Hi, I'm Rediss/Ray, and I write my theories and analyses about The Freak circus here. It's possible that other fandoms will be added in the future, but I don't have any plans for that yet. I'm from Russia, so I use translation for my posts and communication. Please be kind. I love discussions, so if my theory has sparked your desire to argue or expand on it, I'd love to hear from you and join the conversation.
🇷🇺: для моих братьев славян у меня есть тг канал @rediss_tfc_rus я выкладываю туда перевод постов на русском, чтобы вы могли прочитать их с комфортом. Я стараюсь выкладывать перевод через пару дней после публикации в Tumblr, но из-за блокировок могу забывать об этом. Если одного из новых постов нет в канале, не стесняйтесь напоминать мне.
Всем добра, не забывайте заботиться о своих домашних медведях! 🐻 ❤️
List of theories and analyses:
16. The Homeland and Childhood of the Circus Troupe (all characters)
15. Doctor — the boundaries of knowledge and the search for an ideal
14. Theory about Neko
13. Harlequin and His Family — Backstage Acts Under the Mask of an Egoist
12. Moonless Night
11. Nathaniel's Past
10. Harlequin's Puppet Show
9. A Look at Each Other: Ticket Taker and Boss
8. Harlequin's pet (short thoughts, not theory)
7. The Reverse Side of Colour (all characters)
6. Strangers Among Their Own — The Masks of the Monsters (all characters)
5. Pierrot and Harlequin, the Great Swap
4. Jester — his role in the circus system and his attitude toward people
3. Ticket Taker — why does he keep calling us "red ticket guest"?
2. Harlequin — a ruthless killer or a victim of tragedy?
I couldn't stop thinking about the information regarding the circus members' homelands, so I thought it would be a good idea to look into this matter. We have approximate locations of where they were born and spent some of their childhood (AMA2 part 13 1/2):
· Jester — Central-West region, closer to the north
· Ticket taker — Northeast region
· Doctor — North region
· Harlequin — Central-West region, near the southeast
· Pierrot — Southeast region
· Columbina — South region
We know that Pierrot's favorite sweet is brigadeiro. According to the internet, they first appeared in 1946. This implies that at that time, they had not yet left Brazil.
Monsters are long-lived — this is a known fact for us. Judging by biology, species that live long usually mature slowly. But since their exact lifespan is unknown, it's difficult to determine how slow this process might be. I think they could have been born around 1880–1900.
At that time, Brazil was experiencing the decline of the empire and the birth of the republic: slavery was abolished in 1888, and the monarchy fell in 1889. This was an era of the coffee boom in the southeast, mass influx of European immigrants, and severe droughts in the northeast (the Great Drought of 1877–1879), which drove people deeper into the country.
Given that they most likely lived far from cities and hadn't yet begun moving around actively, here are their probable "hometowns":
1. Jester — northern part of the province of Mato Grosso (Central-West region, closer to the north)
This is a region of arid savannas and swampy plains. At that time, there were practically no large cities — only rare missions and forts. Life here was extremely wild. Getting injured in a clash with indigenous people or from a wild animal was commonplace.
2. Ticket taker — Pernambuco or Bahia (Northeast region)
This is the heart of the sugar industry. Even if he lived far from cities, he most likely grew up near an engenho (sugar plantation with a mill). This region had long been a "hot spot" — uprisings occurred here even before the characters' supposed birth, and the abolition of slavery in 1888 created chaos and violence. Life was unsafe and filled with brutal events.
3. Doctor — Pará (mouth of the Amazon) (North region)
His homeland could have been Belém or surrounding settlements. At that time, it was the main port on the Amazon, surrounded by impenetrable jungles. It was here that tropical diseases (malaria, yellow fever) were widespread, and local healers possessed unique knowledge of poisons and medicines from the jungle. If Doctor witnessed something like this in his childhood, his draw to medicine might be even stronger than a simple hobby.
4. Harlequin — southern Goiás or northern Minas Gerais (Central-West region, closer to the southeast)
This is an area of the "gold cycle". By the end of the 19th century, the gold had nearly run out, leaving behind many abandoned villages and mines. Harlequin is perhaps a child of the "gold rush" and the poverty that followed. His surroundings — ruins of baroque churches and impoverished prospectors.
5. Pierrot — São Paulo or southern Minas Gerais (Southeast region)
These are the cold, forested mountains (Serra do Mar). In the late 19th century, coffee culture was actively developing here, attracting thousands of immigrants. Life was harsh (cold nights, dense forests), and the population was withdrawn. People from these parts were considered gloomy and taciturn.
6. Columbina — Santa Catarina or Rio Grande do Sul (the pampas) (South region)
This is a region of gaucho cattle herders. At that time, southern Brazil was a "wild west" — wars with the Spanish and local tribes took place here, and later civil conflicts (for example, the Federalist Revolution of 1893–1895). The damp climate and constant migrations could well explain her weak health and frequent illnesses in childhood. Rheumatism and pulmonary diseases were especially common.
Later, as we know, the members began to move more actively and eventually encountered each other. The characters' meetings suggest that they traveled along the "Gold Route" and cattle trails.
✶Pierrot and Harlequin — They could have met in Minas Gerais. Pierrot came from the mountains (São Paulo) in search of a better life (or fleeing cruelty), while Harlequin was descending from the exhausted gold mines. The meeting could have happened on the road leading to Rio de Janeiro — not in the city itself, but on its outskirts. For those hiding from people, this was an ideal place for a chance encounter: dense forests, abandoned trails, and many who traveled at night.
✶Jester and Doctor — Most likely, Jester (from Mato Grosso) moved north or northeast, fleeing danger and escaping from a colony he had ended up in (AMA2 part 15 2/2). Doctor (from Belém) could have sailed down the Amazon or moved toward the center of the country in search of medicines. It is quite likely that they met at the border between jungle and savanna. The fact that Doctor nursed Jester back to health may point to a very close connection that we have yet to see in the future.
