i don't know if this is a misconception bc i've tried like four times to phrase it but give me your opinion on the idea of grendel being a necessary adversarial force on which civilization and its heroes build their identities!!!
LISTEN TO ME TEAR DOWN THE ENTIRE FANDOM AND / OR LITERARY CANON MEME
i know what you mean !! the whole ‘ you are the basis upon which humans realize their humanity; you have to be a brute / an evil / an ugliness so that the opposite may exist ’ thing.
and i think that, when John Gardner had the dragon tell Grendel that exact thing in the novel, it was intended to be taken as complete and utter bullshit.
Grendel is, in no way, the inherent ‘ opposite ’ of a human being.
the reason human beings rejected Grendel, and continue to reject Grendel, so adamantly, is the same reason why humans hunted the gigantopithecus to extinction – he was too much like us for our own comfort.
Grendel does not serve as an adverse opposition to humanity so much as he serves as a reminder of humanity’s ability to be brutal, cruel, and horrific. we didn’t like recognizing these traits alongside traits we considered to be exclusively ‘ human, ’ so we pushed him and abused him until he no longer felt the desire to express his own humanity. WE are what turned Grendel into a monster. WE are what decided he was to be defined as ‘ opposite ’ of us – WE were scared of the truth.
after all; Grendel, like a good number of humans, was ‘ born good. ’ he has a sweetness in him, a sense of empathy and higher intelligence, a sentience, a conscience, a desire to do good unto the world despite his tarnished reputation … and that fucking terrified us.
that reminded us that even the kindest people among our own species are capable of the most monstrous things.
Misconception: Grendel is an asshole that only cares about himself.
LISTEN TO ME TEAR DOWN THE ENTIRE FANDOM AND / OR LITERARY CANON MEME
this one – unlike the ‘ Gren is always angry ’ thing – is one i really, honestly DO NOT get. a lot of people seem to assume it, and there’s just … so much fucking evidence for the contrary that i can’t. wrap my head around it.
Grendel is very high empathy. he FREQUENTLY endangers himself to protect others, and when Grendel is the only one hurting, he shuts his mouth.
everything Grendel does is selfless.
this man got his fucking arm ripped off defending the safety and integrity of his friends. this man actively, at several points, puts himself in-between vulnerable people and potential threats. this man got SHOT protecting Holly, Nerissa, and Snow. he nearly lost his LIFE for them.
even the arguments he pitches into aren’t just to ‘ make himself feel better ’ – Grendel argues because he isn’t the only person who’s been mistreated by the government. Grendel raises a fucking stink, and is outspoken about the injustices Fabletown is ripe with, because he isn’t the only one affected by them. he watches people suffer constantly; he’s seen ( and experienced ) what poverty does to people; he knows slipping through the cracks – e.g. Lily – can be fucking fatal.
Holly’s mourning was put before his own. his friends’ safety & comfort is put before his own. he forgave the man who fucking MAIMED HIM because he just wanted JUSTICE to finally be served, and he was willing to silence his own ( legitimate ! ) objections & set his own trauma aside in order to let Bigby do the right thing.
anyone who claims Gren lives selfishly just doesn’t fucking understand him at all.
Grendel’s anger does not equate to Grendel being self-centered or having a rotten heart.
here's a misconception: that gren is constantly pissed off, 24/7, and that angry is his default mood
LISTEN TO ME TEAR DOWN THE ENTIRE FANDOM AND / OR LITERARY CANON MEME
oh, THIS one pisses me off like nothing else. it’s a good thing to touch on, though. i think a lot of my followers probably assume this, and i get it! i do! but it isn’t true.
i’ll cap off by saying that i do understand why, at first glance, someone could write Grendel off as this irrationally, consistently angry guy who doesn’t know how to express any other emotion properly. the only times we see him in the game are in the presence of Bigby Wolf – someone who, for all intents and purposes, is servicing a “ justice system ” that abuses and neglects its people, while Grendel and his friends are on the shit-slathered end of the stick – and in Bigby’s presence, for a long time, Grendel has every right and reason to be frustrated and uncomfortable.
