affogato & analysis

he/it — i think about things and it eats me up and then i write it and now you have to see it too. mostly about fandoms i like.

[affogato-analysis]

Hello!

I'm starting to have a few posts over so here's a masterpost i guess?

My posts are divided by fandoms so enjoy lmao (idk what I'm doing)

(it's under the cut because it's gonna be long af eventually)

be careful for spoilers!

Arcane posts

Caitlyn as a symptom of Piltover’s violence (i am rlly proud of that one imma be real)

Art as resistance in Arcane (and this one)

War as the great equalizer and Arcane

I really, really like Mel’s arc actually!

Stray thought about Caitlyn in season 2 ep 9 (not sure this one counts as analytic but i liked it)

Tea as a representation of power imbalance in Arcane

Should we call Jinx a terrorist?

Legend of Zelda posts

I love botw koroks

Sentient divine beasts hc (botw) (yeah this one hardly qualifies as analytic)

Hylia discourse (botw)

Genshin Impact posts

Democracy in Teyvat?

Thoughts on Furina’s skill

Scaramouche and Ei, parallel and divergent arc

Epic The Musical

Eurylochus, cowardice and responsibility

Athena, Odysseus, parallels and mirror arcs

Circe, misandry and power

Calypso, Antinous and consent (TW for discussion of SA. see complete warnings at the beginning of the post.)

Deltarune

my absolute beloved!

Susie is freedom

Tales from Cazilor

Heavy is the crown: Arthur and legacy

Hollow Knight / Hollow Knight: Silksong

Something about neither sibling making concessions

Hornet has never done anything halfway and it SHOWS

The Amazing Digital Circus

Jax, human voice and cartoon bunny

[affogato-analysis]

Jax, human voice and cartoon bunny

Hmmmm ain't i late to the party

There's a discussion to be had about humanity in digital bodies and the complications that ensue! so here goes!

Spoiler for mostly episode 6 but some references to episode 8 too.

I've seen people pointing out the parallels between Jax and Zooble's speeches in episode 6. And I want to add to it because both of them are right in a way!

During the Jax-Pomni argument, Jax yells at some point and there's this thing that happens: you can hear the human behind the bunny.

i don't know why it happens. could be the cartoon animation did not match the VA's performance (which isn't a dig at the show, the VA did a stellar job on that line and a the cartoon bunny avatar can only convey emotions that well). It could also be a voluntary decision! Because the voice, the emotions in it, the soul very much is a human's. But the body is that of an avatar created by a desperate but deficient AI. It's not a human body that he properly fit in.

What I'm trying to explain is that it breaks something. Suddenly, Jax isn't a cartoon bunny, he's a human and his voice reflects that. But he is trapped in the digital circus and he cannot escape that body. It doesn't matter how much it can not accommodate the entire person that is Jax, he is stuck in there.

And it's the same for everyone! It's especially obvious for Kinger, whose mind is trapped in a body that needs darkness to function. But it also shows for Zooble whose bodily issues take so much room. Gangle's happiness is a fragile thing and it depends on her highly breakable mask. It's also obviously about the abstracted whose minds and bodies are completely linked.

(btw something about the two screenshots showing Zooble and Jax on opposite backgrounds but playing with the light to make them essentially the same color, underlining their different perspectives but how they're both the same: angry, human, trapped. Foaming at the mouth I fear.)

Aaaand that's when we fall back to "I have no mouth and I must scream" because, well. It's in the title isn't it.

TADC does a really good job at showing its characters trying to make do with their newest bodies and surviving the hardship and, I can say it as a trans person, a body can be a burden. Like, ohmygodpleaseletmeescapeitfeelssowrong type of burden. And it's no surprise so many people read Jax as a closeted trans woman, because it fits.

So yeah. Until June, i'll be rotating the show in my head and then cry when it's over I reckon. (I'm hoping for a happy ending but not holding my breath ngl)

How y'all doing over there?

[affogato-analysis]

Hornet has never done anything halfway

More silksong thoughts!!

Spoilers for the entirety of both games below!

Because i wrote this post about Hornet and Ghost making no concessions on their future and their family links being expressed in their respective best endings, but here's more!

Silksong's true ending's little logo is Hornet's mask, as we can see appearing on the save file after the sister of the void's ending.

and i love that it's her ending because it's the one where you do everything to reach the absolute best ending possible right?

see, hornet has never done anything halfway.

She has a mother whose body she protected for hundreds of years in a decaying land, in a dead village filled with her dead zombified friends and family. Then, when she decided to let Ghost try to unlock the Black Egg Temple, she let it kill her mother without a flinch. She said "I can't get in the temple" and then SHE DID and she stayed until it almost killed her, allowing Ghost to reach the Radiance. She got trained by the Hive and got so good that she was named after their literal predator. She was kidnapped and decided to not come back until she had slayed whoever was hunting her, and didn't flinch when she found out said kidnapper was a Higher Being. And when she's kidnapped and bound with rune, the moment the runes dissolve, she doesn't just free herself, she almost kills herself by shattering the bridge above the CHASM she's on. not a second thought. she was gonna hunt the people who got her and free herself if it took a fall across half of Pharloom. She solved her entire family tree and saved an whole kingdom. She summoned the void into Pharloom out of refusal to ascend. She is her father's daughter and the most wanted heiress of the weavers. She does gigantic mistakes and fixes them through whatever means is necessary.

She decided to save Lace and went to the most extreme lengths to do it, putting herself on the line when she could have run.

And it works.

Hornet is just insane and of course the true ending where you challenge the void is her ending.

[affogato-analysis]

Something about neither Ghost nor Hornet making concessions on their future

Silksong and Hollow Knight spoilers!!

yk there's something about hornet only seeing ghost if she goes for the best ending.

going in the abyss isn't enough, she has to fight for the best possible ending (pharloom's freedom, her own freedom, Lace's life, fixing her mistakes) for her siblings to show up.

could just be because she only needed help then but i love that she gets to see them when she goes for the best ending, same as she only got to see the hollow knight free when ghost went for the pantheon ending.

Something about going for the best instead of settling for good enough.

Also fits Silksong's theme of "the place sucks but the people are good and worth saving" which I dearly love.

[affogato-analysis]

if i had a nickel for every time team cherry created a performance themed red boss who has a flair for dramatics, that you fight twice, who changes hue for his second fight, leaves tracks behind him that deal damage, dances on dying kingdoms' remnants and has a mecanic that deals u damage if u decide to attack him early, I'd have two nickels. which isn't a lot, but it's WEIRD THAT IT HAPPENED TWICE

[affogato-analysis]

Heavy is the crown: Arthur and legacy

(puns! anyway lmao)

You know, I was thinking about the Tales from Cazilor, which I’ve been doing a lot as of late.

And like, it’s so obvious that Arthur’s character is about recognition. This kid grew up in his father’s shadow and it’s so obvious that this is what fucked him up.

He refuses to use his gift even though it has manifested and it’d apparently be useful for a climber according to Wyldflower scene 3. He does not bring up his father but the other recruits do and they blame who he is on that family tree.

