Analysis - Blog Posts

victor's belief that he's responsible for the deaths of his family (by extension of creating the creature) was borne out of excessive guilt, i might go as far as to say bordering on delusions of persecution. id argue walton was more directly responsible for deaths than victor ever was (several members of his crew died on his ship as a result of his inexperience and persistence), but first and foremost the creature was responsible, not victor, and to suggest otherwise i think is blatantly ignoring the creature's autonomy. he had a cultivated understanding of morality and the world's evils and chose, while knowing and feeling that it was a moral wrong, to murder. i think, eventually, it is this willingness to deliberately go against his own morals to commit evil acts that victor considers monstrous, not just the creature's monstrous appearance in of itself, which is one of the defining factors of his choice not to create the female creature.

if anything, id argue this passage is actually proof of victor acknowledging his "failure as a parent" or rather his duty as a parent, its just not done so directly. this is a story being told in retrospect, and that fact colors victor's narration because he already knows the events that are being described. in this sense, the quote seems more of an acknowledgement of this than anything else, particularly with the language of "creature" and "being to which they had given life" used to describe a child, which, like youre saying, are both blatant parallels to how victor describes the creature. if you look at this and then consider it within the context of victor and creature's confrontation on the alps, where victor does actually explicitly admit to his duties as a creator, i think it changes things:

For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness. These motives urged me to comply with his demand.

and then, later:

I was moved [...] I felt that there was some justice in his argument. His tale, and the feelings he now expressed, proved him to be a creature of fine sensations; and did I not as his maker, owe him all the portion of happiness that it was in my power to bestow?

in both quotes victor mentions he feels he owes the creature happiness, i.e. the same "train of enjoyment" he experienced in his own childhood, and it is the feelings the creature expressed (stemming from his mistreatment by victor, but also more importantly by society as a whole; i think people tend to overinflate the importance of the creature's "abandonment" by victor in the grand scheme of things) that push victor to this idea. that is, victor pretty directly admits to the effect of his absence on creature.

Victor Frankenstein admits multiple times that him creating the creature led to multiple deaths so he’s responsible in that sense but he assumes it’s because he created a monster but in my opinion, he knows him failing as a parent/abandoning the creature is why it turned out the way that it did, he just won’t admit it, and this passage from chapter one is my prime evidence.

I was their plaything and their idol, and something better—their child, the innocent and helpless creature bestowed on them by Heaven, whom to bring up to good, and whose future lot it was in their hands to direct to happiness or misery, according as they fulfilled their duties towards me. With this deep consciousness of what they owed towards the being to which they had given life, added to the active spirit of tenderness that animated both, it may be imagined that while during every hour of my infant life I received a lesson of patience, of charity, and of self-control, I was so guided by a silken cord that all seemed but one train of enjoyment to me.

i don’t think alphonse is necessarily passing down some sort of generational trauma onto his children (to me, the pattern of perpetuating their own abuse onto their children is much more present with caroline, through elizabeth and victor)—but rather he’s imparting the values of a upper-class swiss-christian georgian society that his gender, race, religion, career, social class, etc. dictate. 

what’s interesting, from this angle, is the significance of victor failing to conform and uphold these traditional masculine values: victor was very emotionally demonstrative, and frankenstein was written during a turning point in history where upper-class men who had “nervous” senses/feelings were beginning to be seen as effete instead of stylish (during the romantic era they used to be thought fashionable because they were seen as more in-touch with their senses and with nature then the lower-class). during the creation process, victor describes being “oppressed every night by a slow fever” and becoming “nervous to a most painful degree” (1831), among other hysteric symptoms, which was only attributed to females during the time period. victor himself acknowledges this, when in the same passage he describes himself as being “timid as a love-sick girl” (1823).

because of how the gender switch is able to function within science fiction, victor’s narrative is a traditionally female one synthesized through a male narrator, and shelley is able to disguise themes that would have otherwise been met with affront had they been more blatant. when considering this in the context of the creature's birth, victor is essentially a teenager pregnant out of wedlock alienated from his family in a foreign country–much like mary shelley herself–yet in the end, shelley demonstrates that even being male does not help him, because when it boils down to it he is still a single parent without support. victor also fails to uphold his family’s paternal legacy as syndics and judges, pursuing his passion of natural philosophy/alchemy instead to the disapproval of his father, which he is punished for, as it ultimately leads to the creation of the creature and victor’s subsequent downfall.

i’ve established the link between being outwardly emotional and equating this with femininity (which, if i haven’t made clear, i inherently disagree with btw), but i wanted to acknowledge its consequences for victor. when victor fails to suppress the emotion and grief that alphonse tries to encourage victor to suck up, after the death of clerval, this is mistaken for guilt and he faces months of imprisonment. he is also confined in a mental institution when he appears mad. generally, when being emotional he is disbelieved and not taken seriously, for example during his ramblings to henry when ill at ingolstadt, which were never acknowledged, or when telling the magistrate about the situation and trying to get them to pursue the creature. it very much feels like the way women’s emotions weren't (and aren’t) taken seriously and are undermined, were seen as melodramatic, exaggerated, inferior, etc. this forces victor to take matters into his own hands several times–agreeing to make the female creature after justine’s trial (which ultimately leads to what is essentially abortion), deciding to pursue the creature himself after the magistrate disbelieved him, etc. which always resulted in victor putting himself in situations that were dangerous and risked his life.

we’ve spoken pretty extensively in DMs on how love is conditional amongst the frankensteins, so i won’t reiterate all of that here, but generally, much of alphonse’s characterization feels like a reflection of godwin’s beliefs, particularly his ideas on how grief should be thought about and handled. godwin says this in a letter to mary after her son william (shelley)’s death:

this letter pretty directly parallels a conversation alphonse has with victor after william (frankenstein)’s death:

to me, this recontextualizes a lot of victor and alphonse’s interactions, particularly when viewing victor’s narrative as a feminine/maternal one and, in part, as influenced by shelley's own experiences as a woman, daughter and mother. it also feels significant, then, to point out that shelley chose to dedicate frankenstein to godwin.

It's interesting how the second sentence victor starts the story with is "My ancestors had been for many years counsellors and syndics" and while i always focused on the effect it has on, for example, victor; trying to see the life of alphonse is also interesting in the way we can observe his trauma leaking out into his parenting methods and attitude towards his kids and wife.

Like,

-It is said they have a long history with being important and engaged in country's business. And as we see Alphonsa followed it, (and i highly suspect even when he sent victor to college he still expected him to take over this position later on), probably not having much of a choice either. It was all passed down, and even the character of this job is being passed down too. For example, traits fitting this job - responsibilities/brain over feelings. A sense of duty that follows them everywhere. Love isn't unconditional, it's a duty, as well as everything else they do.

It seems like he's just passing down the generational trauma.

Another instances where his bad experiences are being reflected in his behavior towards victor and others is also seen here:

-His dearest friend suddenly disappeared. Turns out he hid because of hurt pride of losing his fortune, simultaneously almost destroying his daughter's life bc of that as well as his own. and Alphonse felt betrayed that this false pride was more important than their friendship = notice how Alphonse assumes the reason for victor's misery is a false pride. And desperatively wants to keep his family in close-circle, so they won't leave each other. And him.

-He looked for the friend for a long time without stopping, but in the end was disappointed. "But when he entered, misery and despair alone welcomed him. Beaufort had saved but a very small sum of money from the wreck of his fortunes; but it was sufficient to provide him with sustenance for some months, and in the mean time he hoped to procure some respectable imployment in a merchant’s house. The interval was consequently spent in inaction; his grief only became more deep and rankling, when he had leisure for reflection; and at length it took so fast hold of his mind, that at the end of three months he lay on a bed of sickness, incapable of any exertion." = notice how he always thinks despair is useless and leads to even worse consequences, so, feeling things is BAD.

-After making a big deal out of loving and finding the friend, the moment he actually sees him dead, instead of thinking about that or even mentioning alphonse was sad or smth, theres not a single sentence about alphonse's reaction or even of that friend anymore, instead all attention drifts to beautiful poor Caroline and suddenly it's a story about saving her. Everything got romantized. = Obviously, the romantization of grief and suffering was very ingrained in Victor's whole family. It probably came from Alphonse and his ancestors too.

- It's also said in 1818 ver that alphonse really loved his sister (the mother of elizabeth) and she abandoned him (cut him off).

"for some years my father had very little communication with her."

= Now remember alphonse's later words and lessons about how cutting your family off means you are neglecting yourself and your other duties etc.

So yeak, Idk I just love how Frankenstein is also about generational trauma and people who didn't process their feelings ruining their kids' lifes. (and don't get me started on Caroline.)

i’d noticed in the past the almost-parasocial relationships the creature and victor had developed with each other before they ever even met properly, and that bizarrely they both essentially met these pre-conceived notions and fulfilled their expectations despite their speculations being entirely unfounded at the time. i remember a line during the creatures narrative that said he knew victor turned from him in disgust, not because of memory, but from reading his pocket journal—which victor never wrote in after his reaction to the creature’s awakening. previously i just assumed this was a plot hole or something, but i’d never made the connection that all assumptions in the book seem to operate like this. that’s a very interesting point and it puts a lot of things in a very different light!

i’m still chewing on the william-as-victor’s biological son interpretation (at least, if i’m interpreting what you’re saying here correctly). it’s definitely got potential but while shelley does disguise her themes frequently, for a variety of reasons, it almost seems too subtle; to me, it seems more likely that victor and caroline’s relationship was only psuedo/covertly-incestuous (with deliberately creating elizabeth as an extension of herself and dictating their marriage and having elizabeth take her role and whatnot) and that victor and elizabeth’s raising of their younger siblings was more along the lines of parentification and/or grooming them into their roles of husband/wife. the fact that caroline made elizabeth into an extension of herself, and then goes on to have elizabeth marry victor, does certainly carry implications… but if like you suggest desire is there for victor, i would say caroline attempts to act on it through elizabeth as a medium, since she cannot do so physically.

however, i do agree that the creation process can still definitely be interpreted as (subconsciously) sexual in nature, and that victor’s disgust during the creature’s awakening could very well be disgust that he is repeating the cycle of abuse—i think, because the victor-as-creature’s father interpretation is so favored, people tend to overlook the eroticism you pointed out in the creation process, even though frankenstein build-a-gf adaptations are all over the place (and despite the theme of incest being clear throughout the novel), but i’d never been able to articulate it as eloquently as you put it here. i’d be interested in how you interpret victor’s dream at ingolstadt as well, since it occurs right after the creatures birth—as oedipal in nature? victors subconscious knowledge of the jocasta complex at play? or just furthering the conflation of sister/mother?

i’d also suggest that alphonse and elizabeth’s relationship may be incestuous in a similar vein to caroline and victor’s. because caroline has elizabeth supply her role to the family, she is not only operating as a maternal substitute but also as a wife substitute to alphonse. victor’s “more than sister” line in regard to elizabeth and the possessive way he refers to her as “his” is cited often to prove that their relationship was incestuous (and typically to demonize victor but i digress), but people fail to notice that alphonse also refers to elizabeth in the same way, i.e. as his “more than daughter” (thank you to the lovely @rosaniruby for first pointing this line out to me)! the full quote is this: “…his eyes wandered in vacancy, for they had lost their charm and their delight—his niece, his more than daughter, whom he doated on with all that affection which a man feels, who, in the decline of life, having few affections, clings more earnestly to those that remain” (1818). so not only does he describe her as his more than daughter, but also acknowledges their blood relation as his more than niece, and in doing so rules out all potential familial relations: she is not just a niece, not just a daughter, but more than that. he feels “all the affection which a man feels” towards her—as in all the types of affection, familial, platonic, romantic… specifically because he has “few affections,” that is, his wife died, so he clings more earnestly to elizabeth who is operating as his wife-replacement. significantly it is also elizabeth’s death that pushes alphonse over the edge of grief and leads to his passing.

i’d love to hear your thoughts!

for my 100th post (!) i thought i would, at long last, make a catch-all analysis on victor and elizabeth’s relationship, their marriage, and why specifically it was incestuous. throughout i may mention my interpretations of caroline’s past and her pseudo-incestuous relationship with alphonse, which you can read here. it’s not necessary to understand this post, but you’ll miss some of the nuance of the relationships between the frankensteins without it

in the 1818 version of the novel, elizabeth is the paternal first cousin of victor. she is, like caroline, similarly upper-class but falls into misfortune when her mother dies and she is left under the care of her father. these parallels become important later. after elizabeth’s mother dies, her father writes to alphonse “….requesting [Alphonse] to take charge of the infant Elizabeth” and that it was his wish “…that [Alphonse] should consider her as [his] own daughter, and educate her thus” (1818). that is, it was explicitly intended for elizabeth to be reared as a daughter to the frankensteins (and thus victor’s sister). 

in the 1831 edition, caroline specifically has an interest in elizabeth because she sees herself and her own situation in her, a background that mirrors her own. i’ll directly quote a post of mine instead of reiterating the same point. essentially: from the beginning caroline deliberately sets up parallels between herself and elizabeth. she wants a daughter, and adopts elizabeth specifically because elizabeth reminds her of herself, but grander: like she was, elizabeth is also a beggar and an orphan and homeless, but her story is more tragic, she is more beautiful, her debt to her caretakers more extreme, and her romantic relationship will go on to be more explicitly incestuous. through elizabeth and victor, caroline will perpetuate her own abuse. the difference is, unlike her own, this is a situation caroline can control.

from the beginning, at six years old, victor and elizabeth are raised with the expectation that they are going to be wed when they are older. as an adult, elizabeth reflects “that our union had been the favourite plan of [their] parents ever since our infancy” and that “we were told this when young, and taught to look forward to it as an event that would certainly take place” (1831). this is because of caroline’s “desire to bind as closely as possible the ties of domestic love” (1818), and so she is raised as victor’s “more than sister” (1831). they are encouraged to play at the role of mother and father/husband and wife together via raising and educating their younger siblings, particularly ernest. ernest is described as being victor’s “principal pupil” and, during his illness in infancy, elizabeth and victor were “his constant nurses” despite caroline, alphonse and maids/servants/caretakers being available

simultaneously, caroline grooms elizabeth into being a mini-me, calling her her “favorite” and encouraging her to embody the same values as her. caroline does all she can to have elizabeth be what is, essentially, a second version of her, while all the while dictating a marriage to her son

this becomes even more significant, when, on her deathbed, caroline reinforces her wish for victor and elizabeth to marry: “My children... my firmest hopes of future happiness were placed on the prospect of your union. This expectation will now be the consolation of your father. Elizabeth, my love you must supply my place” (1831). by attempting to replace herself with elizabeth via telling her to “supply her place” (of mother/wife) to the rest of the family, caroline is not only dictating a marriage between brother and sister but now mother and son, as elizabeth shifts from a sister-figure to victor into a maternal substitute, and simultaneously is his bride-to-be. as a result the roles of mother, sister and wife become conflated in victor’s mind—to some degree, there is no one without the other.

