You’re saying with so many words that I have no media literacy. Maybe that’s true. But please tell me then-
Why is framing the antagonists in this way necessary?
What themes or aspects of the story does this explore, that is integral to the core theme of exploring the beauty of the fleeting nature of life?
What does the story gain from including a scene where our heroic protagonist implores her party to… kill a little girl demon? And then why does the story go out of its way to justify the protagonist’s point of view as ultimately the only correct one?
(Hell, just straight up- why is the “monster” a little girl? Like, why did the author choose to portray the monster as a little girl? What was the purpose of this entire detour in the story? Was it really necessary to draw “nits make lice” comparisons, intentional or not?)
In all your other examples, the monsters are unthinking magical beasts, and no one is going to quibble about the ethics of self-defense in a wild animal attack. The demons on the other hand are presented as a civilized race capable of higher thought, except that they are biologically predisposed towards lying and magic fascism, so the only rational action on encountering one is to exterminate it.
If they’re just monsters, why does the author have to go out of their way to present them as civilized sentient beings? Can’t they just be monsters? What narrative purpose does this serve? Why did the author choose to write the antagonists like this?
Show: This is a monster that pretends to be a harmless stranger. It’s ok to kill it because it’s trying to kill you.
Comrade, do you not see the similarities with what you wrote here to what Israeli’s say about Palestinians?
Why is framing the antagonists in this way necessary?
What themes or aspects of the story does this explore, that is integral to the core theme of exploring the beauty of the fleeting nature of life?
I went into this a bit elsewhere in the thread, but I think the point is that this is a setting where the innate human desire to empathize, to form bonds with others, can be a weakness. I don’t think it’s trying to make a philosophical point about that though, it’s not saying that we should all be cold hardened killers who don’t trust. It’s just exploring what that would be like, the challenge and the conflict which emerge from humanity being part of a food chain which contains creatures that hunt us using our empathy as a weakness. The same way any of the antagonists challenge the protagonists. It’s an interesting issue for the characters to have to overcome.
What does the story gain from including a scene where our heroic protagonist implores her party to… kill a little girl demon? And then why does the story go out of its way to justify the protagonist’s point of view as ultimately the only correct one?
I think it’s there just to enhance the immersion in the challenge the characters are facing. When you or I look at that particular monster, we feel the same empathy all of the ignorant people in the story feel. You and I would definitely be killed, successfully hunted, by these demons if we existed in that world. That’s why they’re a dangerous challenge for the protagonists to face, that’s why they’re scary and believable as a problem. The world in which the story takes place is exceedingly dangerous and, even though the protagonists are practically gods, there are plenty of things which could conceivably kill them, and you and I can fully understand exactly why it would work because it would work on us. Is there no value in crafting a believably dangerous monster?
In all your other examples, the monsters are unthinking magical beasts,
As far as we’re told in the story, there is no difference between the chest mimics, and the random wolves, and the dragons, and the demons. They are all equally thinking or unthinking as you prefer to interpret their behavior. They are all merciless hunters who will kill you if you don’t kill them first. The difference is in their appearance and in their strategy, not in their internal experience.
If they’re just monsters, why does the author have to go out of their way to present them as civilized sentient beings? Can’t they just be monsters?
I would argue the author goes extremely far out of their way to prove them not to be civilized beings. They are just monsters. They just want to eat you. They literally do not know the meanings of the words they say, or have any concept of the empathy which those words exploit. They are no more civilized or more sentient than the mimics or the ghost-mimics or the wolves or the giant plant. They just evolved into the niche of looking like they are, because that makes people easier to hunt.
Comrade, do you not see the similarities with what you wrote here to what Israeli’s say about Palestinians?
We’ve all heard fascists compare various groups of people to animals. Is it therefore unacceptable to compare horses to donkeys? If I say horses are very much like donkeys, it’s equivalent to fascists saying certain groups of humans are like donkeys? I just don’t see it. Fascists say all kinds of shit that isn’t true. That doesn’t make it untrue when you say things that sound superficially similar but are fundamentally different because they regard completely different subjects. I don’t see how this logic can’t be used to negate all comparisons between any two things anywhere. The US can’t be like the Nazis, because that sounds awfully similar to how fascists say the USSR was like the Nazis. Is that not logically the same argument you’re making here? If not, what is the difference? Israelis can say shit about Palestinians that isn’t true and that same thing could be true if they were saying it of a different subject. If an Israeli said Palestinians are purple or green fruits often used to make wine, it wouldn’t suddenly be wrong to say that grapes are purple or green fruits often used to make wine. They’re different things. Palestinians aren’t demons, they aren’t a magical fantasy race that evolved to eat humans. Demons in Frieren are a magical fantasy race that evolved to eat humans. They’re not Palestinians. Where is the connection?
