Greetings, boils, ghouls, and enbewares! We bring you something truly terrifying... having to write an essay!
While SV has had a fair few essays posted, they're not what you normally think of when it comes to the site. For All Hallows' Eve though, things will be turned upside-down, as we host a Horror Essay Contest to give the more analytical side of the site a chance to rise from below.
All you have to do to enter is submit an essay in some way related to the topic of Horror. Horror is chosen partly as 'tis the season, but also to give essays a focus else our participants face the horror of having no idea where to begin!
Rules
Criteria
Submissions have to be in Essay format and have some connection to Horror as a topic. Minimum word limit is 700 and the maximum is 4,000. Participants are allowed one submission each. Submissions can be edited by their writers as many times as they want up until the deadline.
To enter the contest, all you have to do is post your entry in this thread and our staff will helpfully threadmark the entry for you.
Prizes
All participants will receive a one-month silver subscription, the winner a three-month gold subscription.
Judging
Our judging panel is the Content Promotion Staff.
Dates
Submissions will last from Midnight (UTC) on the 22nd of October to Midnight (UTC) on October the 31st (Halloween). We will announce the winners on November 1st (the Day of the Dead).
FAQ
What do the judges want to see in an essay?
Having an interesting point to make, being clear about that point, a natural flow from paragraph to paragraph, and evidence and elaborating on said evidence.
What about citations?
Citations aren't compulsory but are encouraged and recommended. MLA style is preferred, and we'd advise about 3 to 5 secondary sources.
Does my entry have to be written for the contest?
As long as it's not an outright copypaste of something you've already posted, it should be allowed.
Is AI allowed?
AI is not.
Is NSFW allowed?
Entries covering NSFW topics are allowed, but must be clearly labelled, spoilered, and in accordance with Site Rules.
Been waiting a while for an excuse to write this...
How Castlevania (1986) uses its Gameplay to achieve Effective Gothic Horror
Developed by Konami and released on the Nintendo Famicom in Japan on September 26th, 1986, and later on the Nintendo Entertainment System in the United States in March of 1987 and in PAL regions in February 1988[1], Akumajō Dracula (Demon Castle Dracula), known in the west as Castlevania is a horror-themed side-scrolling action-platformer starring the vampire hunter Simon Belmont in 1591 as he braves the demon castle Castlevania to slay the monsters that inhabit it, including its vampiric dark lord Count Dracula. The game was a financial[2] and critical[3] success both in Japan and abroad, selling over 15.6 Million copies (counting the Gameboy Advance rerelease and not counting any digital rereleases through online stores) in its lifetime and spawning many sequels, prequels and spin-offs set in the same universe to tell a grand narrative of the vampire-hunting Belmont clan and their centuries-long feud with Dracula from 1094 AD all the way to 2037 AD[4], and even a widely-acclaimed animated series produced by Netflix.
The game draws on many elements of horror; specifically Gothic Horror from the 19th and 20th centuries, primarily from Bram Stoker's Dracula[5], with the titular character serving as the game's main antagonist and final boss. Despite this, the game's story, as with many other games of its time on account of hardware limitations inherent to the Famicom/NES, was simple and not particularly expounded upon, and while it would later be expanded upon thanks to later sequels and remakes of the story of the first game, is not particularly relevant to this discussion. That, and with Nintendo's strict censorship policies (particularly those of Nintendo of America) limited what Konami was able to show in terms of horror, nudity or even religious imagery[6], one of the only avenues they could effectively demonstrate said gothic influences were through the gameplay.
However, a baseline definition of what "Gothic Horror" is required before any further elaboration on the game can continue. The New York Public Library defines works set within the genre as: "The battle between humanity and unnatural forces of evil (sometimes man-made, sometimes supernatural) within an oppressive, inescapable, and bleak landscape"[7], with ThoughtCo. describing it as "writing that employs dark and picturesque scenery, startling and melodramatic narrative devices, and an overall atmosphere of exoticism, mystery, fear, and dread"[8]. With these two definitions, a useful description of the genre could be summarised as "Horror reliant on creating an atmosphere of fear born from dread, uncertainty and the supernatural", which shall be the assumed definition moving forward.
Castlevania as a game is difficult; deliberately so, even compared to most other games within the series. The game puts the player through their paces with intentionally-challenging controls, level design and enemy patterns, and is designed to be hard, yet never unfair. Every aspect of the game's difficulty can be circumvented with careful planning and a greater understanding of its mechanics and design, yet is still balanced around punishing the player for their mistakes. Ideally, this environment instils a sense of dread in the player, keeping them on their toes for enemies, bottomless pits and other hazards throughout the levels while never outright frustrating them to the point of quitting.
To elaborate on one of the individual aspects, Simon Belmont controls slowly and methodically, especially compared to other platformer protagonists of the time, such as Mario, Samus or Megaman. He cannot move in the air while jumping unless he was already moving before the jump, as momentum does not exist in the game. Once he commits to a jump, Simon will continue going forward until he either lands on the floor, is hit by an enemy or their attack and gets knocked back, leading to a similar scenario or falls into a bottomless pit and dies instantly.
His main method of attack is with his whip, the Vampire Killer: a move with a slow start-up that only hits in a short, straight horizontal line in front of him. This is supplemented however with the various sub-weapons: power-ups he gains access to across the game, all of which consume hearts: a consumable resource obtained by beating enemies or destroying candelabras and chandeliers, to use, those being the Knife: a weak but quick projectile which is thrown in a straight line, the Axe: a slow but powerful projectile thrown upwards in an arcing motion, the Cross: a boomerang-like projectile that moves out in a straight line before returning back to Simon, the Holy Water: a slow bomb-like projectile that creates fire that lingers for a few seconds and damages enemies, and the Stop-Watch: which can stop time for a few seconds. The player only has access to one sub-weapon at a time.
All of these tools available to the player all have an inherent risk to using them, arguably more so than power-ups in Castlevania's contemporaries. These limitations are merely one of the ways that the game builds a sense of dread and uncertainty, as at any moment, the player could misread a safe decision and suffer the fallout for their actions.
Compounding this further is the treacherous level-design of the game. Split into six stages, Dracula's castle is filled with many traps, enemies and bottomless pits to catch Simon, and thus the player off-guard. The enemy placement is particularly devious, with them often being placed around said bottomless pits or in groups in order to ambush and/or dogpile the player and overwhelm them into making a fatal mistake, most evident with the game's infamous Medusa Head and Flee enemies, who are often placed in areas that are unhittable until timed correctly.
This design philosophy is taken to its logical extreme in the game's six boss battles, most obvious in the fifth and sixth bosses: Death and Dracula himself. In the former case, Death launches small scythes at the player while floating around the arena, potentially leaving Simon in a pincer attack in-between the scythes' and Death's own hitboxes. Dracula's fight meanwhile has him teleport across the arena without telegraphing where he'll next appear and blast three fireballs before teleporting away once again to repeat the process.
All this combined with the aforementioned limitations in Simon's moveset form the crux of the game's difficulty, and thus form the core of the game's effectiveness as a piece of gothic horror. Every encounter with enemies, in part due to their strategic placement in the levels, feels like it could be the end for that particular playthrough, bosses and especially the vampire lord himself are tense encounters where a single slip-up could mean your death, once again invoking dread and uncertainty in how one can win such a battle against supernatural forces of destruction.
And to accentuate it further, the game's aesthetics and music add to the sense of looming dread. Castlevania's colour-palette is darker than a lot of other games from around the time, with heavy use of black, darker tones and secondary colours. The music by Kinuo Yamashita likewise evokes a baroque, classical feel with many of its songs[9], many in the game taking notes from Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor: a theme often associated with vampires, gothic horror and especially the character of Dracula as to become a leitmotif for him specifically, though having a heavier bass as was common with video games at the time. These stylistic choices in the music drive home to the player the connections to Dracula: not only the most famous vampire in all of media but one of, if not the most famous gothic horror character ever written.
While not the greatest entry in the franchise, nor the best horror game ever made and not even the most explicitly referential to gothic horror, the original Castlevania game is arguably the most faithful to the genre that indirectly inspired it through a narrative telephone of ideas and different mediums, all through effectively using the advantages uniquely offered to it by the medium of video games: its gameplay. Through crafting hard and tense, but ultimately winnable encounters throughout its run, it solidifies itself as a true gothic horror classic.
Even without counting my intro, I broke the wordcount limit sorry.
THIS POST CONTAINS UNMARKED SPOILERS FOR THE COFFIN OF ANDY AND LEYLEY. FOR THE SAKE OF LEGIBILITY, THIS POST HAS NOT BEEN ENCLOSED IN A SPOILER BOX. IT IS ALSO EXCESSIVELY LONG. PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SKIP TO THE BOTTOM IF YOU WISH TO AVOID SPOILERS OR SAVE TIME.
An Extremely Normal Essay
So hello yes I am absolutely On My Bullshit regarding my new favourite game.
That's right, it's the cannibal incest game, The Coffin of Andy and Leyley. And I'm here to shove five thousand words of pretentious analysis down your throat because, and I do not exaggerate, I think it is one of, if not the best written game I have ever played. And I have played a lot of games, including Baldur's Gate 3, Final Fantasy XIV and Undertale, to name a few narrative luminaries to come to mind.
That wordcount is not an exaggeration. My brainworms are extremely powerful and now you can share them with me as I walk you through my insane skyscraper of inference-driven analysis.
Or you can go back up and click away to skip to the end of the post. I really wouldn't blame you, it's quite a lot.
Content Warnings: …Yes?
(To drop the bit for a moment, The Coffin of Andy and Leyley covers extremely disturbing material and challenges you to examine aspects of living in this world that many have taken for granted all their life, it is not a comfortable game, this will cover similar topics and will often echo the game's unremitting scepticism on basic principles of society and humanity and you should look after yourself first. My Content Warning is framed as a joke, but it's also quite real in that the game is designed to make you uncomfortable and there's no shame in that not being for you.)
With that said, let's dig in.
She's excited, are you?
It's All About Ashley
It really is, isn't it? I mean, for approximately eighty percent of the total game as currently released and the entirety of Episode 1, you're in control of Ashley, just as she's in control of her and Andrew's relationship for 80% of the game, up until the various ending sequences where it begins to slip. The only other characters who really matter at all in and of themselves are Andrew and her mother — and the former is under her thumb, and she eats the latter. It's all about Ashley. Even her obsession with Andrew is, ultimately, about Ashley.
But who is Ashley? What is Ashley? Why is Ashley, even? Let's take a look.
Ashley as presented to us in Episode 1 is very straightforward, so let's list off the traits we're given — she is malicious, she is fearless, she lacks empathy, she doesn't have anything resembling a conscience, she demands Andrew belong to her and her alone, she has him at her beck and call.
In Episode 2, we're ostensibly shown how she has him at her beck and call— she leverages the threat of reporting Nina's death over him and had him swear to be with her forever. We're shown that even as a child she was "just, like that" — but as a child, she hadn't learnt to live with it yet, to laugh at the farce of it all.
Yeah, exactly like that!
And she does this throughout Episode 1 — The Coffin of Andy and Leyley is a remarkably silly game much of the time, finding moments of absurdity and levity against a backdrop blacker than pitch — and most of the time, your internal narration is coming from Ashley and the jokes will not-infrequently come at her own expense.
She will later get negged by her human sacrifice for her poor ritual circle drawing
Her reaction to being told that her soul is as dark and viscous as tar is "You guess you already knew that" — it's confirmation to her, not new information. Ashley knows who she is. But who taught her this? There's layers to this, nothing in this game is as simple and straightforward as it appears at first sight, which is why I've been obsessing over it for days.
While it's common in fiction, the truth of the matter is, most 'bad people' really do think they're good people. But Ashley has never once thought of herself as a good person — or perhaps better put as a person worthy of love — as we learn across Episodes 1 & 2, with our flashbacks to Andy and Leyley and the VERY VERY QUIET!!!
I really wish I had space in this essay to talk about this, but I'd like to touch on these being traits usually more easily forgiven in young boys than young girls at some point.
If she removes all other options, only then can she expect him to like her.
