artist+writer || leo simp (+ kinnie) named Ace who sucks at drawing (and is addicted to tmnt || im addicted to my oc zac, he’s all i post abt… I have a cult for him too❤️|| he/him they/them || TCEST DNI.
I just want my tumblr friend or whoever might care about here to know that I’m not like dead or anything but my mental health continues to get worse so I’m inactive
greetings, just a wandering lurker on the internet... a lurker who's had ideas about harlequin for a while now. ♡ i've got an analysis i've been thinking about in particular. (it actually started as an analysis on harlequin's side of columbina's tale but it turned into an analysis of harlequin's character afterwards too, hahah (´｡•ω•｡`)♡)
let's get into it – a deep dive into harlequin's side of the moonless night and the effects of the moonless night had onto present day harlequin.
(i also initially started writing this to answer the question of "why was harlequin envious of pierrot and columbina?" but i got carried away and may have dumped all my thoughts about harlequin into this analysis... oops? ps this might keep on being updated after posting, hehe. ♡)
(also happy birthday, harlequin ♡ !!)
(tw about talks about murder, sexual harassment, sexual assault & sexual trafficking.)
(alsoooo psps credits to @aadamoriss for making me notice this first detail among the others. ♡)
in the one of the newest ama's on the official tfc blog, pierrot says this when asked about a favorite memory he's had about his past.
and in a previous ama, harlequin says that he has a perfume with the scent of night-blooming jasmine – of course, he didn't seem to say it was his favorite but it's certainly a choice to have that scent in particular, especially one visitors seem to like, is it not?
maybe harlequin is more sentimental than we thought. he deflects all questions trying to understand or reach him with sexual innuendoes and connotations, yes, but he has a heart underneath all that, surely...
surely the sexual desires are (true,) but a coping mechanism. columbina did say they developed their own shields and emotional defense mechanisms concerning the moonless night. (we discuss this more about this later on. ♡)
using little details like this, i've gathered some that could point towards a deeper motivation for harlequin beyond envy of pierrot and columbina's love.
= ･ׅ 𝜗℘ ･ׅ =
i've always had a thought about how jester in particular framed the night they consumed columbina. specifically how he frames harlequin as the "villain" compared to pierrot's longing and love for the sweet angel. though ticket taker gives us more intel on the moonless night itself, it helps to understand that while jester definitely mixed the truth with some lies to turn it into an almost fantastical tale (no moonless night in jester's retelling), some parts of that had to be true.
pierrot loved columbina for her kindness, and he grew protective of her in the face of humans who planned on using columbina (implird to be sexual) for her beauty because of that. he even tried to hide his claws so she couldn't prick herself on his claws – so she wouldn't be scared of him. (i think this part is true, specifically the "hide his claws so she couldn't prick herself" part since he does the same thing with mc.)
in jester's retelling of the tale, harlequin sees this, was envious and went after columbina, unclear of his intentions. jester's narration calls this seduction rather than courting out of love (what pierrot does). columbina's line afterwards is "(insert line about bina saying she sighs for him too etc etc)" which implies she atleast felt something towards him.
but why was harlequin envious? why is he envious? why does he try to go after anything pierrot wants?
to answer this, first, let's go back to the answers from the ama. from various ama questions that have been answered (and posted publically), pierrot met harlequin first among the group, actually being quite shy in certain ways during those early days and alone. even more so, harlequin was alone since pierrot says harlequin's parents weren't around when he met harlequin.
from this ama, when asked who jester would pick to lead the circus if he and ticket taker weren't an option, he says harlequin because "he understands how [their] world works", and harlequin would leave if it meant it would help his family according to another.
and add in this ama, if it also addresses his earlier years prior to meeting the others, it means harlequin has been through enough to learn what needs to be done to survive, even in the earlier days.
in comparison to pierrot who is a heart-ruler (someone who makes decisions, guides their life, or navigates situations based on emotions, empathy, and intuition rather than strict logic or practical calculation), harlequin would prioritize surviving rather than the heart. he doesn't fall in love as easy as pierrot does, and he knows what needs to be done when times are dire and they can't afford to prioritize love when their lives are on the line.
(hence why he made the move to eat columbina, jester couldn't move (shackled or hungry, but the point is jester couldn't make the initiative), pierrot is barely hanging on and isn't one to lead, not even able to respond when jester asked if he was alive, doctor isn't one to lead either, equally as hungry and weak, and ticket-taker is weak enough to struggle speaking without breaks. but harlequin still had the strength to break the bars. he took the initiative because no one else could.)
pierrot is a heart-ruler, and he saw his rival for columbina's love kill her. he was laughing manically, through his own anguish and the weight of everyone else's, to survive.
but did harlequin actually love columbina or was he seducing her?
i have some crumbs of information that could mean something, but my hypothesis is that harlequin also loved columbina, but didn't want to let go of his attachment (familial, romantic or otherwise) for pierrot either.
but he didn't let that affect a motivation that surpasses that, one much stronger than the love for one, the other or both – the need to survive.
= ･ׅ 𝜗 1 ℘ ･ׅ =
now, in this ama, neko says that jester took the lead because no one else could. too consumed by grief, sorrow and anguish. take into account what i said about harlequin before – surely he would have enough willpower to keep leading the group through columbina's death if he didn't have a deeper liking for columbina... right? but he couldn't. jester had to keep them going.
so he was affected by columbina's death too. deeply.
and might i say, harlequin was one of the two who were the most affected by columbina's death in the long run as well. (we'll come back to this later. ♡)
= ･ׅ 𝜗 2 ℘ ･ׅ =
do you remember in undertale, where the monsters would often laugh to cope when they experienced something tragic, when they were hurt or killed? you wouldn't laugh at something like that, that's not funny. mant monsters acknowledge that, that they shouldn't be laughing at something like that, that's not funny... but they still laugh. that's a psychological defense mechanism, not sadism.
apply that to harlequin – him laughing during columbina's death, down to the idea of temporary, fleeting happiness to cope with something that would scar you for a long time.
