P.S. If she tries to go back it will be the equivalent of squishing sediment together except instead of rocks it will be souls; it would be horrifying.
Same thing.
Ashtaroth is a benign witch. Look where that got literally everyone who has appeared so far.
In order:
-Hirako helped birth her, then tried to kill her, and was frustrated.
-Saar attacked, and was eaten.
-Tira left her alone, and was left alone.
-Hitomi was polite, and found out about the horrible magical world her friends were going to recklessly throw themselves into without ever talking to her about it. Also she missed her dance class.
-Sayaka attacked, and was eaten.
-Charlotte was cute, and got a bigger home.
-Kyosuke was a jerk, and was healed.
-Hitomi and Madoka did nothing, and had nothing done to them.
-Mami attacked, and was driven to despair.
-Tira attacked, and was eaten.
-Kyubey is Kyubey.
Sure looks like attacking Ashtaroth is what causes bad outcomes, not dealing with her at all.
Like I noted in the AN, probably would have seemed less sudden if I'd managed to split the previous update in two as I'd intended to. ^_^;
I think the suddenness is a good thing. It lets the audience feel some of the same shock as the characters.
How does Mami get a pass for anything she did, starting with the night hunt which breaks the spirit of the agreement to try peace talks first? Is it that her being incapable of seeing things differently is implicitly accepted as a character trait, and she escapes blame for exactly the same thing people demand of Ashy? Is it that she is a beloved heroine of the series and is therefore held to a different standard?
There are several reasons I can think of, and more that I can't.
First, Ashtaroth is the protagonist. The readers have spent a lot of time in her head, they identify with her, they're rooting for her, and this is only exacerbated by the faux-quest format. They're invested in her. That makes her doing this more frustrating than Mami doing it—and Mami has been called out, if less vocally.
Second, Ashtaroth made a single, obvious error. Mami's problematic behavior is driven by a larger pattern of decision-making; her issue is her attitude, her assumptions, her self-righteousness, all of which are on continual display. Similarly for Sayaka. Ashtaroth's error was driven by a personality flaw which is often subtle, so it appeared as a singular mistake.
Third, Ashtaroth's mistake is harder to sympathize with. People know what it's like to do dumb things out of anger, or desperation, or hatred. That's easy to unerstand, to empathize with, to justify. People are less familiar with making stupid mistakes because they can't comprehend the basic principles of what they're attempting; can't even see that they're missing something fundamental. Well, okay, people are actually
very familiar with that, but they don't tend to admit it to themselves—when they fail at doing something simple, they tell themselves it's hard, or they don't have the talent, or they understand what went wrong and will do better next time (they don't and won't)—and most of what they will admit and understand is too far in the past to really empathize with—Ashtaroth's blunder here is one which everyone reading this story has made, but mostly before the age of thirteen (for many, significantly before), so it's now a distant, poorly-understood memory.* And the same goes for other areas—by the time someone really understands how basic the mistakes they used to make were, they're unable to empathize with those who do make them. (This is, by the way, a large part of why people say kids are stupid—children are
inexperienced, and they make mistakes which adults have long since forgotten that they had to learn to avoid, or fail to utilize cognitive tools which they can't recall lacking—it's so
obvious, how could anyone miss it without being a moron? (Which is not to say that children aren't just outright missing certain cognitive faculties thanks to lack of brain development. But a lot of it is broad inexperience.) If your default assumption were that Ashtaroth had the social perceptiveness of a typical eight-year-old, you wouldn't find her mistakes strange at all—but she's not acting like an eight-year-old in other ways, so people don't make that assumption.)
Fourth, because the proximate cause for a significant plot development was a character doing something dumb. So it seems like it's forced, to push the plot in the desired direction. Even if a fight was perhaps inevitable, it being caused by an easily avoidable mistake is reminiscent of poorly-written plots where conflict is generated by characters being unaccountably stupid—exactly what the Idiot Ball trope is about.
*Ten commas, three em-dashes, and two parentheticals—far from the most complex sentence I've ever written, but I figure I'll call it out before someone else does.
"Inept" probably isn't the right word, but I won't say you're exactly wrong. Ashtaroth's barrier and design are pretty big hints towards the kind of person she was, after all.
Artistic and creative at heart (Canvas) but also outdoorsy (the grass), prone to wandering and dreamed of travel (the winding roads that lead to starscapes)?
Alternatively, Canvas could be her feeling empty inside—she can play pretend, make it look like there's something to her, but there's no substance to any of it. More likely, it's less that she was artistic and more that she was prone to fantasy, to filling her head with illusions to play with. The grass could just as easily indicate difficulty navigating the world outside her own head—it's
tall grass, easy to get lost in. I'm not sure on travel, specifically, though a desire to explore and see new things seems likely—see her thoughts on wanting to explore witch barriers. Starscapes could easily be a dream of space, or space as representative of distant and mysterious places to explore, or a vast emptiness which she would lose herself in if she ever followed a road to its conclusion, or it could just as easily be
success at the end of a windy road represented as reaching the stars. Or a dozen other things.
Her design can similarly be interpreted in a multitude of ways.
You can interpret the non-appearance of various things, such as people or people-substitutes, to indicate that they weren't important to her—but all you can really infer is that they probably weren't an overriding obsession.
These kinds of metaphors are really, really useless for actually conveying information, because there are too many possible interpretations. They're low on signal and high on noise.