#theme: sacrifice

[raayllum]

I feel like Aaravos getting so mad when Viren walked away from him stemmed from a more personal place for him.

Like I interpreted his thoughts to be something like "I gave you all the power you desired all your life, I aided your daughter in bringing you back from the dead for two years and preserved your body when I had no need to do any of that for you and this is the thanks I get?"

I think he expected atleast SOME gratitude from Viren, and was angered when Viren outright turned his back to him.

And since we know Aaravos was the bearer of gifts and gifted humanity dark magic, a practice that he was shunned and rejected for, I think Viren's own rejection resonated with him

Sorry, I'm not the best at articulating my thoughts, so I hope this made sense!

Yeah, I don't know if it's a lack of gratitude (Viren gets plenty prickly with him in S2 and particularly S3 when Viren is being rightfully mistrustful or responding to Aaravos being uncouth) so much as it is the termination of control/contract. In some ways it reminds me of how Claudia steamrolled over Viren's reservations in 4x02 because it just didn't fit with how she saw him / what she thought was necessary. And now Viren, after doing dark magic (and thereby tethering himself further to Aaravos again) in 4x09 has - completely unknown to Aaravos - gone on an emotional journey that's radically changed him. And again, Aaravos wasn't privy to this change, so it feels sharp and sudden.

I think it was meant to mirror Harrow severing ties with Viren (over dark magic and consequences) - which again, felt sharp and sudden to Viren, but had actually been a long time coming - now that Viren was severing ties with Aaravos over the same thing. Even down to Viren trying to nudge Harrow into sacrificing someone else for his life, while Aaravos is nudging Viren into the same practice.

Even once Viren leaves we don't really see Aaravos look angry, at least to me, more perturbed? Bothered? He's frowning but he doesn't seem angry.

He does, however, seem mildly pissed in the very final scene, but I think that has to do with disobedience and that he possibly had more intended for Viren as a pawn that will have to get shunted to someone else now, but who knows?

[bthump]

Idk I too want better for Casca but I really dislike the hype for Casca potentially becoming an apostle, these users put it far better than i would:

https://www.tumblr.com/deripmaver/723418827650727936/why-i-am-a-hater-of-the-apostle-casca

https://www.tumblr.com/deripmaver/723493450382802944/im-so-happy-to-find-another-casca-apostle-hater https://

I skimmed these posts to see whether there were any points made that I felt like "responding" to, and there's a few.

First, Casca being a good person has nothing to do with anything except people not wanting her to become a monster, which I obviously don't vibe with because I think the concept of a good person becoming a monster fucks hard, which is one reason I like Berserk a whole lot. And I think a potential Moonbaby sacrifice would fit perfectly with one of the "good person" sacrifice examples they give: the 'person you loved the most and hated the most' sacrifice motivation, since it's intertwined with Griffith in some metaphysical way and it could be a two for the price of one deal. It's almost too on the nose.

Second, I don't think it necessitates Casca joining Griffith. Griffith seems to be out of the Godhand now, incarnated on the physical realm, presumably no longer presiding over sacrifices, and my favourite worldbuilding pet theory is actually that the godhand and Griffith will be at odds. Something's gotta threaten the godhand's existence since something wiped out the last cycle that we saw in Skull Knight's memory, and an incarnate fifth that appears right on schedule seems like just the thing.

Third, Casca's apostle trauma is, if anything, a sign in favour of her becoming an apostle since like, everyone in Berserk is at least tempted to symbolically become their abuser/rapist/nemesis as part of gaining power, eg:

Why can't Casca get in on the interesting and complicated moral and emotional greys here? This is good shit, I want it for Casca. I want her to be tempted to become what she fears, to escape her own sense of powerlessness through abandoning her morals. It's just a more direct version of Guts wanting to become a monster since that's rooted in rape trauma and both the narrative and Guts himself equates monsters to both his rapist and abuser.

I didn't see them mention the fact that apostles are compelled to love Griffith which to me seems like one of the best arguments against it (though again, I skimmed so maybe I missed it), but Ganishka resisted that, and Casca has a long history of repressing her love for Griffith so I think it could actually be a neat, and overcomeable extension of her human feelings.