"No... no... no..."
"EAT!"
"Why... are you smiling?"
No.
"Hah... hahahahahahhhaha!"
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
"Why... did you do that?"
"Sorry... [Harlequin]."
He wasn't... (= he wasn't actually laughing. he didn't find it funny. it hurt him too.)
makes more sense, right? he didn't feel sadistic about columbina's death, nor did he find it funny, he laughed as a coping mechanism to cope with what he just did.
= ･ׅ 𝜗 3 ℘ ･ׅ =
"Maybe he'll be the first to fall."
"And then one by one we'll all wither away in this pit, [Harlequin]."
"I will, feed him."
"Wait..."
[Jester is caught and placed into the cage.]
take a look at this exchange between jester and harlequin directly after pierrot is attacked and caged by the humans who saw him a threat to them wanting to get closer to columbina. i propose to you my interpretation of the scene that came from deeper analysis – what if they were discussing plans using their shot in the dark change to survive relating to columbina?
we don't see anything, we are shown a black screen, but by now the group is realizing the gravity of their situation under the ringleader as he slowly starves them and attacks the monsters for entertainment. the humans in the prior scene couldn't touch columbina with pierrot around (and a fate far worse than theirs would come for her if the humans had it their way), and i do think he, too, was protecting the others. but with pierrot gone, columbina was more vulnerable.
they caught jester next (perhaps they had a plan jester was meant to execute but he was caught and harlequin was placed in the position of initiation on what to do next.), and with jester gone, they had begun realizing the worst is coming to worst. (and i think it's here where harlequin's idea started bubbling to the surface. columbina asks him if he's going to save her, and harlequin... would end up putting her out of her misery instead of being her hero. because if columbina was alive after the moonless night and they had somehow survived, the humans wouldn't stop their pursuit and they would continue getting hurt.)
columbina, the weakest one, was scared. scared that they'll touch her more, assault her again and do something despicable to her, since they already planned on taking her away from the others, their intentions with her are most likely sexual trafficking.
perhaps it would make sense if harlequin took the initiative to protect columbina in the pierrot's stead, for her sake or pierrot's, and it would be here the thoughts of eating her if worst comes to worst would start bubbling to the surface. if we assume he did love her like i said before, harlequin took the chance and either stayed with columbina and kept her company, protecting her in place of pierrot to ensure their family wouldn't be separated or hurt, or both.
so it's jester who acts as the final nail in the coffin that solidifies harlequin's next actions.
jester manipulated harlequin into doing the last resort option harlequin was thinking of, not wanting to do it unless it was truly the last option available, hence why he apologizes to harlequin after columbina is bitten.
another possibility is that this conversation with jester and harlequin happened before the initial scene with columbina and the humans saying she was pretty before pierrot stepped in and got caged afterwards. if this one is true, it means that harlequin had already thought about it and shunned it to the back of his head as a last resort option. i, personally, like this option better because of jester's first line – "Maybe he'll be the first to fall." jester talks about that possibility, not that it happened, because he would've said "He was the first to fall, and then we'll all wither away one by one in this pit, [Harlequin]" if pierrot had already fallen.
the 'maybe' (indicating that the scenario in his words are hypothetical, not literal) and 'he will be the first to fall" (the 'will' supports the hypothetical the 'maybe' is referring to, instead of pertaining to a situation that had already happened – the 'maybe' and 'will' wouldn't be there if the situation being talked about had already happened.) supports the sentence pertaining to a hypothetical situation rather than a literal one. an optimal sentence, if the scenario was literal, would be "he was the first to fall among us" (removing the 'maybe' and substituting the 'will' for 'was' to indicate the situation in the sentence had already happened. adding 'maybe' and 'will' turns it into hypothetical, whereas this is literal). had enough of me being an english teacher yet? hahaha ♡
harlequin already had the first thought of eating columbina if worst comes to worst, which it did. the exchange, then, would imply jester nudged harlequin (mind control, or otherwise, that's also a possibility i like but the main point is that jester made harlequin do the last resort option of eating columbina, but he did not make that option) into deciding that a sacrifice truly is necessary.
also while we're talking about the significance and literary anatomy of jester's line, "Maybe he'll be the first to fall." makes sense if this happens after pierrot stands guard in front of columbina and the others as a barrier ensuring they couldn't hurt her or any of them but before pierrot is hurt and caged. jester talks about a possibility highly likely to be true considering their circumstances that pierrot will be taken down first, then they'll get taken down one by one after their first line of defense is taken away.
(......can't believe i spent a paragraph hyperanalyzing and breaking down the meaning of a single line of dialogue...... (lll⚆ᗜ⚆)
= ･ׅ 𝜗 3.5 ℘ ･ׅ =
"And on a moonless night where the sky seemed dead,"
The monsters realized there was an angel among them!"
(The monsters realized a sacrifice would be necessary.)
perhaps it wasn't "the monsters = all of them" like harlequin's retelling makes us think but rather harlequin in particular realized a sacrifice would be necessary should all of them be caged and left to starve. the others were shocked and horrified when harlequin killed columbina, so they weren't in on it (except for jester because none of his lines suggest he was stunned or shocked by harlequin's actions, supporting my interpretation of harlequin and jester's prior conversation; "We have no choice." in harlequin's retelling and "There's no turning back now." in mirror columbina's and his own retelling) otherwise another conversation would be held about it and they wouldn't be that scared. all of the puppets had tears after columbina's puppet disappeared (after they had eaten the sacrificial angel), so they weren't villain monologuing to and about columbina while harlequin made the move to bite her. in the version told by mirror columbina in tt's tent, they didn't villain monologue just yet, they were distraught, in anguish and grief first.
remember, by now the gravity of their situation is sinking in, they're starving and getting caught when they try and act out plans to survive (jester; there's also a chain sound when jester says "I can't move. [Pierrot] is alive...?" so he might also be chained down and caged because he was dangerous?). prior to this in the conversation between jester and harlequin before jester got caged, that conversation must've been before pierrot was caged judging from how jester worded his sentences. they're being locked up to starve to death because they are dangerous to their goals and missions. by the time harlequin was caged and columbina was chained down, everyone was weak and starving. hope was dire unless someone did something.
