Jun 21, 2024

As this is the end of the rewrite, or at least the end of what I've read previously, and that the points relating to development have more or less been discussed previously, I think this soon-to-be long comment will just be me praising you a bit and expressing some remarks that will mainly focus on typos, repetitions and descriptions. I'm aware that you are sometimes struggling with the flow of words and repetitions - since it was something you mentioned few time ago -  but it's precisely why I've chosen to delve a little deeper into this matter. As for why I'm telling you this rn rather than chapter/ chapter, I just thought it was more relevant to make a big point rather than spamming your comment section with every single repetition/ typo or "problem" with descriptions. In any case, I think I'll only quote a few here in order to illustrate what I'll mean.

Anyway, as I said previously, I'm glad that you've prioritized spicing up the content rather than taking some away - this allowing you among other things to add some suspense but more importantly to dwell a bit more on Lumière development/ accentuation of his personality -and you did well indeed. On that note, I think it was really well thought out to "switch" the focal of the narration in the first chapter from a psychological pov to a more general one. Thus, even though one still has a grasp of Lumière's vision of the world, the latter doesn't feel "too much" in that his scheming side "counterbalances" , if I may say, the whole. To an extent, it's simply nice to see that our mc is not solely reduced to "someone who hates the world".

Another really good point is that Lumière seems way more human, alive. Unless I'm wrong, I don't think that the " thought mechanism" was something you used a lot in faded scales or yhhm and that on the contrary, it's something you use a lot here, and that you've introduced a little more in the rewrite. I think it's a simple but effective mechanism in order to have a glimpse of his pov. To an extent, it also allowed you to "correct" his initial "lack of reaction" - so it's even more welcome.

Speaking of his reactions, I feel like the point here is not to say whether they're good or bad, but rather to say that they're fairly consistent with his personality and priorities. On the other hand, the constant warnings of approaching danger, the sensations of unease/ déjà vu allowed you to keep Lumière under pressure and make him more or less think/ reflect - which was again, well thought and interesting.

About the suspense,/ tension/ mystery , adding some through the character of Thomas was again, well thought out, as well as adding the two little boys from the monastery - which sort of accentuated the tragedy of the massacre.

More generally, the whole plot in these chapters seems smoother and less forced - especially concerning the confrontation of Lumière's pov and that of the others, which seems more natural. Having in mind what your "goals" regarding the rewrite were or how you wanted to portray the beginning,  I think you pretty well managed to achieve them all : points that needed to be more explicit are indeed more explicit, dynamics as well as the world building seem more clear and understandable - so I can only say well done and hope that you are also satisfied and proud of the result ^^

That being said, it's time for the remarks, from the more to the less relevant. 

About the little typos :

- chapter 5 about the part regarding the starvation of the dwindlers : " the constant struggr' , i think you meant struggle
- chapter 6, in the beginning of the encounter with the rat man : 'the placed a hand" , you probably omitted the word "man'
- chapter 10 : "Teight-dozen", superfluous T
- chapter 17 : " Instead of just losing consciousness, it seemed like he was also losing his lucidity instead', unless I'm mistaken, superfluous  'instead'  at the end.

About the repetitions:

Whilst they are a good way to emphasize certain elements and bring more impact, or simply an interesting stylistic choice,  repetitions can be what narrows your « descriptive potential » and, a fortiori, tarnishes both your beautiful prose and well-thought plot, if overused.

Distinction needs to be made between the "redundant" , occurring when reference is made to Lumière/ Father Benedict, and the "rare" ones, made on a more "descriptive" purpose, if I may say.

"Lumière opened the door to his room, shutting it behind him and sighing. After stepping inside his room, Lumière immediately noticed the chill that bit at his skin. The window to Lumière’s room was open" ( chap 9 ), "Lumière smiled warmly. Of course, Lumière didn’t bother to glance towards the far end of the hall, where Father Benedict’s room was. " ( chap 9 ),  these sentences ( for instance ),  to me, have a common thread : the repetition of our mc’s name, or in other words the rather close vicinity between "Lumière" employment - which is a pity knowing the rich panel of references regarding him " at your service"  such as the career liar, magician, illusionist, chestnut-haired boy, or simply he. A panel you can employ since you already indicated in the first place that Lumière was the subject, if i have to explain it roughly.

For instance, lets take:
 - this part  :  "Lumière smiled warmly. Of course, Lumière didn’t bother to glance towards the far end of the hall, where Father Benedict’s room was." Since you mentioned that Lumière was smiling, using his name again seems rather superfluous, and tends to "cut" the pace, making it fitful. Instead, simply using his pronouns to smooth the whole => "Lumière smiled warmly. Of course, HE didn’t bother to glance towards the far end of the hall, where Father Benedict’s room was."
- and this sentence ( chap 12 )  : Father Benedict and Sister Alinde looked at Lumière with faces full of surprise, but their elations nor their questions rang out to be soothed, as Lumière immediately adjourned to walk back to the monastery.  => Father Benedict and Sister Alinde looked at Lumière with faces full of surprise, but their elations nor their questions rang out to be soothed, as HE immediately adjourned to walk back to the monastery.

On the other hand, I think that repetitions also occurred because you put in two sentences what you could’ve simply put in one - Lumière being both their subject, his actions being rather simultaneous - , which made the description somewhat "cluttered". I'll come back to it later. Here, the point is perhaps to create a "smoother" connection between the two if possible either thanks to logical connectors, conjunctions or by simply "merging" the two propositions together through punctuation. To an extent, how sentences will merge together will strongly depend on how much impact you wanna give to them or simply how you wanna depict the information they contain.

Using the same part as a matter of fact, "Lumière smiled warmly. Of course, Lumière didn’t bother to glance towards the far end of the hall, where Father Benedict’s room was. He already knew that the Father was still awake, likely sifting through countless stacks of paperwork that were required of him by the main Cathedral in the middle borough."

Lets break it down briefly :  Lumière is smiling and not glancing at the Father's room BECAUSE  he knows THE LATTER ( this word is also important but more in terms of repetition, since you mentioned that it was "the Father Benedict's room", using "Father" again seems superfluous or a bit repetitive ) is still awake bc of work. "Because" basically embodies the "link" between the last 2 sentences,and  how you choose to "link" them will influence how the 2 will be perceived.

Here, the point was to tell/emphasize that Father Benedict was working late, so rather than using a "." that seems to cut the pace, why not use a ":" ? If the point wasn't to emphasize it as much, then " for/because" or present participle ( knowing ), is a good way to both link and smooth the whole.
=> Lumière smiled warmly. Of course, HE didn’t bother to glance towards the far end of the hall, where Father Benedict’s room was, [ FOR/: he knew] / [ KNOWING ] that [ THE LATTER ] / [AINSWORTH] was still awake, likely sifting through countless stacks of paperwork required of him by the main Cathedral in the middle borough.