And, returning to the mention of a colony... In 19th-century Brazil, there were several types of places of forced isolation:
leper colonies — mainly in port cities (Rio de Janeiro, Pernambuco)
psychiatric hospitals — the first appeared in Rio in 1852
penal colonies — for example, on the island of Fernando de Noronha off the northeastern coast
quilombos (settlements of escaped slaves) — most often in the northeast (Bahia, Pernambuco)
All of these institutions were located on or near the coast. Official authority barely reached Mato Grosso, where Jester possibly grew up. But that's precisely the point: in such a remote area, almost anyone could create a "colony" as they saw fit. No laws, no inspections — just a gun, a few subordinates, and the superstitious fear of neighbors.
Remember the Nazi concentration camps of the Second World War? Keep them in mind when thinking about Jester's past, because I am certain — since his stay in that "colony" did not end well for him... Well, you can imagine what was done to monsters and the like there.
✶Columbina and Ticket taker — If Columbina was often ill, her path may have led northeast (to Bahia or Pernambuco) — to "the waters" or to healers, as it was believed that a warmer, drier climate cured "chest diseases". Ticket taker, on the contrary, may have fled uprisings and economic crisis southward. Their meeting could have occurred in the center of the country (possibly in Bahia).
We should not forget the context of that era. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, child mortality in Brazil was appalling. Many children died from gastroenteritis due to coarse food (cassava porridge or beans) and poor sanitation.
If Columbina survived despite her weak health — it is a miracle. Monsters are not susceptible to many human diseases, but as we know, poor nutrition is quite harmful for them.
If Jester survived severe injuries without proper antibiotics — then Doctor is either a genius healer or used barbaric methods (cauterizing wounds with hot iron was common practice). It is quite likely that Jester's body still bears traces of injuries sustained in childhood.
Also, do not forget the lack of infrastructure. There were almost no roads, so traveling across Brazil took months. All the circus characters are essentially wanderers by force, driven only by what they were born as. Pierrot mentioned that he and his parents moved often "when something happened". But even if they are monsters, that does not mean such moves came easily. The fact that all of them met and went together suggests that the world of their homelands was too cruel to stay there — and certainly too cruel to continue the journey alone.
Finally, I would like to return to brigadeiro. If by 1946 the Ringmaster had already been killed and the members began running the show on their own, then this sweet could have become for them a symbol of a new life and freedom. Brigadeiro is often served at parties and birthdays. So, theoretically, Pierrot could have come to love this sweet because it can be shared among family, celebrating a happy occasion.
Doctor — the boundaries of knowledge and the search for an ideal
This analysis took me quite a while, but I decided to try and put all my thoughts together into one cohesive picture.
I would like to start with the most obvious thing — the character design. Doctor's mask is a direct reference to the plague doctors of the Middle Ages. When he approaches us, we can smell incense, herbs, and coffee.
In XVII century, the masks of plague doctors always contained aromatic herbs and spices, capable of overpowering the smell of corpses and poisonous miasma. Back then, people did this for protection, but Doctor does this more for himself. The herbs in his mask help to drown out the enticing smell of adrenaline, to dose the pleasure, and to keep his composure while working with patients. Interestingly, his costume is not just aesthetic but also serves a practical purpose.
AMA2 part 11 2/2:
The way Doctor describes adrenaline leads to several interesting observations:
1. He is a predator by nature. In reality, the taste of pure adrenaline is simply bitterness. But Doctor adds citrus and salt to the bitterness. For him, an adrenaline rush is not panic but an invigorating cocktail. This characterizes him as a creature who experiences not fear, but the thrill of the hunt.
2. The enjoyment of the "tickling in the nose" and describing the taste as an exquisite dish reveal someone who takes pleasure in the very process of another's stress. This might point to his "source of nourishment" or an addiction, which fits perfectly into the game's reality.
3. The very fact of such a refined description of taste suggests that he might perceive neurotransmitters (dopamine, norepinephrine) as different flavor notes. For him, the physiology of emotion is directly experienced as a flavor palette. And there is something almost childlike in this enjoyment... like a child who has just discovered sweets. It's just that, the sweets here are someone else's fear and adrenaline.
Doctor is so big and strong. So why does he need to immobilize his patients? He straps the patient down, hinting that it's "for safety." But for whose safety? His or yours?
Many predators instinctively give chase if their prey bolts. I think this is universal for all monsters. Remember how Pierrot asked us not to run away, because he might enjoy chasing us. It's quite possible that other monsters also like these kinds of "games of tag."
What if Doctor's patients have already tried to escape before? If the subject's actions awaken Doctor's primal instincts, what are the chances he would stop in time? Such an incident could ruin all the work entirely. Therefore, using "restraints" is more than logical. The herbs in his mask mask the enticing smell of blood and adrenaline, preventing Doctor from losing control, and the straps prevent the patient from provoking him by running away.
We also know that Doctor likes obedient patients — those who keep their composure despite the fear. It can be very hard to suppress your primal instincts, but if a patient tries to listen to their reason and not interfere with the doctor's work, they are quite capable of earning the doctor's respect. In this sense, the straps are not just protection for the patient, but also a test: are you ready to submit to the predator's rules?
Doctor tells us: "There are no secrets between doctor and patient."
But, as the famous medical saying goes: "The patient always lies." And Doctor knows this. He says it outright, just as he speaks of his own lies. His session is a kind of game, one that he plays with you and allows you to play along with him.
People are a source of knowledge for him. But not just regarding the workings of the body. No. He is interested in the boundaries of the psyche: how much can you endure? How will you react to this or that action? His game begins not in the chair, but the moment you sign the papers before entering. As you cross the threshold of his tent, a hundred eyes are already watching you — a multitude of experiments just like you. But you managed to gain the doctor's favor, and them... Hm, what difference does it make now?
After the new AMA, I once again saw Neko’s words about there being two characters in the game who resemble him, so I just can’t help but make an assumption.