Moonless night.
"Maybe this will be our last one."
"I'm so hungry.."
"Me too... how long as it been... since we last ate?"
"I can't move. [Pierrot] is alive...?"
"..."
notice how harlequin doesn't speak a single line of dialogue in this exchange before he breaks free from his cage and eats columbina.
in the previous line of dialogue with jester and harlequin, he doesn't speak either. of course, he's listening to jester, but he could also already be formulating a last resort plan in case everyone gets caged. one that had to be done now otherwise death got their hands of them, or perhaps... convincing himself he didn't actually care and felt nothing for columbina, telling himself he loved the thrill of their rage and hatred to lessen the emotional burden and overwhelm on himself?
"You know, my sweet flower..."
"Maybe it's not you I love."
"Maybe this feeling is something else. My heart beats for a different reason."
"Or maybe I just want what I can't have, if I do this, maybe then..."
it was lucky harlequin was the one who made that plan since everyone else was either unable to move, or so hungry they didn't have the strength to move anymore.
and remember how harlequin would prioritize surviving rather than the heart? if he was a heart-ruler like pierrot, chances are he wouldn't eat columbina, and they would've died. but he knew if they didn't eat something soon, they would all starve to death.
pierrot wouldn't do something like this – not that he could.
and when asked why he hates harlequin so much, this is his response:
though we haven't gotten any other incidents harlequin has done to irk such pure distate and bordeline hate from pierrot, the moonless night seems to be, as of recent, the main reason why pierrot and harlequin hate eachother. harlequin killed his lover.
(and well, to be frank, i don't think pierrot would be this mad at harlequin over let's say, him causing pierrot to crash the truck but harlequin's shenanigans towards pierrot definitely help make the fire of hatred in pierrot grow stronger.)
he couldn't focus on the wider reason behind it because he loved columbina, the one they killed. pierrot loved her. pined for her deeply. sighed for her. harlequin knows the deeper reasoning for the kill – they wanted to survive, and she was the weakest one.
he killed her, yes, but that doesn't mean he wasn't affected by her death.
let's go back to ripple effects the moonless night had on the rest of the troupe, specifically focusing on harlequin. let's also take another look at this ama answer:
"Everyone was broken, grieving and suffering, and he stepped forward, guided his new family."
now, keep that in mind (specifically that first part) because let's first analyze harlequin's present day actions and coping mechanisms that were ripple effects from the moonless night.
right off the bat, harlequin's intentions with mc.
if you follow harlequin into the tent, he initiates something inherently sexual (atleast it's implied to be, we know present day harlequin, hahaha ♡) before pierrot comes in and stabs him, letting us escape. if harlequin is indeed fucking fools in the tent (aka let's assume it canon for this analysis hahaha ( ੭ ˙ᗜ˙ )੭♡) and he does participate in one night stands with humans, then his intentions with us would be the same until later in the game where he might actually fall for the mc.
it's pretty clear that harlequin may not feel anything for the mc in the same way pierrot does immediately in the first few days . likewise, he wasn't immediately infactuated with columbina if we assume pierrot fell fast and harder, likely pursuing her for an ulterior motive (getting back at pierrot? attachment to pierrot that sprung internal jealousy? genuine love for columbina with an additional motive to get back at pierrot/relating to an attachment to pierrot?) just like with mc.
now, come back to the undertale comparison – using laughter or temporary, fleeting joy to cope with tragedy, hurt, pain and to shield oneself from damage. it's an inappropriate way to cope with emotional distress, even if they acknowledge that that's not funny. columbina's death wasn't funny, but harlequin laughed anyway. he smiled anyway.
apply it here too. clearly, columbina's death hit pierrot and harlequin the most. it hit everyone deeply and broke everyone for a while, yes, but pierrot and harlequin were hit with the largest blows... because they loved columbina.
pierrot still hates harlequin for what he did – killing his lover (and just from the fact that pierrot still hates harlequin's guts, that he knows the underlying reason of his hate for harlequin despite his constant annoying pierrot and making him upset, his feelings towards harlequin's actions are still strong regardless of whether he still loved columbina or not... which he doesn't, but it's justifiable that he still hates harlequin for what he did), and harlequin... is using temporary joy and relief to cope with the underlying emotional trauma gnawing at him.
harlequin placed himself into the role of the villain and went along with it for the sake of everyone else in his family. and the temporary joy thing applies to his shenanigans and constant hobby of annoying and teasing pierrot, making him angry and rage, down to stealing his new love interest.
(notice how in jester's retelling, there is no moonless night, and thus no way to justify harlequin's actions when he kills columbina. in mirror columbina's retelling, harlequin can be justified, and harlequin puts the blame equally on everyone in his own retelling – only jester leans into villainizing harlequin by removing the moonless night itseld. jester villainized harlequin in a way that makes everyone else think he's the villain... from jester's retelling. such a stark coincidence, huh? from the one who nudged harlequin to eat columbina in the first place.... but also jester clearly spun the tale into one akin to a fairytale to be able to tell it to his audience, mixing drops of the truth with lies, so...)
"Are your eyes on me? Uhg."
Is your hate on me?
"Hah... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
"Oh... Rage... Pain!! I love it... I LOVE IT!!"
Someone had to do it... obviously.
There's no turning back now.
No... no no no...