As for the repetitions used for a more "descriptive" purpose, I think the problem is the same: most of the time, these appear when you describe the same action twice in a row when a certain action relates to the same thing/place, or simply when the mention of certain actions seems "superfluous" and, while relevant in isolation, clutters up the narrative.

Lets take this sentence , "Lumière opened the door to his room, shutting it behind him and sighing. After stepping inside his room, Lumière immediately noticed the chill that bit at his skin. The window to Lumière’s room was open, letting the midnight air seep in."

Firstly, besides the "Lumière" and "room" repetitions 3 times in a row ;-; , what is happening ? While entering his room our mc noticed that its window was open, which likely implied that someone had snuck in.

Since you've already set the scene by saying that Lumière was entering his room, was it really necessary to specify later that he was walking inside "Lumière's room" and that it was "Lumière's room window" that was open ?  Similarly, in the first sentence, our mc opens his bedroom door, closes it and sighs. In essence, there's nothing wrong with that, just that the way it's portrayed somehow comes across as robotic, whereas the latter is rather simultaneous. So why not take some advantage of it? 1/2

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jun 10, 2024

What can drive someone to become a murderer?

Phrenologists will say that the cause lies within the skull's physiognomy - this idea of "predisposition" here will echoe perhaps someone's ability to feel powerful emotions like Despair for Lumière -, Determinists will argue that some are born to commit murder - here it may refer to the concept of Fate, a certain inevitability or the Sinner's conspiracy- while followers of the Inter-psychology 's doctrine will suggest, among other things, that Crime is a path that one chooses to take as a result of an "invention/imitation" logic- the idea being that one are constantly seeking to improve their way of life and to do so they will invent a whole series of “means”, which will be reproduced by others if they prove conclusive =>  a bit like Lumière in a way, who 's now bound by  this contract in order to achieve his Objectives.

Speaking of objective, there's another theory I find interesting to apply here, which is that of “deviance”. According to the latter, people become “deviant” (in this case, sinners, heretics or others) when they are unable to reconcile the objectives culturally accepted by society with the means the latter gives them to achieve them . Here, perhaps one of those objectives is to seek the sun ,or change the world. Unfortunately the upper social classes being the only ones to have access to these means, the lower ones will be more likely to deviate by developing more or less recommendable alternatives, or by being “corrupted” by evils entities. On that note, I don't really think that the upper classes are totally spared from such a phenomenon in that greed or lust for power, for instance, could just as easily make them prone to madness/ "corruption".

On the other hand, strong emotions - anger, resentment, passion - “noble” objectives - a chivalrous spirit, survival - the nature of the victim - a “monster” - can lead someone to take another's life , or at least legitimize such an act in their eyes. In this case, however, Lumière was neither under the monster's direct threat, nor in a situation where his survival depended on him defending himself =>  he could've simply run for his life.

I find this interesting because it "opens the door" to a whole range of reflections on how far someone is prepared to satisfy their own goals and interests, at what point is one man's life worth more than another's, what makes it more valuable, etc., a bit like a Trolley problem - so I can't wait to see how did you approach this point, if you ever chose to do so.

Finally, it always seems easier to legitimize one's actions - killing someone - when the latter is devoid of humanity, a simple bloodthirsty monster. I think it may echo to what we've talked about in faded scales about the “husband”/the proximity between the executioner and their victim, so I won't really dwell on it for now.

In any case, from the most powerful leaving the poorest to their fate to our career liar who has just taken a life, everyone is more or less implicitly a murderer - their hands being more or less implicitly stained with blood. In the same way, to an extent the most “human” individuals are often the greatest monsters - " man is  a wolf to man" after all.

Side note : if Lumière is really driven to kill, perhaps he'll choose to kill only the most "monstrous" people - according to their cruelty, misdeeds etc... It could be a way of toning down the madness inherent to this act.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jun 06, 2024

To:GoneSoSoon

Code geass and Dune inspirations ? awesome

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jun 05, 2024

3 rules govern the validity of a contract: the necessary assent of the parties, their capacity to contract and, finally, its lawful and certain content.

The parties' consent must necessarily be free - devoid of any constraint - , enlightened - the parties must be fully aware of the benefits and risks of the commitment - and not vitiated. The vices of consent include dolus, i.e. the fact that one party obtains the other's consent by deception or lies - and isn't magic the best "tool" to achieve such a thing ?

Knowing that The Sinner is more or less linked to the practice of magic, then Lumière's encounter is probably neither the product of simple coincidence nor bad luck. Indeed, thanks to magic one can control the "Heart" to  make it act according to their will but also create all kinds of "coincidences" to drive someone's fate to a certain outcome. In any case, the key is to make people believe that their actions are the product of their own volition.

Then, the purpose of such an act was, perhaps, to make Lumière believe that on the one hand this contract was his only way out, the only possible solution for his Problems while exploiting his weakness- his sin Despair. In this way, that encounter is merely a mirror image of what happened in the theater :  mother and daughter remain the victims, and only the monster changes, with Lumière becoming a mere spectator in spite of himself. At the same time, our mc's "ability"  to contract is more or less impaired and inhibited by such a feeling and urgency. On the other hand, to consider Lumière as a potential contractor is to make him understand/ believe - that he is special, blessed. At the same time, such an idea is reinforced by the fact that such an offer is a bestowment, a blessing, that only those of a certain worth can receive.

Then, in the face of such benefits, the repercussions seem derisory : the risk - gift - is somehow worth to be taken.

The content of a contract is licit- ne pas déroger à la loi but since there is no Law here it does not really matter - and certain when explicit reference is made to its object, i.e. what the parties are contracting for. Knowing that words fly away and writings remain, it's always more profitable to bury it within paper, thus preventing either party from reneging on its commitments or modifying x or y clause. Unfortunately, the only remnant of Lumière's and the god's commitment is this bloodstain on the empty parchment - the promises made remain mere illusions, and the way is clear for any subsequent modification or addition of further clauses.

Nevertheless, considering the dependence this power may have on our mc in the long term, and simply the fact that he's bound by blood, I don't think he'll be able to get rid of it so easily - unless, perhaps, at the cost of his life ? But then, what will drive a "survivor" to kill oneself ? Madness perhaps ? Maybe there is another use of the "persona" 🤔

As for the contract's content itself, the bestowal of power and its counterpart, I think the "counterpart"  is to be understood both under the terms "repercussion " ( what it implies for Lumière ) and Claim/ equivalent ( what it brings to the god : perhaps an accumulation of madness in order to descend upon the world or something like that ).

Since Despair is based on Lumière's Sin, the greater it is, the more powerful he will be. As the two chapters have shown, there are several way of triggering such a feeling. Among them, I think, is the constant ( this word is important ) need to lie, to deceive those he loves - if he ever chooses to keep this agreement a secret. Overall, the thing is that everything can be a source of despair and by extension potential madness - making him more prone to lose control, hence the creation of several personas. It does make sens.