Another big and better argument against it, particularly after the last couple chapters, is that Miura clearly just did not give a shit about Casca lol. And I mean I already knew that, one reason I thought the apostle Casca theory held water is that it would be a way for Miura to avoid writing Casca's trauma realistically and instead veer into one big dramatic moment followed by fantastical metaphor while keeping her a less nuanced plot point, albeit a more active and fun one than she had been so far. Instead his way of avoiding writing Casca's trauma realistically was to have her faint any time she thinks about it and then take away her personality AGAIN. So yeah, unfortunately I just don't think Miura wanted Casca to be badass and actively affect the plot. Idk if he ever knew what to do with her after deciding not to kill her off just to motivate Guts post-Eclipse.

Finally I just don't know if there's really time for that anymore. My vision was an Empire Strikes Back style end of second act downturn. Casca becomes a monster and sets a new arc in motion, Guts falls into despair and succumbs to the armour, shit gets real and interesting again for a while. Instead Guts' second act downturn is being mad that Griffith is still a god lol. She could definitely still go apostle at the climax of the story, and you better believe I'm still rooting for that, but idk if it'd be as satisfying lol. But I guess we'll see.

Anyway yeah you're free to disagree with any of my hot takes, but you're not gonna convince me Casca shouldn't become an apostle, because my reasoning ultimately boils down to "I would enjoy it." I would certainly enjoy it a hell of a lot more than fainting damsel in distress Casca which is what we're dealing with right now lol. If your reasoning boils down to "I would not enjoy it" then I probably won't convince you either, and that's fine. We'll find out what's going to happen eventually.

And finally I want to err on the side of caution and make it clear that I have no interest in arguing with the user you linked, and I hope you're not planning to be like, some kind of anonymous go-between linking posts back and forth. I used the linked posts as a bouncing off point to explain some of my reasoning, and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

[dissolving-mansion]

If to sacrifice is to make holy and to make holy is to make whole, then what is the opposite of a sacrifice?

[araekniarchive]

Some of my favourite excerpts from Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal, by Christopher Moore (link)

[crescentfool]

reunion 🌸

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Assisting Acquaintance Acquired.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[lucidloving]

All images: VIVINOS, Alien Stage // Rixa White // Cassandra Clare, Clockwork Prince // S.K. Osborn, "A Hunger Like No Other" // Sing Shong, Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint // Sylvia Plath, "Dialogue Between Ghost and Priest" // Park Byungdae, STUDIO LICO, Yongsu Choi, & Manju—Cure // Renée Vivien // Tina Tran, "Until I started choking on our memories" // Mary Ruefle, "The Cart" // Jenny Slate, Little Weirds // Pablo Neruda, 20 Love Sonnets and a Song of Despair // Hozier—Francesca // Richard Siken, "Saying Your Names"

[dittobooty]

Thinking a lot about how in One Piece there's a continuing theme of self sacrifice that often doesn't meet its end (I won't say always because there are some characters who have eaten shit for a cause). But I just think about how easy it would be to just accept their sacrifice but the narrative won't allow that. Robin, Zoro, Sanji, Jinbe, they've all tried to give their life for the sake of others but they can't because they really don't have to. I think about Robin's "I want to live" regularly. It's so easy to die for someone but it's so much harder to live for them. And living for them gives back so much more than dying for them does. Dying is just a moment but living lets you have more moments and more time to show how much you care and lets you do so much for others. I feel like a lot of other shonen show dying as one of the bravest things you can do but One Piece is so different because it shows you that living is actually the bravest thing.

[m0thcl0wn]

day four: modern day

[min-xie]

niervifuri

[raayllum]

Whenever you talk about Callum and Claudia and moral ambiguity, I always think of this quote

"A hero would sacrifice you to save the world, but a villain would sacrifice the world to save you."

I love your metas, and I thought you might find this interesting (unless you already had this one in the back of your head lol)

Now, part of this may be because I grew up with PJO - a series with a very heroic, brave, and loving main character whose in-universe fatal flaw is "To save a friend you would sacrifice the world" - but I tend to err away from this dichotomy of villain-hero and subsequent selfish-selfishness in general.