EAT!
this exaggeration of harlequin's sadism for the rage and annoyance pierrot has around him was exaggerated for the show, yes, but i don't think all of that was entirely false. i think harlequin did lean into the act of loving pierrot's (and maybe everyone's) rage in the long run. not immediately after the moonless night, he was broken too. most likely suffering and in anguish since he didn't take the initiative instead of or alongside jester like he was in the version told in ticket taker's tent.
but in truth, he didn't not care as much as he wanted to appear like he it. he was in just as much anguish as everyone else was in, probably not as much as pierrot but he wasn't immune to the pain like he wanted to appear as.
those one night stands he does with the fools, humans or otherwise? the constant bickering and seeking out to annoy pierrot? the manic laughter and seemingly joy after killing columbina?
it's a coping mechanism.
he's not as immune as he wants us to think. he doesn't not care unlike what he wants to look as. he seeks temporary bouts of pleasure and happiness to silence the gnawing darkness and emotional scars for just a moment.
he's... more sentimental than we thought.
= ･ׅ 𝜗℘ ･ׅ =
the hyeprfixation on harlequin is real... i've been having so many thoughts about this green man since i started looking deeper in the lines from scenes that described the moonless night. not sure if i have any more, but we'll see. ♡ additionally and finally, sincere apologies for any spelling errors and typos – this wasn't proofread, ahahaha. ♡
additional thoughts : ֹ🗨️🪡 ၄၃ႄˑ ˳
– oh my god harlequin's an anti-villain. (an anti-villain does wrong things for what they believe are the right reasons, blurring the line between good and evil.)
– notice how in jester's retelling, there is no moonless night, and thus no way to justify harlequin's actions when he kills columbina. in mirror columbina's retelling, harlequin can be justified, and harlequin puts the blame equally on everyone in his own retelling – only jester leans into villainizing harlequin. jester villainized harlequin in a way that makes everyone else think he's the villain... from jester's retelling. such a stark coincidence, huh? from the one who nudged harlequin to eat columbina in the first place.... but also jester clearly spun the tale into one akin to a fairytale to be able to tell it to his audience, mixing drops of the truth with lies, so...
Hi, this post is quite long and I combined 3 versions of the story told by the casts together + my own interpretations. Please don't hesitate to tell me if I missed something 🙏
⭐️ The Harlequin's puppet show
Okay so I'm gonna start from the Harlequin's show. This tragedy starts from here.
The monsters accepted the deal given by humans to feed them, I don't know what the details are beside that.
But after that it shows, "They applauded their pain". Of course it's an unfair deal. The shows they did were dangerous and harmful, but it's still better than surviving on their own. Or so they thought. They think they had a choice, but in reality, they don't at the moment they agreed to this scam.
Harlequin says while the monsters rotted in their cages, swallowed by the dark. So there are many cages, they are being locked away from each other. After that there are some dialogs.
Jester: "What if we became human"
Harlequin: "We could eat as much as we want"
Pierrot: "No one would hurt us ever again"
Columbina: "I can feed you, grow strong, become human and build a home for us"
It looks like they think them being humans can fulfill their other wishes. Now what do monsters have to do in order to become human? In this setting, it seems like you are what you eat. They have to eat humans in order to become humans. If I remember correctly Neko said that human flesh sustain them the "most". I believe this sustain is not about hunger because it was mentioned that the monsters can eat normal food like any human do as well. If this is about how they can sustain their human-like appearances. Then there should be something else that could sustain them too, just not as effective as human flesh. That something else is most likely the monster with human-like characteristics.
The text here is pink, I think it can be implied that Columbina was the one who realized what they need as a sacrifice, in order to be humans for Jester's suggestion. She is willing to be a sacrifice for her family, in order to make her hopes and dreams come true as well.
Everyone use the word "us" for their wishes, so it's not a personal wish but they are being considerate for their whole family. Pink columbine flower means platonic/ familial love, faith, hope, foolishness (the shape of flower looks like a jester hat). Maybe the Jester chose to play the role of the Jester because of this. I think these flower language explain her character well. She most likely see everyone in familial way. She got mistreated by humans for quite some times, likely with harsh comments and sexually implied ways, even though her family protected her. I personally think she doesn't want any romantic love at that point because of these bad experiences.
I know this is from the Harlequin's pov but I see how he placed himself in the middle, and not facing anyone. (It seems to me that Harlequin feels like he doesn't belong there.)
But also the Jester's puppet is so suspiciously close to him compared to Pierrot, like he is whispering into Harlequin's ear. (Connect this to other versions of the story later)
Now look at the order and the wording used. For Pierrot and Harlequin's comments, they sounded more like answers to Jester's "what-if we become human". But from Columbina's line where she is the last one to speak, at least to me, sounds like a dying wish. It's a wish you entrust to someone else. When she says this, she is facing the Jester and Harlequin, so I think they were the one who got entrusted with her wish. (I'm not sure if Pierrot heard this, it seems like he passed out after he spoke) But there was no comments coming from the Doctor and Ticket Taker puppets, so they might not know about this "plan".
According to the story from TT's mirror. The sequence of them getting put in jail is Pierrot -> Jester -> Harlequin -> Columbina -> Ticket Taker & Doctor.
Columbina was seen talking to Harlequin when the scene went dark, so it means she got put in jail before the last two. TT and Doctor got put in jail later, so they didn't heard the previous conversation about the plan. Leading to them being shocked after Harlequin killed Columbina while asking "Why... did you do that?".
Next is the dialogues from Harlequin + TT's mirror story + Jester
From every version of the story told by casts, Columbina was looking towards Pierrot's direction, she is telling Pierrot that Harlequin wasn't laughing. (Also in what I see, Jester really really love his family. Of course he is so sorry about what he did. There's no way that he is not sorry 😭)
These scenes, I personally think it didn't really happen. But the casts were in distressed so they just imagined things on their own.