Still, I wonder what will drive him to " plan" such a stratagem, and to an extent how far he will be able to deceive himself if he is aware of the secret behind this " trick". At the same time, there may also be external triggers, probably akin to the god's Claim, making Lumière's life even more painful and increasing his despair.

As for the benefits of such a bestowment, I think these will crescendo until they reach a certain climax - when “reality” catches up with our mc. During this period, the latter will be important enough to mitigate the negative effects, its limits and repercussions - a bit like the effect of a “novelty” on everyday life, or the power of the feeling of finally being able to change things, the power of hope. In any case, the higher Lumière will rise towards the Sun, the greater his despair and the harder his fall, I fear.

Overall, the “validity/ nullity" of the contract itself doesn't really matter ( actually perhaps it does to an extent ), I just thought it was interesting to analyze this chapter through the prism of contract law. Anyway, in any case I feel like our mc lost so much more than what he gained : his Freedom.

Side note 1: knowing that each bestowment given correlates to someone's most innate Sin, I wonder what the others may be. I feel that those may be more or less linked to each person's desire to survive and, its opposition to the principles of the church. Then there might be sins relating to the hunger, greed, avidity or something like that.
side note 2 : if the Sinner pathway is a pathway among many, I wonder if there are such things as Heretic or Blasphemer's

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Jun 04, 2024

First of all, i didn't mention it back then but i'm so glad that you prioritized “spicing up” some of the content rather than simply taking some away, this allowing you to return to your usual vivid and subtle description style to better highlight your ideas or simply the way you want to portray them ^^

Anyway, that being said, this new depiction of our career liair unravel greatly Lumière scheming - and maybe a bit mischievous- side, the latter playing on the credulity of the audience in order to earn some “additional” retribution, and his magic tricks being mere lies. To this end, knowing what he originally wanted to become a magician for, I find it interesting that his purpose in making others smile is kinda “corrupted” by money in some way - a bit like the economic/social situation in Leiden corrupts the "noblest" souls to an extent.

Overall in a place devoided of humanity, that even the Law has deserted, the only morality left is that of money.

On the other hand, such a part of his personality is counterbalanced by the shame within his heart. A shame embodying his “human” side : both its moral “goodness” - Lumière being unable to look once again at the little girl in the audience he deceived - and its "weakness" in that it's precisely the fact that he's nothing more than a mere human that prevents Lumière from coming to the aid of the monster's prey. Indeed, in the end, this “magician” is nothing more than a career liar - as he has always pointed out - whose tricks are nothing but illusions: results of carefully thought-out stratagems. More simply, up until now, Lumière's “magic” has only been about “deceiving” others, not “saving” them in the true sense of the word. Something that he might have the opportunity to change, given the murmurs' offer, who knows ?

Such a contrast is also well highlighted by the performance itself. To this end, approaching the performance from a point of view a little more detached from Lumière's allows the reader to become part of the galvanized crowd, only to realize latter the deception behind such a mesmerizing  through our mc's more in-depth pov. In a way, it is a bit like taking a glimpse at rhe other side of the curtain. It's even more interesting and intriguing knowing that sometimes the “magician” himself doesn't even know the origin of his tricks. Is this a highlight of his "memory loss" or a way of accentuating the discrepancy between the different visions of the act? In any case, it's well thought-out ^^.

Another thing I find interesting is the way in which the hierarchy/"clash" between social classes is represented both by the “domination”  the Madame exerts over Lumière in that she is always “above” him in some way both physically speaking and in terms of wealth  and by their different concerns (the silk glove itself vs. earning enough money to survive).

Side note 1: it's good to see Lumière reacting a little more, it makes him more human and "easier" to understand
Side note 2 : this performance also gives a good glimpse of his resentment towards churches/ upper classes, his smile and why it is adorning his face so often
Side note 3:  the fact that the dove, a symbol of peace, is killed by the monster ties in with the idea that there will always be sort of irreparable "obstacle" between people and the Sun. To an extent, if even Peace can't reach it and "taste" the Freedom of Life, will Lumière ever be able to, and if so, at what cost ? That's food for thoughts
Side note 3 : I was looking forward to this rewrite and, even though it's only the first chapter, I'm not disappointed so far, it's a good start ^^

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

May 20, 2024

He's so sugoi desu

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

May 20, 2024

This story reminded me of a Robert Desnos' poem about a flower - a myosotis - unable to tell a story because of its lack of memories, which is a bit ironic considering that this flower is a symbol of remembrance - at least that's what I thought when I first read it.  

Anyway, here Yuujin is a bit like this myosotis. Wearing these special glasses, he is the embodiment of Remembrance, "collecting" the remnants of his comrades' past - the foundation of a future friendship with them. Unfortunately, when it's his turn to tell his story - his own memories - or simply remember others, he's unable to do so. 

Firstly, I think our mc has always been more or less reluctant to confide in others, both because of his personality and recent arrival in Japan. To this end, even if such a part of his personality was a sort of backdrop, I was glad that you made it explicit at some point through a deeper questioning or simply an increase in his unhappiness - otherwise it would have tended to be a little too overshadowed by the conflict resolution/development of the rest of the plot. And then, more simply, because his memory was stolen by 99-san, those being a means of extending his powers/longevity. 

This little plotwist was indeed very welcome, allowing us to delve a little deeper into Rena's development, uncovering a mystery that had been there from the start, but above all, introducing a new problem-solving mechanism - what's more, adopting a different pov. 

Not that the initial " solving motif" itself ( using the glasses => reliving a memory  => helping others => creating a friendship ) was bad , in that as one reads it was interesting to wonder what event in the past had led  a character to have such a demeanor and what object symbolized them. However, a little "twist" is always welcome to break the "monotony" or simply to "surprise a bit" ^^. Also, such a thing has more or less helped to answer a few comments I may have had while reading  so I'm glad you did so. 

The only "negative" point I could raise would be the police's rather "cool/open minded" reaction to such a "paranormal" event, but on the other hand, I think it fits in rather well with the "light-hearted" atmosphere you've been portraying since the beginning of the story. So, while making them more doubtful or reluctant would have been interesting or allowed the exploration of a whole other "act" where the characters have to convince them or whatever., perhaps it wasn't a welcome development - or just me wanting to read more of this part. Also, What's more, given the contest's "restrictions" I think you were more or less limited in some way. 

For the same reasons, I think the character development was also sufficient and once again consistent with the overall mood of the story - so I won't really dwell on it. Of course, there's always a way to nuance the latter a little more, why not make a character (apart from Rena) more hostile or even simply opposed to Yuujin's desire to help them, or why not make the glasses prove powerless to help someone and thus put the MC in difficulty and confront him in some way with his "addiction" to the glasses. To an extent, Rena kinda embodied these possibilities. 