there’s deeper things at play here too, namely that it creates victor’s later emotional obligation in honoring his mother’s dying wish to go through with the marriage (furthered because it is the “consolation” of his father… alphonse also says something to this effect after victor gets out of prison), but i have enough to say on how victor is relied on as a pillar of emotional support by all of his family that it warrants its own post

this subconscious shift between the role of sister figure to mother figure is further emphasized when, during his dream at ingolstadt after the creation of the creature, elizabeth morphs into caroline in victors arms: “I slept, indeed, but I was disturbed by the wildest dreams. I thought I saw Elizabeth…Delighted and surprised, I embraced her; but as I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with the hue of death; her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms” (1831). that is, she literally changes from sister into mother. this is also the only kiss in the entire book, and the only instance victor and elizabeth display any affection for each other that is explicitly non-platonic (and elizabeth’s affections towards victor generally feel more motherly then amorous, particularly in contrast to the romance of felix and safie), and during it, she turns into victor’s mother and decays in his arms.

but why make the creature in the first place? well, as the common misconception goes, it wasn’t about reanimation (which was only mentioned once in a throwaway line) it was about creating new life. what victor wound up doing what was not reversing death, but what was, essentially, an alternate method of childbirth. this is a significant detail when considered in the context of victor and elizabeth’s relationship: victor’s goal was to create life, and he, at great lengths, intentionally circumvented women (elizabeth) in this process. why? so that he could dodge an act of incest—marrying elizabeth and providing the frankenstein heirs and carrying on the family legacy, which is what his family expected him to do.

there’s evidence to suggest elizabeth views victor as a brother. elizabeth indirectly acknowledges this relationship during justine’s trial, when she stands up for her defense: "I am," said she, "the cousin of the unhappy child who was murdered, or rather his sister, for I was educated by, and have lived with his parents ever since and even long before, his birth…” (1831). here, elizabeth calls herself the cousin of william (which is notably what she refers to victor as, both when they are literally cousins and when they have no blood relation—either way, a familial term) and then corrects herself, that she is actually william’s sister. her reasoning for this? she was raised and educated by the frankensteins alongside him ever since she was young. if you follow this logic, by extension she also considers herself ernest’s—and more relevantly—victor’s sister.

there is an egregious amount of subtext that suggests victor also views elizabeth as a sibling as well. before victor leaves for his vacation with henry, alphonse tells him that he has “always looked forward to [victor’s] marriage with [his] cousin as the tie of our domestic comfort” because they were “attached to each other from earliest infancy” and “entirely suited to one another in dispositions and tastes.” however, he acknowledges that because of this, victor may, perhaps, “regard [elizabeth] as his sister, without any wish that she might become your wife. Nay, you may have met with another whom you may love; and, considering yourself bound in honour to your cousin, this struggle may occasion the poignant misery which you appear to feel” to which victor replies: “My dear father, re-assure yourself. I love my cousin tenderly and sincerely. I never saw any woman who excited, as Elizabeth does, my warmest admiration and affection. My future hopes and prospects are entirely bound up in the expectation of our union” (1831). that is, he answers, no, he has not met any other woman he would rather marry, yet skirts around the former half of alphonse’s question and doesn’t acknowledge whether or not he views her as a sister or not.

this occurs again after victor is released from prison in ireland when, elizabeth, in a letter, does eventually ask him if he wants to back down from the marriage (this same letter features elizabeth literally hitting the nail on the head when asking if victor was going through with the marriage because he felt honor-bound to their parents). however, she poses this by asking: “But as brother and sister often entertain a lively affection towards each other, without desiring a more intimate union, may not such also be our case?...Do you not love another?” to which victor honestly answers no, he has not met any other woman. however, it’s not addressed whether he’s in love with elizabeth herself, nor does he address whether or not their affection towards each other is akin to that of siblings–again he entirely ignores it.

when victor and alphonse return to geneva after his release from prison, alphonse proposes victor’s immediate marriage to elizabeth, to which victor remains silent. alphonse then confronts victor once more: “Have you, then, some other attachment?” victor responds: “None on earth. I love Elizabeth, and look forward to our union with delight. Let the day therefore be fixed; and on it I will consecrate myself, in life or death, to the happiness of my cousin" (1831). yet the “hopes and prospects” that victor saw bound in their marriage earlier was, in fact, his own death–which was “no evil to [him]...and I therefore, with a contented and even cheerful countenance, agreed with my father, that if my cousin would consent, the ceremony should take place in ten days, and thus put, as I imagined, the seal to my fate” (1831). victor sees going through with a marriage to elizabeth as suicide, and embraces this.

they are both mutually hesitant and describe feelings of dread and melancholy on their wedding day itself. at the very least this indicates a lack of romantic interest in each other. after the ceremony, when they row out on the boat together, victor has a thought that is perhaps the most blatant example of his romantic disinterest in elizabeth: “Then gazing on the beloved face of Elizabeth, on her graceful form and languid eyes, instead of feeling the exultation of a—lover—a husband—a sudden gush of tears blinded my sight, & as I turned away to hide the involuntary emotion fast drops fell in the wave below. Reason again awoke, and shaking off all unmanly—or more properly all natural thoughts of mischance, I smiled” (Frankenstein 1823). victor also makes it clear to the narrator (walton) that they did not consummate their marriage before elizabeth’s death, which suggests there was hesitance or disgust around the concept. 

this is a neat little aside and more circumstantial evidence then anything else, but it is pretty well known that mary shelley's works tend to be somewhat autobiographical, and that her characters are influenced by people in her own life. this is most obvious in the last man, but its also present to a lesser extent in frankenstein, wherein victor's character is inspired by (among others) percy shelley. percy wrote under the pseudonym victor, which is believed to be where victor's name may have come from—and elizabeth was the name of percy shelley's sister.

i (obviously, if you’re familiar with my account at all) don’t perceive victor’s “abandonment” of the creature as his Great Sin (which was actually the creature leaving victor’s apartment of his own volition while victor was out on a stress-induced walk), but i do think you’re demonizing the creature here a little bit in the process of defending victor.

i think calling the antagonism the creature faced “minor” is wholly underselling it: he faced straight-up violence. he was turned loose with no direction nor knowledge of himself or anything around, in a world without a single being like him, and then was shot, beaten, and/or verbally assaulted any time he faced a person. he was met time and time again with violence or malice or fear by those around him. this is undeniable. you also seem to imply the creature’s tendency to respond to antagonism with aggression was somehow innate, which it definitely wasn’t—in the creature’s early chapters shelley devotes a lot of time to establishing just that, i.e. that creature was not born violent but warped that way by the society that rejected him. the creature outlines this clearly: “My heart was fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy; and, when wrenched by misery to vice and hatred, it did not endure the violence of the change without torture” (1831). this transition from love and sympathy to vice and hatred is what his whole arc with the delaceys is about. 

of course, that in no way justifies the actions he chose to take, which to me have always been inexcusable regardless of the extreme circumstances that culminated in those decisions, but we still shouldn’t undermine the fact that there WERE extreme circumstances. in doing so you lose a lot of the thematic significance and commentary regarding society.

where creature’s fault lies, to me, is that he cultivated an understanding of society and its evils and of morality and empathy and of right from wrong. he feels this inherently: “For a long time I could not conceive how one man could go forth to murder his fellow… when I heard details of vice and bloodshed I turned away with disgust and loathing” (1831). but despite this, he CHOOSES revenge, on the delaceys, on victor, on the world as a whole, actively turning away from his own morality, his innate humanity and sense of goodness. he consciously chooses violence and revenge instead, while knowing and more importantly FEELING, to the extent that he abhors himself, that it was a moral wrong. he would be a lot less powerful of a narrator and as a character if his propensity to react with violence was somehow innate rather than the internal struggle and gray morality that we get in the novel.

but without that external factor (repeated negative interaction with society), he wouldn’t have actually developed this fatal flaw at all, because it was what eventually caused his knee-jerk violent response in the first place. that’s not to say i think any sort of hypothetical victor-raises-creature scenario could have been successful, it just may have been less violent—but victor was physically and mentally incapable of rearing a child at the time, and even disregarding that fact, there are so many other factors on why it wouldn’t have worked, including that, like you said, victor alone could not have satisfied the creature’s needs for company, because his need for romantic and sexual intimacy with another being like him would still exist. ultimately there was no chance for a good outcome for either of them, and this is why frankenstein makes such a good tragedy!

there's something that doesn't really get talked about a lot in the critiques of victor's actions in frankenstein, which is that even if victor hadn't committed what a lot of people view as his Great Sin, abandoning the creature, it still wouldn't have solved anything. the creature's main grievances beyond being angry at victor for his abandonment are that he's hideous and therefore everyone will hate him, and that he's alone in his entire species and therefore has no girlfriend. and while some of that can be mitigated by victor's involvement, victor being present isn't gonna stop other people from thinking that the creature is butt-ugly, nor is it gonna deal with any desire he might have for romantic or sexual intimacy with someone he shares common traits with. and it is also crucially not going to curb the creature's tendency within his personality to respond to every minor antagonism with violent aggression that oftentimes culminates in the straight up murder of innocent people. that's his fatal flaw and it doesn't go away just because there's no external factor involved anymore. victor could be a father figure to the creature from day one and there could still be one person who calls him an ugly abomination at the wrong moment, or victor could say he's not making another experiment for whatever reason, and then boom! we arrive once again at the child killing and the framing family friends for it and the boyfriend killing and the wife killing as the situation escalates, because one of the reasons the book goes the way it does is that the creature himself cannot get out of his own fucking way and makes the situation infinitely worse to the point where mutual destruction is both his and victor's only way out.

for my 100th post (!) i thought i would, at long last, make a catch-all analysis on victor and elizabeth’s relationship, their marriage, and why specifically it was incestuous. throughout i may mention my interpretations of caroline’s past and her pseudo-incestuous relationship with alphonse, which you can read here. it’s not necessary to understand this post, but you’ll miss some of the nuance of the relationships between the frankensteins without it

in the 1818 version of the novel, elizabeth is the paternal first cousin of victor. she is, like caroline, similarly upper-class but falls into misfortune when her mother dies and she is left under the care of her father. these parallels become important later. after elizabeth’s mother dies, her father writes to alphonse “….requesting [Alphonse] to take charge of the infant Elizabeth” and that it was his wish “…that [Alphonse] should consider her as [his] own daughter, and educate her thus” (1818). that is, it was explicitly intended for elizabeth to be reared as a daughter to the frankensteins (and thus victor’s sister). 

in the 1831 edition, caroline specifically has an interest in elizabeth because she sees herself and her own situation in her, a background that mirrors her own. i’ll directly quote a post of mine instead of reiterating the same point. essentially: from the beginning caroline deliberately sets up parallels between herself and elizabeth. she wants a daughter, and adopts elizabeth specifically because elizabeth reminds her of herself, but grander: like she was, elizabeth is also a beggar and an orphan and homeless, but her story is more tragic, she is more beautiful, her debt to her caretakers more extreme, and her romantic relationship will go on to be more explicitly incestuous. through elizabeth and victor, caroline will perpetuate her own abuse. the difference is, unlike her own, this is a situation caroline can control.

from the beginning, at six years old, victor and elizabeth are raised with the expectation that they are going to be wed when they are older. as an adult, elizabeth reflects “that our union had been the favourite plan of [their] parents ever since our infancy” and that “we were told this when young, and taught to look forward to it as an event that would certainly take place” (1831). this is because of caroline’s “desire to bind as closely as possible the ties of domestic love” (1818), and so she is raised as victor’s “more than sister” (1831). they are encouraged to play at the role of mother and father/husband and wife together via raising and educating their younger siblings, particularly ernest. ernest is described as being victor’s “principal pupil” and, during his illness in infancy, elizabeth and victor were “his constant nurses” despite caroline, alphonse and maids/servants/caretakers being available

simultaneously, caroline grooms elizabeth into being a mini-me, calling her her “favorite” and encouraging her to embody the same values as her. caroline does all she can to have elizabeth be what is, essentially, a second version of her, while all the while dictating a marriage to her son

this becomes even more significant, when, on her deathbed, caroline reinforces her wish for victor and elizabeth to marry: “My children... my firmest hopes of future happiness were placed on the prospect of your union. This expectation will now be the consolation of your father. Elizabeth, my love you must supply my place” (1831). by attempting to replace herself with elizabeth via telling her to “supply her place” (of mother/wife) to the rest of the family, caroline is not only dictating a marriage between brother and sister but now mother and son, as elizabeth shifts from a sister-figure to victor into a maternal substitute, and simultaneously is his bride-to-be. as a result the roles of mother, sister and wife become conflated in victor’s mind—to some degree, there is no one without the other.

there’s deeper things at play here too, namely that it creates victor’s later emotional obligation in honoring his mother’s dying wish to go through with the marriage (furthered because it is the “consolation” of his father… alphonse also says something to this effect after victor gets out of prison), but i have enough to say on how victor is relied on as a pillar of emotional support by all of his family that it warrants its own post

this subconscious shift between the role of sister figure to mother figure is further emphasized when, during his dream at ingolstadt after the creation of the creature, elizabeth morphs into caroline in victors arms: “I slept, indeed, but I was disturbed by the wildest dreams. I thought I saw Elizabeth…Delighted and surprised, I embraced her; but as I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with the hue of death; her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my dead mother in my arms” (1831). that is, she literally changes from sister into mother. this is also the only kiss in the entire book, and the only instance victor and elizabeth display any affection for each other that is explicitly non-platonic (and elizabeth’s affections towards victor generally feel more motherly then amorous, particularly in contrast to the romance of felix and safie), and during it, she turns into victor’s mother and decays in his arms.

but why make the creature in the first place? well, as the common misconception goes, it wasn’t about reanimation (which was only mentioned once in a throwaway line) it was about creating new life. what victor wound up doing what was not reversing death, but what was, essentially, an alternate method of childbirth. this is a significant detail when considered in the context of victor and elizabeth’s relationship: victor’s goal was to create life, and he, at great lengths, intentionally circumvented women (elizabeth) in this process. why? so that he could dodge an act of incest—marrying elizabeth and providing the frankenstein heirs and carrying on the family legacy, which is what his family expected him to do.

there’s evidence to suggest elizabeth views victor as a brother. elizabeth indirectly acknowledges this relationship during justine’s trial, when she stands up for her defense: "I am," said she, "the cousin of the unhappy child who was murdered, or rather his sister, for I was educated by, and have lived with his parents ever since and even long before, his birth…” (1831). here, elizabeth calls herself the cousin of william (which is notably what she refers to victor as, both when they are literally cousins and when they have no blood relation—either way, a familial term) and then corrects herself, that she is actually william’s sister. her reasoning for this? she was raised and educated by the frankensteins alongside him ever since she was young. if you follow this logic, by extension she also considers herself ernest’s—and more relevantly—victor’s sister.

there is an egregious amount of subtext that suggests victor also views elizabeth as a sibling as well. before victor leaves for his vacation with henry, alphonse tells him that he has “always looked forward to [victor’s] marriage with [his] cousin as the tie of our domestic comfort” because they were “attached to each other from earliest infancy” and “entirely suited to one another in dispositions and tastes.” however, he acknowledges that because of this, victor may, perhaps, “regard [elizabeth] as his sister, without any wish that she might become your wife. Nay, you may have met with another whom you may love; and, considering yourself bound in honour to your cousin, this struggle may occasion the poignant misery which you appear to feel” to which victor replies: “My dear father, re-assure yourself. I love my cousin tenderly and sincerely. I never saw any woman who excited, as Elizabeth does, my warmest admiration and affection. My future hopes and prospects are entirely bound up in the expectation of our union” (1831). that is, he answers, no, he has not met any other woman he would rather marry, yet skirts around the former half of alphonse’s question and doesn’t acknowledge whether or not he views her as a sister or not.