Have you heard this quote that says "If you are a Jester then I'm willing to be your fool"? I think this is why Harlequin refers to those darlings in pink as "the fools", because they are devoted to following the Jester's will just like how Columbina willingly sacrifice for his idea. But Columbina didn't only do it for Jester, she did it for everyone's sake including hers. Columbina already knows about all of that and she is still willingly choose to do it. To me, she is the wise fool who knows what she's doing.
I don't know if Neko referenced from this or not, but it was from Lord of Mysteries.
Do you know of "The Fool's Gambit"? It is referring to "The Fool's Mate" in chess. This is a quickest checkmate in 2 moves. It is a reckless, high-risk, irrational, and self-sacrifice strategy done by Klein Moretti (the protagonist). With the famous quote
"I won't lose too much, just myself. There are always some things that are more important than others"
To highlight ultimate self-sacrifice, meaning the sacrifice is a worthy price to protect the others, loved ones, or achieve a higher purpose. I think that's what Columbina decided to do.
She knows that their fate was cursed. If the end is inevitable then she'd rather choose how it ends. Also, I think she was the one who asked Harlequin to do it. Because his poison seems to be able to ease the pain/ has sedating effect, so her death would be a gentle one.
Then she regretted it, she didn't think the outcomes would be like this. She just wished for her family's happiness. So she think that she should have listened to him. To me there's 2 possibilities
Listen to the ring master, so he wouldn't harm her family
Listen to the Jester's other plan
I think it's most likely be the first one, because Jester said " We have no choice". He couldn't think of other plan either at that moment.
IDK what exactly can Harlequin's poison does but from secret scene here, Harlequin used his poison to stop Pierrot from going on a rampage. So having Harlequin be the one who did it made the sacrifice less painful.
⭐️ The Ticket Taker's mirror
Jester: I will, feed him.
Harlequin: ... Wait.
This one is, well I think Harlequin was going to suggest something else like let's go together or that he be the one to feed Pierrot instead of Jester. (Maybe he's secretly hoping that Pierrot will look at him if he save him like this) But Jester was reckless and got caught, followed by Harlequin.
What is saving someone? To put the end to their pain is one way to put it. If living is painful then ending it might be a way to "save". Her sacrifice can make them "become human" and make the previous wishes mentioned come true.
This scene, where Harlequin says "she is the weakest". What is "weakest" to the monster? To me, my answer is "resembles a human the most".
From how the Jester say no claws and almost no fangs. That's the main difference between Columbina and other monsters. To be or not to be. Columbina's answer is not to be. She chose not to be ended by humans' hands. "I don't want to die", in what manner? Is this a whole sentence or there was something more that got twisted? To someone, dying is being forgotten. That's why she chose to entrust her family to tell her story to the world, so she won't be forgotten and always live in their memories.
When they were being in jail, Harlequin is the closest one to Jester. This is my personal guess, Jester is referenced after Baphomet with hypnotic ability. If Jester really do have hypnotic ability that is similar to code geass where you have to look into the user's eyes then maybe he can't use it on anyone else because they're too far away. The other one located closest to Jester was Pierrot but he seems to be unconscious. Jester's ability most likely couldn't be use on someone unconscious because they can't look into Jester's eyes. Also, it couldn't be used on himself either, if he can then he'd already be already out of jail. Jester also said "I can't move. ■■■■■ is alive?" So Harlequin, who's still conscious had to do it instead of Jester, with Jester doing something to reinforce Harlequin's strength, resulting in him being able to break out of the jail. Or else they'll be all dead without any of their wish being fulfilled. They really had no choice.
⭐️ The Jester's stage play
Nameless doesn't mean that they don't have names, it means they are hideous creatures, loathed by the world.
I think this stage play is referenced after Hamlet. The "poison is his hand" is from the weapon Claudius gave to Laertes (Ophelia's brother) for revenge. When Hamlet is about to die from poison, his close friend, Horatio was going to join him in death. But Hamlet asks Horatio to tell his story to the world. That's what stopped Horatio from committing suicide and keep his promise to Hamlet. I do see parallel in this stage play where
Harlequin is playing the role of Laertes (Ophelia's brother).
Columbina as Hamlet.
Pierrot as Ophelia (Hamlet's love interest).
Jester as Claudius (Hamlet's uncle).
Ticket taker as Horatio (Hamlet's close friend), witnesses to this tragedy.
Doctor as the Guard -> I'm not,sure about this lol, but he isn't saying anything so his role is watching, I guess?
The flower is his hand resembles a red pansies to me.
And from Ophelia's Bouquet:
"There’s rosemary, that’s for remembrance.
Pray you, love, remember.
And there is pansies, that’s for thoughts ...
There’s fennel for you, and columbines.
There’s rue for you, and here’s some for me.
We may call it “herb of grace” o' Sundays.
- Oh, you must wear your rue with a difference.
There’s a daisy. I would give you some violets,
But they withered all when my father died."
Pansies that Ophelia described can mean many things, but in this case it's red. So I'd like to think it symbolize passionate love, remembrance, admiration, "I am thinking of you". But Columbina on stage play didn't say anything back nor extend her hand to receive that flower that represents "romantic love", in the same time, she is not looking away as well. I think she sees Pierrot as a family member and love him in her own ways.
From Hamlet: It was given out by Claudius that a serpent had stung him (the previous king). But it turns out that the serpent was actually Claudius himself.
Now look at the narrator, it's the Jester himself too was the one who said "A monster with venom in his voice and in his hands" to describe the Harlequin it is similar to the words that were used to describe the culprit by Claudius. I interpret this is Jester believes he is the evil mastermind behind it. He was the one who made the Harlequin use the poisoned weapon (his claws) on Columbina. All the blames should be on him instead of Harlequin. But Pierrot already saw it so he can't make any excuses for Harlequin. Then when Columbina is dying, she asked all of her family to live on and tell this stories to the world just like what Hamlet did to Horatio. This is what makes the casts tell their stories in the circus, each in their own point of view. As a way to mourn and as to keep their promise. TT resembles Horatio's role the most, for he is the one who promised he would make a true report, as one that was privy to all the circumstances. If you combine this with "I just wanted to tell someone, Obrigada" from Columbina in TT's mirror then it's clear that this was Columbina's wish for her whole family to keep living on in her stead.