This is something that is echoed in the modern day — her seeming self-assurance is easily shaken and she reaches out to the world — usually Andrew — to affirm and validate her, soothing her insecurities, using any tool she deems necessary. Even when her life is on the line when Andrew has her by the throat at the climax of Episode 1, the only 'compelling reason' she can give Andrew to not kill her is her ability to soothe his nightmares. When he tells her there are sleeping pills for that…
Most people would have a bit more to argue for their existence.
While she, unlike Andrew, acknowledges having had friends before the quarantine… you know she's got a point that they didn't even bother to answer her calls, that was clearly not something the state was interfering with given Andrew's calls with his mother and his girlfriend, and given her general demeanour it's not hard to imagine that… they weren't ever very close. When we see her and Nina talk in the infamous 'box scene', it's clear that Nina doesn't like her very much, despite Andrew's assessment of Nina as being one of Ashley's friends.
We see further support for her general lack of companionship in her dream sequence in the Burial route — Leyley and Leyley Alone. No matter what you do, you can't place the pink plushy at the family table, the flowers won't bloom if you give the Julia and Nina plushies her own as a companion instead of Andrew's — and if you're bold enough to go for the 'incest route', in the 'Love' room you see that no one ever looks happy to be with her in the childlike depictions of her history, nor is she happy in turn, save for when she's with Andrew. In a bit of heavy-handed metaphor, the player then overwrites all of these tense, upset, hard moments with Andrew, having him fill in for everyone else in life — and happy with her.
Once Upon A Lousy Life…
THE END
And that's why she needs him to affirm her, because no one else ever has and no one else ever will. It's even included in their comic beats — when the siblings are getting along well, they'll often play a game where Andrew dramatically overpraises Ashley while she demands more; it's a comedic bit but I mean — it really does matter to her!
For the record, she opened a door. She gets a little heart in a speech bubble after this exchange.
We have a great example of this dynamic, that of insecurity and affirmation, in Episode 1, after Andrew has killed for her, butchered for her, his girlfriend broke up with her, he's seemingly thrown his entire life away for her… she's still insecure over her relationship with him, she's uncertain of her control and she needs him to reaffirm it for her.
This is her victory, surely?
Andrew affirms her once, with his usual dead-eyed look.
But she's still not so sure. He actively reaches out to affirm her again with cheer. Look how happy she is!
While it's most obvious and clear cut here, it's hardly the only case. Let's look back to the aftermath of Andy and Leyley and the VERY VERY QUIET!!! (I'm not using the other name). Leyley is, after similarly extreme acts — he murdered a girl and hid her body for her — convinced Andy doesn't like her and she needs this leverage to keep him around, to meet her basic needs for survival. Because that's what this is — she receives no care of affection elsewhere, so she forces it out of the only source she sees available through the means she sees as necessary.
I really hope we see some of their earlier childhood in Episode 3
What exactly made her like this? Was it just neglect, or something more specific…
She needs this to be the case because otherwise she doesn't believe he'd stay.
This pattern repeats throughout — Ashley's insecurities are hit on and she reaches out to Andy to affirm that she is not alone, and she will use any and every tool to exploit her ostensible control over him and force him to be what she needs him to be — and as long as she has that, as long as she is everything to him and it's not possible for him to leave, she's happy. As long as she thinks he loves her in her very particular, very peculiar view of love, she's content, come what may. As long as Andy and Leyley are together, they can take on the world.
Let's talk about that view of love, because there's always more layers to unpack here I'm only scratching the surface with this essay — Ashley consistently refers to anyone else Andrew may have befriended or spent time with as a whore, a slut, a bitch — highly gendered insults that bring to mind the idea that he's cheating in some way. But it's not even about sex — when Andrew mentions that their parents had friends, she accuses them of cheating on each other in the same way!
There's a lot to unpack about Ashley's view of femininity and the role the patriarchy plays in their relationship.
Any kind of emotional engagement, any kind of commitment, any kind of life outside of your significant other is, to Ashley, cheating. Because that's what she needs from Andrew, a seeming complete and total commitment, secure in her place as the only thing in his life, because she cannot understand anyone picking her if they have a choice.
This insecurity she has in her relationship is what drives her to empower the trinket — he can't leave her as long as she can protect him with prophetic dreams, after all. She needs every kind of leverage she can get because until she succeeds in being everything to him, in devouring him so completely she has him in her thrall mind, body and soul she can't be sure of herself — hell, her dream sequence in Burial has you placing Andrew's signature green plushy, 'the best thing in the world' in a cage far away from anything else.
Ultimately, it really is all about Ashley — even her seeming obsession with Andrew ultimately comes back to her own insecurities. If she is everything to 'the best thing in the world', some of that 'best' must surely reflect on her!
But that's enough about the more normal, straightforward and understandable sibling.
That was not a joke.
Andrew's Rank 100 Deception
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he did not exist.
Let me explain.
You might have noticed that in the previous section I often use language such as 'ostensibly' or 'seemingly' to describe Andy and Leyley's relationship, and there's a good reason for that. From the beginning of the game through to its end, Andrew is lying to you, the player, without ever falsely representing or misinforming you about events that occurred.
The common, or obvious 'initial take' on Andrew as presented in Episode 1 is fairly straightforward. The game primes you to think this way, it frames things and strings reveals just right so as to make it very easy to overlook the incongruities it introduces in Episode 2. He's a victim. Plain and simple, Ashley is his abuser and he is her victim and would be fine, a normal albeit kinda depressed guy without her.
It really is not a difficult conclusion to draw
You can go all the way through the game, have him try to accept his mother's olive branch and enter the Decay route as a method for him to finally actualise his desire to get out from Ashley's thumb and it makes sense, it's a reasonable way for the story to go, given his character.
You see him this way because the game primes you in Episode 1 to view their relationship like Andrew does — he's lying. He's lying to himself, he's lying to Ashley and he's so good at it — Deception Rank 100 — he even lies to you. Without misrepresenting a single event or otherwise misleading you directly, the game gets you to buy into his preferred self-perception. Nina? Ashley. Julia? Ashley. The murders they commit in the course of the game? Ashley, Ashley, Ashley, it's not his fault he's not to blame he's just a doormat at the beck and call of his demonic sister.
But he wants to be there. From the very outset, the very first puzzle, that's made clear. Does anyone else remember this exchange, from right at the beginning of the game?
Ashley wants to investigate the music!
Andrew disapproves…
…Or does he?!
Like. Listen. Okay. You do not frown when saying 'Nope' and then smile when saying that you'll instead tag along if they do it if your heart is at all in the no. That's not an objection, that's using Ashley as his excuse. Especially if you immediately throw her the balcony key that she could not possibly have gotten from you by force (more on Andrew's ability to use force later).
This is the very first time you control both characters together with Andrew following Ashley instead of off on his own, the first adventure, the first puzzle!
But put a pin in that for now, let's talk about his initial framing in Episode 2 first. Episode 1 has set us up to, generally speaking, believe the superficial framing of the siblings as portrayed in its promotional art:
The question that we then ask, right at the heart of it is… why is he a doormat? We explore this in his dream sequence in Episode 2, which does make it clear that the boy's not okay but— it's real easy, given the priming from Episode 1 to make you think that he's the one with the originally functional moral compass, to think that that him being fucked up is damage done to him by Nina's death and being bound to Ashley for his entire life. She corrupted him.
But, well, is that the case?
You're primed to ignore this as manipulation (which it is), but the best manipulation uses the truth.
Precisely two things spur Andrew to action in the entire game, consistently — they are the fear of consequences and Ashley. And the first incident of that fear, the very first time we're shown his seeming moral compass as a kid — the first time it's really hammered home that it's a fear of consequences rather than any true moral qualms is after Nina's death. And why does he fear consequences here?
……
The 'natural' read that many take away from this sequence, particularly those who have only played Decay, is that Ashley browbeat him into doing this against his will, using emotional blackmail to overwhelm his objections, and then used the event itself to bind him to her forever as her personal doormat.
In a strict sense, this is true. But this doesn't match up with the details, something the game uses shock to encourage you to overlook. That outburst is before any kind of threat has been made, and absolutely nothing either of them say anything about it being morally bad until Ashley weaponises 'you're a bad person' against Andrew — morality didn't seem to enter his mind or the equation at all until Ashley brought it up. More than that, his greatest fear and driving motivation even prior to that is, as shown above, being taken away from Ashley.
She, of course, recognises this and uses it against him. But she never needed to, it didn't change anything about Andrew's attachment to her, it was there to address her own insecurities.
Just like to touch on how a lot of his affirmations are preceded by him confirming her insecurities.
I adore this phrasing
There's a second prong to this as well, to the question of 'who really calls the shots here' because — Andrew can, at any stage, apply an 'ultimate veto' of physical violence. The game is very clear to the player that that is on the table — even when they were children, when Andy swears their blood oath, he briefly considers killing her — and take note of how he ultimately got a 'winning' condition out of her by not specifying there wouldn't be others and she is forced to accept that, there. Even outside of their most serious confrontations, Ashley is portrayed as having to convince, manipulate or otherwise coerce Andrew into going along with her schemes — she really can't make him do anything, she doesn't have the supremacy in violence and, to a lesser extent, capability that would allow her to.
Andrew, you are like ten years old.
The truth of the matter is, Ashley can only make Andrew do anything because he lets her. I don't mean in the sense that I'm saying abuse victims let their abusers emotionally abuse them, I mean in the sense that he is clearly considering his options on the table and choosing to discard those that could stop her, or bring an end to any of this. He needs her.
But it's true that he hates her, too. He has to hate her, because if he doesn't hate her, if he isn't forced to have done this, that means… he's responsible. And nothing, at the start of the story, is as important to Andrew as avoiding the consequences of his own actions, not even Ashley. By the midpoint, he loves her, he hates her, he can't live without her, he wants to kill her — by the end… well, that depends if you're on Decay or Burial, but more on that in a bit.
A great scene to study for this dynamic is the climax of Episode 1, when Andrew grabs Ashley by the throat and considers strangling her to death. She's pushed him too far with hurtful words and assault, and he's seemingly had enough.
It's still framed as a question of risk, of consequences happening to him.
Like, this is not the usual behaviour of someone who's been pushed past their breaking point.
He tells Ashley that he wants to kill her, because she's just going to throw another fit and that's a risk to him. She is… not framed as being able to fight back (she does have a gun here, and more on that later). He's so calculated in how he approaches his use of violence here, which isn't at all what you'd expect of someone about to commit a crime of passion… but it's very easy to overlook because of the abuser/victim narrative that the player fits his behaviour into the narrative that the game primes them to accept, brushing incongruities under the carpet.
At the start of Episode 2, we get to control Andrew for the first time, and the first obvious holes in his cover start to show. Some of this is optional — you only learn that he's been faking having nightmares in order to share a bed with Ashley if you choose to go back into the motel room and check the bed, for example — but not all of it.
This sequence is the first time we get to see Andrew's internal monologue and boy is it fascinating.
She's his Ashley, but he refuses to be her Andy — we see this most clearly in the blood oath scene, where he manages to 'have it both ways' — he'll be her best friend forever, but there'll be others and — I think it is generous in the most to suggest that he isn't aware of her obsession with him, given his uncanny accuracy in hitting her insecurities when he's annoyed with her.
He just doesn't care — he barely cares about anything. We see him break up with his girlfriend and his chief concern is, as usual… dodging blame. It's Ashley's fault, why is he the one being held responsible — he's not actually upset he's just annoyed he's being blamed at something that's Ashley's fault. You know, just like everything else. I could have written this essay entirely about that confrontation, so forgive me for referring back to the Episode 1 climax — what makes him 'snap' is Ashley telling him that it's his fault not hers.
Andrew having a very normal reaction to being told his sister has been conducting a harassment campaign on his girlfriend and she's breaking up with him. Incidentally, did you ever notice that there's no way he could have heard those voicemails you see in Episode 2?
And that's the one thing he needs her for, the one thing he tells himself — it's all her fault. His biggest fault is that he's an extraordinary doormat.
But he doesn't have to stay that way. There are two major branching routes to The Coffin of Andy and Leyley — Burial and Decay. Which you enter hinges on whether Andrew chooses to Accept or Decline his mother's olive branch — you may also enter Decay by choosing not to trust Andrew alone with their parents. While not the topic of this essay, it is notable that Decay may be entered into by a choice by either sibling, but you require both to make a choice committing, in some way, to the other to enter Burial.