this occurs again after victor is released from prison in ireland when, elizabeth, in a letter, does eventually ask him if he wants to back down from the marriage (this same letter features elizabeth literally hitting the nail on the head when asking if victor was going through with the marriage because he felt honor-bound to their parents). however, she poses this by asking: “But as brother and sister often entertain a lively affection towards each other, without desiring a more intimate union, may not such also be our case?...Do you not love another?” to which victor honestly answers no, he has not met any other woman. however, it’s not addressed whether he’s in love with elizabeth herself, nor does he address whether or not their affection towards each other is akin to that of siblings–again he entirely ignores it.

when victor and alphonse return to geneva after his release from prison, alphonse proposes victor’s immediate marriage to elizabeth, to which victor remains silent. alphonse then confronts victor once more: “Have you, then, some other attachment?” victor responds: “None on earth. I love Elizabeth, and look forward to our union with delight. Let the day therefore be fixed; and on it I will consecrate myself, in life or death, to the happiness of my cousin" (1831). yet the “hopes and prospects” that victor saw bound in their marriage earlier was, in fact, his own death–which was “no evil to [him]...and I therefore, with a contented and even cheerful countenance, agreed with my father, that if my cousin would consent, the ceremony should take place in ten days, and thus put, as I imagined, the seal to my fate” (1831). victor sees going through with a marriage to elizabeth as suicide, and embraces this.

they are both mutually hesitant and describe feelings of dread and melancholy on their wedding day itself. at the very least this indicates a lack of romantic interest in each other. after the ceremony, when they row out on the boat together, victor has a thought that is perhaps the most blatant example of his romantic disinterest in elizabeth: “Then gazing on the beloved face of Elizabeth, on her graceful form and languid eyes, instead of feeling the exultation of a—lover—a husband—a sudden gush of tears blinded my sight, & as I turned away to hide the involuntary emotion fast drops fell in the wave below. Reason again awoke, and shaking off all unmanly—or more properly all natural thoughts of mischance, I smiled” (Frankenstein 1823). victor also makes it clear to the narrator (walton) that they did not consummate their marriage before elizabeth’s death, which suggests there was hesitance or disgust around the concept. 

this is a neat little aside and more circumstantial evidence then anything else, but it is pretty well known that mary shelley's works tend to be somewhat autobiographical, and that her characters are influenced by people in her own life. this is most obvious in the last man, but its also present to a lesser extent in frankenstein, wherein victor's character is inspired by (among others) percy shelley. percy wrote under the pseudonym victor, which is believed to be where victor's name may have come from—and elizabeth was the name of percy shelley's sister.

for some reason people seem to think that mary somehow stumbled into writing a commentary on marriage/incest accidentally, and that the themes of frankenstein are all about her trauma due to her experiences as a victim of the patriarchy, as a woman and a mother surrounded by men - as if she wasnt the child of radical liberals who publicly renounced marriage, as if she herself as well as percy shelley had similar politics on marriage, as if she would not go on to write a novel where the central theme is explicitly that of father/daughter incest years later…

the most obvious and frequent critique of victor i see is of his attempt to create life - the creature - without female presence. it’s taught in schools, wrote about by academics, talked about in fandom spaces - mary shelley was a feminist who wrote about feminism by making victor a misogynist. he’s misogynistic because he invented a method of procreation without involving women purely out of male entitlement and masculine arrogance and superiority, and shelley demonstrates the consequences of subverting women in the creation process/and by extension the patriarchy because this method fails terribly - his son in a monster, and victor is punished for his arrogance via the murder of his entire family; thus there is no place for procreation without the presence of women, right?

while this interpretation – though far from my favorite – is not without merit, i see it thrown around as The interpretation, which i feel does a great disservice to the other themes surrounding victor, the creature, the relationship between mother and child, parenthood, marriage, etc.

this argument also, ironically, tends to undermine the agency and power of frankenstein’s female characters, because it often relies on interpreting them as being solely passive, demure archetypes to establish their distinction from the 3 male narrators, who in contrast are performing violent and/or reprehensible actions while all the woman stay home (i.e., shelley paradoxically critiques the patriarchy by making all her female characters the reductive stereotypes that were enforced during her time period, so the flaws of our male narrators arise due to this social inequality).

in doing so it completely strips elizabeth (and caroline and justine to a lesser extent) of the power of the actions that she DID take — standing up in front of a corrupt court, speaking against the injustice of the system and attempting to fight against its verdict, lamenting the state of female social status that prevented her from visiting victor at ingolstadt, subverting traditional gender roles by offering victor an out to their arranged marriage as opposed to the other way around, taking part in determining ernest’s career and education in direct opposition to alphonse, etc. it also comes off as a very “i could fix him,” vibe, that is, it suggests if women were given equal social standing to men then elizabeth would have been able to rein victor in so to speak and prevent the events of the book from happening. which is a demeaning expectation/obligation in of itself and only reinforces the reductive passive, motherly archetypes that these same people are speaking against

it is also not very well supported: most of the argument rests on ignoring female character’s actual characterization and focusing one specific quote, often taken out of context (“a new species would bless me as its creator and source…no father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as i should deserve theirs”) which “proves” victor’s sense of male superiority, and on victors treatment/perception of elizabeth, primarily from a line of thinking he had at five years old, where he objectified her by thinking of her (or rather — being told so by caroline) as a gift to him. again, the morality of victor’s character is being determined by thoughts he had at five years old.

obviously this is not at all to say i think their relationship was a healthy one - i dont think victor and elizabeth’s marriage was ever intended to be perceived as good, but more importantly, writing their relationship this way was a deliberate critique of marriage culture.

my intended response to this was never “caroline and alphonse fucked up as parents and therefore THEYRE the evil ones and to blame”—analysis is not about figuring out who the bad-est person is so you can disavow them and who the good-est person is so you can root for them. frankenstein is a complex story that deals with a lot of commentary on society and morality and the cycle of abuse. people are a reflection of their world, their life experiences and trauma, and caroline and alphonse are no exception. while caroline perpetuated her own abuse and trauma through victor and elizabeth, and its significant that victor made the (unconscious) choice to break this generational cycle of abuse, her origin story is still one where she was victimized herself, both by alphonse and by the society that failed her and her father as a whole. we also have to remember frankenstein was written in the past when people believed and acted in ways we would consider problematic now. the characters morality should be judged based on a reflection of that time period, not based wholly through a modern lens. in some ways (particularly through their method of educating their children, but also victor’s ideas on female autonomy) the frankensteins would have been considered rather radical, because parts of the book reflect mary shelley’s beliefs, who was a radical feminist herself. this isnt at all to say i absolve alphonse and caroline (or even victor, to a lesser extent) of blame for the mistakes they made in their parenting: rather, it’s a calling to consider the nuances of the book and the complexities of ALL of its characters instead of boiling them down to black-and-white good-versus-evil.

i’ve seen the “monsters aren’t born they’re created” line of reasoning applied quite a few times in defense of the creature, wherein creature was inherently good-hearted but turned into a monster via victor’s “abandonment” and his subsequent abusive treatment by other humans, but this logic is so scarcely applied to victor. victor, to me, is often sympathetic for the same reasons as the creature, it’s just those reasons are not as blatantly obvious and require reading in-between the lines of victor’s narration a bit more. most “victor was evil and bad” or even some “victor was unsympathetic” arguments tend to fall through when you flip the same premise onto victor: if monsters are created, than who created victor frankenstein?

i’ve seen the “monsters aren’t born they’re created” line of reasoning applied quite a few times in defense of the creature, wherein creature was inherently good-hearted but turned into a monster via victor’s “abandonment” and his subsequent abusive treatment by other humans, but this logic is so scarcely applied to victor. victor, to me, is often sympathetic for the same reasons as the creature, it’s just those reasons are not as blatantly obvious and require reading in-between the lines of victor’s narration a bit more. most “victor was evil and bad” or even some “victor was unsympathetic” arguments tend to fall through when you flip the same premise onto victor: if monsters are created, than who created victor frankenstein?

victor and elizabeth were not the first grooming case nor the first pseudo-incest relationship in frankenstein: that would be alphonse and caroline.

alphonse was a friend of caroline’s father, beaufort. this is how they met, and so there was a significant difference in their ages. after beaufort dies, alphonse and caroline marry. take a look at how beaufort’s passing is described:

Her father grew worse; her time was more entirely occupied in attending him; her means of subsistence decreased; and in the tenth month her father died in her arms, leaving her an orphan and a beggar. This last blow overcame her; and she knelt by Beaufort’s coffin, weeping bitterly, when my father entered the chamber. He came like a protecting spirit to the poor girl, who committed herself to his care, and after the interment of his friend he conducted her to Geneva, and placed her under the protection of a relation. Two years after this event Caroline became his wife.

while "orphan" does not strictly mean the person is a minor, orphan still is most commonly used to describe a minor whose parents are both dead. if we interpret orphan in that sense, then caroline would have been a child when alphonse first took her in. the fact that he waits two years after this event to marry her also hints towards this, almost as if he was waiting for her to become legal and the age of consent. this is further supported by the diminutive language of “poor girl” used to describe her, who is in juxtaposition to the paternal “protecting spirit” of alphonse whom she commits herself into the care of.

even if caroline was not a minor, there was a large enough gap in their ages - and the fact that alphonse “saved” caroline from poverty, creating an economical reliance on him - that there was an unhealthy power balance in their relationship. because of this dynamic, it really does read like grooming: alphonse houses caroline till she is (supposedly) old enough to marry, and by that time she would have been pushed into consenting to the marriage because she relied on him for money and housing, and could have some sort of emotional obligation to him as well for supporting her in a time of need and grief, and he is a significant link to her deceased father. this difference in their ages is highlighted again when victor notes that alphonse was in the decline of his life by the time he and caroline were having children together, and by the time victor is 19 alphonse is old enough that he is physically incapable of traveling to ingolstadt.

in this way their relationship is pseudo-incestous, because alphonse (her father’s age) swoops in to support caroline (a child) after her father dies. this makes himself the father figure replacement, and caroline his daughter. once she is of age she transitions from the role of daughter to wife, and during her marriage caroline will go on to repeat this cycle of abuse, and recreate this same dynamic - except this time, it is in a situation that she can control: through victor and elizabeth.

from the beginning caroline deliberately sets up parallels between herself and elizabeth. she wants a daughter, and adopts elizabeth specifically because elizabeth reminds her of herself, but grander: like she was, elizabeth is also a beggar and an orphan and homeless, but her story is more tragic, she is more beautiful, her debt to her caretakers more extreme, and her romantic relationship will go on to be more explicitly incestous. caroline calls elizabeth her favorite and grooms her into becoming a second version of herself, so that she can recreate the traumatic event of her marriage with her two children.

so, as caroline dictates the marriage between victor and elizabeth, victor becomes to elizabeth what alphonse was to caroline: a man, who is also a familial figure, that she must marry in order to have a stable social and economic life. the frankensteins have provided elizabeth with everything she has, and the threat is there that they can also take it away if she does not comply (through marrying victor), which is the same kind of looming, unspoken threat that hung over caroline and alphonse’s marriage.

if victor is the creature's literal father, then by extension the female creature would have been the creature's literal sister. by choosing to break his promise and destroy the bride, victor is breaking the cycle of abuse by refusing to comply to the demand that he dictate a marriage between siblings, like his mother did to him and elizabeth.

i disagree: victor doesnt seem very avoidant to me. he confronts his problems several times and attempts to reach out to others in order to correct its consequences, particularly if we are viewing the creature as the manifestation of these emotions. but when those he looks onto for support fail him (often through no fault of their own - there really is no good outcome), he is forced to take matters into his own hands, even when he is often physically or mentally unable to do so. but instead of ignoring the issue or giving up, he DOES confront it. 

the sole exception to this is after his recovery at ingolstadt - notably after a period of acute mental stress and physical illness - where he chooses to pretend the creature he made a year ago doesnt exist and learns oriental language with henry instead. that is definitely avoidant behavior (but for all victor knows the creature ran off in the forest and died by now, he could be anywhere. what’s he supposed to do?). 

side note: “he should have confronted what he did with the creature and told someone, told Clerval” victor DID. he rambled about the creature to henry “incessantly” during his illness, to no avail - henry either dismisses it as the offspring of his delirium or simply does not press further. this experience (and similar ones he would have afterwards, when he attempts to reach out again) continue to reinforce to victor that he CANT rely on others for support in this regard, because they wont believe him, and thus he has to take matters into his own hands.

however id argue when the consequences come knocking, he still immediately takes action: when william is murdered he returns home to geneva and tells his family he knows the murderer, who dismiss him and so now victor is forced to rely on the justice of the court. when this falls through as justine is unfairly trialed and executed, victor resolves to confront the creature himself and is ready to throw hands.

when they come to an agreement, victor commits to creating a bride for the creature knowing the toll it took on his physical and mental health the first time, and only backs out after realizing it was improbable and nothing would hold the og creature and second creature accountable to the promise and he could just be increasing their potential for violence 2x (there are more complex psychological reasonings behind this as well-namely victor breaking the cycle of abuse-however that’s for another time). either how, risking his health to create a female creature should never have been considered a viable option, and backing out in such an extreme case i wouldnt consider avoidance behavior - it shouldnt be an expectation in the first place. 

afterwards, when henry is killed and victor is released from prison, he chooses to wed elizabeth because he believes the consequence will be either his own life or the creature’s. he knows by marrying elizabeth he will ignite the creature’s rage and murderous tendencies (for him, not elizabeth, victor believes) and instead of avoiding this, either by delaying the marriage or other means, he prepares for this event by arming himself and deciding to kill the creature or die trying, thus ending everything once and for all. when elizabeth is inevitably murdered instead, victor goes to the magistrate for support and tells him everything, who of course does not believe him because what he’s got to say is so improbable - particularly given his history of psychotic illness and believed “madness” - and again victor chooses to face the issue head-on and pursues the creature himself, literally to his own death. 

of course, he doesn’t directly address his other emotional issues, but if, like you said, the creature is a physical representation of victor’s despair and guilt and shame, and when everybody refuses to take him seriously or help when victor begins to reach out about the 8-foot homunculus actively threatening to murder his entire family, then of course he can’t begin to tackle the emotional complexities of his other feelings underneath - that is, his lack of desire to marry elizabeth, his remaining relationship with ernest, etc.

so im of the opinion that victor was by in large not avoidant of his problems/feelings, but he’s seen this way simply because he was ineffectual: i dont think he COULD fix his life, whether he had the fight to do so or not - because despite his efforts, there was simply nothing he could really do given the circumstances he was dealt. he was doomed from the beginning. and that’s really a more disturbing conclusion here - because we are condemning victor for things he could not have possibly changed.