(Pic from wikipedia lol)
This is my interpretation on this whole stage play. As I said before that I believe the Jester is referenced after a Baphomet, they also represent balance, equilibrium, duality. The performers' white&black socks should symbolize duality. Duality is when contrast between two contradicting aspects at the same time. For example: light&dark, love&hate, hope&despair, etc. Harlequin probably feel really guilty about it, but in the same time he also feel at ease when he finally have Pierrot's eyes on him and not on Columbina anymore, even though he doesn't want to do it. Then in Baphomet's figure, they usually comes with white moon (chesed) together with black moon (geburah) to signify equilibrium. There is only white moon (full moon) in the Jester's show, indicating that the story is unbalanced. You have to combine it with black moon (moonless night) in order to reach equilibrium (the balanced truth).
Thank you again for reading! I'm so high on caffeine. To anyone who reach this point, you deserve a shining crown 👑✨️
Jester is a character who intrigues me and whom I don't quite understand. At first, I was almost certain he would end up being the "villain," who had precisely manipulated everything to remain in command, as the leader, gaining everyone's trust and reverence, especially that of the strongest (Pierrot), and turning Harlequin into the "scapegoat." Especially because of what we see in Columbine's mirror (which I'm still not clear on—is it her as a ghostly presence or the TT version of the story? I thought it was the latter, but most people seem to treat it as "the Columbine version," so now I don't know, haha, I'm confused).
That comma is just too suspicious… many think it refers to Jester saying he would give Pierrot his own flesh to feed him, but with the comma there, it seems more like he's giving an order? Although it could also be that, being weak, the comma means he's taking a moment to speak because it's difficult for him (but wouldn't it be more appropriate to use (…) in that case? idk)
Then… the fact that when Harlequin kills Columbina, he only says
Everyone else seems affected, shocked, reacting as if they hadn't expected it…but not Jester. He's calmer…as if he already knew it was going to happen.
But what made me doubt him the most and believe for a long time that he was definitely going to be "the bad guy" was when Jester apologized to Harlequin…I mean, why would he apologize to him?
I couldn't help but think that Jester (if he has the ability to control minds) had used this ability to control Harlequin and thus carry out his plan (1. Because he, himself could no longer move, and/or 2. This way, all the blame would fall on Harlequin, Pierrot's hatred would be directed at him, and Jester could retain/gain Pierrot's respect and loyalty, who, as I mentioned, is the strongest member of the group and therefore extremely convenient).
And the final nail in the coffin of my theory was Columbina saying the following:
I thought she obviously meant that Jester didn't feel bad about what he had done, that the forgiveness he asked Harlequin for wasn't sincere…
But now I have another theory… I've started to see Jester differently. Where I firmly believed that Jester would end up being a villain like Mother Gothel/Rika from Mystic Messenger, I think he might be more like Triton from The Little Mermaid or Lucifer from Obey Me xd hahaha okay let me explain.
Do I still think Jester is a manipulator? Yes, but I'm no longer 100% sure he does it with the intentions I initially thought. After certain comments Neko has made about Jester's character and the way he relates to his "family," I think he truly loves them in his own way, that his manipulation isn't intended to harm them (and if it did, it would be unintentional), but rather that he seeks to protect them in his own way, or in the way he believes is right (being aware that this is forged by years of abuse, which obviously makes him biased). While what I mentioned above about Jester manipulating Harlequin to devour Columbine might have happened, I don't believe he did it to make Harlequin the only culprit so he could be free of blame in the eyes of the others and take command, gaining the complete devotion and blind loyalty of the other members, damn it! Now I even think the only reason Harlequin took on the role of villain was because Jester truly couldn't move back then… I think that perhaps if things had been different, either 1. As many others have mentioned, he would have let Pierrot devour him (perhaps so that he would gain strength and, being the strongest, could save the others?) or 2. He would have taken on the villain role that Harlequin did, being the one who sacrificed Columbine (heck, now I even think that maybe there wasn't any use of mind control abilities; perhaps Jester and Harlequin, before being locked up, talked about possible ways to escape… and Harlequin, seeing that Jester (and the others) were no longer able to move (but he could), decided to take the only option he saw as viable at that moment).
So, what did Columbina mean when she said “He wasn’t”? I think maybe she wasn't responding to Jester, but to Pierrot.
Because these are the previous dialogues.
Columbina's first "No" comes after Pierrot asks, "Why are you smiling?"
And then we cut to Harley's crazy laughter (which, if you ask me, starts like when you're about to write a sob, but I don't know, haha).
And then Columbina continues with, "He wasn't."
I think Columbina was actually answering Pierrot, saying, "No. He wasn't smiling (he was crying)."
So, if this were the case, why would Jester be asking Harlequin for forgiveness?
Because Jester knew that Harlequin had been cornered into making the most difficult decision of all, to bear the heaviest burden of guilt (and perhaps the original plan was for Jester to "sacrifice" himself in some way (either feeding Pierrot or him being the one killing Columbina), but now, being unable to move, that role had to be taken by Harlequin; perhaps that's why he asked for forgiveness, because he somehow felt he had failed him and had left him no other option but being the one who carried all the blame).
And... honestly, I don't know what I'm trying to say with all this other than that I'm very confused about Jester's character, lol.
I don't know what his true intentions are; maybe both interpretations I made of him are wrong, but who knows... only time will tell.