Overall, it was a pleasant story to read ^^

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

0

Apr 21, 2024

"What we accomplish on the inside changes the reality on the outside." ( Otto Rank ) sums up the dragon's words, or how "reality" is - ultimately - solely in the eye of the beholder.

In theory, the perception of such a concept is not immutable, fluctuating - "actualizing" - with new feelings, experiences and interactions. Nevertheless, for a vagrant whose only basis of normality is a willless appearance filled by the remnants of her dreams and hopes, such a process is not easy for Aelem. To a certain extent, it could even be argued that she is a spectator who cannot see, in that her Will is a kind of "glasses" enabling her only to observe what makes it "stronger". This dynamic is even more important given that her life boils down to its survival.

More generally, to her, "living" has always been a matter of "will", and "existing" has always been guided by the "will to live" - or, in other words, that everyone exists because they want to live. Thus, how can she understand that one might want to die, face up to the "inevitable" she so dreads?

While one wants to turn their back on the inevitable, the other wants to "embrace" it : two repulsive forces that can only hurt each other.

I find it interesting that in order to live, Aelem must somehow "kill" a part of herself. To this end, I wonder how she will manage to "kill" something that "doesn't exist", the dragon's will being only something abstract, thoughts without proper meaning - an echo of the past.

Perhaps to make it "exist" she will first have to name it, hence the "importance" of the dragon's name ?

On a purely material level, it would be enough to remove the runes engraved in our mc's heart, which are necessary to contain the dragon's will. However, as this would be a risky operation, Aelem's chances of survival would be reduced, and there's no guarantee that she'd be willing to take such a risk. The second option would be her death, which would inevitably mean the death of the dragon as a whole. In that case why the latter enjoined her to survive and end "his" life, not hers? This implies that the two are more or less distincts ?

On a purely abstract level, "killing" refers, I think, more to making the dragon's will "disappear", either by dominating it with a stronger will (Aelem's), "transforming" it or killing it within the dream world, the latter being the only place where Aelem can "see" it .

On the other hand, idk, I feel like "killing" doesn't necessarily refer to "taking life away" but more to "freeing" and again there are so many ways to free "someone".

side note 1: The fact that the dragon is similar to a human being in every way supports the idea that one only becomes a monster when they are perceived as such. side note 2: in the same way as Aelem, who carries the dragon's will, Omen carries his father's "Will" - will that the latter engraved in his son being with the death of his mother. It's, again, an interesting parallel. side note 3 about Aelem's father's motivations:
- those could follow the same purpose - even though his Will might be different - as Omen's father's
- the fact that the dragon trusted him so much shows that they had a close relationship ? So maybe he did all this so that the latter would protect his daughter? ( But I'm not convinced ) or maybe he "sacrificed" his daughter because he wanted his "friend" to go on living?
side note 4 : to come back to killing the dragon's will, I also wonder if this wouldn't follow a "give-and-take" mechanic ? in that to make it disappear, Aelem would have to give something equivalent to the Will's death ( a bit like a compensation ) ?
side note 5 : maybe "killing" is just what qualify an agreement between Aelem and the dragon's will
Side note 6 : There was nothing like a discussion in a field of white dahlias - hopes for the future and symbols of rebirth - to rekindle Aelem's hopes.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Apr 19, 2024

"Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done" (  Lord Hewart ) sets " an appearance standard" . In other words, "judges and decision-makers more widely cannot hear a case if, from the perspective of reasonable and informed observer, their impartiality might reasonably appear to be compromised" .  On the other hand, when  judges hands down a decision, they have to justify it (using legal arguments), not only to make it understandable, but above all to prevent justice from becoming too "arbitrary". 

Then, applied to the story, Nephilim more widely cannot hear a case ( qualify a Leviathan as a monster and order to kill them ) if, from the perspective of reasonable and informed observer ( the mankind/ people of Velan ), their impartiality might reasonably appear to be compromised" . On the other hand, the legal argument they'll use  to substantiate such a decision will be the History. 

The conflict between Nephilim and Leviathans being ancient, apart from a few "remnants" of the two enemies, there is nothing else except reminiscences.     . Therefore,  History is nothing more than a malleable collection of memories that one can narrate at will to suit their "purpose" ( legitimate their actions) or the vision they want to impose on "observers", who  are supposed to appreciate their impartiality but ultimately  cannot achieve this, being reduced to mere "spectating eyes that cannot see" - the only basis of information they have being a "distorted" one.

So, for people who have no other basis of normalcy, the one of the victor might only be the right one.  No matter how much the Nephilim's clothes are stained with the blood of innocents, their declaration - decision- will always be seen as fair because it's legitimate,  and the "observers" trust in them can only grow with time.

In law (at least in European law), there are 2 types of "impartiality": objective impartiality and subjective impartiality. To put it simply, subjective impartiality refers to the judge's convictions and ethics ( their mindest ) , while objective impartiality encompasses  the "judge's action" - the means they use to carry out their duties => rendering justice. Here, in both cases, it's impossible for observers to say whether the Nephilim are impartial or not ( Is it really peacekeeping that guides their choice, or simply hatred ), as their behavior is considered "normal". 

More generally, History's only  meaning is the one of those  who are in a position to impose their own - e.g the Nephilim. To return to the concept of names, observers all have the same criterias - criterias implicitly imposed by the Nephilim in order to legitimize them + criteria to which the latter provide the conditions for them to be fulfilled. So, to an extent, I think that as long as the Narrator manages to be perceived as "right", he can be trusted. And the Narrator will be able to maintain such an appearance until an another - more legitimate-looking - History comes into being and is powerful enough to impose itself. ( Omen's vision and, more generally, his "journey", which would symbolize the development of a new meaning of History). 

  
( Middle side note 1 :  Such reasoning applies reciprocally to the Leviathans
Middle side note 2 : in other words I think I just paraphrased what you explained the other day )  

This chapter highlights well the collision between the two visions of History as told by the two enemies. To the Nephilim, finding the dragon's name would be a way of """""gaining the upper hand"""" over it and not transforming. To the Leviathans, finding the name would be a way of freeing them from their cage, and the story told by the Nephilim would just be a way of attracting the Leviathans to kill them more easily - if I've understood correctly. 

Having in mind everything we've talked about before, several " possible conclusions" ( not all of them of course ) are possible :

- both versions can be considered as truths or lies.

