An Addendum: Why I Do Not Watch *Attack on Titan*.

In the realm of Anime, I'm still a novice, though I *have* watched *Evangelion* a total seven times. The perfect balance seems to have been struck, in that example, between elements. Yet if its imitator *Gurren Lagann* represents extremes in terms of tact, restraint, and pacing, rushing through a goofy, optimistic narrative that's lavished with frivolity, *Attack on Titan* represents the opposite extreme: a largely humourless and horrifying Gothic nightmare that, I am informed, drags on for 86 progressively depraving episodes, a number that would make me want to 86 *myself*, since I could barely touch it after the premiere's conclusion.

I can say, with confidence, that what I witnessed in that scene disturbed me more than any other work of media, and, to this day, I think upon it as the principal example of *inhuman evil*: the existence of a plane of horror that transcends mere human comprehension, though it's not beyond imagination. Here were monsters that had clearly been conceived not merely as antithesis to innocence and goodness, but as the embodiment of primal terror, running deeper than the blackest pits of any human psyche. I was traumatized to such extremes that I would only find a meager comfort in the childish thought that it was "just a show; it cannot hurt you." Yet, upon some level, I could not escape the frightful possibility. So, when I heard that Russia had attacked Ukraine, when "Motherland" began devouring its children and their mothers, then I thought: "It's happening. This is *Attack on Titan*."

Why, then, did I keep on watching? Clearly, it had taken root within my psyche, and my coping mechanisms soon kicked in. I thought, "Well, now the hardest part is over; one can stoop no lower. Now we know the Enemy, and now we know the stakes. There is no coming back from this; all Eden has been burnt to cinder. Eren is our Hero, and his vengeance shall redeem what little dignity we have." So, with my point of reference established, I was ready. I concluded seven episodes, during which time it seemed that Eren had been killed, replaced by heroine Mikasa. Undeniably, I saw the virtues to this stoic and efficient kuudere, yet it was not enough to get me through. I knew that Eren's vengeance was what drove me to oppose the Titans. If there was some chance that he was truly gone -- or that the Titan who appeared to save her was some version of himself -- then I was done. I could not handle this.

The program hinted at some theme that this was just the Way of Nature and that human beings cannot be exempt. Mikasa, though, would promptly turn this theme around, remembering that there was Good in Human Beings. So I thought of Eren, yet I could not shake the all-too-cynical suspicion that the program would transform him into something of a monster. For myself, I saw no way that I could see him to be such. The program had established, in one scene, a barrier between two species, one which never could be breached by civil discourse. It had crossed a threshold past familiarity into the plane of horror. What I saw within the lurid grin of that repulsive giant was no man, but a machine that wore the semblance of a man as though it were a skin suit, and its skinless leader represented *not* my underlying nature but a monster that subsisted without even the resemblance of a human skin.

I did not look upon a mirror, but into the depths of the Uncanny Valley, where the semblance of humanity was but a mask disguising a machine, and that this was a sentience did not remind me of myself but merely would betray all Reason, for while Reason masters Nature and predicts it, there is never any comprehension, truly, for what moves a *willing agent* to do evil when it can afford to spare the truly innocent. This was the Enemy, and I would challenge anyone believing oneself to be Human to observe such creatures and to say one sees "oneself" within them. If an insult to one's mother is the worst convention, then how graver is the insult that suggests that any of us would have ever *dared* to wish this on our mothers, and how base is that psychology which would *prescribe* that we "accept" such morbid wishes!!

No. I cannot tolerate the claim that Eren could become a monster in opposing them. That possibility has died with his own mother; anything he does from that point forward must be justified, for never will the vestige of humanity within him turn to more nor less than the retaliation and the retribution of this primal wronging. *That* is our dignity: that we resist. That's why I watched the show. I thought: if war is what you want, if what you wish is to inspire youthful men in disaffected times to righteous violence, you've succeeded.

Yet if all this sorrow was for you to preach a pacifist equality, you've missed the mark. I would have gladly joined your cause had you depicted any hint of mercy in that first half-hour. Yet it is the Mother, the first Other, who remains the first and foremost teacher of our mercy. If she dies before her teachings are concluded, so does mercy. You won't justify this, nor will you be able to pervert the natural response. We will not tolerate such cruelty, though cruelty may be the outcome of intolerance. Forget the lie that all such conflicts are a never-ending cycle of revenge. No: there is innocence within the World, and, even were there not, then there would be no reason not to fight. We fight for innocence, yet we do not need innocence to fight. Yet to protect that innocence is why we make a peace, and to avenge that innocence is why we must make war.

**[({R.G.)}]**

Click for the Original Assertion.

Click for Summary and Call to Action.

**This Page has been Optimized for Discord.**

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

First Response to Hazmat: Absolutist Ethics.

Image
Yes: I value the opinions of others, insofar as I can vouch for their integrity. Yet that requires that they fervently believe that what they say is true, that they can stand beside it, put it into practice, and uphold it as a sacred principle, as though it were a Higher Power which compelled them. It thus follows that, so long as an opinion is valid, one must validate it not by merely practicing that view within one’s own life, but by holding others to it. One cannot impose morality on anyone, because morality is binding on us all, in equal measure, and one’s only burden is to fathom it, to the extent one can, and to uphold it. That is not an imposition; it’s an obligation, and, without it, we have nothing. You once asked me: “At what point is it an evil to impose one’s views of righteousness on someone else?” I’ll answer with the obvious: at no point, whatsoever, since it is impossible. Where Righteousness is what’s at stake, one can’t “impose on someone else”, as though one posed a
Read more

Justice for R. Kelly: a Reflection on the State of Eros. (Dedicated to the Lady Jerri.)

  I've been reading, recently, about the life of Robert Kelly, whom you'd recognize from *Space Jam*'s soundtrack, the "Ignition" remix, and his many other hits, such as "Trapped in the Closet". It just breaks my heart to see how he was treated, not just as a child who had to grow up much too fast, but also as an adult, even after having given us such heartfelt, soulful music. I could never reconcile those sweet and sentimental, loving, sometimes mystifying tones with the entire image of a sex offender; he was a Don Juan, but not Don Giovanni.   Clearly, that same mainstream media that made him famous had betrayed him, while the legal system, which was never there for him when he himself most needed and deserved it, in the tenderness of youth, went well beyond its obligations in defence of "children". The hypocrisy is not the part which angers me, as it is so ironic that it's laughable, and that alleviates some of the sadness of this gr
Read more

The Early Death of Any Future Peace:

  The biggest problem with the issue of abortion seems, at first, to be that no one wants to talk about it *as* a controversial issue. All the major arguments which either “side” reiterates have been around for roughly half a century at least, and we have made no progress in resolving them in the last forty years. This does not stop idealogues from acting like the matter’s settled and that *their* side won, however.   Yet beyond the moderate, “politically correct” and “civil” surface of the issue lies the deeper issue: Hardly anybody wants to talk about abortion *in itself*, and those who advocate for “choice” (and, by extension, for abortion, as it has to be a choice) are those least willing to discuss *the act itself* and whether it is good or evil to commit.   Instead, we hear from advocates for “choice” a slew of beautiful ideals, impassioned speeches, and redundant platitudes: -    the value of one’s bodily autonomy, -    the need for women to receive protection in a m
Read more