Like, Arthur’s quest is about being himself and not his father’s son or a prodigy who had everything handed to him. About being seen for himself and to have his strengths acknowledged as what they are: the results of his own work. We don’t know if his father raised him, but I was just thinking about it. How impossible must it be to live when people brush off your accomplishments because, of course you’re the best, you’re X’ son, or Of course you did it, your gift’s awakened.

Arthur is essentially shooting himself in the foot just to prove that he can do it anyway and he pushes everyone away so that no one can ever tell him he didn’t earn the glory.

(and, really, gifted kids problems, but when all your mistakes are more seen than your successes, when all your efforts are seen as normal and dismissed but your failures are pinned to you like you’re the failure, it sucks. Ways to ruin a child, I promise.) (And “I don’t get sleep”’s lyrics include a very angry “Were you even trying?!” and the entire song is about running yourself ragged over not being enough, like, this isn't subtle or hard to decipher but it's pretty well executed.)

So, all in all, Captain Oldevitch telling him during the first album’s 3rd scene: “Toltag’s reign” that “your squad's all you got in times like this” and Apollo doubling down is surely a double edged sword. Either it marks a separation between Arthur and his father and allows him a space where he doesn’t have to be his father’s son, or it brings him again in a situation where he’s forced to share his victory with others, where he risks getting lost and not properly acknowledged. Probably both, and he needs to accept that he has new people now and they care for him (because they do, and he cares for them so much in return, I’m going insane).

[affogato-analysis]

Calypso, Antinous and consent

Epic has a fairly large cast of characters. Two of them in particular seem to parallel each other by their disregard for the target of their attraction and ambition’s consent: Calypso and Antinous.

We’ll discuss their writing, compare them and draw some analysis in this blog.

Trigger Warning, the following post discusses sexual assault and its authors and consequences. There will be no explicit or detailed retelling of SA and I aim to adopt a more ‘academic’ tone and therefore less emotionally charged, but I won’t censor this analysis. Make sure you’re safe and comfortable with this before proceeding, no shame in protecting yourself.

The following post contains spoiler for every saga of Epic.

Antinous is explicitly a rapist or at least attempted rapist, as depicted in the song Hold them down. He talks of Penelope as “spoils of war” and women are often targeted by sexual violence from winning troops in armed conflicts. He sets in motion the plan aiming to harm her and is willing to weaponize sexual violence to reach another goal: the throne.

Calypso’s case is a bit more complex. She’s not explicitly written as a rapist but her entire character is built around her disrespect for consent and her refusal to accept Odysseus’ rejection. I argue that Epic tries (tries.) to make her more into a romantic than a rapist. By which I mean, she is portrayed as a tantrum child who’s read too much romance and now thinks she’s entitled to a chance with the first and only man she meets. All in all, these terrifying scenarios of two individuals stuck together against their will, or against one party’s will, and who end up falling in love are reoccurring. The movie Passengers from 2016 follows precisely that plot, but with reversed gender (he traps her in a ship together until they die) and there is no way out.

I am not defending Calypso. We can’t establish from the song whether or not she has committed sexual assault. I need to insist on this actually, we cannot determine that she has OR HAS NOT committed SA. I’m not saying she’s innocent. I’m saying we don’t have concrete proof for either.

And I need here to make a quick tangent to discuss the Odyssey’s iteration of Calypso.

For starters, I did not read the Odyssey. Which is fine, because most of you haven’t either and the comparison isn’t so much Odyssey versus Epic but the general representation of Odyssey!Calypso versus Epic!Calypso.

This general and commonly admitted among non-scholar discourse (because I have no idea what the actual academic discourse looks like) is that Odyssey!Calypso kept Odysseus trapped for seven years, committed repeated sexual assaults to the point of getting two children from him. However. Wikipedia tells us: “While stranded on Ogygia, Odysseus was forced to become the lover of Calypso. According to Hesiod, this union resulted in two sons, named Nausinous and Nausithous. Neither Nausinous nor his brother are mentioned in Homer's Odyssey.”

Nausithous is also mentioned as a son between Circe and Odysseus so all in all, we just don’t know what’s going on.

Point is. We’re gonna admit here two iterations of Calypso: one who got two sons from Odysseus and Epic’s Calypso, characterized in the Wisdom Saga. The following post only refers to Epic’s Calypso but just so you know, the two kids her antique counterpart has with Odysseus are not in the Odyssey, which is the base material for Epic.

Calypso’s characterization does not depict her as a rapist… But it does.

She does try to have sex with Odysseus and refuses to take no for an answer, use her status as a goddess to establish an unequal power dynamics. I don’t think Epic meant to depict her as a rapist, I’m not sorry for loving you seems to point more towards a tragic character who tried to cling to her only human connection against every sign telling her to let go. But, at the end of the day, it’s a tantrum with divine proportion, it takes seven years out of Odysseus’ life, it’s relentless harassment and stalker like behavior and, all in all, it is rapist mentality.

We don’t know if she did push until she got what she wanted. Following my interpretation of her as wanting love and a genuine romance in the sunset, both are equally possible and, no matter what, she is a bad person. A desperate and lonely person, but a bad one nonetheless.

So, how comes Antinous and Calypso are written so differently?

Multiple theories really and keep in mind these are all interpretations. They’re theories and I have no evidence of what I’m saying. Anything stated without proof can be disregarded without proof. And I have no proof whatsoever.

Option 1: Calypso is indeed not meant to be a rapist and the fact that we can definitely read her as such is due to the nature of her character. Epic’s base material is the Odyssey and the Odyssey defined her as a character with no respect for the notion of consent. There is only so much you can reshape a character without altering their core characteristic.

Option 2: Sexual violence targeted towards men is a taboo. It’s often weaponized to take down feminist denunciations of systemic men on women violence and victim blaming, as well as dismissal of the simple possibility that a woman could commit SA on a man are very present part of the discussion when the subject it brought up. Jorge could have aimed to a more discreet depiction of Ody’s SA in the hands of Calypso due to the difficulty to talk about it. Again, I DO NOT KNOW THE MAN. I don’t know if that’s what happened and I don’t plan to bother him about it. I’m drawing hypothesis based on general societal factors without any information about his own personal life and beliefs. All I’m saying is societal norms might have influenced his writing this way. I have no evidence of this.

Thank you.

Option 3: Jorge simply wrote Hold Them Down and Love In Paradise at different times and changed his mind in between two songs on how to portray SA.

Option 4: both songs are from different perspectives. Antinous knows this is warfare and violence, Calypso is convinced it’s romance. Does not change that SA is SA, no matter if one of them thought this was a strategy or an act of seduction.

All in all, Antinous is a violent warrior ready to take the throne through violence. Calypso is a childlike, tantrum-prone goddess. Both show disrespect for consent and are unrelenting in their stalker-like and harassing behaviors.

Both are bad.