- About the dragon's version:  having one of his purpose  in mind ( taking over Aelem ) saying such a thing would be tantamount to making the inevitable real (the death of her Hope: Aelem will never be able to live a normal woman's life, as she's destined to wander/turn into a monster). Then she can no longer put off grieving with her wish - and must face up to it. On the other hand, as you explained, the dragon is also a thrill seeker, a remnant of a will, a spectator who can only manipulate, and  being a Leviathan is the "last act" of "its" existence, so "it" might """take advantage"""" of it in every possible way. ( On this point, I can't put my thoughts into words but it does make sense )

- I don't think the "solution" lies in naming the dragon itself, because as we've seen since the beginning of the story naming is a "personal" thing, with a meaning that's specific to each person - like the husband's one for instance . Here, the dragon's name means "freedom" for both "it" and Aelem, but this "freedom" has a different meaning for each of them: living a normal life and freeing themselves. In other words, their purpose is different. So, does " being free" inevitably imply imprisoning the other, or is it possible for both of them to be free? Is the wish to be free of a dead person, labeled as a monster, worth less than that of a human? Conversely, is the wish to live of a mere mortal worth less than the wish of a dragon who has been able to rival the gods ? In other words ( perhaps ) , as you said, for the one who is already dead, yet still live , would one seek to live or would one seek to live ? 
More generally, I think the answer to these questions results from a certain "agreement" between the two (a bit like Omen and Aelem agreeing on their respective names and meanings) - an agreement whose form can vary.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Apr 12, 2024

If feeding the hungry is what separates a butcher from an executioner, and bringing harm  is what separates a protector from a husband, then, ultimately, what separates a monster from a human - two individuals who seek to "live in peace" and who won't hesitate to bring harm to achieve such a purpose ?

From "Appearance" to "the number of lives they've taken" or  "the animosity their hearts may harbor",  all reasons can be stated, but I don't think any of them will be really relevant in that everyone from the Paragon to the simple inhabitant of Velan can be considered a "monster" to a certain extent. The scales covering the vermilion woman's body would make her more monstrous than Omen's father, who killed his wife in front of his son;  the hands of both Leviathans and Nephilim are stained with blood however one will remain more monstrous than the other - they purpose being "more legitimate"  - etc....

Overall, since everyone's eyes are subjective mirrors, even the most "human" of individuals can be reflected as a "monster" . Then perhaps the common denominator of these mirrors would be "humanity" or, in other words, "showing humanity" - be it compassion, kindness or sensitivity? But then again, everyone is more or less sensitive to these components implying disparate qualifications with different meanings- a bit like the system of names.

And "Nomination" implies "commitment".  In the case of "monster" and "human", " to commit" would refer " killing"  : since a monster's life is of lesser value - harmful - than that of a human, every "monsters" deserve to be killed. In other words, to name one a monster is akin to dehumanize them. Such a dynamic is applied by the Paragons, who are unable to name  someone either a monster or a human by themselves (either because of their training, history, habit or simply under the influence of Harbinger) thus "blindly" follow the orders and qualifications of Omen's father. ( until the golden haired boy decides to create a new one by wanting to stop "killing").

Protecting the people of Velan, they may act as "protectors", but they also bring harm, just as a"husband" might. They both care, they both harm, the only difference being that in the case of the "husband" it's the person they care about who suffers that pain.

As the staging of Aelem's death in the town - with Lace and Howl's reactions - or simply the fact that Omen cares about her showed, it's hard to hurt someone when that someone is individualized, when they are given meaning.

In the end, it can be said that what makes someone's life more precious than another is simply the meaning one chooses to give it - and to a certain extent, one won't hesitate to turn into a "monster" to save that "life". And isn't such a dynamic the crux of the Trolley's problem ?

Side note 1 :  the outstretched hand, Aelem's invitation, is a bit like an invitation to cross the fence for Omen, or at least a 'materialization' of support to help him cross. Given his reaction, it's as if he'd finally "put words" to something he'd been waiting for.
Side note 2 : the concept of "humanity" could be linked to the one of "lifeline" mentioned earlier, the latter encompassing both aspects of subjectivity and objectivity.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Apr 11, 2024

"We are guardians, but also a bunch of miserable wretches that are constantly fighting against threats and madness." ( lotm ), I think this quote applies well to the Paragons - guardians of humanity fighting Danger in all its forms - as to Aelem - a prey to two different purposes: her own and that of the dragon. 

So in this maze of repulsive forces, their only salvation is a breadcrumb to humanity, their own humanity - flowers for the Paragons, "normalcy" for Aelem. With all its symbolism in mind, there was simply nothing better than the flower to symbolize the butterfly's lifeline - a breadcrumb personified by Aelem, the Hyacinth, in that it is alongside her that Omen's humanity is most vivid. 

Beyond that, what's interesting here is that what makes this lifeline solid is not so much its sturdiness or durability - as, for example, stone or stainless steel might be - but the symbolism it encompasses: happy memories, a wish. 

Indeed, in addition to its beauty, a flower is also something very fragile that needs to be protected if it is not to lose its beauty and wither rapidly. To an extent, in line with the concept of inevitability/individualization, a flower is destined to wither when one picks it - when one individualizes it - in order to keep it close to them, so protecting it would mean trying to postpone this inevitability as far as possible. On the other hand, wouldn't picking it mean becoming an "executioner" in a way? Such a logic must surely be nuanced. 

I think that the dynamic of "picking a flower" for Omen refers more to the fact of marrying Aelem, individualizing her completely, and the responsibilities that this entails, not so much protecting her from others as protecting her from himself (in that, if need be, he would, according to him, be the mirror of his father and the potential harm he could inflict on her will be what makes her fade). 

On the other hand, no matter whether it's picked or not, "the Flower that once has bloomed forever dies". "Die" can take many forms. Aside from Aelem's death, I wonder if it could simply refer to her no longer wishing to be Omen's flower. I just have a bad omen, so to speak, regarding "I'll be by your side as long as you wish". Aelem may no longer wish to be Omen's flower for various reasons, but if so, will Omen accept her decision ? On the other hand, such a sentence illustrates the fact that our Butterfly Knight is always a little reluctant to commit to her, or at least to acknowledge that he "wants" to do something for himself,  in that the commitment to stay by her side underlies her wish. 

Overall, both Aelem and Omen are each other's lifeline, in that they keep each other from going "mad" and reveal their "good sides". What's more, no matter what the person is named,  don't their eyes contain the most beautiful mirror of all - one in which they are reflected simply as they are ? Then Omen's eyes simply reflect Aelem, a beautiful woman, just as her eyes reflect a magnificent painting not too similar to the Harbinger of the Paragon. 

Because they both refer to "the announcement of an event", "Omen" and "Harbinger" often tend to be put on the same level, to be considered synonyms or, more generally, "reflections". Such a perception is portrayed here in that both Omen and his father share the same blood, perhaps have certain similar physical characteristics, or simply walk the "same path". 

However, one difference remains, at least to me.