I really want to believe that this second version I have of him is the closest to reality :c I think it would break Pierrot's heart (and TT's and Doctor's too xd maybe) if it were any other way. Besides, Harlequin, being the youngest and yet making his own decision without any kind of manipulation or mind control to take on the role of villain in order to save everyone else (yes, even Columbina; maybe at that moment that was the only way to fulfill her request to save her) and carrying all that hatred and guilt of his own free will, would have more weight for me, it would be more cruel and painful, and that fascinates me xd
Well, these are just my theories?? Observations? Analysis? I honestly have no idea what this is… and I also have no idea if anyone actually made it this far, but if you did, thank you, you deserve a prize (for wasting your time on this pointless nonsense I just made up xd). Here's a lollipop (it's not drugged, I swear :3)
Thanks for reading this far. It's the first time I've done something like this, so I think it's all over the place xd. I hope it's understandable enough since I'm using a translator…
And if you want to leave your opinion, I'm really interested in how other people perceive or understand the character of Jester. Maybe that will help me understand him better, haha, because this guy really confuses me, and I have no idea how to write him.
thoughts on harlequin’s possible feelings for pierrot / greenapple / pierroquin
okkk so i wanted to make this analysis-type thing because i feel like i need more ppl to see harlequin x pierrot as more than just a joke/crackship bc based on official content so far i feel like it’s a plausible interpretation of the story that harlequin could have had or currently has some sort of one-sided feelings for pierrot (and if anyone wants to validate me for seeing this PLEASE DO IM FEELING CRAZY)
on the surface it can look like pierrot and harlequin hate each other, or that harlequin only messes with pierrot for the fun of it, but i can't help but feel like there’s something more complex between them. there’s a lot of reasons why so um idk how i’m gonna organize this but i’ll start with jester’s story, which of course is likely his own interpretation of what happened on that night (and also embellished for the audience), so it’s not the absolute truth but i'm assuming it's accurate for the most part:
harlequin watched the lovers, pierrot and columbina, and felt envy
but what was he envious of? whose attention did he want? it’s not clear. was he envious of what the two had (genuine and tender love)? was it columbina’s attention? or was it pierrot’s?
what was it that he wanted but couldn't have? again, i believe there could be multiple interpretations. it's possible that it could have been pierrot’s affection that he wanted, but pierrot’s eyes were on columbina instead. so he wanted to steal her away from him so the two couldn't be happy together.
maybe he even wanted to be involved in their happy relationship in some way because it's something he's never had, but didn't realize it or know how to communicate that properly, and so he attempts to ruin their relationship instead.
but in the end, harlequin never got what he wanted from either columbina or pierrot.
on that night, pierrot is barely conscious, and when he wakes, he sees harlequin tearing his beloved apart while smiling and laughing:
pierrot was probably….very furious with harlequin that night (i wouldn't be surprised if pierrot had wanted to kill him in that moment) and was still upset for a long while after that. even if harlequin tried to explain his reasons for what he did, would pierrot even listen to harlequin after he betrayed him like that?
i think that harlequin understood that pierrot couldn't forgive him or look at him the same way again after that (and maybe harlequin couldn't forgive himself either).
so harlequin got used to pierrot’s anger towards him, accepted that pierrot could only hate him after what he did. and harlequin has leaned into that, turning into the one who teases and antagonizes pierrot.
if harlequin truly only hated pierrot, why would he care so much about what pierrot does or who he is interested in? if harlequin only hated him and didn't care about him, wouldn't it make more sense to ignore him completely?
yet he doesn't leave pierrot alone. he pays attention to who pierrot is or isn't interested in in the pink tent. he always steals one of pierrot’s sweets, even though they're too sweet for him. he loves to mess with pierrot specifically, because he loves to see his angry reactions.
harlequin calls pierrot ‘irritating’ and says he ‘disgusts’ him, yet harlequin still cares for his attention enough to pursue someone (mc) specifically and (initially) only because pierrot is interested in them and harlequin wants to see pierrot ‘lose.’
whether he's aware of it or not, it seems like harlequin craves pierrot’s attention in any way he can get it, even if it’s his anger and disdain. harlequin has accepted that pierrot can only look at him in that way.
by now, harlequin has probably convinced himself that he doesn't need love, not tender love like the kind pierrot and columbina shared, because he believes it’s something he can never have (and especially not with pierrot).
but if pierrot looks at him with anger? it’s better than nothing, because pierrot’s eyes are still on him.
some other things i felt like mentioning:
apparently he followed pierrot at least once when pierrot came to “visit” mc at night, because he knows that pierrot “whispers passion” to them when they're asleep (stalking the stalker?? ok….)
he acts as if he and pierrot never got along and calls the idea “insignificant”:
by acting like it never happened, this could be him rejecting the idea that he ever felt any vulnerable emotions regarding pierrot or was involved with him in a friendly way. he acts like it doesn't matter, but if he cares enough to hide the fact that they used to get along (and saying it in such a seemingly bitter way), ironically it could imply that their friendship had meant something to him (and he's resentful of the fact)
if harlequin had ever craved pierrot’s love, such as when he watched pierrot and columbina and felt envious of their relationship, by now he’s probably so emotionally guarded that he’s convinced himself that he doesn't, that he only likes to tease pierrot for fun and to hurt him. harlequin might act like he doesn't really care about him, that he thinks pierrot is pitiful and disgusting, but still, he pretty clearly has some sort of fixation on him and being on the receiving end of his anger.
also not to mention the way harlequin touches pierrot’s clothes and looks at him it seems kind of uhh a bit Sus (case in point below) (what is he doing):
could the ship work/could pierrot like him back?