I went into this a bit elsewhere in the thread, but I think the point is that this is a setting where the innate human desire to empathize, to form bonds with others, can be a weakness.
Ok, but what does this have to do with the core theme of the fleeting beauty of impermanent life? If the author is trying to emphasize the beauty of empathy and bonds, why introduce a Talking Points USA counterpoint that empathy is a weakness, that we have to be selective in our empathy and only empathize with the right people? Why is it ok to empathize with Elves or Dwarves or Humans, but not Demons? Why is it only this specific race of people who will take advantage of your empathy, and not, y’know some human bandits or something? How does this serve the narrative, or what narrative could it be pushing intentionally or otherwise?
I think it’s there just to enhance the immersion in the challenge the characters are facing.
Ok, but why does it have to be a little girl demon specifically tho. Why can’t the challenge be a dragon or a magic plant. Why does the moral of the story have to be “You can’t empathize with everything”? Why is Frieren killing a little girl demon framed as heroic? Isn’t that kinda fucked up? What purpose does that serve in the larger narrative?
They literally do not know the meanings of the words they say, or have any concept of the empathy which those words exploit. They are no more civilized or more sentient than the mimics or the ghost-mimics or the wolves or the giant plant. They just evolved into the niche of looking like they are, because that makes people easier to hunt.
Ok, but… if they’re just supposed to be monsters, why go out of the way to present them as people. Like, if you need a thinking opponent why invent an entire race biologically so neurodivergent they’re predisposed towards evil and not just like, make Frieren fight other mages taking an exam or something idk.
Where is the connection?
So, sometimes, what fascists do is they write stories where the lies they tell in real life are completely justified in the fictional world they create. They do this in order to spread their lies, because people who just take things at face value uncritically will knowingly or not internalize their ideas.
Yes, you laid out the diegetic argument for why the demons aren’t people, which is true according to the story’s logic. That’s a Thermian Argument.
I’m asking why the story is written that way in the first place. I’m criticizing it because it didn’t need to have been written this way at all.
Of course I know that Demons and Palestinians are two different things. Why can I make the comparison between what you wrote and IDF propaganda in the first place though? Other shows don’t leave the wiggle room for that kind of comparison.
Why does the story about celebrating the fleeting impermanence of life need an antagonistic race of people that are somehow biologically in-universe what right wingers accuse people from the global south of being, and must be exterminated on sight? Who is this story for?
Ok, but what does this have to do with the core theme of the fleeting beauty of impermanent life?
I don’t think every single scene in every show has to be a rehash of its core theme. Do you? Regardless, I’ll touch on this a little bit further down.
hy introduce a Talking Points USA counterpoint that empathy is a weakness, that we have to be selective in our empathy and only empathize with the right people?
I pretty clearly said I don’t think the author was trying to make any point like this at all. But on thinking on it more, I can answer this on its own terms, see below.
Ok, but why does it have to be a little girl demon specifically tho. Why can’t the challenge be a dragon or a magic plant.
I also pretty clearly addressed this. Neither of us needs to be told why a dragon or a giant maneating magic plant is a bad thing that you should kill. It’s not a challenge to us, to our feelings, to come to the conclusion that those things should be fought. There is an artistic difference between the choice to portray an antagonist no one will empathize with and an antagonist which most of us will empathize with on some level, especially when that is exactly the challenge the characters in the story are grappling with.
Why is Frieren killing a little girl demon framed as heroic?
There are a couple of reasons in my opinion. First of all, Frieren is exercising a lesson she learned from the person closest to her so long ago. Her determination to destroy demons wherever they are found is part of her connection to Flamme. On some level, she holds on tight to what she was taught by Flamme, because she loves Flamme and misses her and wouldn’t want to question whatever wisdom she taught her. On another level, part of her sense of self-worth is her effectiveness at fighting demons. She’s been training 24/7 for centuries for the sole purpose of making herself as effective as possible at killing demons. She has to see the extermination of demons as righteous and heroic, or she’s wasted a very long time even in elf time.