The only available nuance in this entire post is how you want to read Calypso. Being kind and wanting to be friends and have a good relation with someone does not stop someone from disregarding consent. Most people know their (attempted) rapists. They’re friends and family and I, for one, absolutely believe that Calypso could have, if she wanted to and if she felt entitled to it enough, committed SA on Odysseus. Whether she actually has is up to personal interpretation.

Thanks for reading. Stay safe out there, and support each other. We’re all we have sometimes.

If you’ve ever undergone any attempt at sexual violence, I believe you and I hope you find peace and justice. I love you. Take care.

[affogato-analysis]

Susie and freedom

Deltarune is consuming me, the symbolism around her is eating my brain and i love her to death. so, Susie.

spoilers ahead all the way to chapter 4's ending and potential speculations for the future.

I did write about that in a reblog like, two days or so ago but i wanted to detail it.

Susie is Freedom and it's so obvious.

she does not abide by the prophecy: there's the first switching side moment, when she decides to be a bad guy with Lancer instead of following the prophecy, there's also her asking Ralsei to take off his hood even though he's represented wearing it in the prophecy (could be linked to him not being the prince from the prophecy too). There's obviously the clear "we're not gonna let that happen" when she finds out about the prophecy's ending too and her refusal to accept the tragedy.

there's the freedom she brings to Kris by her friendship (see the actions that are so obviously theirs, like the drinks at church. see also the mirror dialogue "for some reason, seeing susie standing with you… You feel like things might actually be ok." (and yeah there's the whole question of who 'you' is in these lines but i'm pretty positive these are about Kris even if the Soul is in control).

there's the Dark World adventure where she constantly is the free and freeing one: in Lancer's castle, Noelle in Queen's tower, Toriel in chapter 3 and almost Undyne (she's certainly the one fighting the most out of her own freewill), then chapter 4 where she delivers a letter on Gerson's behalf to his son, therefore delivering one of his guilt and the other of his sense of duty (kinda, not exactly sure what to call it because insecurities feel too tame for what it is).

She also challenges the rules of the Dark World. In chapter 3, despite Tenna's comment on censorship, she can and does write ass as her name and has a "kiss the my ass" on her apron. Instead of just throwing Kris at the Titan at the end of chapter 4, she jumps with them, even if they are the only one able to seal the fountain. She learns a healing spell and refuses to give up despite not being meant to.

In the Light World, she's constantly defying expectations (see Alphys thinking Susie will make fun of her for her juice combo when she's just kinda curious about it) and also is the savior: she fights Berdly and Mayor Carol for Noelle's freedom. Also, in a way, since she's the one distracting Noelle, she's the one to give Kris freedom of action (or tries, because Kris does not have half a second's worth of freedom in this god forsaken game).

MEANING! the great power of contrast, Susie has so much more freedom than ANYONE ELSE. She fights for a lot of them though!

Kris is trapped by many things, including the Soul, that small town where they obviously don't fit anymore and that voice on the other side of the phone, and the promise they made. Which Susie fights every time: the freedom she brings through her friendship, the reaching them even at their worst (see the "Kris is surprisingly good at flirting" which stops them from their trying to murder the Soul and the mirror dialogue again).

Ralsei is dutifully abiding by the prophecy and unable to escape his role, at least partly because he doesn't try until Susie makes him (when he tells her he'll try to be more honest with her and Kris in the future in chapter 4). He doesn't even try to exist for himself ("we must not make the lightners worry", "i don't need a room") and every time she reaches out to tell him off (telling they're real friends, planning a surprise for him and trying to arrange him a room).

Noelle has her father at the hospital, her strict and potentially abusive mother, Berdly's creepy behavior towards her, her own expectations, even Queen's obsession to trap her. Susie fights all of these, by being there at the hospital (even if we bring her), telling her mother off, telling Berdly off and literally rescuing her out of Queen's grasp like a romance novel.

Herself. No one frees Susie. She breaks out of jail and the mold on her own, encouraged by her own will to do just that. She sees freedom and reaches for it, all on her own (well, we're with her, but she goes for it out of her own volition). She learns piano, her spelling is bad but she writes the letter for Gerson, she goes to church and immediately ditches the church clothes when she feels trapped in them.

I love her your honor, she is so brave.

And yeah, that opens an entire conversation about can she subvert the prophecy or is it going to catch up with her dramatically? Is she even the girl from the prophecy? Can Ralsei and Kris escape the prophecy? Can Kris and the Soul escape each other? (because we also did not choose Kris. We specifically didn't choose Kris actually, but our vessel was discarded.) And from there, we expand to the rest of the Light World: can Kris and Susie escape their own backgrounds and families, can they grow past their circumstances, can she lift Kris up the same way she does when they're climbing, offering a safe spot and tossing them up towards greater heights?

Or is this all going to end in tears with the prophecy overpowering her freedom? 'cause i would cry so bad

[honeyfaer]

it honestly fucks me up that susie is the optimistic one. enough to be called as having hope crossed on her heart. that SHE brings hope to ralsei, hope that maybe, just maybe, things can be different. that their story and fate isnt predetermined and inevitable. ralsei tries so hard to be the hopeful one, the one filled with optimism, to see the bright side in everything but he cant. he cant! he knows how this story ends. and susie, the mean, sarcastic aggressive person with an attitude is the one to say FUCK THAT. you dont have to be afraid. because im not, and im not going to let it happen. its just so... AUGH. I LOVE THEM!!!

[affogato-analysis]

amazing take

i just wanna add

Susie is freedom.

Ralsei is trapped by the prophecy and his status as a darkner.

Kris is trapped by the soul and the promise they've made to the person of the other side of the phone.

Susie is just there. She says "fuck you and fuck this" all the time, she's the one who challenge the prophecy at every turn (refusing to be a hero then shattering the prophecy, that and her refusal to let Kris do the sealing of the titan alone although she can't really do anything about it herself, like, she's always the one who acts out of her own free will) and also everything else! She fights Berdly and Noelle's mother for Noelle's sake, Susie takes freedom in her own hands and brings it to her people.

Might be dramatically reversed in the future, or could fail and be devastating, but up to this point, I absolutely count on her to be the catalyst.

[affogato-analysis]

The Circe Saga: misandry and power

aka, why I really like Epic’s depiction of Circe!

Greek mythology is highly sexist and misogynistic. This is not up for debate. Therefore, any woman who is shown as powerful in a Greek myth must invite curiosity and some reflection about this power.

Retellings of Greek myths are always confronted with their base material presenting these issues and it’s always a bit of a gamble to try and balance it out.

Circe’s character isn’t exactly that much of a challenge since she is a powerful woman in the original myths already. The challenge lies in keeping her strong without denaturing her character: Circe is a caring woman, towards her nymphs, ruthless and unforgiving in her quest to protect them and herself. Her story is one linked to men’s cruelty and the real difficulty lies in keeping this trauma without defining her entirely around it.

Epic does a good job of this, by defining her first and foremost not as a betrayed, hurt witch but a power to be reckoned with, a queen to the Nymphs, a sorceress. You’d have to ask Jorge how he went about designing his iteration of the character, I’m not in his head. What I know is that Epic!Circe is a good representation of her and I’d like more of it actually.