ok this is where the reaching/delusion has to happen because so far pierrot does seem to hate his ass most of the time (understandable for him honestly), not enough to kill harlequin of course, but enough to stab him 5 times without hesitation and get annoyed just saying his name/thinking about him. though there is the Fabled ending with both of them so that implies they’ll at least tolerate each other eventually. it could be more like pierrot > mc < harlequin, but honestly i hope that maybe mc could help pierrot and harlequin reconcile with each other and understand what happened between them and columbina, and then maybe eventually all three of them could be a triad AJAHSHDGKDJ it may not be very realistic but a queer can dream ok. i want them to be happy.
maybe one day pierrot would be able to see past harlequin’s Very Annoying surface and realize that there's a lonely, emotionally-starved creature beneath…? (but it would probably take a very long time.)
uh Yea i tried not to reach TOO much while writing this. but anyway i think the green one is possibly very gay (in a complicated fucked up way) for the red one and maybe he doesnt even know it. these monsters need help
okay... after seeing the jester's show twice now... there's no way there's not a chance the harlequin loves the pierrot, right? i mean...
i just feel like what i'm seeing is everyone immediately assuming everyone wants the mc (a version of the angel or whatever) cause it's a "dating simulator" or "yandere simulator" or whatever but
the vibes i get is that originally he believed he was in love with the angel, but then slowly realized it was actually the pierrot and once that realization occurred, that guy was just crazy enough to simply just want his hate
quotes from the jester that make me believe so:
"Who saw the light in the lover's eyes and felt envy gnawing him from within."
(to the angel) "Maybe it's not you that I love."
"Is your eyes on me? Is your hate on me?"
"Oh... Rage... Pain!! I love it... I LOVE IT!"
"The poison? It found that hatred tastes far sweeter than love."
...okay maybe not like... super subtle, but I still feel like the misdirection is there.
also at the same time though, this is only the jester's reaccount of the story. i've gotten the implication from the angel mirror in the ticket taker's tent that her retelling is the most accurate, and each show is their own character's retelling of what occurred which is really neat considering how in the harlequin's show the angel just... disappears. no horrid death occurs.
The Moon Monster, the circus and an internalised fairytale
Analysis of The Moon Monster story and its significance to the plot of TFC (co-written by @readersofthevoid)
The special AMA revealed a very interesting piece of information, that being Pierrot’s favourite fairytale.
According to this post by @thekuronaqueen, The Moon Monster could be the story of St George and the Dragon. It writes out the whole story in more detail (as well some of its religious/cultural history, it’s a very interesting read), but the following fragment is what this analysis is based upon:
A young warrior decided to face the beast. When the full moon lit the night sky, he would mount his horse and wait, spear in hand, watching the heavens.
One night, he saw the dragon in the sky and charged to meet it. The creature was about to devour a young woman when the warrior struck, piercing its neck and chest with his spear.
Unable to defeat him, the dragon took flight, and the battle continued across the sky until it reached the moon. There, the struggle left craters on its surface, and the dragon was finally slain.
George chose to remain on the moon, keeping eternal watch over humanity’s fears and dangers, from where he continues to protect the oppressed and the unjust.
Now, why we believe this is Pierrot’s favourite story: St George did what he could not - save the young woman from being devoured by the dragon. The parallel here to Columbina is clear (and tragic), but it also inspires two other interesting ones - Pierrot as St George and Harlequin as the Dragon.
First: St George. He watches from the moon at a distance, used a spear to slay the beast, to stop an innocent being eaten by it. Is that not what Pierrot does? He stalks the MC, watches us when we approach the black tent, even ‘spears the dragon’ during the tent scene with Harlequin. Despite his obsessive and violent tendencies, he puts in great effort to do so at a distance, without getting up close and personal (at least not when MC can see him).
His weapon of choice is also interesting: he prefers his daggers and throwing knives despite being stronger than the other circus members. Not only does that weaponry sound very similar to what St George used, but it also allows him to keep his ‘monstrous’ strength and claws hidden from the MC. It allows him to portray himself not as the beast but as the protector. He tries to be the one who guards MC at a distance, who prevents the dragon feasting once more. He is the one who, in his mind, is the one that will stop another tragedy. He internalised a fairytale and believes that, if he acts like the hero, then things must go like they do in the story. The young person targeted by the dragon cannot die if he plays his part.
The dragon. The parallels between it and Harlequin are pretty clear: reptilian tongue, green, sly. Hell, the special AMA even confirmed he is a fire-eater - another thing that ties him with the image of the beast. Obviously, Pierrot sees Harlequin as the dragon - the destroyer, the devourer - but does Harlequin see himself the same way? It’s a popular theory in the fandom that Harlequin makes himself a ‘villain’ so that Pierrot has someone to hate, to stop him falling into the catatonia he was likely in after Columbina’s death, but what if it goes a step further?
Harlequin is a storyteller and, given his previous friendship with Pierrot, he likely knows that this is a story the other cherishes. Is it possible, then, that he plays along with the ‘story’ because it keeps Pierrot sane? Given that they are all performers who shed their former identities and names only to embrace their new ones as the stock characters of the Commedia Dell'arte, they’re used to performing and playing their part, so what’s one more role?
Or is it perhaps because he too has internalised the role of the dragon. That way, he was a mighty, ruthless being, not a starved, weak monster that had to consume one of its kind to stay alive. Maybe the role gives him as much sanity as it does Pierrot.
The final piece of the puzzle: the moonless night. Moonless. St George is associated with the moon, from where he protects the oppressed. There was no moon the night Columbina died: there was no one to save her.
Pierrot is no moon, not quite. He cannot be if Columbina was killed. But perhaps he can be another celestial entity, one that watches and protects when you are in danger and there is no moon to save you. He is not quite the moon, but he can be the stars - the ones that adorn his costume and the one on your pin.
He is not exactly like St George, but he makes every effort to be, so that things can stay as they are in the story.
So that no one he loves is devoured again.
snowghoul
stormborns
blakekathryn
2087
discoholicmusic
prguitarman
jacobvanloon
kaledo-art
romaincrisis