The hero "saving a loved one vs the the world" is an age old conflict and also an inherently fantastical scenario, as it's a literal trolley problem on a level no real life person will ever experience (there can certainly be similar things in IRL war when a lot of hard, otherwise unfathomable choices have to be made). And, traditionally, most villains cover up their schemes with notions of doing things for the Greater Good (hi Viren!) even if their actions are also things that are conveniently benefitting themselves. And typically, the hero is the Hero precisely because they understand that recognizing the personhood of the individual and that it's important to always value the individual (of which the many are made of) is a crucial cornerstone of well, valuing life at all.

This sort of trolley problem is something that TDP comes back to over and over again and most of the time, the 'right' choice is defending the life of the (innocent) individual under attack no matter the otherwise personal consequence.

Runaan: You let him live, but you killed us all!

Sol Regem: No, you have two choices. You all die, or just the wretched evil human dies.

To do otherwise leads to Sarai's death as a narrative punishment. (ATLA explores this too, with Aang being literally Killed the second he successfully, albeit reluctantly, gives up his attachment to Katara. Which is harsh but very indicative, I think, as far as narrative punishments go, and reaffirmed in the finale with Aang being given a third path precisely because he refuses to surrender his attachments a second time.)

That's not to say heroes never prioritize the greater good. Rayla is very world focused ("This could end the war and change the world!" / not taking Claudia's deal in 4x09) and Ezran exchanges his freedom/safety for the chance for his soldiers to be able to lay down their arms and it's a primary concern for him in S4 ("But the kingdom needs me" "The world needs you"). Callum smashes the primal stone to hatch Zym. But, most importantly, the Heroic thing to do is to choose to lay down your life, not solely offer up others', for those causes or choices. And Viren's hesitation and later inflated self importance (among other emotions) is his Original Sin, series wise. (Even the fact he refuses to give up the egg and offer it as a possible plea for Harrow's life; he'd rather sacrifice his own because of his own paranoia than risk giving Xadia a 'weapon'.)

In many ways, TDP says "The villain will sacrifice you for their notion of the world (who counts as a person, etc), and the hero will save you even at the potential cost of the their world, re: themselves".

However, because this is TDP, even this dichotomy isn't Simple or clear cut. Runaan and his troupe all willfully give their lives for an ultimately lost cause that will only create more suffering and was, per the words of the story and reaction of the other characters, completely Unnecessary; Claudia is certainly prioritizing the life of the individual, but with a complete lack of regard for any other life forms as a dark mage (and isn't thinking through the long term consequences, but more on that here).

TDP also calls into question the nobility or necessity of self or self imposed sacrifice, particularly in Rayla's character and where and how it can be taken to a dangerous level. For example, her walking away from the drake is a character regression, not a progression, precisely because it throws away the life of the individual (something she largely never did before) while also reaffirming that she's far too prone to throwing her own life away unnecessarily/unfairly.

So. Where does this leave us? And what does this mean for Callum and Claudia?

Well, I think there's a few consistencies:

1) Are you sacrificing yourself because you feel like you have to (obligation and guilt) or are you sacrificing yourself because it is the right thing to do (harm mitigation)?

This is probably where Rayla and Harrow fall the most. That's also not to say this dichotomy is solid, as it can definitely be flexible / bleed into each other (Harrow's surrender of his life in 1x03 is, I believe, both). But it is useful in differentiating when Rayla is being noble (saving Zym, 2x07, 3x09, possibly 4x09) vs when she's being self-punishing (1x02, 3x08, Through the Moon, definitely 4x09).

2) Are you sacrificing others in ways you would not sacrifice yourself? Are you sacrificing yourself in ways you would not sacrifice others?

This is where I think Runaan, Viren, Rayla, and Callum primarily fall into. Viren is the only one who really hardcore engages with the first question (yes, he'll sacrifice himself, but it's almost always with an edge of disregard to others and/or a sense of ego), with Runaan, Rayla, Callum, and Claudia all leaning towards the second one. "You're going to be better now, that's all that matters" "It doesn't matter what happens to me, live or die this dragon goes home" "If me dying is the only way for you and Zym to get across safely, then it's time for me to meet the end" and "I am already dead".

3) Are you actively chasing a self destructive/sacrificial pattern or is it something you are pushed into and then have to react to?

