#this is a mess but pathoposting is the only thing keeping me from drowning in the slop

[fancifulplaguerat]

Proper (but non exhaustive!) Nina Kaina post. 

I continue to obsess over how Nina is framed within Patho Classic's text and how players may be meant to view her. To me, she occupies a half-divine or mythic role to other characters and within the text itself that portrays her as an epitome of utopian ideals. I think Nina's character is, to an extent, the ideal of utopia that the Kains and other utopians are fighting under. In particular given Victor deadass says that “Nina is not just my beloved wife. She is a spirit in whose name one could charge into battle with despair itself.” But another line that haunts me about Nina being revered as an ideal is when Yulia tells Daniil “They loved her for being a true queen. They love her for having died young.” She likewise says that “people adore her even more now than when she was alive.” Whether purposeful or not, Yulia brings to mind the objectified ideal of a beautiful woman who dies young and thus retains perpetual beauty alongside the potential of youth and all the possibilities which attend that.

The player’s understanding of Nina is often informed by those who desired or adored her, with character descriptions generally reiterating that Nina was foremost imposing and attractive—that she had a “terrible and powerful presence” and “imperial deportment;” that she was “a radiantly beautiful woman,” “The most gorgeous woman I’ve ever seen.” These descriptions further paint her as charming virago type, “So wild and fierce and intimidating! Just one brief look at her walking down the street—with or without her escort—could make you weak in the knees. You could almost picture her upon a throne. She could cut you with a knife looking you in the eye—and no one would say a thing.” Even Aglaya’s vitriolic description of Nina forefronts her as beautiful, blue-blooded, and fierce: “Nina was  the embodiment of absolute evil. The charming, intoxicating, beautiful evil, the evil that can drive you mad. The graceful and elegant evil that is fast to capture anyone in its web—even those who stand up to evil till the very last.” Thus that, I feel, is the primary portrait of her offered in passing—that Nina was beautiful, regal, and untouchable. 

Yet Katerina offers more insight into Nina’s actual self when she confides Victor/Nina’s history to Clara. She says, “Nina Lilich [was a] bright, refined, devilish aristocrat who fell for Victor for some reason, and he brought her here, in this faraway corner of the Steppe. It turned out then that Nina was harbouring plans concerning this place… And the Kains’ elders, Georgiy and Simon, had certainly impressed her… To put it briefly, Nina became the ruler of this land. […] Nina was striving to get to a place where no human being is allowed, and dragging her followers along, believing that her goal justified their suffering.” Is this conversation, Katerina further notes, “To Nina, human lives were tools.” Little Vlad similarly says, “Nina the Wild never held human lives in high regard.” An implication of cruelty, yet one employed to achieve noble aims. Yulia too points to this, saying that “Whatever power Nina had to dominate the souls of her subjects, she hardly ever resorted to it. Not that she needed to. She was worshipped all the same and her most inhumane endeavours were eagerly forgiven […] The reason would be, perhaps, that whatever Nina did, she did to appease the people. However cruel, her every undertaking would illuminate the town with festivity and high spirits.” 

Katerina, Yulia, and Vlad’s dialogues suggest that Nina was cruel by necessity, but adored nonetheless because her aims were ultimately for a greater good—similar, in my mind, to how the game engages with utopia itself. I feel even the emphasis on her attractiveness plays into this (though. hardy fucking side eye) to frame her in-text as synonymous with utopia. 

Yet! I feel Nina is not confined to being the dead beautiful woman, in particular through her involvement with the Polyhedron. Katerina does, after all, state that Nina had her own pre-existing plots. Peter corroborates this, that “Nobody would have allowed me to even model them… if not for Nina the Wild! Nina gave me a whole living town—a town aching and craving to go heavenwards, to the stars—a town desperately hungering for a crown—the crown I’ve given to it!” Given this; yes, the Polyhedron is for Simon, but to me Nina seems no less instrumental to it, namely the Polyhedron’s powers (though I might be misinterpreting this. lmao.) I completely overlooked thus far that it’s seemingly Nina’s soul which affords the Polyhedron its power to allow children to see their dreams. That is, both Victor and Georgiy tell Clara that should she enter the Polyhedron, she is unlikely to see anything because of Nina specifically, not merely because she is no longer a child (debatable, gentlemen). Georgiy says, “I’m afraid Nina will show you nothing, since you’re no longer a child.” Likewise Victor: “I am afraid you’re not going to see anything there. I doubt that Nina will be favorably disposed towards you.” This to suggest the that Nina actively gives the Polyhedron its power, which I feel is further corroborated by Andrey. He describes the Polyhedron as a “mirror that preserves the reflection of the person that has looked into it the last. You know, when Nina died, Maria said she may never be able to cope with grief […] That is when Focus was created.” And another thing!!! Yes, the Polyhedron was created for Simon, but Andrey implies Focus was only created due to Nina; he explains that Peter created Focus likely “because he loved Nina so much […] he ended up creating a space she could inhabit. Can you imagine? You come into a room and can definitely feel that she's there-as if you've simply turned away from her for a second... And you can talk to her.” 