What I want to tackle is the resolution of the conflict between her and Odysseus and how he convinces her that he should get his crew back. The musical avoids falling into the ‘man fixing a woman’s trust in men’ trope to my greatest pleasure.

Odysseus never convinces Circe that his crew are better men: they did fall for her trap after all. He never tries to tell her they’re not pigs or not dangerous to women or not scarred by war and its violence, therefore carrying it with them. What he tells her isn’t that she’s misunderstanding them, but that Odysseus guarantees that, if she lets them leave, they will not turn back.

This is not about morality but control. Circe’s beliefs are not put into question, Odysseus doesn’t prove that his crew are kinder men or even that he is.

See, Circe’s character is defined by her power and her control. She is repeatedly referred to as such; her first song is about being a puppeteer; when she tries to seduce Odysseus, it is a power struggle; he begs her for mercy and doesn’t threaten her; when Odysseus and his crew leaves, no one doubts her power. Odysseus got divine help to win against her, and he didn’t win against her, his illusion beat hers.

Odysseus is not powerful. Because “Back at home, my wife awaits for me, she's my everything, my Penelope and she's all my power, all my power”. When Circe tries to seduce him, he is tempted! Circe is a beautiful woman and the man has been at war for ten years and at sea for an extra two, he is tempted by her advances. But he is first and foremost Penelope’s husband and she is her power. For all that he wants Circe, he has just enough control to not fall to her temptation.

There is no changing her belief or methods, this is about power and where it lies.

This is all a power struggle, and, at the end of the day, Penelope wins.

Odysseus and Penelope are amazing like that, because she’s the power and he’s got control. These are the two qualities that Circe values, that and family.

So essentially, Odysseus has enough control to maintain himself throughout her manipulations, and Penelope exerts enough power on him that Circe is fairly confident that he will not hurt her or her nymphs. He also has enough power over his crew to ensure they will not hurt them either.

Therefore, when he tells her Poseidon’s after him – and considering Poseidon’s record of violence towards women –, Circe decides to help him.

And just so we’re extra clear, this is not Circe stepping back and considering men as ‘not that bad’. She thinks that there might be room for men to improve if they learn respect and to perceive women as powerful as well, but that doesn’t disprove her current opinion. Men could get better but they are not better than she thought.

All in all, this is a struggle over power and control and Circe is challenged by Odysseus and Penelope.

And yeah, he does get a dagger at her neck. But she does not lose, nor is she rendered powerless and fearful when that happens, she just switches strategies. She is not just powerful, she is resourceful and constantly in control.

I really like this saga because it’s a genuinely very respectful depiction of Circe as a woman. And yeah, the femme fatale isn’t an uncommon trope, but it’s still a nice iteration of it, and a really spot on take on it. Femme fatale are not about being hot but in control in a world of men, and Circe’s a really good representation of it.

[prideknights]

Hi Prideknights!

You're based in Europe, right? Could you help out signal-boosting this European citizens initiative to ban conversion therapy in the EU?

https://eci.ec.europa.eu/043/public/#/screen/home

I don't think I have to explain the horrors of conversion therapy to you, so let me explain how this initiative works.

For it to get taken seriously by the EU, we need two things:

7 countries need to reach the minimum threshold of signatures for their country. We're currently at 6 out of 7! Slovenia only needs 300 more signatures to become country number 7!

We need a total of 1 million signatures. This might look daunting, but there days ago we were still at 200.000. Yesterday we were at 450.00. We are at 535.000 right now. So we have a long way to go, but we are moving fast!

The deadline is in a few days, on May 17.

Anybody with a European citizenship can add their name to the pile! If we reach the right amount, the official citizen initiative will be put before the EU Commission.

With lgbtq+ rights getting rolled back across the world, including Europe, there is no time to lose to demand stronger protections.

European Citizens' Initiative

Give your support !

MAY 14, 2025 (VERY RELEVANT) SPREAD. THIS. LIKE. WILDFIRE!!!

[affogato-analysis]

Is Jinx a terrorist?

A dive into definitions, political science and arcane.

Hello there! Time to get controversial about some of the least controversial aspects of Arcane! Why am I picking an umpteenth fight that no one cared for? Because I can, thank you.

Jinx has been called a terrorist unequivocally by the entire fandom and I haven’t seen anyone – hardcore fans or arcane criticals – discuss the accuracy of that claim.

I’m gonna have to put a couple disclaimers in there already.

1- I’m a master student in political science. While that gives me some credibility in what i’m saying (that, and the fact that I'll be quoting my sources), that does not immediately make me right, this blog is not peer-reviewed (lmao) and you should have critical thinking while reading.

2- This is not me promoting or endorsing terrorism. I aim to have a neutral take on it, following the methods of scientific writing. I do have my own moral judgement on the matter, but it’s not the focal point of this blog. Just because I will write in a very neutral manner does not mean terrorism stops being terrorism.

3- My incoming points are argued towards a work of fiction, and you must be careful if you decide to translate that reading to the real world. It certainly isn’t a complete and exhaustive view of terrorism and politics certainly require you to have critical thinking and better source than a tumblr blog (hence the quoting my sources part).

4- The goal here is to give various ways to read Jinx’s actions, not to give a definite name and judgement on them. This text is entirely subject to your criticism.

With this out of the way! Spoilers ahead for the entire show (and while we won’t really discuss season 2 act 3 here, there will be spoilers anyway) and let’s get into it.

And we get into it through a definition (everyone’s favorite thing, I know). For a proper definition, I looked into the Encyclopedia Britannica, the article on terrorism written by John Philip Jenkins.

In this article, he says: “Terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions”. Which. ah. That doesn’t help. No, to be fair, he does then say “Terrorism involves the use or threat of violence and seeks to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience”.

Later down the line, we can read: “In order to attract and maintain the publicity necessary to generate widespread fear, terrorists must engage in increasingly dramatic, violent, and high-profile attacks. These have included hijackings, hostage takings, kidnappings, mass shootings, car bombings, and, frequently, suicide bombings. Although apparently random, the victims and locations of terrorist attacks often are carefully selected for their shock value.[...]The goal of terrorism generally is to destroy the public’s sense of security in the places most familiar to them. Major targets sometimes also include buildings or other locations that are important economic or political symbols, such as embassies or military installations. The hope of the terrorist is that the sense of terror these acts engender will induce the population to pressure political leaders toward a specific political end.”

Yes, it’s a bit long, I’m sorry. It matters that y’all know that because that’s what I’ll be referring to as terrorism: dramatic, violent attacks that target symbolic places; military and civilian populations alike to instill fear in populations. The ultimate goal is (usually radical) political change.

This is really important! Terrorism is a method. NOT an ideology. Terrorism is in service of an ideology (it has been used by anarchists, communists, fascists, the KKK, ISIS… these ideologies are not alike) and we can separate both aspects of the fight. Namely, you can think one method is great but the ideology of the group using it sucks or vice versa. It can be used by states against their population to subdue any opposition; by revolutionary groups, by religious groups, individuals… Some ideologies are closely linked to terrorism of course, but you get the gist. Method.