‼️Attention‼️
This text is just a theory and does not claim to be reality. I respect the author and his work, so I in no way want to offend or upset him. Remember, everything written here is just my speculation and assumptions. Enjoy the read.
Neko, se achares que essa teoria é inapropriada, avisa-me, por favor, que eu apago-a, para que não te sintas desconfortável.
AMA2 part 12(1):
AMA2 part 5(1):
So, we know there are two characters incredibly similar to Neko’s personality, but who are they?
I believe that the first character is Harlequin. This idea was inspired by the fact that he wasn't originally part of the story, but Neko managed to fill in many plot gaps after his addition. (I hope I'm not confusing anything). He's a flexible character, and it would be convenient to make him similar to yourself rather than creating a separate personality. Since you know yourself better than anyone else, you can easily imagine how you would react in a particular situation. Therefore, you don't need a rigid characterization, instead, ask yourself "what would I do?"
As the creator, he knows what awaits the characters in the future, so he can easily come up with an unexpected way out of a situation. Imagine the main four without Harlequin. Who among them could just go and eat Columbina to save everyone? I hear silence, guys. I’m not trying to say that Neko would eat his own friend in real life — but maybe he once had to make a very difficult decision in his own life.
My second argument is how he draws himself and his characters. Look — Harlequin’s pose and Neko’s pose are incredibly similar in these sketches:
I’m not ruling out that it’s just his artistic style, but… Neko and Harlequin have such strikingly similar facial expressions. What if he subconsciously draws them alike because they really are the same? Although, it could also be a conscious choice — a hint for the most attentive fans.
Alright, we’ve figured out the first character. But who’s the second? I have two candidates, and I’ll explain why.
1. Jester
First of all, their masks are quite similar if you compare them. In my theory about reversed colors (link), I concluded that Jester and Harlequin might be very similar on the inside as well. But we won’t rely solely on that.
Neko wrote that some of his characters have his personality traits, but amplified several times over. What if Jester reflects some of Neko’s disappointment in people? I mean, he has received and continues to receive quite a lot of hate and unpleasant comments, seemingly for no clear reason (it’s hard for me to judge, because personally I’m absolutely in love with this game, but apparently some people don’t like it).
Jester, according to his own story, has also encountered human cruelty and hatred many times. So even if Neko doesn’t plan to turn his haters into his lunch, it’s possible that deep inside he carries some of Jester’s pragmatism — as well as a deep disappointment in certain people.
2. Pierrot
Honestly, I lean toward this option much more. If I’m not mistaken, Pierrot was the very first character created, and authors often put a part of themselves into their first character. Sometimes unconsciously, sometimes on purpose — it doesn’t really matter. Looking at what we know about Pierrot, one interesting question comes to mind. What if Neko had a painful experience with love in the past? Right now, Pierrot is very attentive and clingy toward MC, his emotions often override common sense.
Honestly, this reminds me of teenage love, when a person completely dives into the object of their affection and sometimes does stupid things. I think many of you, guys, have had those teenage relationships (they might not even have been real relationships — maybe it was some kind of crazy romantic friendship) and, as the trope goes, that love either ended very tragically or left a deep mark on you, making you feel awkward or sad even now.
Since Neko wrote that he wasn’t really into yandere games, in theory, Pierrot’s behavior could have been based on his personal experience. (Oh no, please don’t think badly of Neko, that’s not what I’m talking about, okay?) Do you remember watching someone beautiful from afar back in school, someone who caught your attention? Or making a cute Valentine’s card for your secret crush? Now amplify those feelings tenfold — and you get a lovesick stalker like Pierrot. That’s what I’m getting at.
And you know, the conflict between these characters might very well symbolize the author's own internal conflict. This is a classic technique in literature — splitting complex feelings across different characters to show them separately.
@nekoboydreams It would be incredibly cool to find out whether I guessed right or not. But even if not — thank you for creating characters that are so interesting to think about ❤
Harlequin and His Family — Backstage Acts Under the Mask of an Egoist
Harlequin doesn’t want Pierrot to get attached to anyone, so that the tragedy won’t repeat itself. It might seem like he’s showing interest in MC just to annoy Pierrot, but what if this is his way of telling him: "all people are the same, they will betray you"? After all, if he manages to win your attention over to himself, wouldn’t that prove to Pierrot that people really are all the same?
Harlequin shows MC his monster sides so that she gets scared of him. Pierrot, on the contrary, doesn’t want us to be afraid of him, so he carefully hides everything and lies to us. And maybe that’s exactly why Harlequin tries so hard to show us everything — so that we’re scared of him, not Pierrot. Because it would surely hurt Pierrot deeply to see fear in our eyes.
This is also the reason why he went with us to the pink tent instead of his own green one. If things didn’t go according to plan, he could simply eliminate us. That’s what the pink tent is for, and considering they have a performance in the evening, it wouldn’t be very smart to get blood all over his own tent. So it was a kind of backup plan, in case his mischief led to danger for the whole family. Turns out, Harlequin isn’t as reckless as he might seem.
AMA2 part 5(1):
Based on this information, a couple of interesting questions come up. If they all care about their circus family, then why is Harlequin the one ready to leave at the first hint that everyone would be better off without him? It really looks like self-sacrifice — after all, finding food together is much easier than alone... Wait though, we’ve already noticed similar behavior from Harlequin before. For example, back when Pierrot lost control during his performance (old/original outfit lore comics). Harlequin wanted to stop him by letting Pierrot take his anger out on him, rather than on the audience. Who knows, maybe if Jester hadn’t interfered, that’s exactly what would have happened.
And remember the moment he took responsibility for their lives and for Columbina’s life? The guilt for what happened is an incredibly heavy burden, but he keeps playing the villain so he can carry it alone. I described this in my theory about Harlequin’s motives (link) — you can read it in more detail to understand what I mean.
So it turns out we’ve found a couple more pieces of evidence of Harlequin’s incredible self-sacrifice. If he’s literally ready to put his own comfort and safety at risk, just so his family can live well, then how can anyone call him selfish? This guy has proven many times already that he’s incredibly attentive and observant.