even Grendel’s softer, goofier moments are only accessed after horrible tragedies, and while he’s heavily under the influence. his way of coping with hurt is humor, and numbness, and that’s why Grendel may, as an alternative to ‘ constant anger, ’ stand out in some peoples’ minds as ‘ comedic relief. ’
so yeah. i get why someone would think he’s just angry by default. life’s treated him like shit, it continues to treat him like shit, and he has a whole fucking lot to be mad at the world about.
however.
what canon doesn’t give us very much of is the Grendel we receive in subtext. there are a few key defining moments that tell us EXACTLY who Grendel is when he isn’t shoved into a room with people who make him feel endangered ( Bigby Wolf ), and I don’t think people pay attention to them enough:
Swineheart tells the player that, because Holly was weary of giving him her address, Grendel escorted her home. Grendel, though just as injured ( perhaps worse-so ) than Holly, and already deeply under the influence of the prescription medication he was abusing, walked his hurting friend home through the dingy, scary fucking streets of downtown N.Y.C because he didn’t want anybody giving her trouble, and knew she was more likely to get back to the bar safe if she had a scary-looking dude with her.
Beast, Toad, and Jack – though annoying – all mention holding somewhat extensive, and usually relatively friendly / mundane, conversations with Gren. Grendel isn’t an unapproachable guy – even if you’re a downright unlikable bastard. no matter who you are, Gren will still hear you out. you can talk to him. there’s no guarantee he’ll talk back, but he’ll listen. he isn’t gonna bite somebody’s head off just for opening their mouth. use your inside voice, try not to bug him too much when he’s in a bad mood, and you’re golden.
Grendel is the only man present at the ceremony for Lily’s funeral – Lawrence will be there if you saved him, but he won’t be actively involved. those girls swarm Gren like he’s one of their own. I have every reason to believe they feel perfectly safe and comfortable around him – even when he gets angry, they don’t flinch or step back. Grendel puts himself in-between the girls and any possible threat ( The Tweedles / Bigby ). they know the ‘ negative ’ sides of Grendel’s personality aren’t of any danger to them – Grendel would, and almost did, protect them with his life.
he straight-up fished for reasons to forgive Bigby and to behave as friendly and docilely as he could, regardless of whether or not Bigby ripped his fucking arm off. Grendel’s wiki states that his primary goal in life is to achieve peace, and part of that has to do with not holding too many grudges – even if they were rightfully held. ( he still holds a grudge against Woody because Woody hurt Faith, betrayed Holly, and took advantage of Lily. Gren doesn’t care if you hurt him, but don’t you dare hurt his fucking friends. )
the chalkboard at the bar reads ‘ GR ‘. his points from playing darts are totaled up on it. he’s pretty good in spite of his vision, which leads me to believe he’s probably a relatively playful guy.
Grendel’s a fantastic artist, with a good chunk of his art exhibited in chapter 9 of the TWAU comics. it’s a hobby of his, along with storytelling, which seem to go hand-in-hand – even Bigby admits that Grendel, especially drunk Grendel, loves to tell tall tales and entertain a crowd.
speaking of stories – when Bigby first enters the bar in the comics, Grendel’s nose-deep in a book. my guess is that is had something to do with philosophy, which he expresses a strong canonical interest in.
concept art and unused voice lines express that a.) Grendel has a heart tattoo with ‘ MOM ’ on it on his left bicep, which Holly ( according to the artist ) went with him to get, as he was too much of a pansy to get it alone ( besides – it was probably for her ), and b.) Grendel was originally supposed to be the one delivering Lily’s eulogy, not Snow. according to The Book of Fables, troll eulogies are an ancient, sacred death tradition passed on from mother to son.
he’s a big old crybaby, especially in the Gardner novel. he falls in love very easily, and he’s quick to empathize with people who don’t even know he exists or, worse, fucking hate him / want him dead.
all of this is, in my opinion, a good chunk of evidence suggesting that Grendel is – beyond his anger – artistic, inspired, caring, gentle, benevolent, loyal, protective, and more beloved by others than he actually realizes / understands.
offduty; //MASSIVE APPLAUSE. Also, under the umbrella of haytham’s upbringing, was not uncommon for upperclass gentlemen to be rather strict/harsh and blunt with their sons - rather in the way haytham was with connor. It’s a form of tough love.
