cringefailing my way to boy hell

if you know me irl no you dont

ace attorney blog: @franziskamylove

+ strawpage:

the way pierrot and harlequin's relationship with each other and the protagonist mirrors their relationship with columbina implies that pierrot was/is pursuing the protagonist for their similarities to columbina. we know that she was the most kind/caring of the monsters which is why harlequin saw her as the easiest sacrifice—disregarding his other vengeful reasons—which is why its interesting that the protagonist has these same traits irregardless of the player's choices. the player is required to help pierrot when he's bullied by townspeople (choosing to do nothing results in "going missing" when you visit the circus) and their internal dialogue makes them read as naturally sympathetic and curious, much like columbina. pierrot initially pursues the player because of their caring nature and his obsession grows from there, but knowing the story of columbina makes it seem more like he's obsessed with having a second chance with her than with the mc themselves. especially when harlequin decides to try to steal them from him, it's impossible for him not to make the connection to past events.

(additionally, pierrot repeatedly refers to other characters' advances on the player with eating-related metaphors, referencing how the troupe ate columbina after harlequin murdered her.)

harlequin obviously sees the resemblance as well, and deigns to steal the protagonist from pierrot like he failed to do with columbina. if the player rejects him after they see his show, he quickly resigns like a part of him expected the outcome. during my playthrough where i rejected harlequin at every turn, he always started confident but backed off if the player dismissed him. he doesn't chase the mc if they choose not to follow him into his tent and doesnt force them to take his ticket over pierrot's. to me, this shows that he expects rejection to an extent after what happened to columbina. its a subversion of the tropes of the pierrot, harlequin, and columbine in 17th century italian theatre, in which the harlequin always wins the columbine and leaves the pierrot pining and lovesick. applying these tropes to tfc, pierrot is actually the harlequin while harlequin is the pierrot. the player, then, is the columbine; the female love interest stuck in a love triangle between the two. the player is a direct parallel of columbina.

the both of them are using the player to replay what happened to her and attempt to change fate in their favor. like the rest of the circus, theyre stuck in the past, and replay the story of columbina's death through their shows multiple times a day. none of them are over her in the slightest. pierrot and harlequin pursue the protagonist for selfish reasons because neither of them are over the love they lost. to me, thats why harlequin doesn't immediately kill the protagonist like he did to columbina. he's trying to make things end a different way from what he did to her, not just take revenge on pierrot by stealing his lovers.

moral of the story, i think their feelings for the mc are much more selfish than they appear on the surface. they dont love the player—they love how they can pretend the player is columbina and get a chance to prevent what led to her death.

or maybe im reading too much into things. who knows?