This is not an attack on you at ALL I’m sorry for moving this to it’s own post I just have Opinions™️ and I need be weird about this book rq I’ll tag you anyway in case you’re interested like at all in my dumb little opinion @adrianfridge-main

I just woke up but DISAGREED Victor’s complaining was completely and utterly justified tbh (bro fucked up astronomically big time and as a result his entire family is dead, I think he’s earned the right to be in despair), Victor’s biggest flaw was the fact he stitched together a mass of corpses and brought it to life and then told nobody, Victor’s biggest flaw is avoidance – and part of that is understandable, it’s a common trauma response, but Victor should have been open about how he felt about Elizabeth, he should have worked through his feelings about his family and expressed them, he should have confronted what he did with the creature and told someone, told Clerval, Victor’s biggest flaw isn’t that he’s in despair, it’s that he rarely explains that despair to others – and it’s understandable why he doesn’t, but it’s still wrong, because that’s how he hurts people.

He keeps parts of himself hidden – as arguably represented by the creature himself. He begins to isolate himself for really the first time, he has a lot of space away from people he’s been around his entire life for really the first time, and it’s fairly safe to say that psychological things begin to build up, as he builds the creature, almost represented by him – whatever interpretation you have of these knew-found realisations can greatly vary depending on the reading of the book you have, but personally I think it’s mostly how he feels about himself and his family.

I don’t think Victor wanted to marry Elizabeth at all – and I’ll probably make a whole catch-all rant on that point soon enough, but I think once he actually begins to get some time in isolation to think about things, he starts thinking about his mother, he starts thinking about Elizabeth, he starts considering all these complicated feelings, that he genuinely does love his mother, but that she’s effectively forcing him into something he doesn’t want to do at all, surely she’d understand if he just explained – but she’s dead, he can’t explain, it’s too late for that. Would she have accepted his explanations in the first place, or would he have disappointed her? This was his mother’s only dying wish, the last thing she left to him, the last thing he had to remember her by – and I do believe Victor genuinely loved his mother, even if I’m also absolutely of the opinion that she was a terrible person. Instead of coming to a conclusion about this, Victor spirals, it builds up, he tells no-one – I don’t believe he would’ve told Henry – and this coincides with the creation of the creature. His dead mother’s final wish being the definitive thing haunting him, and the representation of his spiral and all of his emotions about that being a mass of sentient corpses – seems accurate.

Following this argument, Victor sees Clerval again after all those years, and he collapses from the weight of it all – he rants about it vaguely, but he hides it, and he continues to do so, ignoring it, and that’s when it slowly begins to become harmful, purposefully picking off the people he loves and hurting them.

It’s important to remember still, of course, that the monster isn’t metaphorical, he is real – it’s just that a lot of heights of Victor’s despair and tendency to spiral into his own thoughts coincide well with the “building” of the creature, or with him becoming more vocally demanding of Victor or harmful to his loved ones, so he tends to be a pretty good approximation for a physical representation of Frankenstein’s mental state and guilt. And effectively, Frankenstein desperately trying to hide the creature, fumbling with promises to make further mistakes to push him away only to come to the realisation that they’re wrong, but still having to deal with the consequences of them, instead of just from the start being open and honest, even if that honestly was “I need some time to think, and I don’t know how I feel right now.” – that’s his biggest flaw. And the people Victor hurts is really best represented through Elizabeth herself – I hold the very very strong opinion that Victor and Elizabeth are both victims of what was pretty basically just grooming, and again, avoidance is a very common trauma response, but Elizabeth tried to confront Victor on multiple occasions, sending that letter asking about how he feels about the marriage, saying it doesn’t need to happen if he doesn’t want it to – instead he misinterprets this as his poor dear cousin in despair second-guessing his affections for her, (very likely because of things his mother probably told him as a child), and decides to “put her mind at ease” by telling her that he will marry her, despite his actions saying completely otherwise and Elizabeth herself pretty openly not really wanting to marry him.

He’s gone through so much at this point, feels himself responsible for so many deaths, and decides the final thing he needs to do before he dies is not to be a disgrace to his parents as well, or any more of a disgrace than he already is, in his eyes.

And I also definitely have a queer reading of the novel – I genuinely do really hold to the interpretation of Frankenstein and Clerval’s relationship being romantic, and from there and concerning the creation of the bride, Henry really is effectively murdered as a punishment for Victor doubting the role given to him – almost like his doubts and guilt, as embodied by the creature, overwhelm him in that way. “Ah! my father, do not remain in this wretched country; take me where I may forget myself, my existence, and all the world.” He’s pushing away the memory of Clerval’s death, repressing it, avoiding it, and that is extremely important for how he shifts his tone with Elizabeth and puts up that fake demeanour of wanting to marry her, because he thinks it’ll make her happy even though both of them describe dreading the wedding, even given the context for Victor and even by Elizabeth, who doesn’t know what he dreads – in order to forget Clerval, he assigns himself to the role given to him as a child by marrying Elizabeth and gives up whatever he hope he had.

All possibly discouraged from Clerval being murdered as a response to Victor refusing to finish the Bride and subject her to the same fate as him and Elizabeth to the Creature, a pact made without her knowledge or consent, an arranged marriage. Where has spiting that tradition led him? Where has him standing up to the shroud of his mother’s dying wishes, hanging over him the entire novel thus far, led him, by refusing to force the Bride into an arranged marriage with the Creature, as he was with Elizabeth? To the death of the one man he truly loved. So, can at least “make his dear cousin happy” and not die spiting the one thing he was meant to do – make his mother proud from beyond the grave by marrying Elizabeth.

And even then, adding to my argument of the creature being a physical embodiment of Frankenstein‘s guilt and dread – that building tension approaching the wedding, Victor being convinced the creature is going to kill him, but he kills Elizabeth – that’s a metaphor if I’ve ever seen it.

Even on the subject of grieving Clerval, Victor won’t sort his feelings, he spirals and tries so desperately to avoid them. “We had resolved not to go to London, but to cross the country to Portsmouth, and thence to embark for Havre. I preferred this plan principally because I dreaded to see again those places in which I had enjoyed a few moments of tranquillity with my beloved Clerval. I thought with horror of seeing again those persons whom we had been accustomed to visit together, and who might make inquiries concerning an event.”

I wonder what would happen if he did go through London, if he did meet those people again. Would things have turned out differently? Would he finally have been given a sense of comfort and clarity through mutual grief, as nobody so far since Henry’s death and for the rest of the book, except the creature, ironically, has grieved for Clerval except for Frankenstein. If he met people who took as fondly to Clerval as he did, at least on meeting him briefly, who would have sympathy towards Victor – would he finally have that space to grieve for him in a healthy way, to be comforted by people who at least vaguely understand a fraction of his anguish?

But he doesn’t, and instead he avoids the subject – confining himself to his union with Elizabeth, and hurting her because of that.

And even to his grave, Frankenstein doesn’t stop to consider his feelings properly, and by that I mean he doesn’t sort them with anyone, he doesn’t admit the dread he feels surrounding his family and his late wife, he doesn’t stay with Ernest and talk through things with him, bonding to his last remaining family member in his grief – instead he spirals again, chasing the monster and telling no one, except for Walton. And even then, he doesn’t discuss, he monologues – he doesn’t talk through his emotions with a trusted friend, he “tells his story” to an eager man who is mostly overwhelmingly curious, rather than genuinely concerned.

Victor Frankenstein’s biggest flaw is not that he complains. It isn’t that he’s in despair – it’s that he won’t articulate that despair properly. It’s that he avoids it and keeps it hidden out of pain, but he shouldn’t. Because the subject of that despair actively effects the people around him, and by extension, his despair actively effects the people around him. Elizabeth is left hanging by a man who doesn’t truly love her and won’t talk to her, forcing her into a marriage she doesn’t really want out of duty. The creature is cast aside and abandoned, viewed mostly by Victor as a representation of his guilt and shame, of his worst mistakes, although he expresses feeling pity for it fairly often, he still hides and shuns it, fearing it. Clerval is murdered as a representation of that hope for a better future, the one man who ever truly loved him being snatched away, and instead of standing his ground, coming to the conclusion that he won’t abide by his mother’s wishes, that he was right in his destruction of the bride, grieving Clerval with those people in London and using his death as a catalyst to not let it happen again, perhaps then meeting Walton at a later date if he chose to stay in England or otherwise by chance under different circumstances, writing to Elizabeth telling her his true feelings and confronting the creature properly, pulling a Christine Daaé there except like. Parentally instead of romantically. and showing his creation sympathy and compassion rather than just feeling it, and being open about everything; instead of that, Victor spirals, and Victor hurts everyone left.

And it’s understandable why he does – it’s realistic. The hero doesn’t always know exactly what to do and magically save the day by making all the right decisions – people don’t know what do do or how to make all the right decisions. Victor isn’t just complaining “woe-is-me” style, Victor is in genuine severe psychological torment and distress, and his actions reflect that. He is, to an extent, a victim of circumstance – and his circumstances haven’t made things easy for him. In his grief over Clerval, he’s led back to Geneva by his father instead of through London, and follows easily. He’s forced into a situation where he has to marry his cousin by his mother, since young childhood. When he tries to be assertive in what he wants, he’s punished for it every time. In real life, people don’t fix their situation easily like a superhero and pull themselves on their feet like that. They don’t get over everything that’s ever happened to them easily. They need space – and Frankenstein did not have space. If he wanted to fix his life, he would have had to actively fight for it. And he didn’t have any fight left. He didn’t want to live. He didn’t have any idea of what to do next. He didn’t see a future. Any time he tried to fight against what was expected of him, he was punished for it, so now that his life was effectively over, all he wanted to do was assign himself to the roles he was “meant” to perform, and not disappoint his family.

But it’s still a flaw, and it still hurts people. Victor was still in the wrong for what he did. For avoiding everything, for building the creature to begin with, that was Victor’s fault. But it’s understandable why he does what he does, and he’s a very sympathetic character because of that.

Me waking up to immediately write an entire Frankenstein essay I shit you not I’m still in bed finishing this I literally just woke up and started typing half asleep until I finished it (haha funny Nosferatu reference):

been sitting on this for awhile because its a bit controversial, but its one of the main reasons i was pushed into the frankenstein fandom space so i figured it was high time to talk about it

ive noticed that theres this general opinion, both among scholars and present in more fandom-y spaces, that victor is somehow effeminate for what are ultimately symptoms of disability (fainting spells, being bedridden, hysteria, etc) as if being physically or mentally ill is something that is inherently feminine. i have read articles published by academics that victor’s sickness is proof of his “femininity,” which is why he wants to take on the traditional part of a woman, that is, childbirth (via creature)

even in general, and not on an academic level, it emerges in jokes or memes all over the place — people poking at victor for being weak, or sick, or a gay little UWU bean sub, because aw hes fainting all the time XD and he’s sooo dramatic! as if these things were somehow both his choice, and somehow innately feminine

so, not only is there this weird link people are attempting to draw between disability and femininity, but also queerness (particularly, ive noticed, being a “bottom” or “sub” — but thats a whole separate can of worms) and femininity. as if being either of these things is inherently girly or cutesy and thus worthy of being made fun of

there comes a point (particularly when these interpretations leak into broader understandings of something via pop culture), where, for lack of a better word, it comes off as fetishizing or romanticizing queerness and/or queer relationships

and while this may seem relatively harmless on the surface and comes off as just thoughtless jokes made in bad taste, it IS serious. not just within the context of frankenstein, but the general premise of the severity that even subconscious reinforcement of detrimental and stereotypical ideas should be treated with. its a slippery slope from jokes to notions that affect you and how you see the world

this is obviously part of a broader problem with the way disability, gender, identity and etc is thought about and taught, which results in people harboring all sorts of these types of underlying prejudices. its just that victor happens to be a particularly good example, wherein he is a feminized man that is ascribed as “weak,” and the attribute “weak” is ascribed to someone who has been historically analyzed as both disabled and queer. this has been reinforced for decades, and i feel like this treatment of his character in this way is so blatantly obvious and runs rampant while it goes nearly entirely unchecked — and also in the case of frankenstein discourse, its often a quadruple whammy (ableism, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia)

and the worst part is that it is so often completely unintentional, and the bulk of this sort of content are well-meaning jokes. i genuinely don’t think people do this in bad faith or out of malice, but spreading these concepts even in formats that appear to be harmless (jokes, memes) just contribute to and continue to spread these ideas and stereotypes. its frustrating because its hard to point out and bring attention to without coming off as nitpicky or overly sensitive because this sort of thing is just so SUBTLE, and these beliefs are so gradually learned and then reinforced on a subconscious level

i could go on but for risk of sounding redundant ill digress, however to be clear this is not me saying you cant view victor as transfem, or disabled, or queer (i do!), or to view him as feminine, or etc, but that you should look at the reasons for WHY you think so, and how you or others treat the subject when talking about it.

dont know if i’ve said this all here yet but i see very often people pointing out victor’s supposedly idealistic childhood in comparison to the creature’s early suffering, and it always comes off as some sort of “gotcha!” moment when i think really there’s room there to be looking at the WHY that is. why, despite supposedly having this ideal childhood, with good, caring parental figures in his life, he fails to give this same upbringing to his own child? the issue is that of those who bring this up, their perspective tends to be already inherently limited: that is, victor is a bad parent simply because he is a privileged asshole. by beginning his narrative by describing his family and childhood as perfect and ideal, victor sets an expectation for parents that is obviously impossible, yet people continue to hold him accountable to it.

and, really, what childhood is really as perfectly happy as victor’s description? his almost-desperate insistence that his childhood WAS perfectly happy is just that — desperate — and it makes it suspicious. this insistence suggests the opposite, and i believe this assertion is taken at face-value far too often; particularly when his childhood, even in-text, was objectively imperfect and troubled, and victor himself directly addresses in his narration to walton that his past recollections of his family and early childhood are idealized, even going so far as to describe them as "religious" and "sacred" in feeling: i think [among other things] that this suggests, like many victims of childhood trauma and abuse, now that there is physical distance between the memories as well as time having passed since then, he has sentimentalized this era of his life

if you step back take a moment and look at the maternal figures in his life as well (caroline, elizabeth, and to a lesser extent justine) an obvious pattern emerges - each one of them was orphaned, and then “saved” by becoming a member of the frankenstein family, where they are afforded an environment where they are able to become these motherly, nurturing caretakers. this pattern is broken with victor: when he is orphaned, instead of joining the family, he EXITS it — that is, he is sent off to ingolstadt, and completely stripped of this support system, leading to his “failure” as a mother.

in a similar vein, the same people who harp on and on about how victor is negligent and an unaccountable father fail to hold the creature accountable for his actions as well, and somehow the fault for the entire plot of the book (that is, the murders of the frankensteins and co) rests solely on victors shoulders.

i agree with most of this, except one major point: victor’s motivation to find the secret of life wasn’t spurred by caroline’s death. there’s no evidence to suggest this in-text - it wasn’t about reanimation (this concept was only mentioned once in a throwaway line, and it was not regarding caroline), it was about creating new life. what he wound up doing was not really reversing death, but what was, essentially, childbirth. this is a significant detail when you consider it in the context of victor and elizabeth’s relationship - if victor’s goal was to create life, and he intentionally foregoes women (elizabeth) in this process, then is it that big of a leap to suggest he was doing so so that he wouldn’t have to perform incest?

now if we step back and take a look at the events before the creature’s creation, i really do think they saw each other as siblings - considering the context of elizabeth being adopted into the frankenstein family, elizabeth and victor referring to each other as cousins, and being in an arranged marriage to victor (both normal things in higher society but strange when paired together), and that caroline selects elizabeth specifically because she had a background similar to her own, a daughter that would be like her. then she calls elizabeth her favorite, and rears her and victor under the expectation that they are to be wed when they are older. from the age of six, victor and elizabeth, notably TOGETHER, were helping raise ernest (and later william) while both caroline and alphonse were still in the picture, described as his “constant nurses”... and if i remember correctly, at this point alphonse had retired after ernest’s birth specifically to care for his children, yet elizabeth and victor are still raising their younger siblings, treating ernest as if he were their child... and then caroline, as her literal dying wish, has elizabeth promise to marry her son and take her place in the family and help raise her other children.

it’s as if caroline grooms elizabeth into being this second version of her, which makes her dictating victor and elizabeth’s marriage to each other all the more horrible.

there’s several moments that make it clear that elizabeth and victor view each other as family, or at the very least, are romantically disinterested in each other. elizabeth bringing up in letters how she and victor as a pair is strange, giving victor several outs to their marriage, elizabeth literally hitting the nail on the head when suggesting victor considers himself honor-bound to fulfill his parent’s wishes, their hesitance on their wedding day, elizabeth referring to william (and by extension, ernest and victor) as a brother during justine’s trial, victor’s dream where he’s kissing elizabeth and then she literally turns into his mother in his arms, etc.

and before all that - there’s this constant, excessive dependence on victor for emotional support, and it started in childhood, from which he was his parents “plaything” and their “idol” and where, growing up, “[caroline’s] firmest hopes of future happiness were placed on the prospect of [elizabeth and victor’s] union” and, after her death, “this expectation [would be] the consolation of [his] father.” 

so now we have victor, who his parents have been emotionally dependent on all his life, who is expected to carry on his family’s legacy, who is in an arranged marriage he doesn’t want, with someone who is his cousin/sister/acting as his mother stand-in. under all this expectation, this marriage he has literally been raised with, he doesn’t try to subvert it entirely, no, he’s been told that his family’s happiness depends on this marriage! but he does the best he could in the situation he’s been given, dodging an act of incest by performing the act of creating life by himself, by making the creature.

