Dankovsky through His Women
Gorkhonsk's Men
(Introduction, Eva, Yulia, Lara, Clara, Maria, Aglaya)
It is impossible to wholly appreciate Daniil without female characters as men tend to magnify his worst qualities. Male characters are sources of anger, seldom regarded as allies in the long run, and in their company, the Bachelor habitually exposes the arrogance behind his idealism and becomes sarcastic, elitist, scornful, even condescending. Dankovsky is his bluntest and most conceited with the oligarchs, which may result from the Bachelorâs mistrust of state-sanctioned power and a more general aversion to being subordinate to another man.
Dankovsky's combative stance is a pattern specifically aimed at the patriarchs he insults, challenges, and tries to displace. His chronic issue is that he prioritizes intervention but lacks strategic patience; this presumptuous outsider considers it his moral duty to question the town's social order and disrupt a delicate balance. For example, he says to one of the patriarchs, âIf I am right and you keep sitting on your hands, you will be condemned regardless of whether you admit to my rightness or not,â and snaps, âDonât you dare raise your voice at me.â The Bachelor accuses them of sabotage or oppression, yet he often underestimates the complex political entanglements and local customs; the game presents a gendered power structure using the ruling families and military leadership, and the Bachelor repeatedly places himself in opposition to its male gatekeepers. His most notable political decision, regardless of the ending, culminates in handing over authority to a woman: whether itâs Capella, Maria, or Clara and Katerina. Rather than divorce the former two from their visions, Daniil pays unique attention to the ceremony around Mariaâs ascension and the ideology rising from their arguments (e.g., his defection to Capella after hearing her out, which is a conversation the other two Healers wouldnât have with other Mistresses). This indicates that his suspicion is specifically of entrenched, masculine authority, who may trust him but whose trust is seldom reciprocated.
Even in the absence of such power dynamics, the Bachelor also treats his most intimate male friends with impatience and disdain. In particular, Daniil is closest to Andrey on account of a shared past, yet the friendship has been strained by frustration (âIâve been looking for a reason to tell you this since universityâ). The Bachelor expresses moral outrage when Andrey lets Peter spiral (âWell done, Andrey Stamatin⊠you heartless bastard!â) and blames Andrey explicitly for failing his brother (âWhy didnât you abandon any and all business to stay with him?â âDonât mess it up once again, Andrey!â) The Bachelor sees Andrey as irrational and dramatic (âPoetry, even more poetryâŠâ âA pointless atavism, evolutionarily speakingâ) and frequently responds to his earnestness with accusations that he's drunk (âYouâre completely plastered, friendâ). He mistrusts the very qualities in Andrey the Bachelor appreciates in Yulia: his judgment, temperament, and ideological romanticism, especially regarding architecture and metaphysics. Andrey lashes out when he feels mocked or dismissed (âYour words were offensive.â âGo back to your medicine, Dankovsky.â) Despite their philosophical differences, Andrey views himself as an equal (or superior) in vision, especially with Peter. Nevertheless, the Bachelor is more condescending with Andrey, mocking his art, his metaphors, and his emotionality. Dankovsky might never fully understand or approve of Andrey, which he frequently expresses with sarcasm and scorn.
Daniil's aversion to masculinity strikingly surfaces in his eventual preference for Peter over Andrey toward the end of his route. Though they share less history, heâs compared explicitly to Peter, calls him a friend on multiple accounts, defends him against authority, and extends him more patience. The qualities that emasculate Peter are what the Bachelor considers necessary to anchoring Andrey from misdeeds. But even with Peter, heâs willing to break male social solidarity and prioritize the principle over the bond when he outright refuses to participate in derogatory talk about women. (âI will not tolerate you speaking of a lady in this tone, and neither will I join this conversation.â) Even in private among brethren, he treats respect for womenâs dignity as a matter of personal honor.