Another aspect is that Frieren is herself a victim of genocide. I don’t think the demons are especially effective parallels for fascists in most regards, but they certainly have elements of fascists that I think are intended. I think that the fact that Frieren, whose species was nearly successfully exterminated by demons (perhaps even successfully–since the population is likely never to stabilize) is one of the world’s staunchest and most powerful opponents of demons is intended as an anti-fascist allegory. She is heroic because she won’t allow fascism to take root under her nose. When she sees them, she gets rid of them. Because she has seen first hand the genocide they will commit unchecked. Is it not true that fascists ooze their way in under false pretenses and innocuous guises? Haven’t we all seen the baby-talking fascists spreading their fucking frog cartoons? There is an argument to be made that the “little girl” was precisely this disingenuous childish ruse fascists pull to covertly spread their agenda.
You’re saying with so many words that I have no media literacy. Maybe that’s true. But please tell me then-
Why is framing the antagonists in this way necessary?
What themes or aspects of the story does this explore, that is integral to the core theme of exploring the beauty of the fleeting nature of life?
What does the story gain from including a scene where our heroic protagonist implores her party to… kill a little girl demon? And then why does the story go out of its way to justify the protagonist’s point of view as ultimately the only correct one?
(Hell, just straight up- why is the “monster” a little girl? Like, why did the author choose to portray the monster as a little girl? What was the purpose of this entire detour in the story? Was it really necessary to draw “nits make lice” comparisons, intentional or not?)
In all your other examples, the monsters are unthinking magical beasts, and no one is going to quibble about the ethics of self-defense in a wild animal attack. The demons on the other hand are presented as a civilized race capable of higher thought, except that they are biologically predisposed towards lying and magic fascism, so the only rational action on encountering one is to exterminate it.
If they’re just monsters, why does the author have to go out of their way to present them as civilized sentient beings? Can’t they just be monsters? What narrative purpose does this serve? Why did the author choose to write the antagonists like this?
Comrade, do you not see the similarities with what you wrote here to what Israeli’s say about Palestinians?
I went into this a bit elsewhere in the thread, but I think the point is that this is a setting where the innate human desire to empathize, to form bonds with others, can be a weakness. I don’t think it’s trying to make a philosophical point about that though, it’s not saying that we should all be cold hardened killers who don’t trust. It’s just exploring what that would be like, the challenge and the conflict which emerge from humanity being part of a food chain which contains creatures that hunt us using our empathy as a weakness. The same way any of the antagonists challenge the protagonists. It’s an interesting issue for the characters to have to overcome.
I think it’s there just to enhance the immersion in the challenge the characters are facing. When you or I look at that particular monster, we feel the same empathy all of the ignorant people in the story feel. You and I would definitely be killed, successfully hunted, by these demons if we existed in that world. That’s why they’re a dangerous challenge for the protagonists to face, that’s why they’re scary and believable as a problem. The world in which the story takes place is exceedingly dangerous and, even though the protagonists are practically gods, there are plenty of things which could conceivably kill them, and you and I can fully understand exactly why it would work because it would work on us. Is there no value in crafting a believably dangerous monster?
As far as we’re told in the story, there is no difference between the chest mimics, and the random wolves, and the dragons, and the demons. They are all equally thinking or unthinking as you prefer to interpret their behavior. They are all merciless hunters who will kill you if you don’t kill them first. The difference is in their appearance and in their strategy, not in their internal experience.
I would argue the author goes extremely far out of their way to prove them not to be civilized beings. They are just monsters. They just want to eat you. They literally do not know the meanings of the words they say, or have any concept of the empathy which those words exploit. They are no more civilized or more sentient than the mimics or the ghost-mimics or the wolves or the giant plant. They just evolved into the niche of looking like they are, because that makes people easier to hunt.
We’ve all heard fascists compare various groups of people to animals. Is it therefore unacceptable to compare horses to donkeys? If I say horses are very much like donkeys, it’s equivalent to fascists saying certain groups of humans are like donkeys? I just don’t see it. Fascists say all kinds of shit that isn’t true. That doesn’t make it untrue when you say things that sound superficially similar but are fundamentally different because they regard completely different subjects. I don’t see how this logic can’t be used to negate all comparisons between any two things anywhere. The US can’t be like the Nazis, because that sounds awfully similar to how fascists say the USSR was like the Nazis. Is that not logically the same argument you’re making here? If not, what is the difference? Israelis can say shit about Palestinians that isn’t true and that same thing could be true if they were saying it of a different subject. If an Israeli said Palestinians are purple or green fruits often used to make wine, it wouldn’t suddenly be wrong to say that grapes are purple or green fruits often used to make wine. They’re different things. Palestinians aren’t demons, they aren’t a magical fantasy race that evolved to eat humans. Demons in Frieren are a magical fantasy race that evolved to eat humans. They’re not Palestinians. Where is the connection?