In Burial, Andrew accepts that actually, he wants to be here. He uses his cleaver to threaten his mother about talking that way about Ashley, he jokes around with the corpses of their parents with Ashley, he is much more upbeat and — for lack of a better word, free. He repeatedly affirms his commitment to her, and ceases to attempt to pass any kind of moral judgment on her.
In Decay, he tells his mother he wants to accept, but he can't — he's stuck. He really wants to be normal, he wants to fit himself into the same slot in society that she's crowbarred herself into but — he can't. Ashley's made it impossible, and he's come too far. It's all her fault.
In Decay, Andrew hates Ashley. He is bitter, angry and suicidal in the aftermath of their parents' murder and refuses to play around with her or even share a bed with her any more. He wants her dead and Ashley receives a vision of him killing her — something she can only avert with her gun, which is the topic of a hypothetical different essay.
Remember that chatter about double suicide back in Episode 1…?
Here's the thing, here's the thing. I said it was all about Ashley earlier and it is — we talked about how even Ashley's obsession with Andrew ultimately was driven by her own self-perception and insecurities, which caused it to develop into the all-consuming codependency it is at the start of the game. In short, even Ashley's obsession with Andrew is about Ashley.
And it's the same for Andrew's obsession with Ashley — at least, to begin with. He needs her to blame, he needs her to spur him to action, he needs her to validate his worldview and he needs her to belong to him. But, but, but-
In Episode 2, Andrew chooses whether to believe his own lies or not. In Decay, he commits himself to acting how he 'should' in his role, his love for Ashley becomes hate and he genuinely, truly, wants them both dead — Ashley is freaked out by the change in him, and when she asks him what he wants, he tells her he wants to lock her in the boot of his car and drive into the ocean.
On the other hand, in Burial he acknowledges that actually — he's exactly where he wants to be. He doesn't need her to validate him, he just wants her, he wants to make her happy and he wants to be with her — in the Love branch of Burial, this can obviously manifest in the infamous 'incest route'.
But the one thing that stays the same across both is that even if he hates her, he can't live without her, he needs her in a way that arguably, if she ever like, addressed her insecurities… she wouldn't need him.
He wants to possess her, to have her belong to him completely, he needs her like he needs air which is similar yet contrasting with Ashley's desire to occupy every possible facet of his life as exclusively hers to validate herself. He wants to own her completely, she wants to be everything to him. They're not quite the same. And like, that's a strong statement, but, keep in mind-
Andrew wants to fuck his sister.
Even if you don't go Burial, even if you don't take the 'I know what I'm about' option… this doesn't change. We'll assume that this is not Fire Emblem: Three Houses and that player choices do not retroactively alter character beats or retcon anything — at most, events may be recontextualised.
And uh, listen. I'm just going to let these screens speak for themselves for a bit.
Immediately following the above, he's shoving it all to the back of his mind where it may fester with all the other thoughts he wished he'd never had. That's more or less a quote.
Why is your hand there, Andrew?
Why are you asking your girlfriend to wear your sister's hairstyle?
Which is, apparently, a common event.
Hm. Hm.
This is part of a dream.
I'll be honest there is a lot and like, I encourage and invite you to go back over the game yourself if you find yourself disagreeing. I think the big clincher is that, given our premise that characterisation isn't retroactively altered is… I'll be honest Andrew, this is not what someone who is shocked and disgusted by the thought of sleeping with their sister looks like.
Mmhmm, so mortified.
Moreover for once — he needs Ashley to actually veto him. Usually, she needs to coerce him into things, she needs to get him to give her the okay, through whatever means she has available. In this? It's the opposite — he's begging her to say never because he knows that if she doesn't he won't be able to stop this future from coming true himself.
If you don't believe me, I invite you to play the game for yourself — you can see so much more on a second playthrough than you did the first, and I think the game is actually quite heavy-handed with this, once you're actually looking for this.
Given that, and given his pretty extreme reactions to Ashley's very transactional attitude to sex — another thing I could talk about but I would prefer this stay below 40 pages — it feels that he needs Ashley to be his but he doesn't want to be exclusively hers. At least, not in Decay, and perhaps not in Burial, either.
This is from Decay, and from a certain perspective, she's not wrong.
If this rambling has sparked any neurons, I hope it's this one:
Who's really in control here? Who has agency, and when? I hope to hear your thoughts before the next time I get around to this. Until then…
Fin.
Closing Thoughts
I need to wrap this up because we are already over thirty pages long, but…
Wow, what a game, these two really are just, the Worst People Alive making each other worse as they circle the drain and Andrew is just, possibly one of the most fascinating characters I've ever seen, he's so awful and there's so many layers that I just, struggled to articulate or fit into this five thousand word long essay it could have been four times this long if I'd had the energy. Don't get me wrong, Ashley is my favourite but as a good friend put it, I want to dissect Andrew in a lab.
I have so many thoughts on this game, it has activated my neurons like no game has before. I could talk about agency, culpability, gender roles, the impact that the game's near-absolute moral scepticism has upon the player when you attempt to morally interrogate it and even more stuff, honestly. We'll see how much feedback and how many responses I get because, ultimately, I write these to be seen. If I wanted to just develop my brainworms in peace, I'd stick to Discord.
One thing that I really did need to touch on but this was just getting way too long so I'l leave it here — isn't it interesting that the most cheerful ending, the most upbeat one is the most monstrous by our own standards? The siblings revel and find an enormous amount of humour in the murder and cannibalism of their parents, while we're shown that the path that they're on will lead to them ending up in bed together.
Meanwhile, Decay, where Andrew hates his sister and himself and wants them both dead as, honestly, most people would consider the 'moral' thing to do in his situation is… miserable. It's bleak, it's deeply uncomfortable and emotionally ravaging.
But- here's that last thing. When the game tells you the siblings are bad it's always in the context of society, or the world being better off without them. What do the siblings owe that society? They were raised without care or affection — the parents are another thing I wish I'd been able to cover here — and given the bare minimum to survive. If they'd acted as society wished and expected them to do in Episode 1, they'd have been left to die and used as literal meat in the organ trade.
The comparison to farm animals raised for slaughter seems obvious. (You heard it here first, the message of The Coffin of Andy and Leyley is to eat vegetarian!)
And honestly, they've charmed me. If being fucked up little monsters is what makes them happy then, well.
Love that for them, really.
THIS SPACE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK TO AVOID SPOILERS
Last edited:
The cruel Abrahamic god has manipulated Adam and Eve in order for them to be thrown out of his Garden of Eden. (Bra300)
Some piece of religious horror. The cruel Abrahamic god has manipulated Adam and Eve in order for them to be thrown out of his Garden of Eden.
Genesis. The first book of the Bible tells the story of the world's and mankind's creation by god in its first chapters. The omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being known as Elohim creates a being called Adam in his image from the dust of the ground.
He is a representation of his creator within his creation minus the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.
God then commands the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
The serpent was the craftiest of the wild animals Elohim had made.
It deceived Eve by telling her: "You will not certainly die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Ironically, they are already like god being created in his image.
The words of the Snake proved to be true Adam and Eve survived for the moment, opened their eyes, and acquired a sense of shame which in itself led to them developing a moral compass or in other words the knowledge of good and evil. Now both feel ashamed for being not just naked but also having defiled God's rule.
In eating the apple, they gained the ability to recognize the evil in their own act of betrayal. The couple just turned from innocent children into adult moral agents.
This begs punishment mainly by expulsion from god's paradise and both of them now die and turn into the dust they were created from albeit not immediately.
But wait a minute god is omniscient. So, he knows the future. Meaning that he should be aware that Adam would disobey his command and that he and his wife are not able to see the evil in their own action. He knew it would happen but still promised and dished out punishment.
God is omnipotent despite resting after finishing his work on the seventh day.
God is omnipresent, he created the fruit and all participants including the snake and he was present in all of them during the unfaithful meal.
He had the strength, opportunity, and knowledge to prevent it or at least not punish them for being predictably evil without understanding the concept of it. In a sense, he took advantage of his children's lack of morality and exploited it for his own plan via another creation of his.
The scary thing is that this cruel god is worshiped by over half of this planet's population.
It's Morbin' Time: The Horror of Morbius (Spoilers for Morbius (2022)!!!) (duh!)
I would have written about Andy and Leyley, but Lisa's brainworms are more deeply rooted than mine, so here's Morbius.
It's a Morbin' evening, and you're cuddled up with your limited edition Morbius bodypillow. The storm outside is crashing against your windows, but luckily for you, you've sun-(and therefore weather)proofed your home to the outside, with only the muffled pitter patter of the elements and your gamer computer keeping you company. The RGB keyboard flashes many colors as you get another ace on the hit video game by indie studio Riot Games: League of Legends.
While the tide of combat shifts and flows, victory ebbs away from you and you are hit by a message from the enemy team: "get morbed lmfao".
"What the deuce?" You exclaim. You exchange a series of energetic back and forths with the offending player in the post-game lobby. This eventually culminates in you being chat-locked and subsequently temporarily banned from playing the game altogether for "an indefinite period".
So you find the source of this frustration, hoping to rid yourself of it. No, not through self-improvement, nor analyzing your mistakes. You will find this "morber" and morb him. He's done for, kiddo. Wiki articles. News tabloids. Forum posts. No place is too big or small for you to scour.
You are the "You", and I am the "morber". The one who taunts. The one who writes. The one who guides you, perhaps.
It's Morbin' Time.
We will look at what makes Morbius a true Horror classic (with a capital H!), and use the principles of Timing, Geography, and Popular Support, to analyze why it is indeed, one of the movies of all time.
Timing
"You only Morb once" - Booker DeWitt, BioMorb Morbfinite
Morbius (2022). The "failure" of a movie... or so morbophobes claim. What film can boast a 2-time theatrical release, with a box office performance beating cinematic heavy hitters such as RRR, Everything Everywhere All At Once, and Jackass Forever?
We must first look at when Morbius was released.
April 1, 2022.
In the wake of a global pandemic and the destabilization of the economy worldwide, Morbius was initially planned to release in 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic delayed that until 2022. The release brought forth glory upon cinemaniacs around the world despite these numerous delays. From the theaters to blu-rays, moviegoers could enjoy the deep, resonant acting of Jared Leto and the mesmerizing dance moves of Matt Smith in the same film. This brought hope to a declining society, a glimmer of what could be. It brought "Morbin' Time" to the forefront of the online discourse, and that idea spread like wildfire. Even now, you cannot dismiss the fact that you have heard of "it's Morbin' Time!" sometime before, whether your reaction is elation or vitriol.
The timing of the film's release is also quite interesting, as April 1, or April Fools' Day, marks the time of joviality and silly pranks. However, for our good Doctor, it was a day like any other. The skies darkening heralded his arrival, and he brought forth his iconic line, "It's Morbin' Time!" to audiences across the globe. While many might dispute the uttering of that phrase, the truth is that certain versions of the film were randomized, allowing for alternative viewing sensations, and thus unique experiences for each viewer. This is the real reason why Morbius is one of the movies of all time. Not just disputed hotly, but impactful on the lives of many.
Was the real joke Morbius? Or was it the reactions? Whatever the case, the clowns are morbophobes who mock the film without even having seen it. To briefly describe morbophobia and morbophobes, imagine your favorite story, but someone hates it, and would say and do anything to tear it down, even pretend to like it. That is morbophobia. We'll touch on this more later. This same tide of memes, including "one of the movies of all time" and #MorbiusSweep, also allowed morbophobia to hitch a ride, to the dismay of Morbius fans. Morbophobes are the real joke, if anything. They accomplish little, while expending much of their time and effort.
That brings us to the second release, on June 2, 2022. Now, this re-release was admittedly failed by the management of Sony itself. Without a valid and operational Memeology department analyzing the intent and ulterior motives behind the unified morbophobe front hijacking the Morbius fandom, the studio was never going to figure out that the economy was not ready for another release of the movie. Yes, the morbophobes had infiltrated the Morbius fandom (also collectively named Morbheads) to misdirect the faithful and spread misinformation under the guise of aiding the movement. Aching wallets do no good for theatergoers, and most Morbius fans were busy setting up their Morbius shrines and creating the next MCU (Morbius Cinematic Universe) to shill money to the corporate giants that are Sony. However, Morbius spread online quite easily. Very easily, in fact. Turns out that the digital medium is very valuable for this, and people were able to enjoy the film in the comfort of their own homes without the need for a CD player!