This is the key difference (most of the time) I think between Claudia and Rayla (first option) and Callum (second option). For me, I perpetually come back to the way Callum is willing to risk his life, most often, only when he has hope of survival (i.e. he lays down his life for Ez but also immediately argues that he should get to live; Rayla talks him down in 3x01 with two words and Callum immediately starts looking for another plan; he jumps off the Pinnacle with the hope of wings). This is in direct contrast to Claudia and to Rayla. Where Ezran argues in 3x02 that children shouldn't pay for their parents' mistakes, Rayla argues the exact opposite and that she should die in 3x08. The "pushed into a corner" Callum vs Claudia "seeking it out" seems pretty consistent, but I could see Callum seeking it out a bit more in S5, particularly in relation to the coins (but we'll have to see).

Closing Thoughts

To be clear, I don't think TDP is interested in giving a Definite answer about self sacrifice and selfishness vs selflessness (sacrificing yourself can be selfish; saving yourself can be selfless; selfishness is not always a vice and sacrifice is not always a virtue). I think it's a theme, as a subset of grief and relationships, that the story has chosen to Explore in a variety of different ways.

One of the main reasons I've always leaned towards Callum and Claudia paralleling each other more directly is 1) they always have (Claudia comes up with the switching spell in 1x01 because of Callum, and that's precisely what Callum executes when he says he's Ezran, for ex), 2) Aaravos' pawns ("a song of love and loss" "Aaravos chose as his instruments" "those who fail tests of love," etc.) and 3) Claudia is primed to be the one pushing for Aaravos to be freed.

This is somewhat sympathetic because it's for her dad, but Viren-Claudia have a complicated to unhealthy kind of dynamic, and Viren isn't really a character most of the audience cares about being saved (nor does he himself, and he's already been Saved once), so the sympathy can only go so far. However, it's still pretty clear that they're both set up to get atonement/redemption arcs to a degree. The easiest way to not have Claudia be incredibly demonized is for another, good guy character, to make the same/a similar choice for a similar reason. I've gone on record saying I think Callum will either make a conscious choice where he knows he could be risking Aaravos' freedom if it snowballs, or an active choice directly freeing Aaravos, simply because who else would have the incentive, who else has the foreshadowing, and it ties together the thematic overhaul of S4 pretty well, as well as Callum's associations with Freedom thematically.

Because valuing the individual over the world isn't Wrong, just like valuing the world over the individual isn't necessarily Right. It depends on bond, sympathy, circumstance, the attitude and role of the character you're saving and who's doing the saving and how. I've said it before that every character in TDP typically wants the same thing - to protect their loved ones - and so their methods - what they're willing to do or not do, and how they do it - is what creates the moral and ethical spectrum of the show.

TLDR; sometimes we sacrifice the right things for the wrong reasons, or the wrong things for the right reasons. Claudia still doesn't think/know that Aaravos is evil (because she is a Legend at ignoring red flags and her own prejudice); Callum does. Claudia doing all this to save her father out of her own desperation would offer up a nice parallel of Callum also doing something out of desperation to protect/save the people he loves. I think they both have a great capacity to be Wrong, while (in Callum's case) also somewhat doing the Right Thing. That's why it's Moral Dubiousness, after all.

And also why his Tales of Xadia bio spells it out for us 3 different times:

Liberty: I'm beholden to my inner circle, not some silly kingdom.

Devotion: I value those close to me more than anyone or anything.

Has the lowest Justice (the defined desire to do What's Right) score of any of the main heroic characters in the trio or in the show, other than Lujanne

[zareleonis]

the furina callas parallels make me ILL!!!

[lunarin64art]

V3 Chapter 4: Halloween Edition

[charmac]

[sleepgarden]

Unfortunately I don’t have much of my egl wardrobe with me here, and what I do have doesn’t coordinate well at all, so I’ve settled on this normie dress for photos ^^; but I wanted to share the headdress in motion to showcase how the pink “blushes” in the light!

Some photos first, great posing (I didn’t feel like putting makeup on):

And a small video:

It still doesn’t fully come through, but it gives some general idea. In some light the lettering is almost invisible ^^ This is my first completed personal piece of the year I think, so I’ve been excited about it.

[crowleycorvid]

Everyone is entitled to their own interps but I think ignoring the tomorrow's tea is lame