"Harbinger" is on a more concrete level in that "it" announces, declares, something that is going to happen - just as Omen's father announced to the golden haired boy that he is "the Omen of a powerful future". Nevertheless, this declaration is vague, imprecise - in other words,  we know something is going to happen, but not "how" is it going to happen (a bit like clouds announcing a storm, but we don't know whether it will be violent or not). "Omen on the other hand, is more abstract, and refers more to something that can happen. This "event" can be positive or negative, depending on the meaning one gives it. To Omen's father, Omen is the omen of his Will, to the people of Velan he is the omen of "peace", to Aelem the omen of a life she's always dreamed of. 

In a way, Omen has always sought his meaning in what he reflected in others, or more simply in what they "declared" about him - acting according to their words, disguising himself sometimes as a doll, sometimes as a knight or a vassal: in anything that might reflect in the "mirror" something other than the image of his father, whom he so abhors.

Nevertheless, one can disguise themselves as anyone, but they remain ultimately "themselves". Then "crossing the fence" is not simply a matter of flying off the flower on which he's sitting, of breaking out of the cocoon in which he's trapped, but also of agreeing to look at his own reflection in "the mirror" and declare what it means to him - in other words, whether this "Omen" he sees  is a bad one or a good one.

Side note : I didn't dwell on it but I really like the fact that this chapter "puts into words" concepts that have been more or less implicitly depicted since the beginning of the story, such as fence, inevitability, the meaning of names, the notion of purpose etc....

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Apr 02, 2024

To:GoneSoSoon

I fully agree that such processes are "normal" for human beings. However, the manner, degree, frequency, and subjects to which they are attached are inherent to each individual - age, experience, maturity, simple tastes or emotions are all influencing factors.  How "inconsistent" or "consistent" your characters appear will depend in part on how you've portrayed them throughout the story.

Underlying such processes/changes is always a more or less implicit/meaningful thread that will make the whole thing consistent in the eyes of the reader.

Applied to your work, it's precisely this "common thread" that keeps your characters coherent. In other words, it makes them consistent in their "inconsistency," in that there is a common thread behind each of their thinking and motivations that the reader can graps to understand why they can sometimes be so different.

This "common thread", this basis, can be clearly explained (e.g. the influencing factors: Omen's or Agreste's past, Kitsch's aspirations) or more abstract like your characters' different worldviews or different concepts (being a Leviathan/self-love/mask/commitment etc...).

Generally speaking, what makes a character consistent is that they follow their "own" line of conduct. However, the latter is not immutable, nor is their state of mind, so they may sometimes show inconsistency in order to change or simply to try new things. But isn't that human nature to adopt such behaviors? It will always be possible to relate your characters' thinking or motivations to this question's answer.

More generally, I think that as long as you manage to tie such processes to one or more threads or some kind of reason, your characters will always be consistent, and their inconsistency will always be justified, even if the latter seems "too much" because it will be for the sake of something.  And so far, you've always managed to do that. Let me give you 2/3 examples :
- Omen: his main thread is "putting out grief" - to do so he will adopt several "antagonistic" purposes, which will even end up contradicting his other threads (e.g. empty doll), but does this make him inconsistent? No. Why? Because there's another thread, the butterfly's one, which justifies the fact that he's always reaching out to others, even though he wants to isolate himself. The fact that he's attached to Aelem doesn't contradict the one that he wants to be an empty doll, because Omen is first and foremost a human being (and you've highlighted some spontaneous emotions throughout the story, so the reader implicitly understands that he's not that empty, or that he's starting to get attached to her).
- Aelem on the fact that she refuses to isolate herself: running away with Omen may seem incoherent, insofar as the purpose he has given her partly encompasses everything she longed for. Nevertheless, there's a thread running through her story from the beginning: "normalcy," and for someone who's been forced to live as a vagrant, there is nothing more 'normal' than wanting to live surrounded, in society. What makes her choice a consistent one is that she has stuck to her "line of conduct". It doesn't necessarily mean she's right, or that such a choice is necessarily the right one, but it's consistent with the character you've presented from the beginning of the story.
- Agreste: The choice he was about to make at the end of YHHM was not inconsistent regarding the meaning of his common thread.

On that note, what also contributes to a good reading experience is that your characters make REALISTIC choices, and not necessarily good ones right away (e.g., when Agreste first spoke to Lihal) - which again, I think, makes your characters consistent with your desire to "humanize" them as much as possible ( after all it's part of being human to make mistakes and bad decisions).  More generally, it's good to see your characters in trouble, and not having everything handed to them on a platter because of their "role" in the story. 

Finally, what keeps your characters consistent is simply the fact that you take the time to introduce one "concept" or "thread" before introducing another. This gives the reader plenty of time to come to grips with what's at stake. In addition, since these concepts echo each other, it again helps the reader to connect the various decisions and thoughts to make them consistent, or to better understand the "inconsistencies".

Generally speaking, "inconsistency" is definitely something interesting to read. It makes your characters more human, and adds a little more unexpectedness to them and the story. In another way, it encourages reading by making one wonder about how an "inconsistency" can influence the rest of the plot.

Beyond that, how interesting an inconsistency will be depends to a large extent on two things: the way you present it in your story, and the state of mind of the reader.

From what I've read and what you've explained, you're more inclined to develop your characters' worldviews and dwell on the "psychological" effects of events on them. As a result, your characters are more likely to be inconsistent than if you were content to write very generic, "superficial" ones. In other words, the more in-depth you go with their development, the more likely they are to experience inconsistency.  Knowing your state of mind, it's a good thing, if not essential, to have inconsistencies.

The way you present the inconsistencies will have a lot to do with not making the reader feel like elements are coming out of nowhere or unwarranted in the middle of the story.

As for whether or not inconsistency is interesting to the reader, unfortunately, it's mostly a matter of taste. Some people prefer stories that get straight to the point, without too much psychological development and more rational choices for the characters rather than choices guided by their emotions, while others like more development, more "inconsistencies".

It will always be "too much" for one or "not enough" for another, so as long as it's "enough" for you, that's all that matters. 

In all objectivity, and as far as I can remember, I don't think I ever had the impression that your characters were "too" inconsistent in their thinking and motivations. On the contrary, this inconsistency has been part of their evolution or development - and I even think that so far you've found a balance (through worldbuilding, the importance you give to different facets of the characters at different moments in the story, the lessons they learn from their mistakes, etc.) that allows you to avoid doing "too much".On the other hand, the fact that "inconsistencies" don't just fit into the scheme of "I have a problem => the inconsistency is the solution to my problem => everything's for the best" can make them even more interesting to the reader, in that they are somehow "unexpected".