A moonless night in literature symbolizes absolute darkness, danger, uncertainty, loss of direction, and a connection to the otherworld. It is a time when familiar light (a symbol of reason and hope) disappears, opening the way to chaos, magic, and fear, and often foreshadows a transition between worlds.
This sounds like a perfect description of what happened to the monsters. By eating Columbina, they opened a path for themselves into the world of people — because now they had the strength to stand up for themselves. There was no moonlight, just as there was no hope. And when Harlequin broke free from his cage and did what he did, there was no time for reason or common sense — all that mattered was survival.
The moon itself in literature is a multifaceted symbol, embodying mystery, mysticism, loneliness, the feminine, and love. In the Romantic tradition, it is associated with dreams and beauty; in the Gothic tradition — with evil and death. A perfect description for Columbina, don't you think? On that moonless night, they truly lost their own moon. Or perhaps now Columbina herself metaphorically watches over them from the sky, like the moon: she cannot say anything to them, cannot touch them, only silently bestows her light.
Columbina was fairly pretty compared to the other monsters (we see this from people's reactions in the mirror story), which means she could have calmed frightened people and smoothed over rough edges. But now she's gone — there's no one to soften those sharp moments, so all that's left is to make them even sharper.
Ticket taker took Columbina's place after her death:
And indeed, now HE is the weakest and the shortest. Now he's in her place. Columbina was the soul of their family — does that mean TT is becoming something similar? It's in his tent that we see the reflection of Columbina's soul in the mirror. But since something of her remains, that means he himself cannot become a new soul. None of them are capable of taking her place — all they can do is work together to maintain the stability of their shared home.
But what's much more important is that he protects every member of the circus. When Pierrot starts to speak, he reminds him, "do not speak" — this is first and foremost for his own safety, and only then for the safety of the others. Also, if we recall the new AMA2 part 11(1): when answering a question, TT doesn't stand next to Jester — he stands in front of him. In the next frame, we see him approaching the person asking the question. He literally puts himself between Jester and the annoying fan (no offense, bro). I think, even if this is just an AMA, this detail still matters.
In one of Neko's answers, he said that guests with a pink ticket are very carefully selected, as is their role in "helping the circus."
So this isn't a coincidence — TT deliberately looks for specific people. He took Carol, but in the end she became his personal "fool" — maybe she lacked certain qualities, or maybe he was looking for an assistant from the very start. In one of my older theories, I said that TT always calls us "guest with the red ticket," emphasizing the color to highlight that originally, we had a different fate. Red — not pink. We were meant to go a different way, but suddenly received protection from one of them.
But if a ticket is your fate, then what if what the circus really lacks is someone who could inspire trust in people, rather than fear? People feel uncomfortable around the circus performers — they find them too tall and too eerie. But if they saw someone next to them who looked just like them, maybe that fear wouldn't be so strong. If another person can calmly interact with someone strange and frightening, then maybe that someone isn't actually that frightening after all — right?
But now the question arises: is it really so bad that the MC's ticket became red, and not pink? Maybe her place really is somewhere nearby — somewhere where she could become a bridge between people and monsters... Perhaps TT himself has already noticed that her new fate could grant her a more useful role in their circus.
What if Nathaniel is actually a former detective? He looks away when talking about his unexpected meeting.
I wonder what kind of meeting happens late at night, right after one of your female employees went missing…
I saw information that if the MC were a detective, the circus characters would treat her with more caution. So what if that’s the reason everyone got a ticket except the Boss? He’s tall and muscular – a great candidate for hauling boxes in the circus. So why not take him? He’s not wearing a ring, so in theory no wife or kids. Then again, he does have several tattoos in visible places. I’ve heard that people with tattoos are kidnapped less often because they’re easier to identify. So maybe…?
But on the other hand, if he’s a former detective and they know about it, why such an obvious provocation as kidnapping two of his employees? It could help lure Nathaniel to the circus, but surely there are simpler and safer ways.
He might also be that child who got too close to the Ticket Taker’s tent as a kid.
This is from TT’s answer in AMA1 part 12(2) – he said that kid probably still remembers that incident to this day. And since today Neko mentioned that our Boss has an interesting past… Well, this could all very well be true.
Since Neko mentioned a couple of times that Harlequin made the puppets for his show himself, I decided to take a closer look at them. Paying special attention to their size, because some of them look absolutely tiny.
Here's a visual comparison of all the puppets' heights:
I have a theory that size might symbolize importance or degree of influence. I'll explain how I see it myself, but we'd better leave the final conclusion open.
Let's start with the Doctor, he's the tallest, which matches his original height. But there are questions about the other characters. For example, the Jester and the Ticket Taker puppets are the same height — maybe for Harlequin they have roughly equal standing, or something like an internal hierarchy where they have equally important roles. They both create the framework of the circus, its rules and smooth operation. But then why is Columbina placed higher? From Jester's show we know that "her smile could light up the darkest abyss" — she was a family member and met a tragic end, one that affected everyone, so deeply that we still see the consequences to this day.
After her death, the eyes of all the puppets changed from round to diamond-shaped, and the show said the phrase: "But the monster's eyes had changed". It became harsher. I've seen people compare these diamonds to Jester's hypnosis, but that's not it. Hypnosis is an external influence, while here it's the result of trauma that hardened them. It was after this that they killed the one who had been tormenting them. Perhaps this is the reason why Harlequin might have made her figure one of the tallest, emphasizing the character's importance in their story. Meanwhile her original height would have been the smallest in the circus, so that contrast is hard to miss.
Next we see Harlequin and Pierrot — for some reason the Pierrot puppet ended up the smallest, even though he himself is the second tallest in real life. I am more than 100% sure this is Harlequin's prank, because who is he to miss an opportunity like that? Although, on the other hand, his jokes aren't lacking in depth. This could be a metaphor that even if Pierrot grew up, became taller and stronger, deep down he's still the same little monster that Harlequin befriended as a child.