I FORGOT ABOUT THAT. I FORGOT ABOUT THAT I MADE THIS WHOLE BIG DEAL ABOUT IT AND I FORGOT TO GO INTO IT. TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT YES, YOU’RE RIGHT, AND HAYTHAM BEHAVING THAT WAY INDICATES THAT HE THINKS THAT HE AND CONNOR SHOULD HAVE A NORMAL FATHER-SON RELATIONSHIP; HE IS TRYING TO BE A FATHER IN THE WAY THAT HE KNOWS ( A STRONG PATRIARCHAL BACKGROUND, SARCASM THAT THEY REALLY DON’T HAVE THE BACKGROUND FOR, HARSHNESS THAT MIGHT STING BUT WOULD NORMALLY BE BRUSHED OFF AS THAT “TOUGH LOVE” BUT IS INSTEAD SEEN AS AN ATTACK BECAUSE HE DOESN’T KNOW HIS SON ) BUT CONNOR IS FROM A MATRIARCHAL SOCIETY AND HAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND ISN’T EXPECTING THAT SORT OF AUTHORITATIVE STANCE FROM A FATHER AND HAYTHAM IS DEMANDING DEFERENCE THAT CONNOR IS NOT GIVING BECAUSE HE DOESN’T KNOW THAT HE’S SUPPOSED TO GIVE IT BUT WHY WOULD HAYTHAM ENGAGE IN THAT DYNAMIC AT ALL IF HE DIDN’T WANT A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS SON WHEN HE’S HITTING ALL THE MARKERS FOR A NORMAL FATHER-SON RELATIONSHIP. IT’S AWKWARD AND EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE THERE IS A CULTURAL DISCONNECT AND BECAUSE CONNOR DOESN’T UNDERSTAND IT THEREFORE HE DOESN’T LIKE IT AND HAYTHAM DOESN’T PICK UP ON THAT OR ADAPT TO IT SO HE JUST COMES ACROSS AS A HUGE ASSHOLE AND HE SHOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT HIS SON HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING ON AND CUT IT OUT BUT HE DIDN’T.
misconception: haytham is the most radical of all the templars and he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
send me a misconception you think people have about my character and i’ll explain if it’s true or not.
SEE THE FIRST PART OF THIS IS ACTUALLY TRUE IF YOU COME AT IT FROM A TEMPLAR POINT OF VIEW. SO FAR AS THE ORDER IS CONCERNED BY THE TIME OF UNITY HAYTHAM KENWAY WAS A DANGEROUS RADICAL WHO DIDN’T REALLY WANT TO KILL THE ASSASSINS AND INSTEAD PURSUED PEACE AND TALKED ABOUT DISGUSTING THINGS LIKE TRUCES AND ALLIANCES AND HOW THEY WEREN’T SO DIFFERENT AFTER ALL. THE ORDER WANTED TO BURN HIS WRITINGS BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO MODERATE FOR THEIR TASTES. HE WAS SO MODERATE HE WAS RADICAL. EVEN ACHILLES DAVENPORT, LEADER OF THE BROTHERHOOD THAT HAYTHAM SLAUGHTERED AND DISMANTLED WITH VIGOR, ADMITTED THAT, IF CONNOR WERE TO APPROACH HAYTHAM AND ASK ABOUT UNITING THEIR ORDERS, HE WOULD PROBABLY LISTEN. WHETHER OR NOT HE WOULD AGREE WAS ANYONE’S GUESS BUT ACHILLES -- WHO DISDAINS HAYTHAM -- ADMITTED TO CONNOR -- WHOM HE ACCUSED OF BEING TOO FANCIFUL AND FORCED TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO CONTINUE SEEKING CONFLICT WITH HIS FATHER -- THAT HAYTHAM WOULD AT LEAST SIT DOWN AND LEND AN EAR. AFTER ALL THE IMPLIED HORROR STORIES THAT PROBABLY HAD TO DO WITH HAYTHAM KENWAY EATING BABIES AND DRINKING THE BLOOD OF VIRGINS, WHEN ASKED IF HAYTHAM WOULD BE UP FOR TALK OF UNITY, HIS RESPONSE WAS, “I DON’T KNOW YOU COULD ASK HIM? IT MIGHT NOT WORK OUT BUT YOU COULD ASK HIM.”