Let's talk about Victor...

But not in the usual way.

Warnings: Will contain some talk of Grooming and incest.

And warnings for some large spoilers for the Frankenstein novel. If you're still reading it, I do suggest not reading this post.

We discuss a lot, Victor's faults, what he could have done better and done different, ect. We are not going to be discussing that for this, for now we are putting those discussions and debates aside.

There is one large, hmm, complaint or judgement perhaps, that's always not quite sat right with me. And that's, his relationship with Elizabeth, and how it's treated as his fault. And I'm not talking about how he treats her, or what happens to Elizabeth or anything like that. I'm talking about how it's often treated like the relationship itself is his fault and he's a disgusting pig for it. When honestly...I feel he's a victim of it as well.

Now, of course, this is my interpretation of things. I know not everyone agrees or will agree with it, which is perfectly fine. This is my interpretation of something in a story that is meant to have different interpretations. This is just something I feel and I feel like is not often discussed. In fact I haven't even seen it discussed.

So, here we go.

I feel like both Victor and Elizabeth are victims and didn't really have a choice in the matter of the relationship. Yes, by the times, Victor has an advantage of being a man and Elizabeth has to be a wife and be dependent on him, I'm not saying that isn't true.

I'm talking about his mother. Caroline. I feel, in pointing the finger at Victor for the relationship with Elizabeth, his mother is often forgotten. His mother, whether you're doing the version where Elizabeth is his cousin or adopted sister, basically took Elizabeth in, and immediately decides she'd be the perfect match for her boy.

And told them that. Constantly. As they were growing up. As they were learning.

I do believe, Victor and Elizabeth loved each other, as best friends, as siblings. I don't think they were ever really allowed to think of it as anything other then romantic love though. And so that's how they accepted it. It's how his, and honestly their, mother saw it.

And then to make it worse. Caroline's death. His mother, who, when you look into the novel, really, who's death really begins Victor's physiological breakdown. What leads him to want to, really, defeat and overcome death.

On her deathbed. Her dying wish, she grabs their hands and tells Victor and Elizabeth it is her dying wish to see them wed. That she's always thought this, thought they were perfect together, and always wanted this. And please, I ask to really think on this, after all mentioned above.

We talk about when his father asks him, "Maybe you don't want to marry Elizabeth, maybe you've come to see her as a sister." And he said yes, he loves her and still wants to marry her.

Y'all. Maybe this is just my interpretation, but he had never been given a choice to think anything otherwise. His mother had never allowed anything else, had constantly shoved into their heads their relationship would be/was romantic. To the point they believed it.

Anything they felt towards each other, any affection, any love, was and had to be romantic.

After all, it was their mother, who raised them, put this into their heads as children and it was her dying wish for them to be married, so what else could it be?

Yes, it gets messy when you have to take in the time of things. That it is true, for the time, you were lucky to even just like the person you were to marry. Maybe that's what Caroline saw, saw two people that could marry, and the relationship wouldn't be horrible. But even if that was her reasoning, I don't think it makes her innocent. And I do think she greatly screwed both Elizabeth and Victor up.

Their relationship has then been put through much in adaptions. Victor gets put as a creep, sometimes outright predator to Elizabeth. The part connecting them as cousins or adoptive siblings gets cut out and they get put as the romantic couple.

Hell, look at Bride of Frankenstein. She's the beautiful, clearly all is good and Christian, humane option Victor Henry (because for some reason their names were switched) turns his back on. Which is wrong and evil and against God. And eventually, he comes back to, and they get to escape the tower, run off as the tower explores with the Monster, the Bride, and Dr. Pretorius in it. And have a happy ending. They're the romantic couple you're supposed to cheer for, as these movies set things up.

We have been made to veiw them, in many different ways. And sometimes I feel that affects how we then veiw them when looking at the novel. That's just some of the adaptions.

I do, again, think they loved each other. As best friends, as siblings.

Elizabeth deserved better. By her family, by, though I adore him, Adam himself who killed her in revenge for Victor destroying the to-be-reanimated body of his potential mate who may or may not have even liked him. By the time itself, she was born in. She got little time, and deserved better.

Victor cared for her, loved her as a sibling. If he did love anyone romantically in the novel, I do agree with, he romantically loved Henry. But believed he did love Elizabeth, and of course had to repress anything towards another man. But, that takes us on a whole other thing that can be discussed another time.

Thank you for reading all of this, my reasoning, my rambles. Again, my interpretation, but something I feel is not often talked about. In the aspect of Victor's and Elizabeth's relationship, how it came to be, how they thought of each other, I do believe, they were both victims.

So I started watching Wandavision tonight, and I do already know some spoilers just from being around on tumblr when it first came out, but we just got through episode 3 and it's hitting me. Basically, this is Storybrooke and Wanda is Regina.

Except instead of taking away everyone else's happy endings, she's just trying to give herself her own. But really, that was what Regina was trying to do too, and it's definitely seeming like Wanda has also taken away the happy endings of others, intentionally or not. So in its essence, this is like Once Upon a Time for comic book characters (but without everyone turning up being related somehow ;) lol).

I see a lot of people thinking that the lyrics of the very first night are weird cause of the you/her rhyme and I agree on that but I think it was done on purpose.

“Didn't read the note on the Polaroid picture

They don't know how much I miss you”

“No one knows about the words that we whispered

No one knows how much I miss you”

The “you” make sense because all the song is in 2nd person so even with a “him/her” it would be out of place. However she choose to put the world “whispered” and “picture” that only rhyme with her. So I think this was a clue for who analyze more in deep her lyrics ,to say “yeah this song is about a girl” .In this way the general public don’t know and she remains safely in the glass closet or whatever.

I know, another post by me. If you're going "oh my god not again just stfu Billie" I absolutely will not and I am not sorry so anyone who doesn't want spoilers, just skip over this, otherwise enjoy my 3/5 A.M episode 7 thoughts/theory.

Who's Behind the Betrayal?

I know, another post by me. If you're going "oh my god just stfu Billie" I'm not sorry so anyone who doesn't want spoilers or to hear my dumbass 3 A.M thoughts on who it could be just skip over this, otherwise enjoy. Or suffer. Whichever you prefer.

The Armorer

I know a lot of people have their eyes set on The Armorer, but I'm not completely sold on her being the one who sold everyone out. I could see The Armorer wanting Bo out of the picture so that she can go back to having a tight lead on her cult again and didn't plan on Din or even Paz getting hurt, but it's still a leap of faith to trust someone like Gideon to keep up his end of any bargain. One I can't see The Armorer risking. She's not dumb. But in terms of not wanting to get people hurt, I honestly wouldn't put it past her that she doesn't care. I know people may get offended over that but after 35+ years with Din, she was willing to toss him out the moment he admitted he had gone helmetless and that was all I needed to know that her loyalty ends the moment you stop following her standard of the Creed. Even her reaction to being at the forge surrounded by the empty helmets of following Mandos in Season 1 felt empty, like she's able to disconnect from loss like that and she either has experienced it enough to where it's water off her shoulders or she just doesn't care.

It IS suspicious as hell that Gideon's goons had Beskar armor, but she would have had to sneak away from the covert enough times to not be detected and I have a hard time believing no one would notice her constantly coming and going at all hours. Even if she came up with an excuse to go off world, it just feels contrived that no one would pick up on odd or questionable behavior like that. We're assuming one must be trained to forge the Beskar armor and isn't something anyone can just pick up and do, but someone from the Survivors on Mandalore or even Bo's fleet could easily have been Armorers before the Purge.

The other thing that tripped me up at first and I know many others is why she changed her mind so quickly to make Bo out to be this person of prophecy after dismissing her Mythosaur claim when she warned Din in BOBF that:

"Bo-Katan is a cautionary tale. She once laid claim to rule Mandalore based purely on blood and the sword you now possess. But it was gifted to her and not won by Creed. Bo-Katan Kryze was born of a mighty house, but they lost sight of the way. Her rule ended in tragedy. They lost their way, and we lost our world."

At first, I had a hard time believing The Armorer would willingly follow someone who she knows was the reason for Mandalore's downfall. But after re-thinking it, I realized The Armorer never went into detail as to how Bo was a cautionary tale outside of being a tragic leader victim of circumstance when the Armorer only mentioned "they" and not "she." Pair this with how she told the Mandalorian Survivors that

I realized The Armorer may not have any idea that Bo is the reason for Mandalore's current state nor does she realize that Bo had been a member of the very terrorist group she mentioned. The Armorer said she was from the Moon just like Din was, and it's possible that everything she heard was second hand information because she genuinely didn't seem to know that Bo has a crime rep sheet as long as she is tall.

Bo, throughout this season, has been made out to be a broken leader who lost her way and Bo has been playing into that. This is probably the first time she's had a semi-clean slate. And if the Armorer knew about Bo's past and is just fucking with her... I guess we'll find out but I genuinely do think that The Armorer wouldn't follow someone like that if she knew they were part of their people's/planet's downfall and is doing this purely out of a change of heart for Bo, but we'll see.

Koska Reeves

I know others are guessing Axe, but between him and the Armorer it feels way too obvious. We already know Axe's loyalty starts and ends with whoever he thinks is worthy of owning the darkaber, and we already know even then there's no true loyalty to Bo or anyone else from him, so I honestly wonder if the spy/whistleblower would be Koska and not Axe. Koska's loyalty to Bo is much like Axe's despite the fact that Bo treats her like a close friend/confident. When sitting together on the survivors' ship and Bo barely scratched the surface as to what she had done and her involvement in Mandalore's current state, Koska opened her mouth as if to spill the beans and Bo just waved her off like

Koska clearly knows of Bo's tragic past to some extent, probably the most out of any of the other Nite Owls, and would be the last Bo and Axel would expect to be a spy. However, I just can't think of a good motive for her to side with Gideon. But it's hard to rule her out when, as I mentioned, the whole fleet and even Din's cult behind Bo aren't there because she's a worthy leader to follow, but is someone that Din has put his faith in and is the current "owner" of the darksaber." Loyalty to Bo, outside of Din's naivety, doesn't exist. At least, not without major conditions. And this leads me back to...

Bo-Katan Kryze

Do I think Bo is the spy/traitor? No. At least not intentionally.

If you've seen Bo in CW and Rebels, there's two things that have always been consistent about her character: Bo will do anything to achieve her goals regardless of who or what gets hurt and she never learns her lesson. In the past, she worked under both Maul and Count Dooku until both betrayed her. Her loyalty starts and ends with who best benefits her goals, and that has remained the same even in Mando. When she mentioned:

“In exchange for submitting to the Empire and disarming, all remaining cities and Mandalorian lives were to be spared. It was the only chance I had to save our people.”

I couldn't put my finger on why that confession bothered me the way it did. And it clicked: that doesn't sound like Bo. This is Bo-Katan Kryze, the woman who joined a terrorist group because she disagreed with her sister's pacifist ways. This is the woman who burned down a village and enslaved the people there for fun. This is the woman who trusted TWO Sith lords to help her and her fellow terrorists to achieve their goals and only fought against them the moment they were betrayed and not because "Siths are bad." This is the self serving woman who will do anything to get what she wants, including hiding the Mythosaur from Din after gaslighting him that it doesn't exist, and I have a very hard time believing what she said is true when she's never done anything like that in her history as a SW character because it requires the type of sacrifice that Bo wouldn't do willingly. So her comment made me wonder if that was a white lie pertaining their current predicament.

I could see Bo originally planning on sacrificing Din and his cult to Gideon in exchange for them to leave Mandalore alone and the darksaber so she can rebuild the planet just as she's been saying she's wanted to for decades. It's the only reason I can think of (other than bad writing) to explain why she openly lived in a castle in the same sector as Mandalore despite knowing an Imperial presence was present. It would explain why she felt so confident walking around Mandalore despite knowing the true threats were Imperial and not the Troll species or angry robots. It would explain why TIE fighters chose to blow up her home only AFTER Din was in her presence and wasn't too bothered by it. And it explains why she hide the Mythosaur from Din. Bo losing her home means now having a reason to be welcomed into Din's cult and earning their trust to push them into Gideon's trap, but I don't think Bo expect to end up experiencing what it's like to actually like to have people around you who are there because of honor and loyalty and not because you're waving around an ancient, glowy sword that people need to listen to.

Bo witnessed first hand, finally, how respected Din is within his covert and even the people of Nevarro. She saw how much foundlings meant to them, and how far they'd go to ensure the safety of their people that didn't come with strings attached. She witnessed Din's selfless acts and how he gave her unfair credit for a lot they got accomplished and, even if all of that was part of her initial plan, I don't think Bo realized how good it felt to be seen and welcomed as a hero for once and not a terrorist. Although she made a weak attempt at admitting out loud how she may have had a part in Mandalore's current state, she still hid the truth from everyone to have control over the siege because she knew people would back out of helping her. Because until Din volunteered himself and Grogu

No one was willing to volunteer. As I said: no one here willingly follows or trusts Bo. She hasn't earned that trust between her history and her "onward!" and not "follow me" leadership tactic. So with Din not only volunteering but saying this to Bo:

Bo, for the first time, experienced someone believing in her and willingly following her as a leader and not as a resented leader who people only follow because she had the planet's royal talking stick in hand.