It just compels me to think of the Polyhedron’s machinations not as fucked-up magic (for want of a better word) but Nina actively allowing these children to see their dreams. In this way, Nina is the literal utopia/miracle, but not merely a passive representation of it; rather the active author of it. I think Nina’s role here ties into broader themes about childhood/imagination/motherhood in Patho from which I will abstain because God knows this post is too long already and I am NOT done. Anyway. I think Nina’s involvement with the Polyhedron affords her more characterisation beyond these immortalising/alluring descriptions which more so confine her to occupy the role of utopia incarnate in-text, just as she does in the Townspeoples’ minds. 

Also that as Daniil, the player can converse with her; though I think there is something to be said that it is still through another’s mouth. I trust that we speak to Nina herself, that it is literally her soul—especially given that Maria tells Daniil that she had been sheltering Nina’s memory before Victor; it feels quite literal. BUT. Let’s indulge ! It compels me to consider the ramifications if the player rather speaks to Nina’s ‘memory’—how Victor remembers her, rather than necessarily Nina as she was. That if we speak to Nina’s memory, our interaction her is merely with Nina as an ideal. I wonder whether Victor saw her more as utopia or a woman he fell in love with or both. I mean. I am leaning towards both, given what he tells Clara or how he refers to Nina with the epithet “divine.”

On this note I want to conclude with Victor/Nina’s relationship. In particular that several characters say that Nina was held back by Victor, that Maria’s lack of a husband is what will allow her to surpass her mother. This is echoed most notably, in my opinion, by Khan and Maria herself. Khan also adds that because Nina was “held back by Father […] her power brought more good than evil.” That latter clause interests me in connection to when Peter claims that “Victor was the only person that Nina used to obey not out of fear, but having recognize his superiority […] she rendered complete obedience to Victor, even though he never asked for it.” This implies that Victor could or would stay Nina’s hand from more unsavory means to achieve her goals. That seems consistent with Victor’s character, given that from tossing him on the vivisection table he does seem most compassionate of the Kains. But he never asked her to listen to him, per se, so that implies he would have let her do whatever necessary. 

I do genuinely think that Nina loved Victor rather than potentially seeing him as an instrument for her own aims, given that she only learned of Georgiy/Simon post-marriage (though I do think the opposite reading is possible). Also that simple line when Victor tells Clara that “[Nina] loves me, and is pained by the thought of me having to part with my life…” So perhaps Nina answered to him from her own affections? But then, Peter does make that distinction of ‘superiority,’ which. Perhaps that is clearer in the Russian but it admittedly confuses me. Superiority as in ye olde husband-wife dynamics? That feels doubtful to me; it’s inconsistent with Nina’s character, and the game seems to point away from this—when Daniil states that many wives obey their husbands, Peter argues, “Wives like Nina? No way in hell.” So. Where does that leave us. Was Victor just 'darling if you want. could you perhaps be slightly less evil today but only if you feel like it <3' and Nina decided 'alright perhaps I could be a little less evil. for you <3' but AGAIN Victor did not actually intend Nina to listen to him, which suggests that he would not have stopped her like the domesticated househusband he is. Or the Kains in general, who will purportedly sacrifice anything necessary to achieve their aims. To me all this hinges on what that ‘superiority’ is and honestly I have no satisfactory answer. Does this whole 'Victor held Nina back' insinuate that it was Nina's decision, that Nina chose to hold herself back? 

By way of conclusion I would say I don’t think Nina is truly “evil,” nor are players meant to consider her so. Capella says as much, and I think her characterization ultimately parallels Classic’s preoccupations with utopia. Someone motivated entirely by love and good intentions who is willing to achieve miracles by any means necessary; the latter informing her supposed cruelty or indifference to human life.