And just because something isn’t terrorism doesn’t bring people back to life. Some attacks aren’t terrorism, but they’re still deadly and not any less or more morally condemnable.

Since we’re looking specifically at Jinx in this post, we’ll only discuss her actions. We could expand that conversation, but it’s not the point here and now.

Jinx does multiple acts of violence, and I’m gonna list off the ones we’ll examine here.

Season 1 episode 4, the fight between Jinx and the firelights when smuggling shimmer into Piltover.

The attack on the tent when she steals the hexgem during progress day. (also episode 4)

Episode 7, the attack on the bridge right before her fight with Ekko & the explosion that almost kills both of them.

Episode 9 and her attack on the Council.

Season 2 episode 3, the clouds of Grey sent through the vents to Piltover by Jinx and Sevika.

We won’t discuss individual beefs: namely Cait’s kidnapping, all the times she fucks with Sevika, her fight with Ekko precisely because it’s individual and targeted. Terrorism implies aiming much larger and the goal is violence in symbolic places and on symbolic populations for shock value and fear mongering, it’s never just personal conflict.

First instance! The fight between Jinx and the firelights when smuggling shimmer into Piltover.

The goal here is to protect the cargo, not send a political message. The attack wasn’t planned, it’s an answer to a targeted strike on strategic interest. The goal is not fear, not political change. This is more of a routine fight between rival groups.

Verdict, not terrorism.

Second instance: the attack on the building when she steals the hexgem during progress day.

Attacks on places without victims are a bit of a grey zone in the definition, but there are victims, because Jinx does call for help, impersonating a lost young child to draw in enforcers.

It’s decently targeted on military populations (Piltover’s enforcers are obviously both police and military forces in Arcane), because Jinx was obviously aiming for them (you can’t kill someone’s parents in the fuck around part of your life and not expect an angry orphan once you reach the find out part). It’s symbolic, because this.

But it’s more mocking, taunting that it is meant to be scary.

Her goal is stealing the gem first and foremost, to impress Silco.

Verdict? Debatable. It can be read as terrorism, it can be read as a tactical strike against Piltover’s forces, it can be both. I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Third: the attack on the bridge, right before her fight with Ekko.

Attacks on the bridge are not that symbolic anymore, consequences of constant fights on said bridge. At this point, it’s as symbolic and surprising as finding a mine in a minefield is. Fork found in kitchen type of shocking. The symbolism is more in the weaponery, she uses the bugs engineered by Piltover.

It’s targeted on enforcers, specifically the ones that will get in her way to get the gem back. It does not aim to instill fear. It does not aim for radical political change through fear.

By my books, not terrorism.

The explosion that concludes her fight with Ekko is ‘just’ a murder suicide attempt, not terrorism.

Fourth: episode 9, the rocket and the Council.

Ooh, spiky territory.

Hyper targeted strike on Piltover’s governing body – with debates over did she know they were in here, considering it was night + the lights were off –, meant as highly symbolic (tower of the Council directly, using hextech to power her rocket launcher), clearly meant as a shocking start to all out hostilities (“We’ll show them all.”), on technically civilian populations (although very specific people), and the goal is so obviously radical political change (as she’s walking in Silco’s shoes).

The question is, of course, the fear element. Is it her immediate intention to scare Piltover, or is this a targeted strike to weaken it?

We will never know because Arcane season 2 immediately forgets that this happened and that Jinx had thoughts and a political intent when she shot and then takes a severe turn away from the Zaun/Piltover conflict towards Noxus and magic so we don’t know.

I argue against calling it terrorism, because of how targeted it was, but both sides of the argument are interesting.

Season 2 now!

There are significantly less instances, because the show focuses on Viktor and Jayce a lot more than the sisters in season 2.

However, there is one specific instance of Jinx committing violence that is neither self defense or personal beef with a specific individual. I'm referring to the end of arc 1, with the rerouting of the vent to send the colorful clouds into Piltover.

Dramatic and shocking actions? check.

Highly symbolic? Jinx’s colors, reminiscent of her attack on the progress day of season 1, using the Grey through the vents (an invention of the Kiramman meant to pacify relations between Zaun and Piltover despite the many implications of still unequal power relations) check.

Targeted at civilians and military populations indistinctly, with the intent of doing damage? check.

Destroy the sense of safety in public spaces? considering where the attack happens: everywhere, including the streets and the peaceful gardens in Piltover; and the fact that the paint will stain and leave its mark, check, yes.

Aim for radical political change? check.

Aim to instill fear to subdue a population and force them into political change? Well, I’ve never seen a picture that said “we can reach you everywhere, expect us” as much as this one, so check, absolutely.

Yeah, this is terrorism.

While we don’t know if there are casualties from this attack, we do see a hurt child. Grey is insanely dangerous, it’s not unfair to assume that people with some breathing difficulties or a weak immune system would die from it. Ambessa doesn’t talk about it, so I’m gonna say no, else she would have instrumentalized it. However, just because no one dies doesn’t mean no one is hurt and it does not refute the terrorism accusation. (it’s still terrorism if it fails)

This specific attack is textbook terrorism.

…

…

But.

Right before Sevika triggers the explosion, Jinx yells “No! That’s not what these are for!” (or something close enough, i don't have my eyes on the episode right now)

so. what the fuck were they meant to be for. Did she mean wait until we’re all out of there, it’s not meant to be used as a weapon against Vi and Caitlyn but specifically on Piltover. Did she mean there was a completely different use she thought of for the vents and the bombs. If yes, I have no clue what it was meant to be used for, but sure.

Mainly, if she did mean she never planned to reroute the grey into Piltover, it means that she never tried to commit that terrorist action, and instead it’s Sevika who’s responsible for it.

Verdict, terrorism? yes. Jinx, a terrorist? well, question mark still stands.

So, should we call Jinx a terrorist?

Well see, I asked a question no one ever asked, sprinkled sparks of debate in a very agreed upon topic and I don’t even have an answer to provide!

And to delve a bit more into that method doesn’t equate ideology, reminder that you can agree with a fight for Zaun’s independence and freedom, support radicality in these actions and even endorse FICTIONAL terrorism and still wish the clouds were aimed at actual strategic targets. You can hate the entire thing, or only agree partway. It’s fictional and no one actually died in real life, so we have space for purely hypothetical, pointless debates over semantics and what-ifs that real life terrorism tends to cut short.

What do you think? please do share opinions, i need to know.

here’s the proper citation format for the article i used as my baseline definition for terrorism :  Jenkins, J.P. (2025, March 18). “terrorism”. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism.

(yeah i have been formatted to provide proper bibliographies in every paper i write)

[affogato-analysis]

Athena, Odysseus, mirror arcs and parallels

We like parallels in this fandom, so let me explore this one.