She expected Din to reject her as a leader after her weak admission to her sins and that look she gives him after he walks away isn't because she's fallen for him (I won't piss on people who want to see it as such), she's looking at him with awed guilt. She's touched that she finally has someone who respects her as a person and not as the Heiress and that makes her feel guilty if it is revealed that she had planned on sacrificing him and his covert to Gideon all for a chance to rule again and awed that maybe, just maybe, she could be something other than a selfish jinx to their people. Her expression is very bitter sweet.

So where I think, if my theory is right, that her intensions had originally been malicious, I think her experiences with Din's cult inspired her to try to turn the tables on Gideon. That would explain why he wasn't surprised to see her but was surprised to see her fleet working with Din's cult. I don't think Bo knew or expected there to be a full on base built right under her nose like that nor did she expect Imperial soldiers to have Beskar armor. I have no doubt her reaction to Din being kidnapped and Paz potentially killed was genuine, along with her trembling in panic not just from losing her two best fighters, but also from the grief of once again setting history up to repeat itself. I think she'll try to use the darksaber to get people to help her save Din and Paz but will be met with silence because she's not the person they followed and believed in in the first place. I can see her trying a last ditch attempt at winning everyone over by finding and riding the Mythosaur but will be unable to find it. I'd put money on Din, Grogu, or even Boba being able to ride it before Bo does. And I know some people may be upset by this, but I also wouldn't be surprised if she dies doing the first selfless thing with her people in mind in her decades long journey. When Din mentioned Bo's song was not yet written without realizing that it's been told three times over, it was a perfect set up for Bo's death to be a "Swan Song." It would honestly be a beautiful way for Bo to go and giving the saber and title to Din before going out with a bang, recognizing that he's the one that the galaxy and strangers on the internet trying to figure out how to get to him through their TV would follow and be the peace bringer the galaxy has longed for. But like I said: we'll see.

No One's a Spy

I know some of you may be wondering why I didn't mention the surviving Mandalorians they run into, which is fair, but I think they'd be too obvious to be the spies. I am surprised Bo and Din's respected people didn't suspect them of anything and trusted them right off the bat on top of them somehow not knowing that the Empire built a whole base without their knowledge and somehow either forgot or choose to forgive Bo for being the reason they're even like that in the first place, but I would put money on that being bad writing cause it would be really out of character for Din and his people at the very least to not suspect these strangers of any malicious intent. They're so distrusting it wouldn't be logical for them to be blindsided by the most obvious choice. So in the end, the other option is no one is the spy. No one set anyone up to be betrayed and it was an unfortunate circumstance cause by poor planning and strategy and now everyone's paying for it. But we'll see tonight/tomorrow!

I meant to post this earlier this week but I've had a bad chronic flare up from a food allergen. I'm fine, but I'm exhausted and in a lot of discomfort waiting for the flare to pass. Until it does, I'm curious to hear all of your thoughts and I'll see you on the other side.

Din vs Bo as a Leader

I've seen people say that Bo is the rightful ruler of Mandalore and owner of the darksaber and deserves to lead and I'm genuinely curious to hear from others as to why that is because I'm having a very hard time seeing that point of view. Semi-spoilerish for people who aren't up to date but I kept it vague enough to not be a problem I don't think.

Since CW and Rebels, Bo has continually made choices that negatively impact the people around her. She's a morally gray character who has a list of war crimes on her rep sheet that honestly makes some real life bad guys look green and it baffles me that people want her redemption to be easy. I'm not saying she should never be redeemed, I genuinely believe people should have the chance to turn over a new leaf cause being human is hard, but how she's acting and being treated in Mando feels like a middle finger to those her actions caused harm to. Like she can be sad about her sister all she wants but she willingly joined a terrorist group who spelt it out for her that they planned on publicly executing Satine and followed the orders of two Sith lords, and she didn't see that as a deal breaker. Being sad over that is like being upset that you got shot in the foot when you fired the gun yourself when you continue to make choices that negatively impact others. And this season alone Bo hasn't tried to be a leader to her people, she cared more about the title and the weapon it comes with than actual democracy. She wields it well, yes, but so did Sabine who taught her how and gave her the weapon despite not knowing how badly Bo has fucked up with it in the past. The moment the darksaber was in Din's hands and she lost her crew, she didn't try to scout Mandalore and find other Mandalorians to help her with her decades long failed plan. She didn't try to put any plans together with outside help to achieve her goal or even try to establish a new territory for her people to be safe on until they can find a way to make Mandalore a livable again. She was never an active leader, just someone who craved leadership and believed was owed it because of her birth right and that reflects in the selfish choices she's made while in a leadership position, which include harming Din and Paz. She didn't lead her people into the siege and trap that awaited them, Din did. He shouldered and strong armed his way through and was willingly going to sacrifice himself if it meant a safe planet for his people and foundling. And she wasn't the last out, Paz was, and for that his clan suffered major losses. She had focused more on weapons and supplies for her fleet and siege than the actual people who would help her achieve her goal, and not once has she discussed what she planned on doing once Mandalore was safe for all Mandalorians again. Reuniting and rebuilding isn't the same as establishing a political system that benefits the well being of her people with the promise of a stable economy, fair societal roles, establishing an intergalactic democracy to avoid what Nevarro went through, and combining the differing traditions/beliefs the remaining Mandalorians have to not favor one over the other and unintentionally cause a civil war. Each time she's gained leadership it's always met with mixed support, often not universally, and has led to her downfall three times now for a reason.

Just the same, I've seen people argue that Din doesn't want to lead/rule and isn't the kind of man who'd be a good leader and I strongly disagree. Since the first episode, Din established himself as a selfless character even if it irritated him to be accommodating. He still tried to compromise with the Jawas, didn't turn his back to Frog Lady needing a ride, was willingly going to sacrifice himself to a Krayt Dragon for people he had just met and entrusted with Grogu, went head first into every battle even for people who didn't deserve it (Ran's Crew), was everyone's Ride or Die at least once, became multilingual which was used more to keep the peace than to gain information on his quarries, and has united and mediated more unlikely foes to friends than anyone else in the SW universe. Even if his actions originated with a selfish need (gaining Boba's armor back for Mandalorians, exchanging his services for info on where Mandalorians/Jedi are for Grogu, etc) he still went above and beyond because it's the honorable and right thing to do and his compassion has earned him friendships across the galaxy and allyship on every planet he's visited whereas Bo can't get even her own people behind her without a legendary sword in her hand. You can't tell me all the people Din met on his journey WOULDN'T lay down their lives for him if he asked?? Paz already did despite Din's choice to rescue Grogu despite unintentionally causing a massacre because Paz recognized the selflessness behind Din's choice that carried over to Paz's own foundling and that is what gained his respect and allyship. Din hadn't asked for anything in return, and his own motive for moving the covert was so that their children could play in the sun and the future generations can flourish. I'm fairly certain even Sorgon would join forces whether it's to take care of Din if he had a bad head cold or taking back a whole planet for him. Same with Peli and her droids, Tusken Raider survivors, Freetown, Boba and his syndicates, Frog Lady and her hoard of warrior toddlers, Karga and the grateful people of Nevarro, Ahsoka, and Miggs Mayfield. We've made jokes about Din accidentally making friends all over the galaxy for a reason. He's so selfless that he never saw himself worthy of his Creed, of being Grogu's father, of being a leader when everyone else has told him otherwise. Din's view on leadership reflects his own self esteem wrecked by his cult and it would take everyone he's ever helped to make him see that he is the leader that the galaxy needs to reunite not just The Mandalorians, but all the people and their planets I mentioned. Leadership comes with a burden for Bo, but for Din, it comes with the strength and camaraderie Bo has only ever dreamed of having and that The Armorer overlooked because of her narrow, traditional views. And this is a side comment, but Din mastered riding the stubborn Blurgg after Kuill made fun of him for not being able to conquer it when Mandalorians rode Mythosaurs into battle. Din riding a Mythosaur would be a great call back to that and would gain more respect as a leader than just having the darksaber. In my opinion.

I genuinely hope Bo comes to these conclusions herself and recognizes that Din is more deserving of the role than anyone else and passes the darksaber back to him and helps him see his potential than just saving the day yet again from the very gun she shot everyone with. Redemption for her starts with letting go of the very thing that's plagued her her whole life and leadership is recognizing when you need more time before you can be the example people need to be the best versions of themselves. This isn't a Bo hate post or any stan post, this is a fan post who wants a fair redemption arc for Bo and a chance for Din to rise up to the best version of himself he's capable of being. So yes, I want to hear everyone's thoughts whether you agree or disagree that doesn't involve Bo being the rightful heir or wanting her redemption cause you like her as a character. I want to hear deeper reasons than surface level motives, cause as I said, your favorite hurting over the consequences of her decades long actions she never learns from isn't a good enough reason for her to lead or have the darksaber but I'm down for any other explanations people have regardless if you're a casual fan of the show or lifelong SW fans like myself.

Everyone's Feelings are Valid Regarding Mando Season 3

As a neurodivergent teacher whose students are on spring break, I finally have the time to weigh in on the Mando Season 3 debate after seeing how divided the fandom is. This mini essay is meant to be a logical and safe middle ground for everyone, to remind everyone that your feelings are valid regardless of what they are, and that even if your opinions/feelings are valid that doesn't meant they're fact or justifiable to police how others think and feel.

This contains spoilers for Mando S3, Rebels, and Clone Wars and is written while I'm high on benadryl so approach at your own risk! I may go back and edit this and edit out/rewrite points to make them more succinct or add points others may have that should be included and don't want anyone to feel gaslit if they see any changes they don't recall seeing before.

1. More Than Two Ways to Feel

From what I gather, the two main opinions on this season are either it's a great season and anyone who disagrees is what's wrong with Star Wars, or that this season is a disappointing let down after waiting so long for Din to return. Both are valid, but since Star Wars fans tend to see outcomes in extremes, I want to point out that those aren't the only two options available, you can also:

be disappointed with this season while continuing to be a huge fan of the show

and

enjoy this season while recognizing the writing and quality isn't up to the standards the show had set in previous seasons or even the promises it made with this one.

The Mandalorian was the first piece of live action media since the Clone Wars that sparked the interest of even non Star Wars fans because it offered something new and exciting to a world and lore we're all familiar with that doesn't demand you to know 50 years of Star Wars history nor does it jeopardize characters and storylines long time fans are protective of.

Because of this, it's easy to forget that Star Wars fans are now sharing The Mandalorian with casual Star Wars fans or even exclusive fans to the show without having any interest in exploring the SW universe further through other forms of media.

I'd argue the first instance of this being taken away from casual fans was in The Book of Boba Fett by requiring them to view it to stay i in the know for Season 3 along with the return of Cad Bane who, for fans of the cartoons, flipped out seeing his live action form. But for those who only watched BOBF as fans of Mando, a lot of viewers were like:

Bo Katan, Ahsoka, Luke, and Boba Fett's resurrection in Mando were written in smoothly that excited long time SW fans familiar with them while allowing casual fans to enjoy the story because said characters stood on their own as supporting roles without taking away from their their origins. But throwing in characters like Cad Bane and even other Rebels/Clone Wars characters into Season 3 of Mando, it doesn't give casual fans a reason to stay or feel satisfied if they're not in the know with these beloved niche of characters.

And because of this, it's easy to unintentionally police said fans with how strongly you may feel as someone with deep rooted knowledge of the franchise.

Casual fans of the show shouldn't have to be spoiled or talked down to for not sharing the same enthusiasm as other fans because they don't know who a character is/their importance to the SW universe or for having differing opinions and feelings over a show that wasn't originally built on any previous Star Wars lore. And older fans who love all SW lore who are disappointed are allowed to feel let down after 3 years for this season to not be how it was advertised just as fans who are loving this season shouldn't be mocked for enjoying the ride regardless of where it goes. We're all valid here.

2. Mando Has Always Had Side Quests, but Not Without Plot

If I had a dollar for every

"Mando has always been about side quests! Why are people complaining about this format NOW?"

comment I read, I'd have enough to maybe... have a nice meal somewhere.

Has the Mandalorian been told through side quests? Yes and no. It's been 3 years since the last season aired and I think a lot of people will look back at the previous 2 seasons with vague memories of Din and Grogu traversing through time and space as father and son while helping wayward future friends and getting their asses handed to them by alien animal species when it wasn't quite like that.

The first season starts with Din being hired after a particularly easy job to hunt down a difficult quarry. Din requires the help of a moister farmer to get to the kid since he can't land the ship close enough to the mark without setting off security, and discovers said quarry is a child. He spends the rest of the season getting the kid back to the Imps, saving him from the Imps, blacklisting himself from his job, unintentionally setting up his covert for a massacre, trying to lay low and find a safe place for the kid to grow up so he can go back to his old life only to realize he can't as long as the kid is wanted, and proceeds to take on a few jobs to feed them and avoid the Empire until he's called back to deal with Karga's ambush and getting sucked into a trap intended for Grogu and the season ends with Grogu now being Din's foundling and his new mission is to bring Grogu home.

The second season focuses on Din trying to hunt down fellow Mandalorians to help him reunite Grogu to the Jedi, the first episode while on a job reveals that his quarry had seen a Mandalorian on Mos Pelgo which led him to meet Cobb Vanth. The only reason Din stayed is to take back the armor and agreed to earning it back by killing the Krayt Dragon for them and the Raiders. The second episode has Din playing Taxi in return for information about Mandalorians seen on Trask (where Frog Lady was heading). Din agrees to help Bo and her clan to raid an Imperial ship and her information leads him to Ahsoka two episodes later. Because the Mon Calamari's repairs were inadequate, Din goes to help Karga destroy an old Imperial base in return for repairs. He finally finds Ahsoka and helps her confront Elsbeth in exchange of training Grogu (again, I'll circle back to this as a Season 3 plot point that fell through). She decides she won't train him due to Grogu's attachment and anger in his heart for what he went through and points Din to a temple where Grogu can contact other Jedi for training and from there, he's capture, Din loses his ship, he finds Grogu's location with the help of his newfound friends, and saves Grogu only to give him over to Luke while now being the proud owner of a weapon and defunct planet.

So is Mando ALL random side quests with no point? No. Each episode interwove into the next effortlessly while being a self contained episode that never failed to remind you the importance of each mission, side quest, and character that Din interacted with. And it's hard to miss the overall theme of honor, identity, and religious guilt that Din faces and questions each episode up until the end when he chooses to show Grogu his face as an ultimate act of love.

But with Season 3, I can't tell you how any of the episodes connect or what they hint at to the overall season plot and we're six (seven, if you're reading this after the episode drops) episodes into an 8 episode season. Even if by the final episode things all tie together, it didn't have the same smooth transitions as the previous seasons had nor did they remind you of what we might've forgotten information wise in these three years and that's why a lot of these episodes feel pointless compared to the urgency that Din and Grogu faced leading up to his departure with Luke. Which brings me to...

3. Season 3's Plot Failed in Season 2 and BOBF

Yet two other comments I've seen that could buy me a second fancy meal somewhere or just a fancy ass desert for a family of 4 by myself is:

Season 3 has no plot! It's pointless! It's boring!

and

Season 3 has a plot! Just because it's not about Din anymore doesn't mean there lacks plot!