To give you a few examples of inconsistencies:
- If Omen's father becomes a blameless father overnight and comes to Omen in tears, apologizing without further explanation
 - people accepting Aelem overnight without explanation
the dragon gives Aelem his name for no reason in the next chapter
- Omen marries Aelem (at this point in the story), completely happy and fulfilled, whereas he was undecided 2 days before. In this case, I doubt that the "getting over his grief" thread will be enough to justify such behavior, at least not the way you've presented it + knowing how important every commitment, every name is to him ; unless you introduce another thread or find another explanation - but then you'll have to figure out how to introduce such a point without distorting what you've written so far.
- The only purpose that counts for Omen is to spend the rest of his life alongside Aelem, and the others are completely elided until the end.
- If you're portraying a very indecisive character, it would be inconsistent to see him make a clear decision unless you've dropped a few hints here and there before finally getting to the heart of the matter later.

To sum up:
- The common thread is definitely what makes your characters hold up to  this consistency while being "inconsistent". It can be diverse and varied, but it's essential if the reader is to understand what you're getting at.  I don't think it's necessarily about revealing everything at once, it's just about giving the right amount of informations, which you do well.
- You have to find a balance between the inconsistencies and their benefits for character development on the one hand, and how the story will "support" them on the other, what elements will respond to this or that problem, or how this or that concept will be introduced. Once that question is answered, the next step is to find the right time to introduce one concept rather than another, or if you want to integrate two, how would that be relevant, or would it be too much? Is this the right time in the story? Such a process is immediately apparent as one read and I think you're doing well
- Some characters will tend to be more inconsistents than others, but such a difference is not a problem, as it will be interesting for the reader to see how such opposite profiles work together.
- All means are good to make your story interesting to the reader, but the most important thing is that it remains interesting to you.
- Just as there are plenty of motivations or thoughts for characters to adopt, there are an infinite number of reasons why they might make such changes, and I think what's interesting for the reader isn't necessarily why your characters have changed their state of mind, but rather why they've adopted this state of mind and not another.

I hope these points are relevant enough to help you a little. Will keep this matter  in mind for the future just in case :)

I'm happy my comments are making you feel better in your own life in one way or another, they're here for that too. I hope everything will be okay for you

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Mar 30, 2024

“Nothing should be given a name, lest that very name transform it.” ( Virginia Woolf ), I think that such a line embodies well Omen mindest when it comes to relationships. Indeed, naming something is above all a way to declare the value it may have  - and from this "value"  stems a certain degree of attachment.

Then for a doll for whom nothing has its "own personal" meaning except what others declare, who always hides his attachment behind impersonal relationships, naming one by their name might hold the greatest value possible. From the outset, Omen had always seen Aelem as a human being, like everyone else; an ultimately impersonal point of view, devoid of individuality. Nevertheless, despite his desire for impassivity to curb his attachment, Omen began to individualize Aelem: little by little the vermilion woman was no longer a mere human to be protected, but Aelem, a person.

So Omen calling Aelem by her name is a way for him to declare that he now sees her as an individual, that she has a special meaning for him.  I think it's a very nice way of portraying Omen's feelings -  whether romantic or not - towards her. Moreover, if I remember correctly, "individuality" was a notion that's been around for a long time, both in the concepts of actors and in a line that Aelem once said - I can't remember its exact words, but it seems to me that it was akin to just seeing people as people before/ rather than individuals.

At the same time, the protean aspect of a name is illustrated by the notions of "clothing" and "intimacy".  Indeed, for Aelem, who lived apart from the world as a spectator of mores, "clothing" meant nothing more than a means of hiding her scales from the gaze of others, or simply of surviving. On the other hand, the very essence of intimacy being "private", such a notion could not have been something she could have caught a glimpse of by simply observing folks outside.

To an extent, it can be said that her scales represented something of the "intimacy" a "human" might have. Thus, her body as such had no particular significance for her - hence her behavior at the tailor's shop. On the other hand, her cogitating on whether or not the dress would fit her was our protagonist's way of living the life of a woman she so longed for.

Another interesting thing is the "Omen's proposal", which highlights two different life wishes: one wishing to get away from the world that "adores" him, and the other wishing to live in a world that demeans her.

It now remains to be seen whether Omen has made such an offer of commitment as Protector or Omen. I think the two "roles" were confused in that, on the one hand, "running away" is a way for him to escape the inevitable by finding a "real", meaningful, purpose alongside Aelem, but it's also a way of protecting the latter from possible reprisals, even if they do manage to find the dragon's name. In any case, there was something authentic about such a declaration, and I think that in a way Omen was allowing himself to dream, to wish,  and more generally, to think about a future devoid of inevitability.

However, Aelem's question pushed him into a certain introspection and brought him back to reality, or at least to his sad reality.

On the one hand, knowing that his problems matter to her means, more generally speaking, that his emotions, things that were of no value to anyone until now, matter to someone. On the other hand, sharing such burdens with her will imply exposing her to the inevitability he is dealing with, sharing his weaknesses, and making him vulnerable in some way.  In this way, they'll both be a "weakness" to each other and managing to protect themselves can be a perilous mission.

Accepting that one's problems become those of a loved one, even though it's an important step in commitment", can be frightening, as it can make them feel guilty for placing such a burden on the shoulders of someone whom they want both to protect from harm and to look their best. Nevertheless, despite such fear, I sincerely hope that Omen will manage to take such a step.

After all, burdens seem to be lighter when carried by two - and crossing the fence is easier when one can rely on a warm hand.

Side note : Your take on different subjects is something I do really appreciate about you. Besides it being interesting and thought provoking,  it is just nice to see such thorough reflection . Your pov is one of your greatest strength alongside your ability to subvert expectations - and these allow you to create both unique and elaborate plots that go beyond the genre to which they belong or the prejudices the latter might hold e.g. romances that aren't for the sake of love by exploring commitment, self love and characters' personnal struggles. I don't know if I mentioned it back then, but such a "line of conduct" was something I really loved in YHHM so I'm glad to see that you're "constant" with it, but even if you weren't, it won't be a problem. Just as writing allows people to approach new points of view and constantly push back the boundaries, it is above all a means of conveying their own - and those may be more or less similar to certain prejudices or déjà vu. I think there is nothing wrong with it as long as the story remains authentic. And being authentic in your own way, is again, something I appreciate about you. Reading is not only about hunting details ( unlike what my blocks of text might suggest lol ) it's also about catching a glimpse of your perception regarding certain matters and how you will make them your own. In the same way, to me,  your work isn't meaningful only because of the symbolism it contains, it's meaningful because of your "meaning" within it. And your meaning is something I find beautiful. Overall, I do not only love your stories because of their beautiful prose and details, I simply love them because you wrote them. When it comes to novels, you're an author I do genuinely appreciate - your work means a lot to me, so are you as well ^^

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1

Mar 26, 2024

Marriage is often seen as a seal upon two soul's desire to live eternally together, a means to declare their love towards each other. However, notwithstanding the beautiful symbolism it can hold, marriage remains a simple commitment and one can have many reasons to engage themselves. Then marriage is nothing more than a protean concept symbolizing for instance an exchange between two families, a mere component of normalcy.