Oh, but what about Harlequin himself? In this puppet lineup he's second to last, slightly above the shortest one — if that suits you. This matches his real-life height, which means he and the Doctor are the only characters whose puppets have no size distortion. As we know, Harlequin gets along best with the Doctor, and that works the other way around too. But would Harlequin be petty enough to leave only himself and his buddy untouched in his personal show? Or maybe their role in the story simply requires no distortion. One day we'll find out.
But you know, there are a couple more interesting things. For example, why do all the tall puppets stand in the front, while the small ones are in the back? Usually it's the opposite, you put the small ones in front so they're easier to see. But, hm, this is Harlequin's show — forget the rules.
In the front we have: Doctor, Columbina, Ticket Taker.
Maybe this is a kind of circus facade. The Ticket Taker is literally the first person every guest sees when they come to this place, so his spot is perfectly justified. Columbina could, in theory, symbolize the soul of the circus — I think her tragedy finally brought the monsters together, showing how important it is to stick together and trust each other. So the "soul" spot suits her well, but... The soul usually hides deep inside, so why is she standing in the front row? Because this puppet show is a story about the past, showing the most intimate, the most terrible secret, deliberately put on display.
The Doctor's spot can be justified by the fact that both the performers and ordinary people come to him. He handles meat storage and keeps his family healthy. As we know, some kinds of monsters can get seriously hurt if they're fed wrong. So the Doctor's role in the front shows him as one of the circus's pillars. He does what he loves, and does it well, and nothing more is required of him.
And what about the back? We see: Pierrot, Harlequin, Jester.
The Jester might personify the internal law — he reminds everyone of the rules when someone forgets. He doesn't greet the audience or hand out flyers on the street, he runs the show and sets the boundaries for the "family". He's in the back, but on the same level as the Ticket Taker, because his internal rules are just as important for the circus's survival as the Ticket Taker's external organization. These are two main pillars: one holds up the facade, the other — the backstage.
Pierrot and Harlequin are the ones who operate on the inside: on stage and beyond it. Their job isn't to create rules, but to follow them. They create the atmosphere and lure people in. Their scale isn't as important to an outside observer as their inner essence, which has yet to be uncovered.
At first glance, this all sounds like a contradiction. I'm calling a facade what should be hidden inside. And I'm pushing to the back those who spend most of their time outdoors... But don't be fooled — this is Harlequin's game that we've all fallen into. His show isn't as simple as it seems, but trying to dig deeper only makes you more confused. That's his main paradox: he tells a story, but trying to understand its moral only distances you from the truth. It's not for nothing that they say genius is a friend of paradoxes, and in Harlequin's show, there are plenty of those paradoxes.
As you know, our Boss and the Ticket Taker both have heterochromia. I think this definitely means something. Searching for information on the internet, I managed to find out that in some cultures, different-colored eyes were considered a gift, saying that a person is "chosen by the gods," while in other cultures, it was believed that different eyes are a curse and will bring misfortune. But, hm, our boss's name is Nathaniel (thank you, Neko, for telling us), and this name has ancient Hebrew origins and translates as "Gift of God" and precisely symbolizes blessing and generosity.
We could end here, saying that the Ticket Taker is a curse and Nathaniel is a gift, but... what if that's not it at all?
The Boss's soul is whole, whereas the Ticket Taker is literally capable of dividing himself into a human essence and a monster essence. If the eyes are the mirror of the soul, then the Ticket Taker's soul is obviously shattered, which is what his eyes tell us. But it is precisely this ability to divide that is his blessing. In this dangerous world, he is the best at taking on a human appearance, literally walking among people without fear. One of his eyes is blue, the color of cold depth that looks right inside you. And in this gaze there is neither warmth nor cold, only knowledge and analysis. His second eye is white, and white is all colors at once, almost just like him — all beings at once. Human, monster, and actor. His gift lies in the ability to live with this split and derive benefit from it.
Then what about Nathaniel? His so-called "gift" turned into a curse even before we realized it. His cafe is literally turning into the center of a storm. First Carol disappears, then MC meets suspicious clowns. His bright and safe place attracts darkness, and he doesn't have time to do anything about it. Perhaps the Boss's curse lies precisely in the fact that he is blind to how his own creation (the cafe) is becoming bait for danger.
Maybe his different eyes are also a metaphor for perception. One eye (brown) sees coziness, the cafe, work routine, while the second (blue) feels the cold, impending danger, and "something" that he is completely unable to explain. He sees alarming signals, but his mind does not assemble them into a picture with monsters, because he simply does not know about them yet. He is a victim of circumstances, but at the same time, a front-row spectator.
But if the eyes are the mirror of the soul, then the body is its frame. And for both of them, this frame tells no less than the gaze itself. So what else, besides heterochromia, does each of them carry on themselves?
Nathaniel has a ram skull tattoo on his neck; usually this tattoo means: fire, masculine strength, stubbornness, fearlessness, independence.
All of this fits perfectly with the image we discussed above. He is not a fighter or a defender in the usual sense, but rather a stubborn keeper of the place. He simply continues to brew coffee and keep the doors open, even when strange things start happening around him. His independence lies in the fact that he belongs neither to the world of the Circus nor to the world of ordinary people, but has created his own third corner where one can catch their breath.
And there is also a sea serpent/dragon on his arm (I actually have no idea if that's true, but judging by the part of the tattoo that I can see, it's most likely something similar).
It usually has such meanings as: indomitable force of nature, deep-seated fears, the ability to overcome large-scale difficulties. The serpent coils around his arm — it is a symbol that he is holding back chaos. His cafe is at the epicenter of strange disappearances (Carol, now MC is under threat), but he continues to work. And the deep-seated fears are what he feels but cannot voice. His intuition sounds the alarm while his conscious mind has not yet put the puzzle together. The serpent on his arm is like a reminder: "You have already passed through the abyss and surfaced, you will manage this time too." Or perhaps he himself does not yet know that he faces a meeting with this abyss face to face.