As for him having no redeeming qualities that’s really up to your perspective and how quick you are to condemn / forgive him for his actions and whether or not you lean towards the idea that he was technically right or instead stand by the more idealistic / Assassin view of the world and see him as a pessimist / fatalist by nature it’s really subjective this is less a misconception and more an opinion.
misconception: haytham abandoned ziio because he's cold and heartless and never loved her.
send me a misconception you think people have about my character and i’ll explain if it’s true or not.
I don’t know how to respond to this because it’s just not true. Canonically. Haytham is cold as ice but imo he loved her and even if he didn’t love her she’s still the one who instigated the breakup because she felt as though the terms of their relationship had been violated and opposed to trying to guilt trip her or force his way back into her good graces he agreed to stay away from her and never forgot about her or had any serious relationships that Ubisoft has confirmed apart from that which he had with her. I’m sorry that he didn’t cry about it but my son is emotionally challenged and probably wouldn’t cry if you ran him over with a bus.
misconception: haytham hated his son and wanted no part in his life.
send me a misconception you think people have about my character and i’ll explain if it’s true or not.
I absolutely cannot agree with this. I understand why people might think that this is the case – Haytham is crass, overbearing; he makes assumptions about his relationship with Connor that have little to no grounding in reality, but that’s the thing: he assumes that they have something to go off of, which is why he says half of the things he does. Haytham is not a man quick to waste his time; he wouldn’t be half as likely to even converse with Connor if he wanted nothing to do with him.
I’ll address, firstly, the misconception that his absence for the first seventeen / eighteen years of Connor’s life meant that he wanted no part in it, because that is easy to clear up. The game is vague at best about why Haytham and Ziio split, and people are quick to say that Haytham used Ziio for sex and left, but that is not the case. Even basing ones opinion solely off of the dialogue offered in-game, Ziio consistently leans towards being the one who broke from Haytham ( discussing his ties to the Templars and her belief that he was power-hungry, which is debatable but understandable ), while Haytham consistently makes remarks about their time together ( and Adrian Hough has confirmed that his dying speech is an attempt on Haytham’s part to cover up what he is really feeling and should not be taken at face value, so his assertion that he will not “weep and wonder what might have been” is a false one ). Expanded canon ( Forsaken ) clarifies that Ziio asked Haytham to leave and that Haytham complied; it also confirms that Haytham did not know of her pregnancy, but spent her entire term in Europe hunting Jennifer and killing Birch. Haytham respected Ziio’s wish to stop seeing her and went so far as to extend that rule to the entire Colonial Rite; he ordered them off of Mohawk land despite the research that he was meant to be doing there on Precursor sites and the Temple. So if the misconception that Haytham hates Connor stems from the idea that he also hated / used / dropped Ziio, then the basis of the entire argument is factually untrue. There was a lot of respect between them, and Haytham probably loved Ziio – just as Ziio probably loved Haytham.
