#menardism

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ICrfRlUmPIplKJcNyjkQ7xRioEbL-I9S9upsF878Bho/edit?usp=drivesdk.

*Pride* should have been *Sloth*. *Father* should have been *Pride*.

I think it fits; the only genuinely prideful things about Selim, who I always found underwhelming, were his extra levels of loyalty and his belief in the superiority of his species-and not only were both of those not unique among the Homunculi, Sloth would have been an interesting way to view the first.

(Sloth's removal is easy enough; Gluttony can take his place in the Briggs fight, and a military general or, heck, a *resolution* to the horde of zombies *or* chimeras (you know, those ones in like the sewers that May fought like three times) (mini sub-rant; those two should def have been combined into giving the chimera horde Philosopher's Stones, like the zombies were ugly ass MFs in a bad way) could take the place of the Armstrong-Curtis fight. I'm not even entirely talked out of my Olivier idea (that I'm too bad at mobile to link to rn, uh, search the fma tag on my blog IG), she could fight him and Izumi... I'm getting off track.)

(Look; the point is, big guy Sloth is as boring and basic as they come. Even Gluttony says something with his innocence, this guy is just blargh.)

It also fits his sedentary lifestyle, living the simple, un-troubling life of a human, as well as his fighting style and design (he stands there and lets his tentacles do the work, and the shadow seems kind of cribbed, almost lazily (this is not a criticism of the Author/his design, I'm just adding some context behind a hypothetical Selim-Sloth), from his creator).

And let's talk about the creator;

First, it always felt weird that he was called "Father" more than anything else, like he was defined by a set of relationships that he never cared for, instead of anything about him.

Second, that guy was *Prideful as balls*. His actions are like 60% Pride 20% Sloth 20% Lust. I've seen people say that he embodies all the sins, like it's a point that he only pretended to purge them, but some are *demonstrably* bigger motivators for him than others.

And I feel like, honestly, he *straddles the line of being interesting*; if you go into it viewing the story as a philosophical masterpiece, you'll like him a lot, but you can easily hate him. This may be my Menardist "you can literally apply any lens to anything as a positive constructive measure, up to and including false information, as long as you can string together an argument about why it becomes interesting in a new way with that lens" perspective talking (actually, that's easy to say for both of these guys given how their very names are lenses), but I think having that central idea would really push him over the edge and define him.

So... yeah. Selim should have been Sloth, Father should have been Pride, the big guy should have been erased, and the zombies and chimeras should both have been wrapped up at some point.

This fascinates me, it really does. Where does the right to risk offense derive? What is the line between an unusual, perhaps stereotypical, depiction, as personal versus bigoted? Is there a duty to assume? To research? To inform? Does it change if you assume the blind viewer will take offense, or will assume the offensive fine and personal?