I’ve seen and read a lot of people talking about various parallels in the musical but i’ve yet to see about these two: Athena and Odysseus constantly mirror each other in a way. Both their arcs and stories across EPIC are constantly intertwined and they always meet in some way.

The first time they meet, they both try to trick each other: she disguises herself, he bluffs and it works. She’s looking for a student, he wants a mentor, their stories and ambition meet for the first time.

He convinced her because he knew who she was, he called her by her name. And when they split up, it’s when he fumbles his trap by revealing his own name to the cyclops after discarding her advice. So, when he steps away from her and her teachings — for decent reasons in Epic, he wants less bloodshed and he wants his men remembered —, she steps away from him.

They don’t see eye to eye because, when Odysseus thinks mercy and a kinder world are good, she sees it as weakness and calls him sentimental in a derogatory way. She wants him to finish the cyclops for he is still a threat, Odysseus can not bring himself to kill anymore, especially not an already injured and weak foe.

I really like that, although their actions mirror each other, the musical doesn’t forget Odysseus is a man and Athena a goddess. When he steps away from her, he ignores her advice once. When she steps away from him, she doesn’t talk to him for ten years.

Then, as Odysseus goes missing from the surface of Earth, stuck on Calypso’s island, Athena goes to check on his son. He wants to go home but he can’t, but she is free. They are far away but, through their affection for Ithaca and Telemachus, they still meet in a way.

(We could expand on the parallels Athena draws between father and son and how Telemachus recontextualizes Odysseus’ actions and allows her better understanding, therefore leading her to grant forgiveness but well, it’s been done before and it’s not the point right now.)

Then, both reach for each other at the same time.

I’ve seen talks about ‘how long had Odysseus been calling for her before she came to answer him?’, my own take on the matter is it’s the first time. He calls her because she’s here. He can feel her presence, that’s literally how they met. And even if he doesn’t realize it, even if it’s unconscious, even if he thought she hadn’t answered him, he calls for her and she reaches for him at the same moment.

(part of why I think that is absolutely because I like it more, yes)

And then, Thunderbringer.

Athena and Odysseus both face Zeus, are met with a challenge and face the Thunderbringer.

But when Zeus shows up to Ody, he is a very unwelcome addition to an already bad situation. When Athena faces him, it’s because she walked into his house asking a favor from him.

When Odysseus brings the lightning to his crew so he can live, Athena faces it head on so she can rescue her friend.

For both of them it’s a trial, and a painful one. But Odysseus comes out of the Underworld and the sirens’ territory and Scylla’s lair willing to be a monster, ready to torture Poseidon until he calls back the storm. Athena just left Ithaca and Telemachus, and defeats Zeus by calling to his mercy and kindness.

When they meet again, he’s fighting to reconquer his palace, she is by his son’s side to defend him. (sword and shield metaphors anyone?)

And he calls to her again, and she reveals herself. And now, she’s the one wishing the world would be kinder and he’s not willing to fight for it. (Forgive the man, he had still the suitors’ blood all over him when he hugged his son, he’s yet to see his wife again, he’s allowed to be too tired to care about changing the world.)

So yeah, I think they’re neat. They keep on meeting and mirroring each other, learning from each other and from their time apart.

Insert here some commentary about undying friendship and all.

[affogato-analysis]

Eurylochus, responsibility and cowardice

Never thought I’d actually make an EPIC rant but here we are! Eurylochus is a character i’ve seen quite a few takes on, but i didn’t agree with any of them so lmao, here goes!

Eurylochus, as Odysseus’ second in command, should have been the incarnation of loyalty. Either to his captain or to the crew, both would be fine (standing with your ruler and not your people doesn’t make you a good person) (but it does make for interesting character tropes, looking at you, Dark souls II). But Eurylochus is as reliable as a burning rope bridge above a precipice, for both the crew and Odysseus.

Essentially, the deal with Eurylochus is a lack of will. He gets carried by whatever wind is the most comfortable on a given day and never makes a stand against the current — unlike, idk, Odysseus who literally stabs Poseidon.

And, you know, staying perched on your position without ever moving isn't a healthy or safe behavior, “open arms” would have killed Odysseus and even Telemacheus brings himself to violence.

But choosing a hill to kill and die on can be mandatory for survival. Radicality is something to be careful with, but when facing radical dangers, taking the middle ground every time means losing over and over again.

Refusing free will to hide behind a leader is how you get yourself in a sect, refusing free will to follow a wave is how you get yourself complicit to atrocities after all. (oh, politics, when did you get there?) (haha anyway)

So! Eurylochus.

Eurylochus is a character I've seen apologists for, haters, lovers… I argue here that he is primarily defined by his cowardice and refusal of responsibility.

I have to make a quick stop here to define cowardice: the behavior of someone who is not at all brave and tries to avoid danger (that’s from the Cambridge dictionary). It has a very negative connotation but i only use it here to define someone who fears danger and tries to avoid it. there's no moral judgment on my end on eurylochus' behavior.

Odysseus asks him to follow his lead without question in Luck Runs Out, and he does. When he opens the windbag, he does so under the pressure of the crew, because he can not make a stand for himself and prove his loyalty. He gets scared when Circe invites them in and runs away. When Ody tells him “you'd go back for me”, he's quiet. “Let's cut our losses and leave”, he says. But Odysseus goes back and wins. He wins on his own too, he didn’t ask Eury to follow him.

I think it genuinely is a turning point for Eurylochus, who is then willing to follow Odysseus without question. He's fine with going to the Underworld, he's fine with slaughtering the sirens, he's fine entrusting his life and future to Odysseus (because he does fill his ears with cotton in order not to hear the sirens, leaving every information in Odysseus’ hands).

He asks for reassurance when they reach the lair of Scylla, because he can probably tell something's off, Odysseus is not his normal self, he's silent and probably mourning already.

He confesses to opening the wind bag because he can not stand the guilt (and we could argue that he wants the responsibility of the consequences of that to go to Odysseus but also that’s prob overreaching).

Then, Odysseus makes the one mistake that cost him 7 years of his life.

He asks Eurylochus to light the torches and to distribute them among the crew.

This is what makes Eurylochus responsible for who died. And, for all that he's fine following a murderer and a dangerous man, he will not share the blame. “If you want all the power, you must carry all the blame”. Suddenly, the blood is on his hands and he chose whose blood, he had some margin of power and now she carries that blame. He is not only obedient and an accomplice by his silence, he has made a decision that resulted in death. And Eurylochus does not like that.

Blind obedience and silent compliance is comfortable, because it's not really his fault, is it. But now, because he chose who died, it is. So, Eurylochus is overwhelmed by his anger and guilt (and I believe he's honest in his distress) and, therefore, takes it out on Odysseus.

I'm not gonna bring politics into this but actually I am, it's easy to pretend it's not real when someone else is in charge, it's easy to pretend you're innocent when there's a hierarchy to protect you. It's easy to say “I was following orders” but the blood doesn't care who it stains. It doesn’t matter if you’re shedding it directly or through a ballot either.

Anyway.

Eurylochus.