There is also this idea that Connor was somehow “unwanted”, but that is also crushed in canon. On more than one occasion, Haytham implies that he does want children. There are a few segments in Forsaken where he talks about wanting a son specifically, and an optional conversation with Franklin in the game where he interrupts a speech on Benjamin’s sexual exploits to ask what one should do if they desire children. I think it’s also important to note that Haytham did not marry after Ziio. I’ll get into how Haytham defies social norms of the time later, but, if he had wanted children or even just an heir to inherit what he has ( Jenny doesn’t seem to be rushing to marry and reproduces and the Kenway name means so much to him ), he could easily have married for convenience, but he refrained from doing so, possibly because it would have been unpleasant for him to consider living with anybody after Ziio. So there’s reinforced loyalty to his lover there as well as confirmation that he, at the very least, didn’t not desire children, and that he didn’t desire children that weren’t his and Ziio’s. Connor is their child, so he’s already hitting the main requirement to drawing Haytham’s attention / affection?
Now I’m going to get into his interactions with Connor himself, and I want to preface this by saying that I do not condone Haytham’s attitude towards his son, nor am I trying to place the blame on Connor; I am offering up Haytham’s point of view, which is, of course, heavily biased and not at all objective.
Firstly – and I know I’ve talked about this before, so I’ll try to keep it short – Haytham behaves differently around Connor than he does around most anybody else. He is extremely patient with him… by Haytham’s standards; he is quick to snap, but even then, it takes a fair amount of prodding for him to become actively malicious, as evidenced in the rooftop scene. Connor asks a question and Haytham offers an answer. Connor, for whatever reason, immediately snaps back with a general statement ( “Freedom is peace.” ) clearly designed to derail Haytham’s argument. This is honestly pretty rude. He asked Haytham for an explanation, and perhaps his response was a bit provocative, but he also compliments the Brotherhood in his speech, albeit backhandedly, only for Connor to run his argument over with a counterargument that Haytham knows to be untrue. It’s naïve and it’s idealistic to the point of getting Haytham’s back up – but even then, he attacks what Connor is saying as opposed to Connor himself, and I think that’s an important distinction to make. People are quick to condemn Haytham and claim that he hated his son, but he never actually expresses dislike for Connor, aside from making the ( fair ) observation that he is young and inexperienced. No, his treatment of Connor is in no way defensible, regardless of whether or not he was “right” all along, but he consistently attacks Connor’s ideology, which is a far cry from other villains in the series who would attack the protagonists themselves. He does not hate his son, but he certainly takes issue with the fact that his son is spitting up these horribly vague and unrealistic ideas with absolutely nothing to back them.
And in my opinion, based on what I’ve observed, it’s only the ideological part of it. Haytham seems to respect Connor’s abilities, and I’ll address the taunting later, because it goes with my earlier statement that Haytham is delusional and thinks that they have a relationship that is actually nonexistent. Yes, there is the first test that Haytham sets up on the fly with the mercenary camp where he leaves in the middle of a battle, but he’s seen Connor fight and he stays long enough to dispatch of a handful of them before taking off and telling Connor where to meet him. He does throw him to the wolves, but he’s trusting Connor to come through, and expects him to hold his own in battle thereafter. He’s not actually opposed to the fact that Connor is an Assassin, either. Again, he expresses some admiration for what the Brotherhood was before it went astray, and his fear and discomfort seem to stem from the fact that Connor is misinformed and manipulated rather than from Connor being in a different organization. Remember that Haytham used to aspire to unite the Templars and the Assassins. Even if he doesn’t believe it possible anymore, he’s never been quick to engage in the war between them and only does so in Rogue because the world is in serious danger from Achilles’ actions. So he doesn’t hate Connor because he’s an Assassin. He doesn’t hate Connor because he’s not good enough for him with regards to physical abilities. He only actively takes issue with his ideology. ( Possibly because Haytham is a survivor of serious manipulation / abuse and would readily see the signs of it; Achilles is not Connor’s friend, and spent years and years toying with Connor’s emotions and frightening him into following the Creed, which is precisely what Birch did with Haytham on the Templar side. Hearing someone blindly spitting what their mentor has crammed down their throat but not explained is going to raise the hairs on the back of his neck. However, he also attempts to manipulate Connor; regardless of whether or not he wanted this relationship, he did not know how to connect with his son and his default was ( explicitly ) to push him over the edge with the Washington reveal. )
He also protects Connor physically? He saves him from the hanging, sacrificing Thomas and effectively doing Achilles’ job for him because he couldn’t stand to watch Connor die. He jumps him in the church and has the chance to do away with him, but holds back and gives Connor every opportunity to get up, then proposes a truce. Remember that: Haytham made the peace offering. Haytham extended that olive branch. I think it’s interesting, the way that this part of their relationship reflects the general Templar-Assassin dynamic. While Connor often comments to himself or to others that he would like to make amends with his father and form an alliance, Haytham is the one who approaches him with the idea. Both of them want it, and that shouldn’t be overlooked. Of course, Haytham delivers it with his usual dose of sarcasm. When it comes to tone, he digs his own grave, but that should not discount the fact that he does actively try. He’s just awful at it.