The Ticket Taker's mask immediately catches the eye; one eye on it simultaneously "smiles" in its shape but "cries" in its content. You cannot tell if he is laughing at you or grieving about something. In the context of my theory about the divided soul, this works as an external indicator of his inner state:
The shape of the eye is his human half, which can communicate, run the show, follow the rules.
The tear is his monster essence, which remembers the pain of transformation and the death of Columbine.
In the older version of his costume, both eyes on the mask "cried." Perhaps this was direct, almost crude symbolism, like the words "I suffer" written on his face. And the new version with one eye that simultaneously cries and smiles is more subtle work. His soul is not just shattered; it is dual in its manifestation. He cannot feel just one thing; his emotions change just like reflections in distorted mirrors.
Both characters have different-colored eyes. One wears his split on the outside and turns it into a show. The other carries his wholeness inside, unaware that he stands at the epicenter of a storm. One sees himself in the mirror and knows who he is. The other looks out the window and does not yet understand what exactly lurks on the other side of the glass. One knows too much, the other knows too little for now. And in this lies their strange balance.
Hey, guys, what's actually up with Harlequin's pet?
This isn't a full-fledged theory (for now), just a few thoughts I wanted to share.
In AMA2 part 5(1), Harlequin was asked about his pet, but there was no answer. I know that questions related to spoilers usually get ignored, but... We all understand that "pet" probably doesn't mean an actual animal, right? I mean, come on, you guys know how circus performers view people. For many of them, the MC is more of an "annoying little critter" than someone equal to them. So... What if Harlequin's pet refers to a person he was close to in the past? And it's because of that story that Pierrot is so actively protecting us from interacting with Harlequin.
Honestly, I always thought it was connected to what happened with Columbine, but let's consider another possibility. Pierrot saw how someone who got close to Harlequin (that very "pet") met their end, and now he genuinely doesn't want the MC to suffer a similar fate. And remember that moment in Day 2, when Harlequin asks us a question and we stay silent — he says: "Hmm..silence. Always the most honest reply." That applies here too, don't you think?
But even if we assume the "pet" really was an animal — what are the chances Jester would allow something like that in the circus? Mobility and the ability to quickly disappear are crucial to them — even at the cost of leaving all their belongings behind. So in that context, keeping someone who can't escape on their own could be pretty dangerous. I mean, a person could be much more mobile than a dog, although of course, it all depends... Hopefully, we'll find out the truth soon.
Inversion is not just about flipped colours. In The Freak Circus, it becomes a mirror — one that reveals what hides beneath the mask. Run the characters through an inversion, and you'll see how one of them changes, as if putting on another's costume, while their colours begin to tell a story they would never say out loud.
Let's start with the most obvious pair:
Jester → Harlequin
When inverted, Jester turns green — as if wearing Harlequin's colours. They are both the youngest in the circus, but Harlequin can afford to act more openly, while Jester carries a huge responsibility for his family. Perhaps Jester would never say it aloud, but he probably finds Harlequin's actions toward Columbine justified. Yes, it's cynical — but that's Jester, isn't it? If his life had been less traumatic, and if he didn't carry the weight of others' lives on his shoulders — could he have been more like Harlequin? More reckless, more open, not hiding his budding envy? Of course, envy is Harlequin's main trait — but inversion is meant to turn things upside down. What if, deep down, Jester envies people and their freedom? Envies that they don't have to fear for their own lives or their family's? Well… maybe one day we'll find out.
Harlequin → Columbine
Green, when inverted, gives a purplish-pink — the colour of naive love, flirtatiousness, and hope. This sounds almost like a revelation: Harlequin, deep down, is Columbine. His aggressive, childish jealousy is actually an immature form of wanting to be loved and be the centre of attention. Without his mask, he's just a love-struck child, longing for recognition and understanding.
Doctor ↔ Pierrot
This is where it gets even more interesting. These two are colour twins under inversion — their colours mirror each other, turning into a pure sky blue. Compared to blood red, this blue might symbolise the purity of the soul — the one we're about to look into.
Perhaps, on a deeper level, Doctor and Pierrot share the same trauma, just expressed in different ways. Both are quiet and contemplative. Both suffer — but differently. It's as if one essence split into mind (Doctor) and soul (Pierrot).
And here's another parallel. Pierrot struggles with loneliness — he attaches himself to one person so strongly that he can't imagine life without them. Doctor, on the other hand, seems uncomfortable in a crowd: his height makes him too noticeable, and he's likely faced inconveniences because of it before. One suffocates in emptiness, the other in tight spaces. In essence, it's the same thing — just turned inside out. They're like two sides of the same coin.
I've noticed that many Pierrot fans also like Doctor. Of course, it's all individual — but you have to admit, it's an interesting coincidence. Maybe people intuitively sense something these two share? Both are deeply absorbed in something: one studies human bodies, the other studies one specific person, trying to learn everything about them. Pierrot descends into madness through love, Doctor — through blood. And here we return to the "mind and heart" parallel — so different, yet so deeply connected.
What if Doctor is Pierrot who stopped hoping? Who turned his pain into cold curiosity. And Pierrot is Doctor who can still cry — who dives headfirst into emotion, losing his mind.
Ticket Taker → Ticket Taker
Ticket Taker is the only one without an inversion pair: his colours reflect themselves. He's also the only one who wears a two-coloured mask (the others have masks that are either completely white or completely black — only Ticket Taker has both colours in equal measure). These details might suggest he's the one who maintains balance. Under colour inversion, he remains himself — meaning he doesn't repress any part of his personality, nor does he have a clear echo in others. He doesn't need a "pair" or a "double" — because he's already whole.
Perhaps his role is to be the circus's point of reference. The one who sees everyone in their inverted form, but never changes himself. This strongly echoes what we saw in his tent. He is the mirror room — where others see their shadows, and he is simply the light.
We don't know the exact answers. But colour inversion offers a surprising lens — one through which familiar characters suddenly become a little different. What do you think?
Strangers Among Their Own — The Masks of the Monsters.