When confronted with the blood he shed, he lashes out on Odysseus. And then, the crew and Eurylochus are hungry. And, well, there's food. And there's no listening to Odysseus, Odysseus betrayed him once already (i know, the irony. but, “if you want all the power, you must carry all the blame”, in his mind, he's innocent). And he's hungry, and there's food and the crew, the last entity he can hide into to avoid his responsibility, the crew is hungry.

And there's food. And so, for his own comfort and under peer pressure, he kills the cow.

When Zeus makes Odysseus choose, and we get the ever haunting: “Captain?” / “I have to see her.” / “But we'll die.” / “I know.”, I argue we're beyond every betrayal, guilt, resentment. This is not a captain and his crew, this is Odysseus and Eurylochus. The friends. Fear, betrayal, loyalty, none of these matter. Odysseus must go home. Eurylochus wants to go home. Only one of them is willing to make the terrible choice.

When facing overly powerful, violent and unforgiving entities, Odysseus chooses violence as an answer. Eurylochus, defined by cowardice and his want for comfortable obedience, his refusal of choice, dies by the hands of a god in need of entertainment.

And just so we’re clear: that does not make him evil, or bad, or more morally reprehensible than the next guy, or whatever. It makes him, essentially, a normal dude. We’d all be scared shitless in front of Gods, and making drastic choices and sacrifices does not make Odysseus a better person.

Eurylochus is essentially a middle ground: he’ll trust Odysseus but only until a literal god tells him his captain is hiding a treasure. And to be fair, wouldn’t we doubt too. He trusts him again later when he proves himself, but when he finds out he’s been fooled and the blood is on his hands too — I saw someone say Eury had probably given the torches to men he trusted and cared for —, he fights Odysseus. When it becomes obvious to him that they will not be able to come home, Eurylochus decides to stop chasing an impossible dream and goes for a very easily fulfilled need: food.

But choosing a middle ground in the face of absolute, violent and dominating power just means managing losses one after the other. If you choose to stay in this fight — keep pursuing Ithaca in this case — you have to opt for radicality yourself.

(also, come on man, these cows were literally the divine’s property, hunger must have made you so stupid lmao)

Eurylochus never stood a chance in Epic. Not when he found himself unable to follow either his captain or his crew and ended up being a discardable pawn in some gods’ game.

[affogato-analysis]

War as the great equalizer and Arcane

War is often defined at the greatest equalizer: everyone bleeds and dies the same after all. Having a common enemy is also often a rallying factor and helps create community despite conflicts.

However, in real life, not everyone is in fact equal in the face of war. There is a gendered experience of armed conflicts, an ethnic experience too and economic status also impacts one’s journey through war. Identities don’t disappear entirely and they still play a role in war time.

So, Arcane.

Spoilers ahead for the entire show.

also i get heated throughout this post.

Arcane uses the Noxian invasion as the common enemy™ to bring the two warring sister cities together, push them to get over their mutual hatred to ally for the greater good. The war is meant to be the great equalizer that helps them wipe the slate clean and start over, with equal forces in the council and a better mutual understanding.

Does it work? Well, Sevika does get a seat on the Council and it does stop the martial law.

But.

But.

I argue for a less hopeful take. I think Piltover’s domination over Zaun is still very much present throughout the war.

For one, equipment. Yes, Zaunites are given Enforcers uniform for protection. But Zaunites do not fight like enforcers. Enforcers can’t twist like Smeech, they don’t fight with Jinx’s flexibility, they don’t use the firelights’ hoverboards. Enforcers have a lot of brute force and special equipment. Zaunites are used to running a lot, jumping, fighting barehanded and with a lot less formal training.

Enforcers’ uniforms are blocks. They don’t favor flexibility. Zaunites are given uniforms that they do not know how to fight in, that they have to adapt to in a record time and figure out how to even move in. The weight is different, their range of movement is different, their speed is affected. And I’m not a fighter, I don’t know if this is all relevant and how it's relevant. All I know is, armor is a tool, and this tool looks really, really ill-fitted for the Zaunites.

(I wholeheartedly invite anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about to tell us some more on the subject).

Two, training. That ties closely with the previous point. Zaunites are taught to fight by enforcers, according to Piltover’s strategies. Both parties could complete each other’s training, both fought Noxus (for sparring purposes or due to the riots). And as we’ve said, Piltovians and Zauns are not moving the same way (it’s especially visible in season 1, when Vi and Caitlyn go back to the Undercity in episode 4 where the two girls do not run across the place at the same pace and through the same path). Zaunites have to copy their moves on Piltover’s strategies and are not shown to be teaching their own experience — reminder that they are the ones who had to put up with actual Noxian violence. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but we didn’t see it so I very much think it didn’t. Side note, historically, dominated groups are very rarely invited to share their knowledge, let alone have that knowledge be seen as legitimate (you can see that in colonization, where indigenous knowledge is erased in favor of colons’ practices and opinions; it’s also seen when it comes to women’s words being disregarded in favor of men’s).

And finally, last but not least, the place of the battle. The barricades are set, therefore marking the area that the forces will be made to protect. Anything that is outside of this area is left to Noxus.

And the barricades are set on the bridges. Piltover is to be kept safe and used as a military bastion, Zaun is left to fend for itself. Had Noxus chosen to burn it to the ground, Piltover would have watched. That is, in itself, quite a brutal truth but on top of that, Piltovians ask Zaunites to help protect their home. This is again asking Zaunites for more sacrifices for Piltover’s protection, while Zaun is abandoned to Noxian forces.

And just so we’re clear, good war strategies would have seen a use of both cities. Guerilla techniques are used a lot in asymmetrical wars, when one party is significantly stronger than the other. They rely on the weaker party’s knowledge of the field, their abilities to move around and to lure their opponents into traps. These have been known to be efficient. I’m not kidding, guerrillas can see the slaughter of entire armies if played correctly (see wikipedia page on Napoleon versus Spain. These strategies defeated Napoleon, who, reminder, had a massive empire across Europe that he got through war and conquest.)

But no. Zaunites strategies, experience and even land are dismissed and sacrificed to protect Piltover!

(And yes, the writers could have thought about it, because they already did. Caitlyn uses the grey to clear the streets precisely because Zaunites rule their city and they can fight in it. It is also how Zaunites can resist the martial law so long.)

When Arcane pulls the War™ card on Pitlover and Zaun, it wants us to believe that it is enough to smooth over the differences between the two sides of the Pilt. But, and as many, many have said before, Zaun and Piltover were never warring sisters! The situation has always been that Piltover is an oppressive force on Zaun. It’s never been a war, it’s always been an oppressor/oppressed situation. The show tries to sell the ‘they were equals but angy all along!’ narrative throughout season 2 and it fails dramatically. The Noxian Invasion just exposes further the inequalities between the two cities, despite it being an attempt at making things right by the writers.