To an extent, Death has always been Life's inevitability - everything is bound to disappear in one way or another. Then Mankind's main purpose would be to put off grief in the best way possible whether or not knowing if this conclusion - which is certain -  is about to happen soon.  To that end,  "love"," hatred", "normalcy", are so many plays- purposes/distractions - where one can act and distract themselves but more importantly give their life the best- or the most- meaning possible.

Both in its "classic" conception (which Aelem's pov may represent) and in that of Gaelis, the key points and underlying ideas of marriage remain the same: distraction, commitment, meaning and ( perhaps) love. However while the former implies a certain " freedom" in that spouses can decide which meaning they want to give to their common existence, the latter embodies a more narrow purpose exclusively death-centred  in that the inevitability  is like a heavier sword of Damocles, hanging over the spouse's heads. Such a conception brings another role in the play : the executionner - which I think embodies pretty well one of the butterfly's effect of commitment.

To an extent, given her nature in the eyes of others - a monster - and the dragon inside her, Aelem's execution is something of an inevitability. So for Omen, as for her in a way, the marriage will be the last line of defense before the certain conclusion - a way of buying a little time to find the dragon's name, or some other solution.

In any case, whatever the different "purposes" that may be at play for our Butterfly Knight, marriage is a kind of inevitability.

As a "protector", it is his "duty"( purpose ) to protect Aelem from Death as best as he can. However, in this case, the commitment takes on a more impersonal dimension in that Aelem remains simply a "vassal", "someone" to be protected devoid of name, meaning. So, if he were to take on the role of " executionner", killing her would certainly be a failure of his mission, but it would be less painful because of the distance between them. On the other hand,  such a failure can be seen as a blessing in disguise, in that killing her means "saving" humanity - it's one life for another.

As a "lover", marrying her means preventing himself from losing someone he cares about. It expresses a certain attachment, a certain recognition of his feelings for her, acknowledging her as a "weakness". Then the vermilion woman is no longer a "vassal" but Aelem, a woman he loves: the commitment becomes more personal. Killing her will not simply mean the failure of his mission as a knight, but a repetition of the past, meaning that he once again has been unable to protect someone he cares about.

To me the golden haired boy is a bit like a nesting doll, each of its components representing one of the role he's playing such as a knight, an empty doll , a protector and somehow the closer you get to the center of it the more personal the roles will be until you get to "Omen", a human being, who he truly is. However just as this role can help the butterfly hatch, the "executionner" can also become a part of the nesting doll that won't open anymore - another cocoon preventing our butterfly from fully hatching.

Side note 1 : such a vision of marriage embodies well the concept of shouldering death for the sake of others

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

0

Mar 22, 2024

2/3 ""little"" developments I want to add : 

- about Omen's "purposes" : At first sight, a " distraction" is supposed to prevent someone to think about something. Then,  applying "strictly", each "purposes" Omen will tend to follow - consciously or not, because of his nature, being a butterfly symbolically speaking- ( e.g shouldering death, helping aelem living a normal life, becoming a doll ) are supposed to distract him, prevent him of thinking about this inevitability approaching inexorably. However, here, their crux remains vivid and even more pregnant , as his father and what he embodies for our Knight is in a way what is preventing him from getting "fully" distracted ( On that note , I think that's Aelem might be, to Omen,  the one that comes closest to this concept of "distraction" as the latter tends to truly "forget" - e.g experiencing spontaneous/ genuine emotions -   even if it's for a short amount of time. ). Indeed, just as becoming an empty doll allows him to feel nothing and put grief aside, it allows him to distance himself from others to prevent his father from hurting them. Shouldering death is a way to protect others, but it's also the only means his father ever taught him and this will remain "the only one" as long as the latter is alive ( nevertheless, this point could be nuanced with the fact that Omen usually don't kill/use his powers etc.. ). In the end, I kinda feel like his father remain a sort of persistent background pattern . Then, like a butterfly trapped within a spiderweb, the more he will try to escape, the more he will get stuck and so the grief will be. Like all roads lead to Rome,  all paths he'll choose will lead him to "the inevitable" => the center of the labyrinth he's been trapped into since he was a kid. Hatred, resilience, denying, gloominess, there are so many ways to put off grief, and choosing the right "name" for those feelings/ means can be a harsh thing to do, even more when time is running out.
Grief is a flower that never truly fades, however one can choose to bathe it in tears or in the warmth of a genuine smile. There aren't bad or good choices but only one that will allow them to move forward - and, whatever the outcome may be, I truly hope that Omen will be able to move forward, to look at his own flower without being hurt by "its faded scales". 

- about Omen's "purpose"/" motivation" : his father's death being "the inevitable", it's become the focal point of Omen's life - the flower to which he's irrevocably drawn, to which he's trapped. Then, when all one has ever known and lived for is that same flower, what happens when it withers? When revenge is erected as a driving force/ motivator, characters are supposed to start living when their "thirst" is quenched, when their goal is reached, when their vengeance is satisfied - and when the latter involves death, death is seen as liberation. However, when this "revenge" is inevitable, things are different : whether the butterfly likes it or not, the flower will wither. So the only choice before it happens is either to take off early ( find a purpose ) or to stay on the flower ( distract oneself or face reality / killing it or watching it wither ). And all this is, I think, part of this "putting off the grief" mechanism you explained. On the other hand, I wonder if it could  be linked to the fence metaphor too. In this case, Omen's father is in a way the last flower in his garden, and when it withers, our Butterfly will be alone, without purpose, hollow, facing himself .  Perhaps beyond the fear of "going to the other side of the fence", there's also the fear of being alone with himself, of seeing his garden empty, devoid of flowers- except maybe one remnant : the grief flower, the only flower the butterfly can cling to for now. Then "crossing the fence" would take on a whole new dimension,  linked to the butterfly effect, to its wingbeats, biologically / symbolically speaking .

- about the "butterfly effect" : firstly let me correct this horrendous grammar  mistake =>  " As his father's blindness is a result of the "butterfly effect", it could be said that Omen has "succeeded" in protecting Aelem from it" here I meant " protecting Aelem from HIM" not from " IT" :| Anyway, since the beginning, "the butterfly effect" was presented in a pessimistic light, which is relevant in that such a vision is similar to Omen's view of his powers . Nevertheless, I wonder if such a power might not have a positive effect in the end? Like a sort of double-edged blade? I mean, his father went blind because Omen's wound weakened him, and it's because of his blindness that he didn't see Aelem as a  "Leviathan" but as a simple "human being" and hated her as such instead of killing her. On the other hand, such a situation could echo the fact that everything has a price and that free things, such as "normalcy" or "life" cost the most in the end. In other words, for someone to live a "normal" life, someone else has to pay the price, sadly.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

1