And to this, yet again, I say... yes and no to both. Season 3, as I mentioned in my previous point, hasn't woven in an overarching plot like its previous two seasons and so the urgency is not only not there, but it doesn't remind you of why you need to care or stick around for Din's redemption arc (whichever that may be) or whatever is going on with Bo and the Armorer and the Empire. But I don't fault Season 3 for having bad writing necessarily, but rather throwing out their best plot point for Book of Boba Fett and (as I mentioned before) not recapping what was mentioned in Season 2.

No one can convince me that The Book of Boba Fett wasn't a ploy for Disney+ to keep Mando fans happy and excited while they figured out Season 3. I will die on this hill. It's been 3 years and I already heard fans losing hope and grumbling about it before I even joined Tumblr. No matter how loyal a fanbase is, you still lose them to other media when what they crave isn't available in a certain amount of time and BOBF was the balm to that ache for many of us despite us also simultaneously being disappointed in how they handled BOBF. Boba and BIPOC characters deserve better. But that's for another essay.

Season 3 failed the moment Din and Grogu were reunited in BOBF along with Din's new ship. This broke what made Mando so unique and special as stated in my first point where fans could casually get into Mando without needing decades of SW lore to enjoy it, and now those fans are left behind because they didn't realize they had to invest in The Book of Boba Fett to be included in the Members Only Season of The Mandalorian and that's being reflected in its ratings.

I genuinely believe if they had opened Mando Season 3 with his entrance in BOBF and led the first two episodes with Din tracking down his tribe after delivering his bounty for said information, was made an apostate, and rejected to see Grogu all in one episode... that would have given the season far more possibilities for plot than what this season has offered us in the last 6 episodes. And especially so if they recapped the important plot details that Season 2 set up but expected fans to remember after 3 years and tied those plot points in in a way that upped the urgency Season 3 has lacked so far.

In Chapter 11: The Heiress when Din is saved by Bo and her clan, he only agrees to help them with their raid in exchange for where he can find a Jedi teacher for Grogu. But what did they need that raid for? To steal weapons in order to take down the Imperial remnants that still plunder Mandalore that will help them retake their planet. Aside from Bo's castle getting blown up by TIE fighters, we're not reminded of this fact at all during this season. Din and Bo were able to get to Mandalore with ease and stroll around like it was nothing. There were no ships hovering around the planet, no secret bases, no symbols, not even recently defunct battle droids. Mandalore was painted as a planet that was free real-estate that they could've moved in to that day the moment they realized the planet had breathable air and just some old robots and troll species to worry about. There was no reminder of this being a potentially dangerous planet as an Imperial wasteland.

But Bo's castle got blown up by TIE fighters! Where do you think they came from? The threat was obvious!

...Except it wasn't. Bo was moping around that castle in broad day light, not attempting to hide. Why didn't they blow her castle up sooner if she was a threat? And even if it came out later that Bo was part of the siege to free Gideon, they should have made it less obvious because yeah where DID they come from? Sure as shit not Mandalore, and why when she's united with Din the second time in this episode? And if this threat is linked to Thrawn, as we see his return in the trailer for Ahsoka, they should have recapped Chapter 13: The Jedi where Ahsoka shook down Elsbeth for information regarding where Thrawn's location is (which leads to Ahsoka's spin off series).

So yes the plot IS there, just not written in a way that reminds fans of what was at stake leading up to Season 3 and expanded upon those threats even within just opening scenes. The Mandalorian had brilliantly made whatever the opening scene was as foreshadowing the rest of the episode's plot. Season 3 could have used those recaps, flashbacks, or even a bonus scene to something we already saw in the previous season as that reminder audiences need after 3 years to remember what the stakes are and why it still impacts Din and Grogu regardless if Bo is now going on either a redemption journey herself or is secretly the season's antagonist.

And even if Bo is meant to be a central character, Mando has glossed over the fact that she was responsible for Mandalor's downfall TWICE and was considered a traitor, a terrorist, and the reason why her sister was murdered. It's possible they didn't reveal that for specific reasons, but it feels lazy not to hint at it in some ways that let the audience wonder if Bo is meant to be an antagonist or hero this time around, especially as an established selfish, morally gray character. And it's unfair that her redemption is this easy when her laundry list of sins she committed never properly held her accountable, and even with genuine remorse and empathy, Bo still is willing to make choices that benefit her in the long wrong over the benefit of others.

Which leads me to...

4. The Mandalorian Has Always Been About Din and Grogu

"The show is called The Mandalorian, not The Din Djarin and Grogu Show. Anyone can be The Mandalorian, and besides, it's plural!"

First off, The Mandalorian isn't plural. I just want to make that clear. The Mandalorian is a singular person and, although yes it can be anyone, it's explicitly about Din he is THE Mandalorian who walked the surface to bring back money, food, and goods to his tribe while everyone else stayed underground, hiding. Din made a name for himself as the best Bounty Hunter in the Parsec in a world where everyone believed Mandalore was a dead, unlivable planet and that

The Mandalorians, much like the Jedi, were extinct. This was reiterated in dialogue throughout the show by multiple characters, and is why Din was so special. Because when they heard about a Mandalorian it's always Din. Even gaining that land for his people, everyone will still turn to Din because he's THE Mandalorian to them. He's the one who has united people, saved towns, been the diplomat, and the reason why many characters and even Nevaro exist. He's the Mando people will recognize and hold esteem for, not anyone else even if Bo does try to take the mantle and that's because she's The Heiress, even to the likes of the Armorer, and The Armorer is the Armorer. Din will never shake that title even if he wanted to, because he's the one who's left a mark on the galaxy he lives in along with his green son, and Bo nor anyone else will be able to take that from him because they'll have their own titles in that universe to live up to whether they like it or not.

"But Din doesn't even want to be the main character in his own show! His story is over, let him and Grogu be at peace!"

That's the other problem, their stories are far from over. We already know that Thrawn is alive, Dr. Pershing doesn't understand how his science is genocidal, and Gideon is walking around with potentially his own Mandalorian bodyguards or is setting Din up. As long as these men exist and the Empire is a problem, they will hunt down Grogu for their cruel science projects and kill Din in order to achieve that. But this season hasn't reminded us of that at all and has given people a false idea that Din and Grogu's stories are over when they absolutely are not. And even if Bo is intended to take the torch from Din, that doesn't wrap up his story or Grogu's it just makes it second fiddle for Bo to either redeem herself or make everything worse again. Time will tell I guess, but do not for a moment think that Din and Grogu are safe. They absolutely are not. Lastly,

5. Strong Stories Have Reluctant Protagonists

"Who wants to watch a show about someone who's a reluctant leader? Mandalor the Reluctant? I don't think so!"

Um... you do. That's literally the hero's journey. Bilbo Baggins never wanted an adventure. He wasn't confident in his abilities and he wasn't interested in helping the dwarves succeed. He was tricked by Gandalf by a false sense of duty. Luke Skywalker was content with his life on Tatooine until his childhood home an aunt and uncle perished and he physically couldn't go back even if he wanted to. Joel was a reluctant father figure to Ellie after his own losses despite his journey starting on greed. There's so many beloved characters that don't even want to star in their own stories but that's what makes them strong characters. They're forced to go on journeys they don't want to help them come to terms with their own inner termoil or even achieve the greatest version of themselves that they wouldn't have risen to if not for their inability to go back to their normal lives before the call of the journey. So even if we're all okay with more Din and Grogu adventure stories or even okay with Bo taking over, it feels unsatisfactory for Din to just hand the darksaber over to Bo after years of trying to get ride of it and handing his son, whom he spent at least a year apart from, to whoever is available to go on unrelated missions with Bo. There's a reason why people feel unsatisfied and disappointed with this season, and it's valid regardless of what you're okay with. Mando was built on strong writing and they've forgone simple solutions to cut corners in order to spit out a mediocre season when it had the potential to be not just fun but an incredible return of Din, Grogu, and introduction of Bo if she's meant to take the mantle down the line.

One more thing!

6. Bo Isn't a Worthy Leader (added 4/12/2023)

I know this may ruffle some peoples' feathers, but hear me out. I want to remind everyone once again I genuinely like Bo and have nothing against her, and my beef is with how the writers treated her this season and have mislead non Clone Wars and Rebels fans.

Bo deserves the title! The darksaber chose her! She wields it so well, and after all that she's gone through she deserves her redemption!!

A lot of fans of the show who haven't watched Rebels don't realize that Bo at one point couldn't wield the saber, either. It was Satine who taught her how. As far as I'm aware, the darksaber requires the wielder's thoughts and actions to flow into the Darksaber to fuel its energy, which then affects the weight and has nothing to do with being the chosen one like Excalibur. Anyone can learn to wield it if Bo was willing to teach them, hell even Gideon seemed to have a good grasp on it. Din even said in episode 7 that the saber doesn't dictate who is a worthy leader, it's based on principles and honor (which Bo conveniently chose not to inform Din on how she doesn't fit that bill).

Bo, this whole season, has shown time and time again she's not a worthy leader. At least, not yet. Bo has MANY sins to make up for. As I said earlier: Bo was a terrorist, she led to Mandalore's downfall... twice (now potentially thrice), led an incursion that got her sister killed, was openly racist towards Boba Fett and others, sexually assaulted Ahsoka, and burned down villages just because she could. None of these were ever brought up in Mando and it not only made Bo an innocent woman who lost everything and just needs her people and planet back, but also erases her history without ever fully holding her accountable.

Bo has fantastic military leadership (as shown this season alone), but when it comes to diplomatic, she falls short. All of her choices have led her to losing the darksaber, losing Mandalore, getting many people killed, and her prejudices have gotten in the way of true diplomacy where Din had to step in when she was ready to give up or use force to get what she wanted. She didn't even bother to try to win her people back or make a plan to take back Mandalore, she was content staying at home and crying on her throne until Din and Grogu forced her to finally do something productive.

All of this circles back to my point on why Din being a reluctant character is important to the overall story. For someone who doesn't want to lead, he's shown the most leadership skills all season by putting others before him and communicating on everyone else's level instead of expecting them to rise to his which is a stark contrast to Bo's actions this season. He's multi-lingual, finds ways to speak to other species to make them feel seen and heard, and consistently gives up his own food and resources to those in need even if it's with a grumble at first (Frog Lady comes to mind). Everything Bo lacks or doesn't attempt, Din jumps head first in. Which is why I think there's such a divide on Bo's character this season and it's easier to say she stole the show from Din when, in reality, her desire to lead but having no leadership skills is what has drawn out the frustrating aspects of Season 3's storyline that's hard to put your finger on but might've given you anxiety regardless. Her role as Mandalore doesn't feel earned and her character feels cheated, again regardless of how you personally feel about her as a character and if you want what's best for her.

I think I had more to say but I'm running a blank now. I'm tagging @yourcoolauntie cause I know I promised to talk to you about all of this and I still plan on messaging you but figured this confined space would get everything out in one go rather than getting lost in the sauce in a tiny little chat box on here. Everyone is welcome to DM me over this, comment, challenge me, whatever you need to feel better regardless of what your stance is over the show. This isn't meant to dismiss anyone or make anyone feel invalidated as I said, just a safe space with facts that you can do what you please with to either validate how you feel or recognize where that discomfort or frustration is coming from regardless if you're enjoying this season or not. You're seen, you're heard, and I'll see you on the other side after this upcoming episode tonight.

~Birds of a feather, we should stick together~

I guess the aliented people heard the song • Birds of a feather by Billie Eilish •

The most soothing song.. Makes our body want to go and dive into the ocean..

Its a love song visible from the lyrics. The song is painful as well. The line "I don't know what I am crying in for, I don't think I could love you more" this line represents the love for someone who has left you for someone else and you are literally claiming that I loved you enough and I could not more because the love left within me was given to you.

The song is blue. Blue is melancholic as well. The protagonist of the song wants the love of her life to carry the casket, even if the body turns blue and not to save the dead body because he/she is already dead by the betrayal from the person. She also wants him to stay with her till she is in the grave. Wants him to stay till she is buried.

And then in the third or fourth stanza maybe she tells that "you are so full of shit, tell me its bit, say you don't see it your minds polluted, say you wanna quit don't be stupid". She feels betrayed after she finds out that he wants to quit the special thing.

Then she claims that she knew him and he had the same look in his eyes she loves him and tells him "don't act so surprised"

regarding Dune Part 2: i am obsessed with its consistent visual theme of self-destruction. the shot of paul surrounded by his new followers seems triumphant - until the viewer remembers that each crysknife is made from a tooth of shai-hulud, and paul is standing in a circle of them, in the allegorical mouth of the worm. he orders a missile strike, and the viewer sees them fly directly through his head. every victory for the prophecy is a blow to paul himself; he's killing himself with every step he takes towards his destiny, and we know that already, and the film is screaming it, but it's a hell of a thing to watch it happen, isn't it?..

Still having Chani feelings, man. Because I think it is actually not that common to see a character (but especially a female character) whose main commitment in life is to a political struggle, and to have that be taken seriously by the narrative. Not painted as naive idealism or a trendy lifestyle choice or something the character eventually leaves behind for "real" commitments like marriage, career or children.

We don't see really anything of Chani's home life in the sietch, but it seems reasonable to infer that the fedaykin are what she's built her life around. The very first thing we learn about her, before we even know her name, is that she's a fighter. This is a core part of her identity.

She falls in love with Paul when he's willing to risk his life beside her as an equal, for a cause that she can't escape but he could walk away from if he chose. The question she asks him is not Do you love me? but Will you always be with me? Will you always be beside me in the struggle, fighting for the same things I am?

And as soon as the answer to that question is no, they're over. There is absolutely no possibility of love overriding that political betrayal, because her love for him is inextricable from coming to trust that he is committed to their liberation and not simply trying to use them. He said over and over again that he didn't want power, and as soon as he reaches out to claim it there is no way they can be together. The worst betrayal isn't watching him choose another woman, it's watching him declare himself emperor and send her own people off to slaughter others when he said he was fighting for their freedom.

So she leaves him, and we're never supposed to see it as anything but justified. There is simply no way she will turn her back on the most important thing in her life for him.

I know people like to interpret Paul as an outright villain of the story and while that's not unreasonable, I personally love another interpretation.

It doesn't matter if you are a kind person with good intentions, it doesn't matter if you are smarter that anyone else and it doesn't matter if you can literally see the future, NO ONE has the right to hold absolute power over other people.

Systems with strict vertical hierarchy cause oppression. There is no way around it. Even that one guy who you think is better than that shouldn't be put at the top.

Paul being portrayed with many positive character traits doesn't muddy the message, it enhances it.

A Dune thought I was having recently is about when Leto II bonds with the sandtrout in Children of Dune. I was thinking about the role of the sandtrout in the sandworm's lifecycle, as larva, but how it cordons off water so the worm can flourish. When the sandtrout bonds to Leto II, it's like it would cordon off the water in his body so it can begin to flourish.

So he's watered and unwatered, human and sandworm, male and female, ancient and of the future, merciful and notoriously without mercy, Tyrant and redeemer... and like where the Fremen take the dead to sap their water, he's a living deathstill. It's good, it's very good.