This was never considered for box office revenue, so the true power and size of the Morbius fan base cannot be measured by box office success alone. In fact, the sheer amount of exposure that "It's Morbin' Time" has had on the internet should say enough that the timing (April 1, post-pandemic) both aided and subdued the movie's success. The pandemic both allowed Morbius and its ideals to flourish in the digital realm, while also nearly collapsing the entire in-person moviegoing industry. Safe to say, Morbius did very well for its circumstances and poor management.
However, we cannot determine the success of a film purely off its box office sales in a certain timeframe, so let's look at...
Geography
"What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?"
"No, Morbius. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to."
-Morphius to Morpheus, The Morbtrix
More specifically, the area it thrives: the Internet.
With the public perception of Morbius being conceived in 2020 with its first trailer, it immediately sparked a worldwide movement. It may have been small, but the idea of Morbius was implanted into many minds. Was the movie related to Spiderman? Could Venom show up? Was it Morbin' Time? All questions that had yet to be answered. Dr. Michael Morbius humming to Für Elise in the trailer was the cherry on top, sealing the popular consensus that this was a film for the sophisticated and educated mind. Who else but Beethoven would be enough to provide music for this masterpiece?
Then the release. A whirlwind of emotions and reviews poured in from both supporters and detractors alike. Due to the timing mentioned in the previous section, alongside the spread of the "morbin' time" meme online, the light of Morbius reached many. Discord servers were set up. Short fiction was written. Chants were heard from all corners of the interwebs. Not a single person who was connected to the web hadn't heard of Morbius or "It's Morbin' Time". The very nature of media and the internet allowed this rapid transmission of the movie's charm.
We can see that the layout of the media allowed the movie to become popular despite the poor management and detractors working against it from within and out. But what of the people involved?
Popular Support
"M, I've declared war not 'cause capitalism's a thorn in my side or outta nostalgia for an America gone by. This war's a people's war against a system that's spiralled outta our control, it's a war against the fuckin' forces of entropy. understand?! Do whatever it takes to stop 'em, defeat 'em, gut 'em, If I gotta morb, I'll morb. If I need your body, I'll fuckin morb it!" -Morbby Silverhand, Cybermorb 2069
We can see the famous line, "It's Morbin' Time!" being repeated in the movie, yet many detractors/morbophobes dispute the existence of the line, despite numerous sources showing that some individuals have seen said line being uttered. This is due to the subjective nature of the film, as described earlier. Only those who truly believe in the Morb had the vision of Morbin' Time revealed to them. These, the Morbheads, look to bring the truth of Morbius to the masses. They are the vanguard, creating videos, writing stories, conjuring new memes for the Morbius fandom. Through their support, Morbius thrives.
Then, there's the Morbophobes. The detractors from the glory of Morbius. They deny the truth of Morbin' Time. They use the methods of Morbheads to infiltrate and work against the Morbius cause. They irrationally oppose Morbius and Morbheads, spreading hate and misinformation about the movie and its fandom.
"Morbius didn't actually make a morbillion dollars, in fact, morbillion isn't actually a real number." Simpletons who haven't heard of imaginary numbers, something that is actually very real and present in advanced mathematics.
"He never says 'It's Morbin' Time!' in the movie. It's all just edits and memes." Yes and every piece of media you read or watch can be a deepfake. How's them apples?
"Morbius was poorly acted and directed." Sure, sure. Let's watch Matt Smith dancing and play your reaction to it back, shall we?
"Morbius is bad. It's so bad I haven't even watched it." Okay buddy. So remind me who's the sheep here?
The point is, Morbius is a cultural phenomenon that caused a shift in society.
Not just a cultural shift, a cultural reset.
In fact, the support for Morbius is so big that its subreddit has over 21000 users, in the top 4% of all subreddits. Does that size amaze? Astound? Frighten? It is only a fraction of the real size of the entire Morbius fandom, which wisely decided to decentralize its reach. This is due to the consequences of the Morbophobic infiltration of the fandom just a few months into its conception, which led to the failed re-release of the film in unstable economic times. This was termed "The UnMorbening", and is a time of great tragedy that all Morbheads hold close to their mind, lest we forget.
We do not forget, and we do not forgive. We are... Venom!
Just kidding, it's Dr. Plaus Morbius, at your service.
First on our menu is the conclusion of the initial analysis of the context surrounding Morbius as a cinematographical entity. With that known, we can now reach into Morbius's content and see what truly brings this classic to become a legend.
Legacy
"Free will is a myth. Religion is a joke. We are all pawns, controlled by something greater. Memes. The DNA of the soul. They shape our will. They are the culture. They are everything we pass on. Expose someone to anger long enough, they will learn to hate. They become a carrier. Envy... greed... despair... All memes, passed along." -Morbsoon, Morbal Gear Rising: Revengeance
"What are the themes of Morbius, truly?" You may ask. Rather than ask such a vague question that can barely penetrate the vast and rich narrative of Morbius, we must ask a more specific question: "What makes Morbius horrifying?"
That gets us to a few choices: gaslighting, derealization, obsession, and depersonalization.
Let's start with gaslighting and derealization.
Morbius starts off as a child. He was one of the children. Then came along Milo.
And another one.
And another one.
Until we reach our current Milo... or is that his real name? In the initial interaction with "Milo", he is introduced by a doctor as "Lucien". Nevertheless, Michael Morbius calls him "Milo", to which his new friend reacts in confusion.
This was in the time of the flashback, 25 years before the events of the movie. Michael is living in a children's hospital in Greece, and a new boy joins him to live in the bed beside his, under the watch of doctors and nurses. They have not even met, yet Michael calls him a name he's never heard before! How erratic. Michael explains that the previous child who occupied the current Milo's spot was named Milo, as well as the one before that. Michael mentions this to show that he is using the detachment from the disappearance of his neighbor and potential friends to cope with the dangerous reality of their shared blood disease. The poor soul shows clear signs of derealization, being only able to interact with others in a predefined way with assigned roles and names. "I don't even remember the first Milo" is what Michael tells Milo, his casual tone reflecting his emotionless approach to hardships like losing a person who is (literally) close to him. Michael does have a drive to save people in need, however, as he quickly saves his new friend from a failing dialysis machine by using quick wits and whatever he had laying around, which is rewarded later on by the doctors. Notably, Michael calls out to his unconscious friend "Lucien!" which shows that the identity of Milo has not yet taken firm hold on the minds of both boys yet. But This rigid view of reality bleeds into Milo's own worldview, who we see in the current day is a financially well-off man with a personal physician and large investments into Michael's research endeavors.
Yet he still answers to Milo.
Milo
This brings up two interesting possibilities: that Milo just stuck with the name for his childhood, humoring Michael, but ending up growing attached to the name, and changed his legal name later in life in honor of their shared experiences... or Milo was gaslit into just accepting that Milo was his name now.
Let's take in the scene bit by bit. Michael and Lucien introduce themselves to each other, with Michael calling the other boy "Milo". Lucien then points out that the person occupying his bed before was Milo. Perhaps transferred, perhaps dead? We don't know. Michael however, provides critical information that the one before was the "new Milo", with at least another one before that, and that he doesn't "even remember the first Milo". This revelation brings an inquisitive look to Lucien's face, as he asks "how long have you been here?" To which Michael answers "as long as I can remember".
So it is heavily implied that each of the kids who were previously "Milo" succumbed to their illness, and were replaced by a new child who suffered the same illness, all for Michael to see. He watched as they passed him by, and considering his age, it could have been traumatizing initially, but he shows signs of using the nonchalant tone he uses as a way to cope with the reality of this blood disease being fatal, able to take a life at any moment. He also mentions to Lucien that "there is no cure" and that "there's something missing from our DNA", setting the seeds for his eventual lifelong obsession with finding a cure.
After an explanation on the nature of their disease, Michael tells Lucien that they are "like the original Spartans. We are the few against the many." Lucien promptly falls unconscious as his dialysis machine makes beeping noises and fails, causing Michael to call out worriedly "Milo? Milo?!" To which there is no response. When he calls for the nurse, there is no response. He is alone against the forces of nature, and nature is giving him the middle finger.
Michael saves Lucien, of course, and calls out to the unconscious boy by his given name "Lucien", which wakes him up. We get a cut to the doctor commending Michael in his office, so we cannot see the interaction between the boys immediately after the rescue, but it is clear there is much bonding that would happen, as the initially reclusive Michael gives Lucien a letter addressing him as "Milo" sometime after he leaves for a gifted children's school. In the letter, Michael claims to find a cure for the both of them, so that they can be "cranky old men together someday". Clearly, they had formed a great and genuine bond after the life-saving event. So much so that Milo-- that is his identity now, as far as the story is concerned-- goes to save his letter from bullies after it gets blown out of the window and onto the street. He fights the bullies, knocking one unconscious with his crutch while getting pummeled by the rest until he is eventually saved by the doctor.
All this is to say that through the talks, the situation they are in, and the saving of his life, Milo fully embraces his role as "Milo", a representation of those who Michael wants to save, but can't (later on, Michael has to kill Milo, so we can see that this wholesome bond is a tragedy waiting to happen) either due to his inability or (later) the other party's unwillingness to be "saved", whatever those words may mean. The main turning point for Milo's identity to switch is when he is waking up as "Milo", but is called "Lucien". This echoes the scene just a minute before when Lucien was called "Milo", when he became confused. The last words he heard when fading out of consciousness was "Milo", imprinting upon his mind this identity. It took root as he sat on the edge of life and death, with being brought back to life by Michael's actions being the trigger that caused him to accept this new reality. That the boy he just met had saved his life, and perhaps it wasn't so bad to be "Milo". So much so that he, even after so long, becomes Milo not just with Michael, but in everyday life as well.
The deconstruction of his past identity is just beginning. Now, let's look at the obsession and depersonalization.
Michael, as we see, becomes obsessed and consumed by his research into his blood disease. He begs Milo for funding on a wild project that may or may not work, he works late into the night, and from the looks of his lab and the fact that it needs to be hidden from the other rooms, we see that he is not above using questionable methods to get at his once-noble goal. He keeps a tank full of bats from his expedition to Costa Rica, not caring for their natural habitat and needs. He even throws away the Nobel Prize because he didn't get The Cure, "only" an artificial blood formula. The fake blood saves lives, but he becomes increasingly consumed by his desire to save not just himself, but Milo. That childhood promise from all those years ago cemented itself firmly in his mind.
His obsession, therefore, also shows in his approach to relationships. With Milo, as we mentioned, he formed a close bond since childhood, and supposedly came to be in closer correspondence in their adult lives due to Milo funding Michael's research. With Martine, Michael's love interest and research partner, he instead gives the barest amount of interest towards, only interacting in a formal manner in a research context save for the end where he finally lets his emotions out, too little too late. In his relation to Dr. Emil, briefly shown, is distant as the elder doctor is mainly aiding Milo.
Michael, needless to say, puts his work first and people second, which is very distant from his ideal of helping others. If even the artificial blood breakthrough and recognition wouldn't faze him, then it must mean that he isn't accepting himself. His own identity is breaking, from the child who lost many people around him, but still has a kind heart, to... Morbius.
Morbius
After he morbs out, Michael becomes Morbius. The doctor, hanging on the edge of bloodthirst and reason, like Milo in their childhood, needs someone, anyone to help him. But he is alone, with only Milo seemingly coming to the rescue... only to take the "cure" serum and become a vampire himself. The betrayal stings, bringing Morbius even closer to completely abandoning his humanity. The only things that really tethered him to humanity was Dr. Emil, who was killed by Milo, and Martine, who helps him with finding a cure for the new condition he has. This is soon taken away too, as Milo kidnaps and drains Martine a fatal amount of blood. On her last breath, she begs Morbius to take the last of her blood and defeat Milo before it is too late. Morbius does just that, potentially causing Martine to become a vampire herself, but that's for another time. Milo eventually is defeated and killed by Morbius, after a long and grueling fight and a tear-jerking exchange between the two. They were so gay for each other, but one just had to turn into a vampire supremacist. Sad.