Masks were invented by humans and made for humans. They hide their weakness and their most repulsive sides. But what are monsters supposed to hide, when being terrifying is already in their nature?
Their masks don't conceal monstrosity — rather, they do the opposite: they lock in a role. It's as if they're telling people: "Look, we're just like you." And people believe them, but they still feel uneasy around them. Because it doesn't matter whether you're human or monster — from beneath your mask, your true essence will still seep through.
People often notice that the circus performers look strange: they're too tall, too theatrical, too... everything is too much. People sense the essence beneath the mask, but they can't quite name it. Their consciousness warns them of danger, while their eyes see no direct threat.
But if for monsters the mask is a shield, what about the other inhabitants of the circus — the Fools? They are all kidnapped humans. It would seem simple — a mask should just hide their face. But... is that really all there is to it? If for monsters masks and costumes help conceal their true nature, then for the Fools, the purpose is different. The mask depersonalizes them, as if to say: they are no longer human — now they are property of the circus. Tools for labor, things to be used as someone sees fit.
On the Fools' masks are symbols of the performer they belong to. More proof that they are merely objects, stamped with their owner's mark. They have nothing to hide beneath the mask, because they have long been empty. The MC isn't wrong when she says her friend Carol acted like a zombie. Zombies have no consciousness — they act only according to the one program they know: "find brains." And the Fools do the same. They follow their assigned programming, obey the circus performers, invite visitors into tents, and simply exist. You may have seen the Fools during your walk around the circus or during someone else's show, but you never paid them much attention — precisely because there is nothing beneath their masks. They don't hide their worst sides. They hide nothing at all, because they have nothing left — not even themselves.
But if the Fools are those who had their faces taken away, then for the monsters themselves, the mask becomes a cage they cannot leave. According to Ticket Taker, no one in the circus ever breaks character. These words are said in defense: "Look, guest, if something scared you, don't worry — it's just part of the show." Even if it isn't.
When Pierrot starts speaking in front of the MC and Ticket Taker, the latter immediately shuts him down, reminding him that he cannot break character — he cannot take off his mask in front of a human.
For many, the mask is a way to draw a line. A boundary between their true self and the role they are performing. Remember Harlequin's show — the monsters killed the circus ringmaster and the other humans, then put on their masks, metaphorically and physically taking their place. By putting on the mask, they seemed to accept all the vileness of being human.
In this world, a mask does not always conceal. Sometimes, it reveals exactly who stands before you: an actor, a puppet, or the one pulling the strings. And only one question remains: which mask will you receive?
What if Pierrot and Harlequin actually swapped places? Originally, a "freak" is someone who doesn't fit the norm. But in The Freak Circus , the real freak is the one who doesn't fit their own mask.
Let's look at the characters from the commedia dell'arte tradition:
Harlequin is a character who wears rags; his costume reflects poverty elevated into an aesthetic. His patches are diamond-shaped, and there are so many of them that they eventually form the entire costume. This shows just how active the character is.
Pierrot is a lofty romantic; his clothes are white and baggy, like a symbol of purity or moonlight. He is calm, without blemishes. In short, he is someone who wants all attention to be focused on his heart.
In the Circus of Freaks, they deliberately swap these visual identities.
By dressing Pierrot (the romantic failure) in Harlequin's diamonds, the creators seem to be saying: "This 'romantic' is actually a clown who got stuck in the wrong role." And by dressing Harlequin in hearts, they turn him from a cunning servant into a character obsessed with the idea of Love (or the Heart as an organ that can be torn out).
Often, a costume isn't just clothing — it's a cage. The limitations placed on a character, the image they are forced to follow. (Remember Pierrot's first costume — it was uncomfortable and impractical, fitting the word "restriction" perfectly.) The fact that these characters wear "someone else's" symbols could very well mean they were born into the wrong body / the wrong role.
In classical commedia dell'arte, Harlequin gets Columbina because he is active, clever, and full of life. Pierrot, meanwhile, suffers on the sidelines because he is passive and melancholic. In the circus, something like a "great swap" took place. According to the show in the purple tent, Pierrot and Columbina felt good together — but only as long as Harlequin was watching from a distance.
If we look at this through Jester’s show, we can grasp Harlequin’s core wound. He envies not so much having the woman, but having the role. He wants to be in Pierrot’s place not because of his love for Columbina, but because he feels that this "quiet romantic" is sitting in the spot that should rightfully be his. And Pierrot, having been given the role of the "lively lover", can’t handle it and turns into that very same "sad romantic left out on the sidelines." (When the circus performers were asked who they get along with best, no one named Pierrot. He was alone.)
If Harlequin (the servant, the trickster) is forced to wear hearts and pine over love — he is broken.
If Pierrot (the poet, the romantic) is forced to wear the diamonds of a trickster and be part of a couple that doesn’t suit him — he is broken. It’s simple. Most likely, in the circus, it’s simply impossible to play your own role, and that’s why they call themselves freaks.
Harlequin and Pierrot play each other’s roles over and over again, and it drives them insane. The script repeats itself, but now the winner’s prize is not Columbina — it’s you, the MC. And the circus is already trying a mask on you.
Jester — his role in the circus system and his attitude toward people.
In the fandom, Jester is often jokingly called "mother," and his behavior does show traits like that. But where did this overprotectiveness begin?
If we look at psychology, this kind of behavior is often a consequence of past trauma. In Jester's case, it was helplessness in the face of circumstances — a situation that no one took control of in time, which led to a great tragedy.
Almost all of our traumas have their roots in childhood, and I think it's similar for the monsters. In Jester's backstory, they all lived in some meadow, and later started working for a human. I believe they ended up in such a dependent relationship because of their own inexperience. If they had known what humans were really like, they probably wouldn't have agreed to it willingly.
To me, at the beginning of their story, they really come across as children or very young creatures. By the time of the main plot, they're already quite mature, with a wealth of experience behind them that allows them to survive in this world. If we assume monsters live very long lives, and also consider that they may have been part of one of the first freak shows (which, by the way, appeared as early as the 1870s), then this idea makes a lot of sense.
