances of emotion, and I know in my case it's because it was part of a pattern of abusive behaviour that my mother did.

Anytime you expressed to her that there was a problem with her behaviour, she seemed to genuinely believe that if she put enough effort into weeping and crying on her children's shoulders, and verbally denigrating herself for being an inherently bad an immoral person, and stressing so much that she developed physical illnesses from it, then she could follow that up by asking for forgiveness - as if it would be cruel for us to continue her suffering by denying her that forgiveness. Except that to her, "forgiveness" meant "it's all swept under the rug, I have Atoned By Suffering Guilt, so now it doesn't matter and I can keep doing it again." (I really wonder how much the religious background of her parents' generation came into the formation of this worldview.) And at the same time, she refuses to read news that's "too upsetting" and never engages with literature or media about dark themes "because there's enough of that in real life."

It might be cynical of me to read this pattern into the way people talk online about genocide. But I keep seeing parallels. My perspective is that a) if you're not regulating your emotions well enough to function, then you have less capacity to offer practical help; and b) people who are actually trying to survive genocide want unnecessary human suffering to END, so you're not aligning yourself with that hope by engaging in rumination etc that compounds suffering with not practical benefit to anyone.

But also, watching my mother's behaviour has led me to add perspective c) that a lot of people (in Christian cultures?) haven't developed enough understanding of the complexity of the world and how to relate to it, and genuinely believe that an overblown emotionally affected reaction, followed by helplessness and thereby inaction, is the only possible way for them to respond when they're confronted with upsetting information that demands action from them. Being raised to think in a black-and-white "good vs evil" dichotomy, and thinking about people as "either morally good or morally bad" rather than thinking about people as neutral and behaviours as either ethically helpful or harmful... it doesn't give them a conceptual framework to integrate upsetting information and then carry on getting things done, it's like their moral anxiety gets them stuck and that keeps the emotions escalating.

I see people discussing this pattern in the context of religious trauma, and in the context of the cultural construct of "whiteness" - the discovery of something morally bad has to be followed by an extreme emotional reaction that basically amounts to protesting your own innocence and helplessness to deny responsibility for your direct behaviours (in my mother's case) or complicity in a corrupt system (in the case of overwhelmed average people learning about genocide).

Maybe I'm rambling more than I'm analysing here, but the comparison stands out a lot to me and it's troubling to watch.

yo anon no this is gold, thank you for sharing. This is remarkably astute.

I will add the quick caveat that hyperempathic people who are debilitated by their sensitivity exist, of course, and have very real struggles and none of this is intended to denigrate them. In practice, their behavior can have the impact of silencing criticism or distracting from the issue at hand but being wired that way certainly does not doom a person to behaving in a counterproductive, manipulative manner.

This critique is more about performative over the top empathy as a tactic (conscious or not) of offloading responsibility, and as a pseudo-religious ideology that makes predominately white western cultures particularly ill-equipped to deal with the consequences of their global plundering. almost certainly by design. Most moral teachings that we encounter in the west promote this tactic and ideology, and it gets very deeply ingrained in most us if we don't devote a ton of attention to uprooting it.

thanks for this great response.

[getvalentined]

Actually while I'm on it, I wanna talk about the dichotomy between Genesis and Angeal. I'm not censoring names in this one because I'm not worried about it being read as character bashing, but it's a topic that I think is super interesting but I never see discussed outside the perception that they represent the dichotomy of good versus evil.

The dichotomy between these two is not and has never been good versus evil. Angeal having a white wing or insisting that he's honorable does not make him good, particularly when his idea of "honor" includes never asking anyone for help and forcing people that love him to do horrific things so he doesn't have to keep living as he really is. Conversely, Genesis having a black wing and referring to himself as a monster doesn't make him evil, particularly when everything he does in the actual storyline is an attempt to save himself (and his men), or at least make sure that Shinra falls far enough that it can't do this to anyone else.

That said, Angeal and Genesis are on opposite sides, just not in the way you most people assume.

Angeal is all about appearances, expectations, worthiness. He's never let go in his life, he was brought up in a poor household where he was presumably heaped with expectations and responsibilities by parents who were unable to properly care for him, and this led him to developing some extremely rigid and maladaptive ideologies. His concept of "honor" is probably the biggest one; we can see how he picked this up from Gillian pretty clearly in how she refers to the Buster Sword, and how we know she continually turned down Shinra's hush money and then never told the truth anyway.

Angeal sees "honor" as doing everything yourself, forever, the exact way that you were told. "Honor" is working yourself to death, it's not admitting when you're in over your head, it's accepting the worst situations as necessary even if they could be changed with the participation or contribution of someone else. It's dishonorable to ask for help. It's dishonorable to stop when there's still work to do. It's dishonorable to be indebted to anyone, even if the process of paying off a debt will kill you. It's better to die than to be dishonorable. He is his mother's son in every way.

By contrast, Genesis is all about independence, equality, justice. We can also see this in what we know of his background—Genesis was the brilliant son of a wealthy family, he gave Banora global brand recognition, his work with Banora White juice literally changed the entire face of his homeland's economy forever. He did this on his own. He figured this out because he wanted to share something with someone he admired, and he knew that the only way to make it worth something was to do it himself. However, where Genesis is independent, he's more than capable of asking for help, and he does over and over through the course of the game. Independence isn't about cutting yourself off from your community, it's about doing things in the way that works best for you, regardless of others' opinions.

Genesis' biggest issue is his concept of "justice," because it wheels pretty often into vengeance. At the end of the day he has three goals: survive, get Sephiroth out of Shinra, and make sure that the company can never do to anyone else what it did to him. He tries to ensure this by carving his way through anyone he feels stands between him and those goals, because Shinra deserves what he's doing and anyone who thinks otherwise is unjust. He's not self-centered, per se, but he has no empathy for anyone he doesn't personally care about, and it makes him seem cruel in a way that is entirely unnecessary.

It's pretty clear by the end that he's not intentionally cruel, just like he probably doesn't lack empathy by choice—but he does clearly struggle with empathy, and he clearly doesn't understand why anyone is angry with him when he knows he's right. He tells the truth without understanding that not everyone wants it. He can't conceptualize why someone wouldn't want to know.

Genesis' biggest problem is that he can't tell the difference between justice that strengthens the world around him and the people under his care, and vengeance meant to pay back the people and institutions that led him here in the first place.

The dichotomy in Project G was never good versus evil, it's external validation versus internal validation. Angeal needs the world to see him as right, while Genesis needs the world to back off and allow him to do things the way he already "knows" is right. The majority of Genesis' story takes place in his own head, and it's a broken narrative for reasons unrelated to the literal rotting; he knows what he's doing, he's methodical and clear in his actions, and he doesn't understand why people that know the truth don't agree with him. Angeal's, meanwhile, takes place primarily through Zack's eyes, because the opinions of others are what matter to him, and if he can't figure out how to make those eyes see exactly what he wants then he can't bear to be seen at all.

Basically Genesis is autistic, Angeal has OCPD, and Shinra has no concept of mental health care. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.