What can we learn from this? The answer is that Morbius now has nothing. His close connections, dead and gone. Some by his own hand. His work, ruined but salvageable. He just needs to perfect the formula, right? His purpose... what is it now? He's a bat without a cave. We see in the end credits that he might team up with the Vulture to create change in the world, for better or for worse, we do not know for sure. This makes sense, as he has lost all reason to go on, and the only tie to his old way of thought was to make the world a better place. So when someone from another universe/timeline comes falling out of the sky with a proposal, it doesn't seem like a bad idea to hear that guy out, especially if he's wearing advanced extraterrestrial gear. He truly loses himself, and has to rebuild himself at the end of the movie.
Morbed
To conclude, we can see that Morbius goes through an identity crisis, from Michael to Doctor Michael Morbius to Morbius. Milo also goes from Lucien to Milo to Morbed Milo. These parallel each other, deconstructing each of their senses of self and putting morb-essence where their past used to be. To morb is to move forward, and morb they did. Michael gaslights Lucien into accepting Milo as his new identity, the same way that Milo forces Michael to realize that he is now Morbius, and has to kill his friend for the greater good.
And what of horror? The true horror of Morbius?
It is in the memes themselves. Even now, the memes, ideas, are in your mind. They're in your friends' minds. They're traveling to the minds of people across the world. These thoughts cannot be stopped, and they cannot be reasoned with.
The Metamorphosis: A Metaphor for Worker Exploitation and Expendability
Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis is well-known for its depiction of horrific transformation as its protagonist Gregor Samsa contends with his titular transformation into a dung beetle1, but the novella can also interpreted as a socialist metaphor exploring the more mundane horror of worker exploitation and expendability that capitalism entails. Through the course of the story and eyes of Gregor Samsa, we see how workers like him are exploited by both their employers and family while they are considered productive, only to be discarded as expendable by both when deemed unable to work due a change in circumstances. By examining Kafka's personal, his career as an author, and of course the text of The Metamorphosis, we can view the transformation of Gregor Samsa into a literal insect as a metaphor for the dehumanizing effects of capitalist society, where individuals are reduced to mere economic units.
To truly understand socialist message of The Metamorphosis on exploitation and expendability in a capitalist system, it is necessary to first understand to socialist influences in the life of the author himself. Franz Kafka was a Jewish writer born in Prague in 1883. The son of a Jew who had only a loose connection to Jewish customs and social norms, Kafka identified strongly with German language and culture. He was a quiet, guilt-ridden child who excelled in school, including at the Altstädter Staatsgymnasium, a demanding high school for academically gifted students. Despite being well-regarded by his teachers, he harbored a rebellious spirit against the authoritarian school system and its emphasis on memorization and classical languages. Notably during his adolescence, Kafka declared himself a socialist and an atheist, displaying opposition to the established society. Throughout his life, he had some sympathies for socialist ideals and attended meetings of Czech anarchists, though he remained politically passive. As a Jew in Prague, he was estranged from the German community and felt detached from his own Jewish heritage, although he did have some sympathy for Czech cultural and political aspirations.2
Throughout his career, Kafka's works offer glimpses into the struggles and injustices faced by the disenfranchised, making it plausible to interpret him as having socialist leanings. Aside from Metamorphosis, Kafka's portrayal of the relentless bureaucracy and absurdity of systems in works like The Trial and The Castle can also be interpreted as critiques of a system that often marginalizes the powerless.3
Franz Kafka's The Trial can be interpreted as a critique of the capitalist system through its portrayal of the dehumanization and alienation experienced by the protagonist, Josef K., within a nightmarish and incomprehensible bureaucratic legal system. The lack of individual agency, the influence of money and social class on one's fate, the materialistic preoccupations of the characters, and the arbitrary exercise of power all serve as metaphorical commentaries on the dehumanizing and unfair aspects of modern capitalist institutions, reflecting Kafka's exploration of the negative consequences of bureaucracy and impersonal systems on the human experience.
The Castle castigates the capitalist system through its portrayal of bureaucratic absurdity, alienation, and the elusive pursuit of recognition and status. While Kafka did not explicitly state his intention to critique capitalism, the novel resonates with such interpretations due to its depiction of a dehumanizing and irrational bureaucracy governing the lives of its characters. The protagonist, K., symbolizes the alienation and powerlessness individuals may experience in capitalist societies, and his quest for recognition within the castle reflects the often elusive and arbitrary nature of success and status. Furthermore, the novel hints at social hierarchies and class disparities within the castle, mirroring the inequalities and exploitation that can exist in capitalist systems. Kafka's exploration of these themes makes The Castle a work that can be seen through the lens of a critique of the capitalist system, despite its inherent ambiguity.
The themes of worker exploitation and expendability as well as being subject to the whims of the capitalist system that pervade these two works are even more present and pronounced in The Metamorphosis.
The Metamorphosis begins with Gregor Samsa, a traveling salesman, waking one day to discovered himself transformed into a giant insect. Gregor, rather than being exclusively shocked by his unexplained his transformation into "horrible vermin"4, seems be to primarily concerned with his work and his employer's opinion despite his extraordinary predicament. What is particularly remarkable about this Gregor's preoccupation with his employer's opinion and his continued employment is that he is extremely frustration with both said employer and employment, as expressed by the statement, "If I didn't have my parents to think about I'd have given in my notice a long time ago, I'd have gone up to the boss and told him just what I think, tell him everything I would, let him know just what I feel. He'd fall right off his desk!"5
Even after his transformation into a monstrous vermin, in an incredible bout of misguided work ethic, Gregor's main concern is getting to work on time and not disappointing his employer, as his subsequent thoughts evidence, specifically, "Well, there's still some hope; once I've got the money together to pay off my parents' debt to him - another five or six years I suppose - that's definitely what I'll do. That's when I'll make the big change. First of all though, I've got to get up, my train leaves at five."6
Gregor grows further distressed as he realizes that he is literally stuck in a bed on his back as giant beetle, but only so far it impedes his ability to catch his train on time to arrive at work and avoid his employer's ire.
"The next train went at seven; if he were to catch that he would have to rush like mad and the collection of samples was still not packed, and he did not at all feel particularly fresh and lively. And even if he did catch the train he would not avoid his boss's anger as the office assistant would have been there to see the five o'clock train go, he would have put in his report about Gregor's not being there a long time ago. The office assistant was the boss's man, spineless, and with no understanding."
Reading the above passage without the context of Gregor's transformation into oversized beetle, one woud be forgiven for thinking that Gregor was mundanely ill with a conventional sickness that was affecting his ability work, while remembering that many workers under capitalism find themselves in situations where they are forced to attend jobs even through suffering illness. Particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, many workers could sympathize on some level with Gregor frantically attempting to commute to work in spite of being currently unfit to do so due to possible negative consequences at workplaces. Similarly, Gregor is fearful of professional reprimand from his employer, who dreads visiting the household, not to check on his welfare, but verify his illness in a miserly manner.
"What about if he reported sick? But that would be extremely strained and suspicious as in fifteen years of service Gregor had never once yet been ill. His boss would certainly come round with the doctor from the medical insurance company, accuse his parents of having a lazy son, and accept the doctor's recommendation not to make any claim as the doctor believed that no-one was ever ill but that many were workshy."7
This passage illustrates how Gregor's employer sees him primarily as a means to an end, valuing his productivity over his well-being, and it emphasizes the harsh and unsympathetic nature of the employer-employee relationship in the story. Especially highlighted is the exploitative nature of Gregor's relationship with his employer and the lack of trust and empathy he receives despite years of dedicated service.
Gregor's predicament is compounded by the fact that his employer expects unwavering commitment and punctuality, even when it's physically impossible for Gregor in his transformed state. His thoughts about reporting sick reflect the immense pressure he feels to fulfill his duties, indicating that his employer values him primarily as a productive worker. The passage implies that Gregor's employer is more concerned about maintaining a productive workforce than showing compassion for the well-being of his employees.
The lopsided nature of the employer-employee relationship often present in the capitalist system also showcased by how Gregor has served his employer diligently for fifteen years without ever taking a sick day, yet this long history of faithful service does not earn him any trust or understanding from his employer. Perversely, his employer is portrayed as being distrustful, assuming that if Gregor reported sick, it would be a suspicious and strained occurrence. The employer would respond with skepticism, potentially having a doctor investigate. This shows a lack of empathy and trust in Gregor's character, highlighting the dehumanizing nature of their relationship.
After missing Gregor in the workplace, the office manager pays a visit to Gregor, concerned about his unexplained absence. He arrives at the apartment, feeling upset that Gregor has not reported into work. Gregor tries to communicate with both the manager and his family, but his metamorphosis into beetle has left his voice incomprehensible. Gregor makes an effort to move across the floor and opens the door, but upon seeing his altered appearance, the clerk quickly departs from the apartment, horrified. The Samsa family is correspondingly repulsed by what Gregor has become, to the point where his father shoves him back into his room, injuring his new delicate form in the process, when he is lodged in the doorway.
Following Gregor's transformation, his family's financial stability crumbles. They confine Gregor to his room, and he gradually comes to terms with his altered state, adapting to his new body. Among his family members, only his sister, Grete, is willing to bring him food, which they discover he prefers when it has begun to rot. Much of his time is spent crawling on the floor, walls, and ceiling. As Grete realizes his new fascination, she decides to clear the room of its furnishings, leaving only the sofa beneath which Gregor seeks refuge whenever someone enters. This distresses him, fearing he may lose touch with his past as a human, and he desperately tries to save a cherished portrait of a fur-clad woman on the wall. His mother faints at the sight of him clinging to the image in an attempt to protect it. When Grete rushes out to fetch aromatic spirits, Gregor follows her and gets slightly injured as she accidentally drops a medicine bottle, shattering it. Their father returns home in a fit of anger, hurling apples at Gregor, one of which becomes wedged in the soft tissue of his back, causing a severe wound. Gregor contemplates his injury and new existence, including how both have worked to make him increasingly isolated.
Alienation through the capitalist system is mainly deconstructed through Gregor's isolation due to his monstrous form. Gregor's transformation can be seen as a metaphor for the alienation of workers under capitalism. Gregor hates his job and is only doing it to pay off his parents' debt. He has become alienated from himself due to the nature of his work, which is imposed by economic necessity rather than engaged for its own sake. This is a common theme in Marxist theory, which argues that when work is imposed by pure economic necessity, the worker becomes alienated from himself as an individual and from humanity.
Symbolically, Gregor's transformation can be interpreted as representing the dehumanizing effects of capitalism. Gregor's body could be seen as conforming to the capitalist system he is part of by morphing into the insect he had already mimicked in work. He is turned into a working part rather than a human being, an insect gradually being squashed by the capitalist system. This is due to the capitalist ethos which requires workers to provide for their families. The exhausting nature of this kind of work can remove the ability and willingness of people to feel empathy for one another.
Gregor Samsa's transformation has profound consequences not only for himself but also for his family. As the story unfolds, it becomes evident that Gregor's father and sister, Grete, are forced to seek employment to make up for the loss of his income. This situation serves as a potent metaphor for the way families are often compelled to bear the financial burden when the primary breadwinner of the family falls ill. It also underscores how even though they initially exploited Gregor, they now find themselves subject to the unpredictable and unforgiving whims of capitalism.
Gregor had been the sole provider for his family, working tirelessly to pay off his parents' debt to his employer. His transformation into a monstrous insect results in the abrupt cessation of his work. This loss of income presents a stark financial challenge for the family. As a result, his father and Grete are compelled to enter the workforce, becoming economically productive members of the household. Gregor's father, who is initially "hardly capable of getting to his feet," becomes a bank messenger and a "fine, upright figure" due to the continuing demands of his family. Soon, Gregor's father, mother, and sister all have secured employment and become neglectful of him. They delegate the task of feeding him to the charwoman in their employ and begin to use his room as a storage area.
