*asks about Mare's M scar turn into another episode of Annie overanalyzing YA books*
this is your fault guys. In trying to make sense of Mare's "decision" to keep the scar, and reading your takes on the matter I started to wonder if there was something more to it than what is offered as an explanation in Mare's PoV. Some parts of the story can't be taken at face value and still expect them to make sense in the established narrative.
⚠️ LONG POST AHEAD ⚠️ and I apologize in advance for my limited English to try to elaborate on such a complex subject.
Anon #1 said: I AGREE WITH YOU SM. I don't understand why Mare kept the scar. Imagine having to explain to your children how you got it...
Anon #2 said: Same. Personally I think she shouldn’t keep it. She claims that she keeps the scar so that it can always remind her of who Maven truly is, but there are literally multiple reminders to remind of who he is. Like the entire Nortan government changing. He was the cause of everything and it caused a domino effect. He caused Shade’s death, babies dying, etc. so all that should be a reminder of who he is imo.
@lucy-the-cat said: Well, in King's Cage she held onto the brand as proof that Maven was irredeemable and didn't deserve sympathy. This framing continued in War Storm, where Mare weaponizes it during the meeting. After killing him, she probably kept it to reassert to herself that she made the right choice.
After killing him in War Storm, she needs to reassert to herself that she made the right choice. Remember that strange scene where she talks to Cal and is all “You’re mad at me for killing your brother” and he’s very confused and she insists “You are you just don’t know it yet”? She’s projecting her guilt over Maven’s death onto him, and in Broken Throne, she sees Cal grieve for the brother that never was, and fears succumbing to the same.
War Storm has a passage where Cal discusses healing some of his scars and Mare retorts that some things should be remembered. But here’s the thing: When a scar heals, the memory of how you got it doesn’t disappear. It’s about not ACTIVELY reminding yourself of it every time you look in the mirror.
That’s self-harm logic. And Mare has always been prone to self-harm, what with her keeping Maven’s letters and admitting to scratching herself in King’s Cage. She got better about it as the books went on, but to me the brand is proof she never fully grew out of it. Maybe she did eventually but humans will do anything to rationalize continuing what we’re already doing.
And yeah, I can see Cal giving up and being like, “FINE I’ll enable you” lol
I think we can all agree that the use of the scar during WS makes sense from a propaganda standpoint, also as a reminder for herself because at that point in the story Maven is still alive and kicking it.
In a world where erasing scars completely is a possibility, it's very interesting that the protagonist chooses to keep it after it served its purpose in the plot. Hence, my problem with the scar starts after the main plot arc ends, when Maven is already gone and the sole presence of the mark becomes a source of retraumatization for Mare.
I really like lucy-the-cat's psychological explanation and I couldn't have worded it better myself. On the other hand, in literature, a wound tells a story.
A scar is a narrative inscribed into the hero's skin, granting them authority over the lived ordeal. Think of the term "Battle scars" something that men used as badges of honor, as proof that they fought in a romanticized war and proved themselves to a patriarchal society that deems violence a form of authority.
Mare takes this conception when she is trying to convince Montfort to go against Maven.
Traumatic memories lack verbal and narrative context; rather, they are encoded in the form of vivid sensations and images (a "death imprint"). The traumatic memory gains destructive force not for the link to the past, but for the repetition in the present of the event that hasn't been fully processed yet.
“You had some scars removed.”
I can only shrug. It’s been weeks since I had a healer erase the older scars across my back and ribs, wiping away the raised edges of white, knotted flesh. Wounds unbecoming of a king. (...) “Some things don’t have to be held on to.”
Her eyes narrow. “And some things do, Cal.”
I can only nod in silent agreement, unwilling to follow her over the precipice of that particular conversation. It won’t lead us anywhere productive. (War Storm ch 23)
If we take a look at the dichotomy of Mare's choice with Cal's, and how it relates to their character arcs, we can see a very common device used in media that employs the damaged body to show the state of the character's soul.
In mainstream media such as Beauty and the Beast, Star Wars, Moon lovers (a K-drama) the redemption of the male protagonist's soul, the ending of their journeys, is marked by the restoration of the body either by transforming back into human (the Beast), the healing of a scar (Kylo Ren/Ben Solo, and Wang So), just to mention a few.
At this point in the story, Cal is nearing his final redemptive act by stepping down from the throne, while Mare is reaching her final destructive act, Maven's murder.
I have scars of every kind, from Maven’s brand, from wounds not properly healed, from my own lightning. But I am not a ruin. Not yet. (WS chapter 8)
What I mean to say is, the scar is as much of a choice as the destruction of her soul in the name of the greater good, which isn't much of a choice at all (narratively speaking). And the permanence of the brand even when in canon she could simply have it healed is the metaphorical repressentation of her healing journey. The healing journey that barely fucking starts at THE END of War Storm, as we all know from the infamous epilogue.
Anyway, I hope that made sense. Here's the article mentioned above ("Scarred narratives and speaking wounds").
