watched backrooms on thursday and i've been gnawing on a few things since then. mainly, why pirate clark (PC) started eating clark. i have a lot of thoughts about what PC "is" but for brevity's sake, we'll say that he's a reflection of clark's true self and a manifestation of the backrooms. i feel like it's been pretty accepted now that the base reason why PC starting eating clark is because he was mimicking his actions in eating the still lifes, but the reason he did it then (and became aggravated during the interaction) was bothering me a bit.
so i had the idea that it was because clark had finally fully rejected the idea/possibility of change. the backrooms is constantly changing and PC, as a "creation" or "manifestation" of the backrooms would have an innate desire or capacity for change within him but clark telling him that (paraphrasing) "it's okay, she said we don't have to change, we can just stay the same" grates against his innate nature.
there's also the aspect of clark saying he feels at home in the backrooms, like it's where he's meant to be and he really understands it, etc., but then he goes on to say he doesn't want to change and that he doesn't have the capacity for it, which goes against the core thesis of the backrooms. by him rejecting change, he's (if unknowingly) rejecting everything that makes the backrooms, the backrooms. so in turn, the backrooms (through PC) reject him.
and there is also an aspect of him seeking stagnancy and permanence within the backrooms, shown through him "settling" there and making a "home" for himself there, drawing a map and expecting it all to stay the same. him claiming it as "his house," trying to control it and wrangle it into something containable and understandable for him. but his ideas of stagnancy are entirely antithetical to the backrooms, so when he tells PC that they can stay the same and never change, he's telling PC that he doesn't belong there and PC acts accordingly