As it becomes necessary for his family to work to earn an income, his family becomes too exhausted to have any remaining empathy for Gregor. The Samsa family appears exhausted by their work, with Grete and the mother at the end of each day, as described in the text:
"They carried out absolutely everything that the world expects from poor people, Gregor's father brought bank employees their breakfast, his mother sacrificed herself by washing clothes for strangers, his sister ran back and forth behind her desk at the behest of the customers, but they just did not have the strength to do any more. And the injury in Gregor's back began to hurt as much as when it was new. After they had come back from taking his father to bed Gregor's mother and sister would now leave their work where it was and sit close together, cheek to cheek; his mother would point to Gregor's room and say "Close that door, Grete", and then, when he was in the dark again, they would sit in the next room and their tears would mingle, or they would simply sit there staring dry-eyed at the table."8
This scenario serves as a metaphor for the real-world situations where families face immense financial pressure when a breadwinner becomes incapacitated or falls seriously ill. In such circumstances, the family must adapt quickly to fill the income void, often requiring multiple family members to secure employment. The emotional and financial strain that falls upon families in these situations is mirrored in the story.
The irony in the story is that while Gregor had been exploited for his labor, his family is now potentially subject to the whims of capitalism as well. They must navigate the competitive job market and fulfill their obligations to their employers. Grete, in particular, transforms into a more assertive and practical character after becoming a salesgirl, reflecting the pressures of a capitalist system where individuals must adapt to survive.
This transformation of Gregor's family members highlights the way families are often bound to the economic structures of society. In a capitalist framework, the well-being of a family can be heavily dependent on the ability of one or more of its members to secure and maintain employment. The story underscores the vulnerability and fragility of the familial support network in the face of economic uncertainty.
Here, Kafka offers poignant commentary on the intricate relationship between families and capitalism, showing how financial burdens and responsibilities can shift dramatically when the primary breadwinner's ability to work is compromised. It emphasizes the broader idea that the dynamics of family life are deeply intertwined with the economic systems in which they are embedded, often making families vulnerable to the unpredictable forces of capitalism.
Further emphasizing the Samsa family's financial struggle in absence of Gregor's ability to work is their rental of their apartment to three tenants in order to obtain additional income. The Samsa family's choice to rent out part of their apartment to tenants reflects their financial hardships in the capitalist system following Gregor's transformation. Gregor's role as the primary breadwinner abruptly ends, leaving the family grappling with financial instability. To address this, they rent part of their home to generate additional income. In addition, family members, including Gregor's father, mother, and sister, enter the workforce to compensate for the lost earnings, highlighting the challenges of adapting to new jobs in a capitalist environment. As their focus shifts towards financial stability, Gregor's needs become less of a priority, leading to his isolation and neglect. This narrative emphasizes the economic pressures families face when their primary source of income is disrupted in a capitalist society, revealing the hardships and vulnerabilities that can arise in such situations.
Gregor's family leaves his door ajar in the evenings to allow him to eavesdrop on their conversations, but this becomes less frequent when they rent one of their rooms to three male tenants, who remain unaware of Gregor's presence. One day, the charwoman, who briefly checks on Gregor daily upon her arrival and departure, unintentionally fails to fully close his door. Attracted by Grete's violin performance in the living room, Gregor emerges from his room and is unexpectedly seen by the tenants, who express dissatisfaction with the apartment's hygiene and declare their intention to depart without payment for their stay, even considering legal action. Grete, weary of caring for Gregor and realizing the toll his existence has taken on each family member, insists that her parents must remove him or face ruin. Understanding that he is no longer wanted, Gregor painstakingly returns to his room and succumbs to starvation before dawn. His lifeless body is discovered by the charwoman, who notifies the family and disposes of the remains. With a sense of relief and newfound optimism, the father, mother, and sister all take a day off from work.
Exploitative and expendable attitudes are shown towards characters outside of the Samsa family as well, shown through the treatment of the charwoman by Gregor Samsa's family after his death. After Gregor's death, the charwoman, who had been employed to help with household tasks and was instrumental in Gregor's care (for lack of a better word), is soon slated for dismissal. This impending firing reflects the callousness with which workers can be treated under a capitalist system. Her potential loss of employment is a result of the family's changing circumstances and no longer needing her services. In a capitalist society, employees are often hired or fired based on economic considerations, and their job security can be precarious.
As previously discussed, Gregor had been the primary breadwinner for his family, working diligently to pay off his parents' debt to his employer. His transformation into an insect, followed by his death, illustrates how workers like Gregor can be exploited and pushed to their physical and mental limits to meet their obligations. His family's reliance on his income shows the extent to which individuals may be forced to work tirelessly to support their loved ones, even if it takes a toll on their well-being. In that light, the impending firing of the charwoman further underscores the disposability of workers in such a capitalist system. Once her labor is no longer required, her employment is terminated by Mr. Samsa without much consideration for her well-being. This reflects the broader reality that workers are often seen as replaceable and are frequently let go when they are no longer needed, with little regard for their personal circumstances. Kafka's portrayal of the charwoman's situation serves as a commentary on the dehumanizing and exploitative aspects of capitalism, where workers can be treated as commodities and their livelihoods can be jeopardized by the shifting economic interests of their employers or the families they serve.
Following Gregor's passing and their dismissal of the charwoman, the Samsa family decides to take a day off and takes a tram ride into the countryside. During this excursion, Mr. and Mrs. Samsa come to the realization that, despite the hardships that have left their mark on her, Grete has blossomed into an attractive young woman with an appealing figure. They contemplate the prospect of finding her a husband, foreshadowing another cycle of exploitation through subjecting their daughter to the pressures and expectations of marriage they intend to support them in a manner not dissimilar to Gregor's previous labor.
Through the relatable experiences we have examined, The Metamorphosis is a novella that delves into the horrors of transformation, not only in the literal sense that Gregor Samsa experiences but also as a powerful allegory for the dehumanizing effects of capitalism. Through the lens of Gregor's transformation and treatment, we witness the relentless exploitation and expendability of workers in a capitalist society, where individuals are reduced to mere economic units who are discarded as soon their ability to continue working has been compromised. As the story unfolds, we see also how even Gregor's family, initially dependent on him, themselves become subject to the unpredictable and unforgiving forces of capitalism, illustrating the intricate relationship between families and economic structures. Even the treatment of the charwoman after Gregor's death underscores the disposability of workers in a capitalist system. In the end, the Samsa family's contemplation of finding a husband for Grete foreshadows another cycle of exploitation, emphasizing the ongoing challenges faced by individuals within capitalist societies. The Metamorphosis serves as a thought-provoking exploration of the complexities and cruelties inherent in the capitalist system, urging us to reflect on the treatment of workers and the impact of capitalism on human lives.
1 Nabokov, Vladimir (1980). Lectures on Literature. New York, New York: Harvest. (p. 260) 2"Franz Kafka." Britannica, Franz Kafka | Biography, Books, The Metamorphosis, The Trial, & Facts 3 "Franz Kafka and Libertarian Socialism," Libcom.org, Franz Kafka and libertarian socialism 4Kafka, Franz. Franz Kafka: The Best Works (p. 25). Pandora's Box. Kindle Edition. 5Kafka, Franz. Franz Kafka: The Best Works (p. 26). Pandora's Box. Kindle Edition. 6Kafka, Franz. Franz Kafka: The Best Works (p. 26). Pandora's Box. Kindle Edition. 7 Kafka, Franz. Franz Kafka: The Best Works (p. 27). Pandora's Box. Kindle Edition. 8Kafka, Franz. Franz Kafka: The Best Works (pp. 66-67). Pandora's Box. Kindle Edition.
This distresses him, fearing he may lose touch with his past as a human, and he desperately tries to save a cherished portrait of a fur-clad woman on the wall 1 . His mother faints at the sight of him clinging to the image in an attempt to protect it.
The word Corruptions has several general meanings[1][2][3]:
1) Abuse of power for personal gain.
2) A language change that degrades the quality of the language.
3) Errors in computer data.
4) A copying error in manuscript production.
5) Abuse of politics for some sort of gain.
6) Illegal, bad or dishonest behavior especially by people in positions of power.
7) Inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery)
8) Decay and/or Decomposition
Every meaning of the word corruption is present on a meta level in most if not all works of horror as a genre and horror itself is actually one of the main means by which corruption as a meme is spread throughout societies. In this essay I will perform a form of metafictional analysis on this thread itself and every post in it in order they were made by means of pointing at context surrounding the horror works referenced in the posts themselves and then contrasting them with usually other horror works to expand upon my argument from the previous sentence to the, hopefully, satisfaction of a reader examining this thread as a whole.
So starting with @Hawkatana's essay about how Castlevania (1986) makes itself into an effective gothic horror trough game play: @Hawkatana ignores the concept of parallel evolution[4] as applied to societies in his analysis of how Castlevania achieves it's dark, oppressive, picturesque, inescapable and bleak landscape of Gothic Horror. As in the reason Japanese society in the 80s, and onwards with the Lost Decades[5] starting in the 90s as a result of economy of the 80s in Japan, was able to produce Gothic Horror video games in the 80s was because the economy and culture of Japan in the 1980 very much resembled the economy and culture of the 18th and 19th century Industrial Societies in Europe that led to both Gothic Horror[6] and the Labor Movement[7].
The original Dracula by Bram Stoker[8] is an epistolary novel[9] consisting of mostly journal and diary entries with one each of a newspaper cutting and an audio log transcription. It's horror comes from the corruption of the very concept of an epistolary novel that usually deals with people communicating long distance in various pre-telephone methods.
Bram Stoker makes personal gain from publishing it, he also conflates certain types of Fey beings from British sources with Vampir from Balkan sources[10] degrading the quality of both myths while producing a modern myth that supports a patriarchal and imperialistic view of the world. The novel itself argues for vigilante justice as the only means of conflict resolution as both Dracula and Van Helsing's hunters are driving the plot of the novel by committing acts of vigilante retribution on one another. Also the fact that Lucy Westenra, a woman whose life up to the start of the novel was basically a reverse-harem, is the only one turned into a Vampire in the novel itself while R. M. Renfield, a man locked in a lunatic asylum, is portrayed as already being some lesser form of a Vampire speaks to a conservative subtext in the story itself.
Castlevania/Akumajō Dracula (Demon Castle Dracula) on the other hand uses traumatic bonding[11] trough it's game play where Simon Belmont's limited movement and attack animations combined with health being used as a spell resource result in the player rationalizing that they are bad at playing the game instead of the game itself being bad at game play accessibility. This results in a 40 minute game[12] having it's playtime artificially extended to hours if not days of game play where it's player repeatedly fails at getting further into the game as a single mistake costs them the run, turning what is supposed to be a time of rest into a time of work to earn the ending of the game causing the very concept of rest and fun to decay in the players mind.
On top of that Simon Belmont just enters Dracula's castle to kill him. Not capture, not drive out, kill Dracula. So the themes of vigilantism from the original novel are translated into the video game.
Next is @Lisafication essay and I can sum up the context around it with a single question: Why is she arguing that gender bent Shinji and Matou Sakura from Fate/Carnival Phantasm[13] posing aggressively for an Instagram photo to demonstrate their love for each other to the world is not acting as society wished of them?
Since I'm not actually sure where to access Carnival Phantasm legally directly from the internet: Sakura in that version of the Fate universe acts like Andrew being a doormat on the surface while harboring her own monstrous behavior beneath that surface and Shinji is like Ashley being abusive on the surface and driven by his own insecurities Sakura keeps stepping on.
In case you are not aware Instagram is an image uploading site where people mostly pose for photographs that make them look better than in real life and some young couples like to pose as aggressively as Andrew and Ashley do in the last image @Lisafication posts in her essay. Those sort of couples usually separate in a few years because the aggressive love they show off to others is mostly made up of their own codependent insecurities with a sprinkling of intimacy which breaks down in the long run because they are not capable of committing to full intimacy in their relationship.
As for what society wishes of couples to act as? Well we live in a capitalist society based on the concept of rapere/rapio[14] which translates into snatch, grab, carry off, abduct, rape, steal in modern terms. So something along the lines of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell[15] is still well within what society wishes for it's couples in terms of actions. Andrew and Ashley are just presented pleasantly, like trough an Instagram filter, to the players of their game.
@Bra300's short essay is on the topic of the Problem of Evil[16]. Which can be summed up with the question: If God is Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent and Omniscient why is there still evil in the world? @Bra300 essay's answer is that God is evil and evil is a purposeful part of his creation.