So, as a young individual, Jester ended up in such horrifying circumstances — with no one to rely on, and his only family on the brink of death. This left a deep mark on his soul, which we can clearly see in the game's main story.
This trauma also shaped how he interacts with the world. In his relationships with humans, Jester reproduces the very same dynamic he once existed in — namely, the "owner–pet" dynamic. Only now, of course, he is the one in the owner's position, alongside his family.
In the past, he was kept in a cage — now, he keeps countless people in the cage of his hypnosis. He was fed on a schedule like a dog — now, he "feeds" the player with fear, showing exactly who holds all the power. His fate was decided without his consent — so now, he decides what role someone else's life will play in his world. This is, in a way, the only kind of relationship with humans he has ever learned — one he may not consider "normal," but at least it's functional and familiar.
Jester presents himself as a strong and responsible figure. This is clear not only from his current position in the circus, but also from how he acted in the past. Remember when Pierrot was locked in a cage — Jester was the first to sneak in and feed him. They weren't related by blood, but he still felt responsible for his well-being. Over time, that responsibility grew into full control over the circus.
And what about what he says after his show? "Don't wander too far, guest — I can always find you." And this probably isn't just an empty threat. Jester literally has eyes and ears all over the circus — in the other monsters, and in the fools under his control.
If you managed to eavesdrop on the conversation in the black tent, you might have noticed how Jester acts as a reliable support for Ticket Taker. Ticket Taker made a mistake — he forgot to dispose of a missing girl's bag. Jester doesn't coddle him, but he doesn't lash out either. He simply says he'll take care of it, and that Ticket Taker — as his old friend — has nothing to worry about. The scene is tense, but it reveals his character and his true commitment to the circus. He has to be the foundation that everyone can lean on when things go wrong. In the past — with Columbina — he saw all too clearly what can happen when there's no control over a situation.
When it comes to the player, Jester behaves in a slightly threatening manner. He makes it very clear that our life holds no value to him, so we'd better not do anything foolish. One person might not be a threat to a monster, but Jester knows all too well what can happen if humans show up in large numbers. He's already considering the worst-case scenarios, all to protect his home and those who live in it.
However, someone with this kind of behavior is often at their most vulnerable when they themselves are weak. He's so used to being everyone's pillar of support that he probably wouldn't be ready to accept that same help from anyone else. The very thought of repeating the pattern from his childhood could send him into a spiral of panic — forcing him to once again feel that unbearable weight on his shoulders.
🇷🇺: перевод на русской в моем тг канале, его можно найти в профиле
Ticket Taker — why does he keep calling us "red ticket guest"? Is it just convenient for him, or is there a deeper meaning?
As you know, the strange guest at the café and the Ticket Taker are the same person. Even if you didn't figure it out right away, he literally tells you about it in his tent.
Ticket Taker is the only character who never calls us by name — he always addresses us by the color of our ticket. Which is strange, because even those we never introduced ourselves to somehow know our name (funny, right?). Instead, Ticket Taker insistently calls us "red ticket guest," as if emphasizing our current status. I think he clearly remembers everyone he gave the pink ticket to — and now, suddenly, his "victim" shows up with a different ticket. One that acts more like a shield than a death sentence.
I really like the idea of Ticket Taker as a guide of fate. Even if you didn't take the ticket from him at the café, he's still the first one who led us to the circus. The first one who even planted the idea of visiting (as you might have noticed, our character wasn't planning any of these adventures initially).
That's why I believe that by emphasizing the color of our ticket, he's highlighting how wrong this situation is. He's basically saying: "You were supposed to die. But now you're under the protection of one of us."
And honestly, if you think about it, no one in the circus has actually tried to truly harm us. Although — remembering Doctor's actions and that candy he wanted to give us — he probably came very close to something irreversible. And interestingly, after he saw our ticket, all the candy in his tent magically disappeared. Maybe for him, the ticket's color literally meant: "This is Pierrot's prey. I shouldn't touch this." And it's not even about fear of consequences — more like genuine surprise at the situation.
Judging by other characters' reactions, we can conclude that Pierrot has never given his ticket to anyone. Our appearance is something atypical. Something that doesn't fit the usual order of things. So the monsters don't just see a person "protected" by a ticket — they see the event itself: "Pierrot actually let someone close to him."
So when Ticket Taker calls us "red ticket guest," he's emphasizing our new status. We've already caught everyone's attention — with our behavior and with the ticket itself. So by not using our name, but instead something connected to the circus, he's basically saying: "Your fate is tied to this place now. You're one of us." And who we were before all of this no longer matters.
Ticket Taker is also one of the few who doesn't hide the truth from us. You might argue that he didn't let us into the pink or black tents — that he didn't actually let us uncover the truth about this place. But the real truth lies in the monsters themselves, not in what they do inside their tents.
If you visit his show, he starts showing you that very "truth" right from the entrance. The reflection of his two forms in the mirror basically says: "Look, this is all me. Your journey started with me." And that is the truth.
But what do we see next? Mirrors showing the darkest versions of every monster. It's possible that some reflections exaggerated reality — but it's precisely through exaggeration that Ticket Taker shows us the truth. He's seen each monster. He knows what they look like in madness or on the edge of death. So he wants to warn us in advance. To show us what exactly we're getting into.
And remember what he said about Columbina's mirror? "The last one — it's my favorite. Look at it." He knows we're already familiar with some of the circus's dynamics, so he offers us a chance to see its origins. In one of my previous analyses, I mentioned that I believe the story in his tent is the most truthful. And this story is probably the only one we witnessed ourselves. We had a choice: look or run away. Ticket Taker didn't force us to stay. But I think this decision ultimately showed him who we really are. We stayed. We watched. And maybe — that's exactly what he was waiting for.
At least that's how I see it. But I'd be interested to know what you think about it! 🐰
🇷🇺: перевод на русской в моем тг канале, его можно найти в профиле