[Foaming at the mouth while gripping you by the shoulders] You don't understand. Chani leaving at the end was about so much more than the romance. It outlined the entire point of the story. Chani in the film STANDS for the POINT Herbert was trying to make. About how wrong Pauls actions really were, about how religion was being utilised as a tool of political power, about how her own people were turned into tools of invaders. Chani is the voice of reason in this film and she leaves. She just leaves. She wants nothing to do with what Paul has become. Do you understand.

Something I find interesting when viewing the two recent Dune movies as a whole is that initially, Paul is more than willing to use the prophecy and his visions for his own gain to convince Liet to help them, while Jessica whispers "careful!" at his side, and she later recommends they leave the planet entirely. But Paul decides they'll stay with the Fremen. Even at the beginning of Part 2, Paul is like "fuck yeah let's wage war on the Harkonnen" and Jessica is again counseling caution: "your father didn't believe in revenge." She goes through the Water of Life ceremony not because she wants to help Paul fulfill the prophecy but because she's forced to: do this or die. And even then, the old Reverend Mother had to use the Voice on her to get Jessica to drink.

That all changes when Jessica nearly dies during the ceremony. After that, Paul becomes more wary of embracing the prophecy, and she just throws herself into it. Paul nearly loses his mother (and his unborn sister) to a painful, agonizing poison - mere hours/days after losing his father and all their friends/allies to the Harkonnen slaughter - and decides it's not worth it. Meanwhile, Jessica gets a direct download of memories of millennia of oppression and goes "yeah let's burn everything to the ground."

It's an interesting, quick reversal at the beginning of the second movie, and it's great.

Ooh thank you for this great ask. I can always count on you for smart and thoughtful Jessica takes!

You make a really good observation about their reversal of positions--I had been struggling to figure out how Paul's line about "I must sway the non-believers" fit into his overall arc, but you are absolutely right that this feels like a continuation of how he talks to Liet. We're seeing the first stirrings of that little "maybe I am special" thought that later takes center stage.

For most of Part Two, Paul has several reliable counterweights pulling against that streak of arrogance and high-handedness that he's had from the beginning. Jessica almost dies drinking the Water of Life, which, like you point out, has got to make him think twice about encouraging people to believe in the prophecy. Then, he spends most of the movie surrounded by Chani and her friends and comrades, who seem the most skeptical of the prophecy and also aren't going to give his ego the time of day. And at the same time, he has an opportunity to pour his desire for revenge into collective political action that seems to be making a difference.

It's only when those countervailing forces start collapsing (the people who had started out as his equals are now becoming his followers; the Harkonnens attack Sietch Tabr and other civilian population centers, proving they are far from militarily defeated; Gurney shows up and immediately offers what seems like an easy solution to their problems that only Paul can access) that the little maybe I am special voice starts winning again.

As for Jessica, her journey doesn't get as much focus in the movie but it's also fascinating. She's a great character because she is so fucking smart at navigating power structures from what seems like an unenviable position. Did she have any choice about being sent to Caladan to become Leto's concubine? I am guessing she did not. But she sure figured out how to work that situation to her advantage. It happened that along the way she and Leto came to genuinely love and respect each other. But I'm sure she would still have figured out an angle even if that had not been the case.

In Part Two she starts out in a frankly quite terrifying position: she can undergo this unknown, dangerous ritual or die, and also possibly put Paul's safety at risk by raising doubt about whether he is the Lisan al-Gaib. But after she survives the Water of Life, she is launched into a powerful position in Fremen society and pretty quickly realizes she can use that to both protect Paul and get her revenge on the people who tried to kill her whole family. And unlike Paul, she is much more cognizant of the intergalactic power structures at work and aware that the Harkonnens themselves were a pawn in all this, so her target is the Bene Gesserit and the emperor.

I would have loved more time to explore Jessica's relationship to Fremen society and her POV in general. Because in some ways she becomes as Fremen as it's possible for her to be--she has access to thousands of years of memories of Fremen history and culture and politics; she becomes instantly fluent in the language and she is immersed in Fremen daily life in the sietch. (If there's one single thing I wanted more of, it was daily life in the sietch.) But she's still the same person she was, so she hasn't lost that ability to be ruthless and calculating and see people as forces to be manipulated. In Part One, her love for Paul and Leto provided an interesting counterweight to this that allowed us to see some moments of vulnerability from her (ie. she knows Paul has to undergo the Gom Jabbar test but she's terrified for him while it's happening). In Part Two she is so isolated for most of the movie (away from Paul; surrounded by followers who were never friends; I think we can all agree that talking to your unborn fetus doesn't really count) that we don't get a lot of these more unguarded moments from her. (I would have loved some Jessica/Stilgar action and it seems like the potential was very much set up for that, but I understand why they didn't have time.)

But in general I thought they did a great job of setting up this contradictory tension between Jessica and Paul, where they both want so desperately to protect each other and they both want revenge, but the way they each go about it ends up putting them in direct conflict with each other.

I'm rereading Dune in honour of the movie, and I had genuinely forgotten how absolutely vicious Leto's wit can be. Two examples:

Halleck stirred, said: "I think what rankles, Sire, is that we've had no volunteers from the other Great Houses. They address you as "Leto the Just" and promise eternal friendship, but only as long as it doesn't cost them anything."

"They don't yet know who's going to win this exchange," the Duke said. "Most of the Houses have grown fat by taking few risks. One cannot truly blame them for this; one can only despise them."

Pretty sure some of the heads of other houses just woke up several planetary systems away in a cold sweat, with the vague feeling of just having been verbally flayed.

"This is a carryall," Hawat said. "It's essentially a large 'thopter, whose sole function is to deliver a factory to spice-rich sands, then to rescue the factory when a sand-worm appears. They always appear. Harvesting the spice is a process of getting in and getting out with as much as possible."

"Admirably suited to Harkonnen morality," the Duke said.

I think the Baron is beyond feeling someone else roasting him from a system away, as it happens far too often, but still.

Finally, a gentler example:

"Gurney, take care of that smuggler situation first."

" 'I shall go unto the rebellious that dwell in the dry land,' " Halleck intoned.

"Someday I'll catch that man without a quotation and he'll look undressed," the Duke said.

I wish we'd had time to see this in the movie, because even though a fair amount of this is him putting on a bit of a show for his men, it's still hilarious.

The real tragedy of Dune (which the movies did an excellent job of portraying) is that almost none of the characters we see have any real choice in what they do. The only choices they have are in how they do them.

Duke Leto must take House Atreides to Arrakis, or be declared a traitor to the Imperium and hunted down. He knows it's a trap and that the Emperor is, in the very best case scenario, setting him and his family up for a serious reversal of their fortunes (far more likely, he's outright scheming to get them killed). But he doesn't have a choice. He must go to Arrakis. He does go to Arrakis. He dies.

Paul and Jessica must flee into the desert or the Harkonnen soldiers will kill them both brutally. They must go to the Fremen for refuge or the desert will kill them. They go. They find that the Fremen have already begun to mythologise Paul. He's the Mahdi, the Lisan al-Gaib. There is no option for Paul to be a normal person here. He is either the messiah or he is a false prophet, and false prophets in a nation of true believers don't live for long.

So Paul fits himself into the mold of the myth. He becomes Muad'dib and leads the Fremen in war because they believe too much in him to let him be anything less. Is it manipulation? Yes. But because the Bene Gesserit have been manipulating the Fremen for centuries, Paul has no choice but to continue it if he wants to live.

He sees the holy war at the end of every timeline by glimpses and he fights to avoid it. To avoid it, he becomes the Kwizatz Haderach and gains the ability to fully see timelines, and thereby he makes himself that much more of the Fremen messiah and brings himself one step closer to the holy war. Every choice he makes is a choice for survival and an attempt to avoid that war, the war he cannot escape because every step he makes along the path to survival is one more step towards the war. He has no more choice in what he becomes than his father had in whether or not he went to Arrakis.

The only people who ever had a choice were the Emperor and Gaius Helen Mohiam. They made their choice, to exterminate House Atreides, and thereby they took everyone's choices away, including their own. Once they sent House Atreides to Arrakis, the entire plot was inevitable.

Paul could have fallen on his knife at any time.

The books, and the most recent movies, present Paul's descent from 'somewhat innocent son of Atreides' to 'dark Messiah' as something he had no control over, to an extent--the power of the prophecies, of the Bene Gesserit manipulations, of the political forces at work, and of eventually the actions of specifically Jessica were just too powerful and too inescapable. It is presented as a tragedy, with all of the inescapability that entails. There is no choice.

But there is always a choice. There always has to be a choice. These machinations only work if they have the right tool. So what do you do when you want to escape being the figurehead, the spark that lights the fire that is the Jihad? You must take away that spark. Permanently.

But that's the thing, isn't it? The only way out was so drastic Paul would never have taken it. To fall on his knife would be to leave behind his mother and his growing sister and Chani, it would be to betray Stilgar, it would be to end the male line of House Atreides (remember how gender works in this world, remember how women cannot hold power outside of religion) and betray his father, it would be to give in to the Harkonnens.

But to fall on his sword would also be to deprive the machinations of the Bene Gesserit of their Kwisatz Haderach, the corrupted fundamentalist faith of the Fremen their Messiah, the looming Jihad its figurehead and focal point. Perhaps it wouldn't be enough, perhaps the focus would have simply shifted to Jessica or even Alia, gender roles notwithstanding, but it's still a powerful act, a powerful message to send--that one would rather die than act to cause death.

Or perhaps the route the galaxy would go without the Jihad would be worse in the long run. Perhaps the Fremen would stay an oppressed people; but I want to believe that Chani (specifically Chani in the recent movies) is correct, that the Fremen need no outside Messiah and would have freed themselves. That maybe the galaxy wouldn't get better, but it certainly wouldn't have gotten worse.

And isn't that awful? For a non-tragic ending to require such a tragic choice?

As the release of DUNE looms, I find myself thinking deep thoughts about the story again. When people who haven't read it ask me about it, I usually say something along the lines of, "It's an extremely important work in the sci-fi genre, on the level of Lord of the Rings for fantasy, amazing worldbuilding, but it's very dry and the author was a white man in the sixties." Well, it occurs to me that "white man in the sixties" can mean a lot of things, so let's talk more about what it means for Dune!

I see two common criticisms leveled at Dune. The charge of biological essentialism, and the charge of it being a white savior narrative. It is not a white savior narrative, and I'll explain why below. The charge of biological essentialism is accurate, and I'll go into that more as well.

Without getting too spoiler-heavy, the plot of Dune is that Paul Atreides, heir to Duke Leto Atreides, moves to the planet Arrakis when the Emperor awards the planet to House Atreides in fief complete. Basically, the universe in Dune is space feudalism, and House Atreides is one of many noble houses engaged in feudal government. When Paul shows up, the local, oppressed populace, the Fremen, think he's a foretold, prophesied "chosen one," here to lead them out of bondage. Then House Atreides gets betrayed and mostly destroyed, Paul goes into hiding with the locals, and eventually uses them to overthrow his enemies and take back the planet, as well as leveraging the planet's strategic importance and his control of it to place himself on the Emperor's throne.

So, on the surface, definitely white savior stuff. But even a slightly deeper reading, an analysis designed to actually interrogate the text and not just generate a pithy headline to garner outraged clicks, will tell us that this isn't accurate. For one, Paul is a chosen one, but he's not the Fremen's. He is the product of a millennia-long scheme by a shadowy cabal of mystics called the Bene Gesserit to breed a superhuman. We'll get into this more in the biological essentialism bit, but the Bene Gesserit have infiltrated all walks of life throughout the future. They have a branch called the Missionaria Protectiva, which sends operatives to primitive worlds in the guise of religious prophets and has them plant broadly-worded, easily exploitable prophecies and beliefs in local populations. Then, later, if another Bene Gesserit operative shows up and needs, say, an army of religious fanatics, they say the right words and present someone who fits the broad criteria and boom, you have a chosen one.

This is exactly what happens in the book. Paul's mother Jessica is a Bene Gesserit member, and when they go into hiding, she exploits the fact that a Manipulator of Religions has been on Arrakis to maneuver Paul into position as the Fremen's chosen one. Paul himself is trying to resist embracing the mantle, because he knows that if he leans fully into it the Fremen will go on a wild crusade across the universe and burn everything down in his name. At the end of the novel, he realizes that the jihad is inevitable, that there was no way at all to stop it - even if he had killed himself, he would have become a holy martyr. A certain Fremen character, dying out in the desert, hallucinates his father, who tells him, "No more terrible disaster could befall your people than for them to fall into the hands of a Hero." This is Herbert telling us on the page, in a scene that matters very little to the overall plot, that Paul's very presence on this planet, his status as the Fremen savior, is a terrible tragedy. We are supposed to sympathize with Paul because all of his enemies are categorically worse than he is, but this is not a book about Good People Doing Good Things. Paul is an oppressor, a feudal duke, a tyrant. His story is a *warning.*

Now, where the book gets very sticky: the biological essentialism. I'll quote the OED here: "The belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’ (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture)."

In Dune, men and women are biologically distinct on a fundamental, universal level. The aforementioned Bene Gesserit are an order of women. Using the spice (which must flow), they can look backward in their body's genetic memory along matrilineal lines, becoming essentially gestalt consciousnesses of thousands of people. One of their order's chief goals is to create the Kwisatz Haderach, a man who can look back in his body's memory in the same way, but can do so along both male and female lines. There is a scene in the book where Paul explains it - to summarize, in everyone there is a place that takes and a place that gives. Women can look into the giving place, but are terrified of the taking place. Paul, once he has reached apotheosis as the Kwisastz Haderach, can look into both places.

There's a lot of other hoo-hah about men and women having different dispositions - Duke Leto at one point asks Jessica how she can so easily set aside her concerns and distractions, and she says "It's a female thing." When Jessica becomes a Reverend Mother, looking back into her body's memory, she's pregnant with her daughter Alia. Alia also becomes a Reverend Mother in the same instant, before she's even born, and it's made explicit that if she had been a male embryo (because she is less than two months gestated at this point!) she would have died.

This is what people are talking about when they say that an author's world view shapes their work. Herbert was writing in the sixties. Biological sex and gender were not understood to be separate concepts. The Nazis had destroyed the vast majority of all scholarly research into transgender people, since most of it had been done at a university in Germany. Homosexuality was still illegal (reflected in the book's main antagonist, Baron Harkonnen, who is a homosexual pedophile, and in 'effeminacy' being a damning trait in male characters in the book). I'm not saying these things to excuse the fact that he wasn't progressive in his views. I'm saying this because his views and understanding of the world around him literally shape the laws of his universe. In Herbert's mind, men and women were fundamentally distinct, and so in the universe of Dune, they are.

I'm interested in seeing how the film addresses these issues - whether it chooses to just kind of ignore them and hope we don't notice, or if it's going to try to update these archaic notions for modern sensibilities. Dune is a seminal piece of worldbuilding - Herbert's realization of this universe, its eddies and flows of power, the way the entire society is structured around the consumption of spice, the understanding he demonstrated of the feudal system in his translation of it to a far-flung future, and indeed, I maintain, Herbert's multi-layered criticism of the white savior trope - it's all undermined by the fact that the structure of the world itself reflects unfortunate, backward, biological essentialist thinking that we as modern people can no longer engage in.

Anyway that was a very long ramble. If you actually read all this, you're a beautiful, patient soul. :v