This question relies on the horror of it's own premise to distract people from the obvious: That is not how harm works. Harm can be divided into four broad categories: Neglectful, Reckless, Knowing and Purposeful.
Neglectful harm is harm inflicted out of an actions that one knew or should have know would inflict harm.
Reckless harm is harm inflicted out of an action one knew is dangerous and would most likely result in harm and then was done anyway.
Knowing harm is harm inflicted with an action that one knew would inflict that harm but did the action anyway because the harm was not the point of the action, just the accepted cost of it.
Purposeful harm is harm inflicted with an action that one intended to inflict the specific harm with.
So the Problem of Evil is a type of horror theology that asks the question of how can there be evil if an Omnipotent, that means having unlimited power, Omnibenevolent, which means having an unlimited good will/disposition to do good towards all, and Omniscient, the capacity to know everything, God exists?
The answer is really fucking simple: I don't see the term understand in that question. God can have all the power that could be had, love everyone equally and know everything but that still won't protect those he creates from being hit with a Black Swan[17] event. Having all the knowledge doesn't mean understanding it. Those are two very different concepts as different as a theoretical physicist is from a materials engineer.
Evil exists in the cracks in the system God made. God never asked himself/the universe if the Snake would tempt Eve to bite the Apple because he never understood that could happen in the Garden he had personally constructed before it did happen. Then God knowingly inflicted the least amount of harm he could imagine on Man because Man now understood good and evil which meant Man could choose evil and considering how often we do choose evil for short term gain Man turned the Garden of Eden into a Trolley Problem[18]: Evict Man from Eden and spare the rest of Life in the Garden from Man's evil, but make Man's evil worse or let Man be Evil in the Garden and harm the rest of Life in it at least some of the time.
We don't let the statement of well I hurt you for my own satisfaction fly on this site and ban people for such behavior. Why wouldn't God do the same?
So time to start drawing conclusions for this essay by talking about @Plausbius' essay on Morbius (2022) starting with a simple question:
Why doesn't Morbius take the Stephen Hawking[19] solution to his lethal genetic disease? Hawking died at 76 years of age and never won a Nobel Prize for his work. Morbius specializes in Biology and already has a Nobel Prize for it in the movie. Morbius could simply extend his life while working on a more permanent cure trough using resources poor people can't. He can even justify it by actually being the only one, or one of only few, who can develop a full cure.
Why does Morbius have to Morb? Blood sausage[20] is a thing in a lot of countries and Morbius is a blood expert. If he has to turn into a vampire to live why doesn't he just buy enough donated blood to feed on and continue his work until he has perfected the cure?
We are shown Morbius' pain, he is presented in a really sympathetic light throughout the movie and the harm he inflicts is by the movie's own logic supposed to be at worst neglectful until the very end where Morbius gives into his new nature.
Except the reason people don't like the movie is that Morbius decides to vampirically run away from the wagon he fell off of[21] after killing his crush and his adopted brother to save people as a vigilante. The entire world is supposed to be conspiring against him, but all we see in the movie is Morbius' own hubris driving him towards self-destruction.
What does it mean to Morb? Is it to nobly cling to the vestiges of ones humanity? Or is it to be so proud of your own existence that you never ask for help from anyone? Cause Morbius (2022) would like to argue for the former, but ends up stating the latter.
Now to finish this essay off: @Variable and his essay about Kafka's Metamorphosis[22] and how it is a metaphor for worker exploitation and expendability. First of Kafka and his various stories come from a position of being a Jew in 19th century Germany. Kafka himself probably did not count himself a Jew, but German society at the time most certainly did.
Second off The Metamorphosis, The Castle and The Trial all have a problem of being about con-men. In Metamorphosis Gregor Samsa calls himself a traveling salesman, in the Castle K. just makes the claim that he is a land surveyor and then proceeds to become a middleman between the Castle and the Village and in the Trial Josef K. is a womanizing chief clerk of a bank.
None of those are neutral, let alone good people. On top of that in Metamorphosis Gregor's family only get jobs after he is disabled. Let's say that his sister Greta is too young to work or is studying to have better opportunities for work. What is stopping his father and mother from finding work before Gregor turns into a bug?
This is sort of the problem with horror as a genre: It never intends to fix the problems it describes and those problems are at best half-truths and at worst bold faced lies. Horror writers use their power over the pen to terrify their own readers into not thinking while at the same time twisting the meanings of words so they are inherently less when used.
1. "Corruption (disambiguation)" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
2. "Corruption" Cambridge Dictionary English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
3. "Corruption" Merriam-Webster Dictionary Accessed 31.10.2023
4. "Parallel Evolution" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
5. "Lost Decades" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
6. "Gothic fiction" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
7. "Labor Movement#Origins of the Labor Movement" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
8. Stoker Bram "Dracula" Project Gutenberg 30.07.2023 Dracula Accessed 31.10.2023
9. "Epistolary novel" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
10. "Dracula#Textual history" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
11. "Traumatic bonding" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
12. xRavenXP "NES Longplay [020] Castlevania" Youtube World of Longplays 13.01.2020 Accessed 31.10.2023
13. "Carnival Phantasm" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
14. "Rape#Etymology" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
15. "Ghislaine Maxwell" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
16. "Problem of Evil" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
17. "Black swan theory" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
18. "Trolley Problem" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
19. "Stephen Hawking" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
20. "Blood Sausage" Wikipedia English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
21. "fall off the wagon" Cambridge Dictionary English Edition Accessed 31.10.2023
22. Kafka Franz "Metamorphosis" Project Gutenberg 28.04.2021 Metamorphosis Accessed 31.10.2023
I'm sleepy now. Hopefully I did a good job with this essay. Good night everybody.
As the ghosts return to their graves with the worlds of the living and dead parted for another year, so this Contest of corpses comes to anend. We bid thanks to all who participated, and our courtly coven of judges will announce the hallowed winner shortly.
@Variable and his essay about Kafka's Metamorphosis[22] and how it is a metaphor for worker exploitation and expendability. First of Kafka and his various stories come from a position of being a Jew in 19th century Germany. Kafka himself probably did not count himself a Jew, but German society at the time most certainly did.
I would concur that Kafka was most certainly recognized as a Jew by German society at the time, but I would further argue that Kafka explicitly identified as a Jew himself and there is substantial evidence to indicate this. Kafka had his bar mitzvah at 13, and though he declared himself an atheist as an adolescent, he later identified heavily as a Jew later in life and became interested in Zionism even.
Second off The Metamorphosis, The Castle and The Trial all have a problem of being about con-men. In Metamorphosis Gregor Samsa calls himself a traveling salesman, in the Castle K. just makes the claim that he is a land surveyor and then proceeds to become a middleman between the Castle and the Village and in the Trial Josef K. is a womanizing chief clerk of a bank.
There is nothing within the text of The Metamorphosis to suggest that Gregor Samsa is anything other than traveling salesman and cloth merchant, I would not bound to the conclusion that he is larcenous in any significant way.
From what I have read of Kafka's works, his protagonists can be complex and often morally ambiguous characters. Kafka's writing is known for its exploration of existential themes, alienation, and absurdity, and his characters often find themselves in situations that challenge conventional notions of morality.
The Metamorphosis features the character Gregor Samsa, who undergoes a physical transformation into a giant insect. Gregor's actions and choices are driven by his desire to support his family and fulfill his responsibilities, coming across as the action of a moral man. While Gregor's actions are driven by a sense of duty and responsibility, the family's treatment of him raises questions about their moral character. Gregor certainly comes across as moral party in the story who causes no harm, unless you count the distress his transformation causes his family, which is a questionable view.
In The Castle, the protagonist, K., finds himself in a bureaucratic nightmare as he tries to gain access to the mysterious castle that governs the village. K.'s character is also morally ambiguous, as he often engages in actions that are self-serving and manipulative, but he is also a victim of an absurd and indifferent bureaucracy.
The Trial features Josef K., who is arrested and put on trial for reasons unknown to him. Throughout the novel, Josef K. seeks to understand and navigate the legal system that ensnares him. His character is complex, and his actions can be seen as both morally justifiable in his quest for justice and morally questionable in his treatment of others.
Having said that, my essay argues how The Metamorphosis critiques the systems of capitalism are evident in the work, along with the critiques of systems present in The Castle and The Trial, rather than the morality of the protagonists.
I could nitpick a couple of things, such as citations like Bram Stoker's Dracula falling under common knowledge, and sometimes over-describing game features (detailing all three sub-weapons could've been cut out while keeping the essay on point). But neither of these ultimately detract that much from the point the essay serves to make.
Congratulations! And a big Thank You to all our other entrants!
I'd like to remind those present that advocates are not staff, of which I am one of, so I should clearly be the winner, on account of my understanding of Morbius. To say otherwise is morbophobic and therefore unwise
But seriously, congrats to @Hawkatana! I see this contest didn't get as much attention as the others (I guess essays still bring out people's ptsd), but it's been a fun one nonetheless!
Note I've edited the quotes/articles from my link to The Trial for legibility. It's a block of text if you go read it on project Gutenberg. I can't tell if it was published that way or if Project Gutenberg fucked up the formatting, but considering that Dracula has proper formatting on there I'm guessing the former.
I would concur that Kafka was most certainly recognized as a Jew by German society at the time, but I would further argue that Kafka explicitly identified as a Jew himself and there is substantial evidence to indicate this. Kafka had his bar mitzvah at 13, and though he declared himself an atheist as an adolescent, he later identified heavily as a Jew later in life and became interested in Zionism even.
There is nothing within the text of The Metamorphosis to suggest that Gregor Samsa is anything other than traveling salesman and cloth merchant, I would not bound to the conclusion that he is larcenous in any significant way.
From what I have read of Kafka's works, his protagonists can be complex and often morally ambiguous characters. Kafka's writing is known for its exploration of existential themes, alienation, and absurdity, and his characters often find themselves in situations that challenge conventional notions of morality.
The Metamorphosis features the character Gregor Samsa, who undergoes a physical transformation into a giant insect. Gregor's actions and choices are driven by his desire to support his family and fulfill his responsibilities, coming across as the action of a moral man. While Gregor's actions are driven by a sense of duty and responsibility, the family's treatment of him raises questions about their moral character. Gregor certainly comes across as moral party in the story who causes no harm, unless you count the distress his transformation causes his family, which is a questionable view.
In The Castle, the protagonist, K., finds himself in a bureaucratic nightmare as he tries to gain access to the mysterious castle that governs the village. K.'s character is also morally ambiguous, as he often engages in actions that are self-serving and manipulative, but he is also a victim of an absurd and indifferent bureaucracy.
The Trial features Josef K., who is arrested and put on trial for reasons unknown to him. Throughout the novel, Josef K. seeks to understand and navigate the legal system that ensnares him. His character is complex, and his actions can be seen as both morally justifiable in his quest for justice and morally questionable in his treatment of others.
Having said that, my essay argues how The Metamorphosis critiques the systems of capitalism are evident in the work, along with the critiques of systems present in The Castle and The Trial, rather than the morality of the protagonists.
So a member of a religious group that in his teens declared himself an atheist and then as an adult participated in that religious group's political goals. How is that not the stereotypical conservative "If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative when you are old, you have no brain."?
The problem here with your argument is that my reference point for a counterargument is Dylan Dog #63 Maelstrom!. @Rob Rimsill isn't done with A Poisoned Chalice so I don't know if I could use that as a reference point an American like you could get.
So I'm stuck with my own words and maybe Chainsaw Man of all things.
I'm not using Chainsaw Man or any of those sorts of revenge fantasies as my reference point. They're too unambiguous.
Basically your argument is flawed because it assumes honesty on the side of the author and the protagonist.
On the topic of Franz Kafka you've already made a point of him following the stereotypical conservative trajectory of being a teenage rebel that settles down into being a conservative in his latter life. As such metatextually his work is suspect of being honest because the man was not honest with himself in his teenage rebellion as the latter part of his life proved and a lot of his work was published posthumously against his wishes.