And his issues with tone in dealing with Connor are pervasive. There is an enormous disconnect between what he is trying to do / say and how he does / says it, and the best example that I can think of is the brewery scene. Those of us who have heard a majority of his speech can all agree that he’s damn rude. However, I’d take a look at what he’s actually saying:
“Now is not the time for sight-seeing.”“So close, yet so far. You’ll need to find a way around the flames.”
Throughout this entire sequence, he’s still biting as ever, but he never actually leaves Connor behind. He moves ahead of him, yes, and takes a different route, but he never stops talking to him. Connor is clearly arsonophobic and spends the first few moments in the escape section hunched over and moving a bit sluggishly. Haytham is an observant man; this isn’t something that he would miss. He decides to move on ahead because this isn’t something that he can do for Connor – he can’t carry him out – but his commentary seems to be focused more on keeping Connor grounded and moving than it is meant to insult him. He is feeding him instructions the whole way through and refusing to leave Connor to deal with this alone, despite the fact that he is also chasing Church’s men. Had he hated his son or wanted him dead, he could have easily pursued his own goals and left Connor to burn alive, but he hangs back, hesitates, and guides him through, even though he does not do so physically.
THIS IS THE PART WHERE I TALK ABOUT SOCIAL NORMS. And, as I’m talking about social norms, I want to make it clear that these are eighteenth century standards of parenting that I’m holding Haytham to in a cultural context. When I say that he is better than he could have been, I do not mean that he is in any way good, but he defies some expectations for Connor. Most importantly, he claims his bastard son. Yes, there is the idea that you need to take responsibility for your actions, as it is the honorable thing to do, but Haytham would have come under fire for 1) having a child out of wedlock and 2) sleeping with an indigenous woman. Was it common? Probably. Were there plenty of mixed-race children with only one present parent running around? Yes. But to be open about that was to invite a lot of negative scrutiny into your life, and still, to have Connor and to have people recognize Connor as his son was more important to him than preserving his reputation – which may already have been shaky, based on the Loyalist leader’s reaction to him at Fort George. Haytham is an upperclass gentleman, though, and though many upperclass gentlemen had children out of wedlock, it wasn’t something that was smiled upon.
His reactions to Connor are also always verbal, and, again, we are holding Haytham to eighteenth century standards. It would have been entirely acceptable for him to smack Connor on the hand or even to take him over his knee ( CONNOR IS WAY TOO OLD FOR THAT BUT THEY’RE JUMPING RIGHT INTO THIS RELATIONSHIP COLD ), but he doesn’t, despite the fact that Connor is also an enemy and a skilled fighter and has been running around killing his men, and instead condemns Charles for hitting a child. He does not want to be physically violent with his son. Well. He wants to be physically violent with his son, but not with his son. Beating on people while Connor helps good. Beating on Connor bad. Like… I wouldn’t be saying this if Haytham wasn’t a violent man, but it takes one harmless half-insult from a stranger in a bar for him to start breaking noses; he absolutely wails on Church and nonchalantly slits the throats of his captives; even on the boat over he eagerly engages in a fistfight to pass the time and because he feels offended. Connor goes above and beyond in terms of ( rightfully ) dragging Haytham’s crusty ass and he doesn’t lift a finger. If he hated Connor I doubt that that would be the case, but the baby is allowed to run his mouth and Haytham mostly responds by rolling his eyes and waving a hand.