(and it doesn’t even make sense for the battle to happen in Piltover because Noxians were established in Piltover and only sent a team down to take down the commune and Jinx so technically Ambessa could have just snatched leadership ages ago before Mel came back and then try to take down Zaun only and for fuck’s sake we could have had a season 3 about resistance and guerilla in a Zaun vs Noxus war with actual time for a reconciliation between Zaun and Piltover through acknowledging Piltover’s oppression and making right by Zaunites, time for a Cailtyn/Vi proper reconciliation, actual Timebomb, Sevika with an decent arc and Jayvik in the commune getting some massive drama about the hexcore and magic and WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN)

(Yes, you can argue it’s because the show lacked time to show all of these elements, to which I answer fuck that, they had time for Timebomb, Isha and Vander/Warwick and all of these would easily have been sacrificed. Plus, it’s their job to make the show! I get to ask of them that they make a good one! And I get to say fuck Riot for making this show only to sell their videogame and not having respect from the integrity of the art and the artists! it’s capitalism’s fault and it can fuck off too.)

And how do I know I’m right and not making things up? None of the Zaunites we see going to war wearing an enforcer suit survives it, except Vi who, 1- only wears half of her uniform, 2- has a prior experience with it, 3- has her gauntlets, 4- has her sister showing up with a machine gun, what i guess is a hot air balloon and the rest of Zaun’s fighting forces!

(Grey zone for Loris by the way, because he looks like he’s in between the two cities and I can’t be sure if he’s piltovian or zaunite.)

“Oh but are you sure that’s what the writers’ train of thought was?” No! I’m pretty sure it wasn’t actually, but it is what the art is showing. A lot of things happen due to biases and implicit unknown social habits that we internalized without realizing it, that happens! Our job is to check those habits (because that’s how a lot of racism, sexism, ableism, insert here other discriminations there are too many of them, keep on happening!) and make sure we don’t spread shit messages that contradict what we actually want to say.

“Are you not reading too much into this?” No.

“The showrunners just wanted to add some angst and so they killed off characters we liked!” I don’t care. I don’t care what the showrunners wanted, I care about what happened in the show. I don’t care that it’s a show, the story deserves to be looked at, not as just a rushed show with poorly implemented centrist retcons, but as the universe, characters and arcs it is drawing. Arcane’s worldbuilding is great, its characters interesting and the story immersive, I get to interact with it as if the show was just a glimpse at a different world, I get to look further than what we got to see, I get to analyze this as if it was real. I don’t care that the showrunners meant something else or that I’m reading too much into it, to quote tumblr posts, “It’s not that deep but the ground is soft and I’m willing to dig”. And when I dig with that goddamn shovel, I see that Zaun’s oppression is far from being over.

I am passionate about this, yes.

I so want to talk about arcane by the way, and I can be calm when doing so. I didn’t want to in this post because it’s just me and google docs but I can be normal.

[affogato-analysis]

Stray thought about Caitlyn in S2 arc 3

spoilers and all that jazz!

For all that we can argue about Caitlyn's redeemable-ness and how the show depicts her, we can all acknowledge that THIS.

was a fcking day for her.

I just wanna say we must consider for a second the horrible shit show of emotions that this must have been for her.

The girl you were sleeping with and who showed you support turns out to be a spy and a manipulator, your mentor asks her to kill you, she drops "i enjoyed your warmth" as the last thing you'll ever hear, SHOOTS, weird ricochet noises and before you can even process what happened, her DEAD BODY drops on your shoulder and slides of you so you have a 10/10 view of her dead face.

And then you essentially have to get beaten up bloody, stabbed twice, pull the knife out in a last ditch effort to hope to create an opening for a woman who's had magic powers for a total of two weeks.

What a day!

[affogato-analysis]

I really, really like Mel's arc actually!

I'm back on my defending hated character arcs bs!

spoilers for the entirety of Arcane.

There are multiple themes to Arcane. We will not discuss thematic coherence here, please and thank you.

Season 2's two main themes are "Love is always the way in and out of hatred and monstrosity" and "Your family is always with you".

This post is only about the second theme but the two intertwine all the time.

Your family will always catch up to you.

Vander is constantly brought back by his love for his daughters until all his memories and love are ripped away from him, leaving only Warwick.

Caitlyn becomes a monster out of love for her mother and uses her legacy to carry out "justice". Ambessa calls her forth because she is a Kiramman.

Mel Medarda lives in her Mother's shadow. Piltover is her attempt at building something away from her. Ambessa's arrival in season 1 crumbles her efforts to stand away from her, until it doesn't.

(btw, I would argue Mel's refusal to mind her mother's words about the upcoming Zaunite uprising is partly due to her refusal to walk the warrior's path, on top of rejecting her mother directly.) (not that we ever got a proper Zaun/Piltover war but Jinx’s rocket was preventable if Piltover hadn’t been an oppressive force, and Ambessa was right when she tried to warn Mel of it)

Mel chooses peace, steps away from the Medarda's penchant for war even if that means losing territory (which a colonial power is not fond of doing, as one knows).

And then.

Her mother's conflict with the Black Rose becomes hers and hurts her friend.

And if that wasn't enough, the Black Rose brings her brother back to life, just to torment and manipulate her.

So. In the face of the truth that your family will always catch up to you, no matter how far you go and how much metaphorical and physical distance you put between you and them, Mel walks the hardest path.

If she can not escape her family, she will destroy it.

And I want to point out that we have the exact moment she makes that decision. It’s this frame, right before she smashes his head in the wall!

and yes, it’s probably not the exact thought she had and she didn’t think she’d have to kill her mother until the two met again and Ambessa made clear she would invade but let me have this, this frame is so beautiful and I love it.

On top of that, Mel’s magic is inherited, she was born with it. It’s from her biological father and she can not escape it either. But she can turn it on her mother and kill her with it though!

“You are no Medarda.”

On top of being a fire line, this is why Mel’s arc is about claiming her heritage and destroying it. This is not just her choosing to apply her mother’s warriors strategies (“A wolf has no mercy”), this is her killing what her heritage is. If the Medarda name will not leave her, if it will chain her to a throne, she will destroy its legacy and make what she wants out of it. She will kill its previous owner and what they stood for to forge ahead.

Of course, this is all speculation, especially since the last frame of Mel is this.

Where she certainly takes after her mother. But I’d argue this can still be read as making her heritage hers and choosing what it means; it can be replacing her mother and erasing her.

It could also be argued as a tragic ending for a woman who tried her best but could not get away from her family though.

I’m going to talk about the Noxus/bite marks cinematic for 20 seconds tops. She is walking her mother’s trace, going back to the beach we see in Ambessa’s backstory, wearing her colors and leading her nation. But she wields magic and pushes onwards in a direction her mother did not see nor use.

Again, taking over and replacing your family’s legacy with your own, even if that means destroying everything they’ve done.

Could also be that she’s burdened by her mother’s conflicts and that she has to solve them despite her own choice towards peace at the end of season 1, yes.

Anyway, I’d love to hear your thoughts! What do you people think of Mel’s arc! (and you’re perfectly allowed to be super critical and rancid if you hated it, i’d just loved it if you could argument a bit your perspective, I’m sure it will be interesting!)