On the topic of Gregor Samsa we don't actually see what he was like as a traveling salesman. Metamorphosis starts with Samsa waking up as a bug, we don't actually see what he was like as a man. This is a problem because we don't actually see what the man chooses to do with his life before he is crippled. Because that is what the transformation into a bug is a metaphor for: a worker being crippled from his work. Considering Kafka himself had Tuberculosis my guess is he based Gregor Samsa's experience on parts of his own. Plenty of people are good servants, but horrible masters and we don't know if Samsa is one of them because we never see what he is like when he has power.
In K.'s case can you point me to anything in the Castle where K.'s arrival is confirmed to be ordered and not manufactured by the man himself. Because the idea that a victim can't also be an abuser is what I have a problem with when people analyze The Castle.
The Trial on the other hand is more about the myth of bureaucracy being this horrific uncaring machine than it is about how actual bureaucracy works. And of course The Trial itself is about miscegenation, in this case between the Gentry and Jews, being a crime in 19th century Germany in the eyes of society and maybe rape in 19th century Germany.
"Young lady, now please leave us alone for a while, I have some personal matters to discuss with my friend." Dr. Huld's carer was still leant far over the invalid's bed and smoothing out the cloth covering the wall next to it, she merely turned her head and then, in striking contrast with the anger that first stopped K.'s uncle from speaking and then let the words out in a gush, she said very quietly, "You can see that Dr. Huld is so ill that he can't discuss any matters at all."
It was probably just for the sake of convenience that she had repeated the words spoken by K.'s uncle, but an onlooker might even have perceived it as mocking him and he, of course, jumped up as if he had just been stabbed. "You damned ...," in the first gurglings of his excitement his words could hardly be understood, K. was startled even though he had been expecting something of the sort and ran to his uncle with the intention, no doubt, of closing his mouth with both his hands.
Fortunately, though, behind the girl, the invalid raised himself up, K.'s uncle made an ugly face as if swallowing something disgusting and then, somewhat calmer, said, "We have naturally not lost our senses, not yet; if what I am asking for were not possible I would not be asking for it. Now please, go!" The carer stood up straight by the bed directly facing K.'s uncle, K. thought he noticed that with one hand she was stroking the lawyer's hand. "You can say anything in front of Leni," said the invalid, in a tone that was unmistakably imploring.
"It's not my business," said K.'s uncle, "and it's not my secrets." And he twisted himself round as if wanting to go into no more negotiations but giving himself a little more time to think. "Whose business is it then?" asked the lawyer in an exhausted voice as he leant back again. "My nephew's," said K.'s uncle, "and I've brought him along with me."
And he introduced him, "Chief Clerk Josef K." "Oh!" said the invalid, now with much more life in him, and reached out his hand towards K. "Do forgive me, I didn't notice you there at all." Then he then said to his carer, "Leni, go," stretching his hand out to her as if this were a farewell that would have to last for a long time.
This time the girl offered no resistance. "So you," he finally said to K.'s uncle, who had also calmed down and stepped closer, "you haven't come to visit me because I'm ill but you've come on business." The lawyer now looked so much stronger that it seemed the idea of being visited because he was ill had somehow made him weak, he remained supporting himself on one elbow, which must have been rather tiring, and continually pulled at a lock of hair in the middle of his beard.
"You already look much better," said K.'s uncle, "now that that witch has gone outside." He interrupted himself, whispered, "I bet you she's listening!" and sprang over to the door. But behind the door there was no-one, K.'s uncle came back not disappointed, as her not listening seemed to him worse than if she had been, but probably somewhat embittered. "You're mistaken about her," said the lawyer, but did nothing more to defend her; perhaps that was his way of indicating that she did not need defending.
But in a tone that was much more committed he went on, "As far as your nephew's affairs are concerned, this will be an extremely difficult undertaking and I'd count myself lucky if my strength lasted out long enough for it; I'm greatly afraid it won't do, but anyway I don't want to leave anything untried; if I don't last out you can always get somebody else. To be honest, this matter interests me too much, and I can't bring myself to give up the chance of taking some part in it. If my heart does totally give out then at least it will have found a worthy affair to fail in."
K. believed he understood not a word of this entire speech, he looked at his uncle for an explanation but his uncle sat on the bedside table with the candle in his hand, a medicine bottle had rolled off the table onto the floor, he nodded to everything the lawyer said, agreed to everything, and now and then looked at K. urging him to show the same compliance. Maybe K.'s uncle had already told the lawyer about the trial.
That is the scene with Leni before she has sex with Josef K by calling him away with a broken plate. The relevant part of that scene is at the end of it and the chapter:
Article:
"Now you're mine," she said. Her last words to him as he left were, "Here's the key to the door, come whenever you want," and she planted an undirected kiss on his back.
When he stepped out the front door there was a light rain falling, he was about to go to the middle of the street to see if he could still glimpse Leni at the window when K.'s uncle leapt out of a car that K., thinking of other things, had not seen waiting outside the building. He took hold of K. by both arms and shoved him against the door as if he wanted to nail him to it.
"Young man," he shouted, "how could you do a thing like that?! Things were going well with this business of yours, now you've caused it terrible damage. You slip off with some dirty, little thing who, moreover, is obviously the lawyer's beloved, and stay away for hours. You don't even try to find an excuse, don't try to hide anything, no, you're quite open about it, you run off with her and stay there.
And meanwhile we're sitting there, your uncle who's going to such effort for you, the lawyer who needs to be won over to your side, and above all the office director, a very important gentleman who is in direct command of your affair in its present stage. We wanted to discuss how best to help you, I had to handle the lawyer very carefully, he had to handle the office director carefully, and you had most reason of all to at least give me some support. Instead of which you stay away.
Eventually we couldn't keep up the pretence any longer, but these are polite and highly capable men, they didn't say anything about it so as to spare my feelings but in the end not even they could continue to force themselves and, as they couldn't speak about the matter in hand, they became silent. We sat there for several minutes, listening to see whether you wouldn't finally come back. All in vain.
In the end the office director stood up, as he had stayed far longer than he had originally intended, made his farewell, looked at me in sympathy without being able to help, he waited at the door for a long time although it's more than I can understand why he was being so good, and then he went. I, of course, was glad he'd gone, I'd been holding my breath all this time.
All this had even more effect on the lawyer lying there ill, when I took my leave of him, the good man, he was quite unable to speak. You have probably contributed to his total collapse and so brought the very man who you are dependent on closer to his death. And me, your own uncle, you leave me here in the rain—just feel this, I'm wet right through—waiting here for hours, sick with worry."
Josef is being led away by his now angry uncle because he fucked the lawyer his uncle was asking for help's nurse and what his uncle claims is Dr. Huld's lover while he was trying to get Josef out the Trial by pulling on one of his connections. How is the the system's fault? More importantly why would Leni whose employment depends on the good will of Dr. Huld willingly have a sexual encounter by throwing a plate to get Josef's attention? What if it wasn't Josef who came out? Why do most people not talk about how much of a covardly sexist prick Josef's uncle is?
The Trial itself is about Jewish/Gentry miscegenation and how it leads to abuse, discrimination and lynching of Jews. That doesn't change the fact that the protagonist Josef K. is at best a horndog and at worst a rapist rationalizing his own actions.
With all of that said The Trial is one of those Half-Truth types of Horror not a blatant lie because for all that it hides how much of an asshole/villain it's protagonist is. Those are actually valuable to society. For a modern example see Roe v Wade and how much of a piece of shit Jane Roe the defendant in that case was for the duration of her life.
In certain cases, especially when discussing societal structures and law in particular having an asshole/villain be the representative of the people is useful because it shuts down the argument that "they just got the wrong person, it will work on the right ones" which is, has and will be used if left room for. Just look at how some Evangelicals speak about the moral character of people with wombs that have abortions and imagine how worse it would be if they could argue they want abortion banned only for the "bad ones" instead of to "protect the unborn".
As for your analysis? It is insufficient. You state the half-truth present in Metamorphosis itself and then don't finish pointing out the rest of it. Gregor Samsa is a member of the Pettite Burgeoisie, a self employed small-scale merchant. His family is not the standard under capitalism, they are the gatekeepers of it.
Before addressing this, I would like to point that the core issue of the essay was to address how The Metamorphosis serves as a critique of the expendability and exploitation the capitalist system engenders, whereas you seem to be concerned about subjects extraneous to that issue.
So a member of a religious group that in his teens declared himself an atheist and then as an adult participated in that religious group's political goals. How is that not the stereotypical conservative "If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative when you are old, you have no brain."?
The problem here with your argument is that my reference point for a counterargument is Dylan Dog #63 Maelstrom!. @Rob Rimsill isn't done with A Poisoned Chalice so I don't know if I could use that as a reference point an American like you could get.
So I'm stuck with my own words and maybe Chainsaw Man of all things.
I'm not using Chainsaw Man or any of those sorts of revenge fantasies as my reference point. They're too unambiguous.
Basically your argument is flawed because it assumes honesty on the side of the author and the protagonist.
On the topic of Franz Kafka you've already made a point of him following the stereotypical conservative trajectory of being a teenage rebel that settles down into being a conservative in his latter life. As such metatextually his work is suspect of being honest because the man was not honest with himself in his teenage rebellion as the latter part of his life proved and a lot of his work was published posthumously against his wishes.
Franz Kafka's Jewish heritage is well-documented, and there is substantial evidence to support the assertion that he was indeed of Jewish descent. To begin with, Kafka was born into a middle-class, German-speaking Jewish family in Prague in 1883. His parents, Hermann Kafka and Julie Lowy, were both of Jewish heritage, and their Jewish identity was a significant part of their family life. This family background serves as a strong foundation for understanding Kafka's Jewish identity.
Kafka's literary works also provide evidence of his Jewish identity. Many of his works explore themes and ideas with clear Jewish connections. Actually, The Metamorphosis, can be interpreted as an allegory for the Jewish experience, with the protagonist's transformation mirroring feelings of alienation and otherness often associated with Jewish identity.
In his personal correspondence and diaries, Kafka occasionally wrote about his Jewish heritage and experiences, including references to Jewish customs and holidays. These writings offer further insights into his connection to his Jewish identity.
Kafka also had relationships with other Jewish intellectuals and writers of his time, such as Max Brod and Felice Bauer. These connections suggest a shared cultural and ethnic identity and further support his Jewish heritage.
On the topic of Gregor Samsa we don't actually see what he was like as a traveling salesman. Metamorphosis starts with Samsa waking up as a bug, we don't actually see what he was like as a man. This is a problem because we don't actually see what the man chooses to do with his life before he is crippled. Because that is what the transformation into a bug is a metaphor for: a worker being crippled from his work. Considering Kafka himself had Tuberculosis my guess is he based Gregor Samsa's experience on parts of his own. Plenty of people are good servants, but horrible masters and we don't know if Samsa is one of them because we never see what he is like when he has power.
I previously addressed how Gregor Samsa's ordeal could be interpreted as a metaphor for how sick workers are often discarded under the capitalist system in the essay.
As for your analysis? It is insufficient. You state the half-truth present in Metamorphosis itself and then don't finish pointing out the rest of it. Gregor Samsa is a member of the Pettite Burgeoisie, a self employed small-scale merchant. His family is not the standard under capitalism, they are the gatekeepers of it.
Gregor Samsa is most certainly not self-employed and I mentioned multiple times that he answers to a manager at the company works he works for. He suffers abuses from his employer inconsistent with him being bourgeoisie, though his family does perpetrate some of the same abuses towards the charwoman, in their treatment of her and eventual dismissal of her once Gregor has passed away.
One could argue that no matter how much Norma Corvy was less than ideal in life, Roe v. Wade was far more as a case that protected reproductive rights here in the States and its impact of our legal system was important than her individual life choices.
Gregor Samsa is most certainly not self-employed and I mentioned multiple times that he answers to a manager at the company works he works for. He suffers abuses from his employer inconsistent with him being bourgeoisie, though his family does perpetrate some of the same abuses towards the charwoman, in their treatment of her and eventual dismissal of her once Gregor has passed away.
Point. I used the wrong word. My bad. It's not self-employed it's whatever was the term in Germany for what a freeter is in Japan now. Samsa doesn't have job security and he works on a personal level. Like the man doesn't even get any visitors from his company other than his employer.
Look how happy she is!
Andrew disapproves…
I'm not using Chainsaw Man or any of those sorts of revenge fantasies as my reference point. They're too unambiguous.