He’s actually remarkably lenient with Connor for a guy who loves control as much as he does; he readily goes along with his plans and just sort of rolls with the punches when it comes to Connor making decisions. He’s impatient as all Hell but waits on several occasions for Connor to do what he needs to do before starting his missions.
This is getting way too long there’s just so much evidence that points to Haytham wanting his son and wanting a relationship with his son and the problem arises not from lack of desire but from miscommunication that is so central to the story and the overall message that ACIII is trying to get across. I’ll try to wrap this up real quick.
When Connor calls him out on sitting on the information regarding the attack on his village, Haytham does not deny it and allows Connor to leave freely without pursuing him. Examining Haytham through Eagle Vision reveals that he is still blue. Connor has not fully given up on Haytham – not in his heart – and Haytham has no intention of hurting Connor. And he doesn’t. For three years. Connor spends three years as an active Assassin in the Colonies, and, knowing that he is a threat, having seen what he can do, having heard from Connor himself that he will kill him if provoked, that he is still after Charles even now when he knows that he is not responsible for his mother’s death… Haytham leaves him alone. He doesn’t go after him. I doubt that he’s even waiting for Connor to come to him until Charles tells him ( Forsaken ). He lets him go. He doesn’t try to hurt him or “neutralize the threat”. His son wants nothing to do with him and he’s not going to force himself on him nor use this as an excuse to kill him.
And when they do meet, when Haytham denies the hope of peace between them, he still spends a good four or five minutes desperately trying to talk to him. He is at death’s door and he is still trying to connect with his son, and he’s not doing it in a way that implies his trying to shame Connor – he sounds genuinely distressed.
He never wanted to hurt Connor. He never wanted to fight Connor. He went out of his way to avoid doing so, and I just can’t believe that he hated him or wanted nothing to do with him.
i’m... not sure if this is for the conception meme or just a random statement, but let’s talk about it anyway!! who doesn’t love talking about raving psychopaths, am i right??so -- he pretty much is. anyone who can get pleasure from “any degree of torture to another” is pretty messed up in the head, for starters; and what hyde essentially is is just jekyll without a conscience or any sort of inhibitions, which fits pretty close with the definition of a psychopath. he has no sense of empathy, he’s violent, he gets excited by hurting people -- he’s definitely got psychopathic tendencies, at the bare minimum. but if this was for the misconception meme, as i’m kind of treating it -- and i’m really really sorry if you were just making a statement and didn’t want this word vomit -- then there’s a misconception tied to this that i want to bring up: the idea that hyde was a serial killer, or at least a mass murderer. that one’s a misconception i come across a lot -- thanks, frank wildhorn -- and i want to make the distinction that that’s a musical thing, not a book thing. in the book, hyde did kill, but it was one old guy, not dozens of people. and unlike the musical, where he kind of just goes on a rampage and kills the whole board of governors specifically because they wronged him, the murder in the book isn’t premeditated. stevenson actually got a little bit of flack from some people about that part, because they were like. dude. why would he even kill that guy. there was no provocation. this is weird. it’s literally some old dude who stops hyde in the street to talk to him, presumably to ask directions, and hyde breaks out in a fury and beats him to death with his cane. we get a little bit of context from jekyll later on, when he admits that the night in question was the first time he’d been hyde in a few months and he was really feeling the effects pretty potently, but it’s still... out of the blue. he didn’t know the guy, the guy didn’t seem to do anything to offend him -- he was just there, and hyde was like ‘okay time to get my murder on.’ BUT. yeah. it was weird, out of the blue, and a one-off thing. he didn’t go around stabbing people left and right for funsies, although he probably would’ve had fun with that. S O. psychopath, yes. mass murderer, no. he just beat lots of people up. and does other gross and mean things.