The disenfranchised Artemy seems to be an exception at first glance; when Capella remarks that the Bachelor âfawnsâ upon the Haruspex, I admittedly found this observation sweet without paying much mind to her selective use of âfawnâ, which I absently took as a loose synonym for âdoteâ. Indeed, the most gorgeous poetry the Bachelor composes for a man is the âtwo halves of a single wholeâ line spoken at the beginning of the Haruspex Route, which seemed to hint at a subconscious awareness of either their parts as initial player characters, each otherâs doppelgangers, or antitheses. But strictly speaking of semantics, to âfawnâ is to give a servile display of exaggerated flattery in order to gain favor or advantage. Capellaâs accusation of the Bachelor of forming an insincere, transactional friendship with her Haruspex may be well-founded within the Haruspex Route when we compare the conditions for this friendship to the other two Routes. When the Bachelor is the player character, he delays meeting with his colleagueâs son for several days, only threatening the Olgimskys with the possibility of taking advantage of Artemyâs ill reputation. When Lara expresses her wishes for the two to get along, Dankovsky brushes her off (despite otherwise honoring her wishes) and cannot be persuaded to meet Artemy until Rubin urges him out of necessity for their work. This hesitance suggests that Dankovsky only respects peers whose utility he recognizes first: a standard that rarely applies to his female friends but appears occasionally with men. In the Changeling Route, when neither the Bachelor nor Artemy are player characters, the latter becomes a thorn in the formerâs side to be eliminated. But in the Haruspex Route, when Artemy possesses the power of free will and agency, the Bachelor suddenly insists on necessitating his own place by referring to himself as Artemyâs other half and equating his own value to that of said player character. The performative fawning may suggest that the Bachelor, unable to tolerate relinquishing his power over the Town, seeks to control the puppeteer holding the strings: the player.
Even the Bachelorâs relationship with Alexander Block is subtly tense with distrust. This is especially as the latterâs escalating paranoia about the Inquisitor isolates him from the former. For instance, the Bachelor tries to downplay the Commanderâs dramatic framing of the pair as two warriors to remain neutral but ultimately asserts himself, clearly disinterested in being seen as a military ally. He confronts the Commander openly, like when the Commander stonewalls his questions, and the Bachelor can break decorum to rebuff him with an outright, âGo to hell,â which locks him out of the questâs rewards. Alternatively, Dankovsky lies to the Commander with emotional appeals like, âDonât you trust me?â to disarm him, or âNot before you answer [my question]â to invert their hierarchy. Even if not entirely, it risks eroding the uneasy trust between them and stirs suspicion in the Commander, who initially respected the Bachelor (âI feel a fighting man in youâ). Their relationship can easily deteriorate from cautious alliance to sporadic open hostility.
Block is obsessed with maintaining control while aware of how tenuous it is; he prefers action to politics but views the Inquisitor as a force that undermines military clarity and order, yet the Bachelor refuses to take the Commanderâs side on this and resists his ideological extremes. Block sees the Inquisitor as the larger threat, using vivid metaphors like âA dog should never trust a cat,â and expressing fear of being used as a puppet: âI suspect that even the words I'm uttering now are merely a part of her calculations!â He believes the Inquisitor will manipulate him into paralysis or co-opt his authority: âShe will... reveal [her arguments] at the last minute... I won't be able to open fire.â Regardless, the Bachelor says, âI have no desire to be part of your conflict.â He opposes the Commanderâs paranoia and aggression, as he consistently pushes back against Blockâs hostility toward Aglaya. This refusal to participate in the casual degradation of a womanâs authority is a deliberate choice to reject the misogynistic framing that would make her easier to discredit. Yet when Aglaya calls Block âdimwitted,â the Bachelor offers none of the defense and advocacy he would when Block speaks ill of Aglaya, which suggests disdainful agreement or distant indifference. Ultimately, this may be because the Bachelor finds him beneath serious engagement, since throughout the game, Block is often portrayed as a blunt instrument.