Ok, but what does this have to do with the core theme of the fleeting beauty of impermanent life? If the author is trying to emphasize the beauty of empathy and bonds, why introduce a Talking Points USA counterpoint that empathy is a weakness, that we have to be selective in our empathy and only empathize with the right people? Why is it ok to empathize with Elves or Dwarves or Humans, but not Demons? Why is it only this specific race of people who will take advantage of your empathy, and not, y’know some human bandits or something? How does this serve the narrative, or what narrative could it be pushing intentionally or otherwise?
Ok, but why does it have to be a little girl demon specifically tho. Why can’t the challenge be a dragon or a magic plant. Why does the moral of the story have to be “You can’t empathize with everything”? Why is Frieren killing a little girl demon framed as heroic? Isn’t that kinda fucked up? What purpose does that serve in the larger narrative?
Ok, but… if they’re just supposed to be monsters, why go out of the way to present them as people. Like, if you need a thinking opponent why invent an entire race biologically so neurodivergent they’re predisposed towards evil and not just like, make Frieren fight other mages taking an exam or something idk.
So, sometimes, what fascists do is they write stories where the lies they tell in real life are completely justified in the fictional world they create. They do this in order to spread their lies, because people who just take things at face value uncritically will knowingly or not internalize their ideas.
Yes, you laid out the diegetic argument for why the demons aren’t people, which is true according to the story’s logic. That’s a Thermian Argument.
I’m asking why the story is written that way in the first place. I’m criticizing it because it didn’t need to have been written this way at all.
Of course I know that Demons and Palestinians are two different things. Why can I make the comparison between what you wrote and IDF propaganda in the first place though? Other shows don’t leave the wiggle room for that kind of comparison.
Why does the story about celebrating the fleeting impermanence of life need an antagonistic race of people that are somehow biologically in-universe what right wingers accuse people from the global south of being, and must be exterminated on sight? Who is this story for?
I don’t think every single scene in every show has to be a rehash of its core theme. Do you? Regardless, I’ll touch on this a little bit further down.
I pretty clearly said I don’t think the author was trying to make any point like this at all. But on thinking on it more, I can answer this on its own terms, see below.
I also pretty clearly addressed this. Neither of us needs to be told why a dragon or a giant maneating magic plant is a bad thing that you should kill. It’s not a challenge to us, to our feelings, to come to the conclusion that those things should be fought. There is an artistic difference between the choice to portray an antagonist no one will empathize with and an antagonist which most of us will empathize with on some level, especially when that is exactly the challenge the characters in the story are grappling with.
There are a couple of reasons in my opinion. First of all, Frieren is exercising a lesson she learned from the person closest to her so long ago. Her determination to destroy demons wherever they are found is part of her connection to Flamme. On some level, she holds on tight to what she was taught by Flamme, because she loves Flamme and misses her and wouldn’t want to question whatever wisdom she taught her. On another level, part of her sense of self-worth is her effectiveness at fighting demons. She’s been training 24/7 for centuries for the sole purpose of making herself as effective as possible at killing demons. She has to see the extermination of demons as righteous and heroic, or she’s wasted a very long time even in elf time.
Another aspect is that Frieren is herself a victim of genocide. I don’t think the demons are especially effective parallels for fascists in most regards, but they certainly have elements of fascists that I think are intended. I think that the fact that Frieren, whose species was nearly successfully exterminated by demons (perhaps even successfully–since the population is likely never to stabilize) is one of the world’s staunchest and most powerful opponents of demons is intended as an anti-fascist allegory. She is heroic because she won’t allow fascism to take root under her nose. When she sees them, she gets rid of them. Because she has seen first hand the genocide they will commit unchecked. Is it not true that fascists ooze their way in under false pretenses and innocuous guises? Haven’t we all seen the baby-talking fascists spreading their fucking frog cartoons? There is an argument to be made that the “little girl” was precisely this disingenuous childish ruse fascists pull to covertly spread their agenda.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: