#patho.txt

A Doghead comments that “The only person we trust is Maria, our sister and patroness. Khan’s word.” and Notkin also comments that “Khan, by the way, would jump through any hoop on Maria’s order.” I thought there might be some familial goodwill left here, but… Given Kaspar’s later comments, maybe it’s rather about her position as the family’s inheritor/future Dark Mistress. That is, when Artemy asks if Kaspar is siding with Capella to “get back” at Maria, he claims, “That’s one of the reasons, yes. But spitefulness is a disgraceful feeling. In reality I am afraid of my sister. She will grow stronger than Mother, who used to be held back by Father. This is why her power brought more good than evil. And Victoria Sr., Ursa Major, was also alive back then. Who is to hold Maria back now?” When Victor and Maria later insist on Khan/the children leaving the Polyhedron, he says, “Big Sister is driving me away. I cannot fight her, neither can I disobey her. She is becoming the Dark Mistress.”

On this note, this narrative moment is also where Kaspar most explicitly states Termite identity in opposition to his Utopian family. (Although, interesting how he tells Artemy “As to why I’ve agreed, I won’t tell you. The Kains’ business is not the Termites’ business,” like there is some Kain pride left there lol). He has this dialogue with Daniil:

> Who will inhabit [the Polyhedron]? Khan: Simon. It is for his sake that father and uncle are throwing away their lives. Well, I don’t believe in all that metempsychosis! And this is the only place where we can play for real. This is our childhood. We are not giving it away to anyone!

Kaspar likewise says “[Maria] thinks the Tower is not for children. She thinks we’ve been taking someone else’s place all this time. Now the one it has been built for will inhabit it. But the Tower is for children! Who are we if not the birds nesting among a factory’s chimneys?” Which. I damn adore that line, Kaspar has such vivid dialogue. Anyway, he proves further detail on the point to Artemy: “She wants memory and the thoughts of the heroic past to inhabit the Tower instead of childhood and the dreams of future. She needs to light up a fire here. To make a furnace where she would forge a new and wonderful world.” Incidentally, I find this dialogue a bit cheeky in how it inverts the surface expectation of the Termite-Utopian dichotomy. That is, the Termites are associated with tradition, the Utopians with progress, but he’s right… The Utopians are, in essence, pursuing a ‘tradition’ in the name of another future, which parallels the Termites somewhat, I feel.

This reminds me of a comment Victor makes about him, too.

Victor Kain: […] The end times are upon us if sons have ceased to honour their fathers. They are turning the earth towards the void. Toppling what their parents built is what these wayward children are best at—but they never create anything in its place! > I feel you’re talking about your own son…* > You are entitled to your opinion. Victor Kain: My son has now founded a kingdom of his own. There is it, towering above our sinful earth. He wouldn’t let anyone into that world—not even his own father. If you’re interested to know what’s going on there, give it a try. Maria thinks you’re a man for whom nothing is impossible.

“The Polyhedron is a mirror that preserves the reflection of the person that has looked into it the last. You know, when Nina died, Maria said she may never be able to cope with grief… she started to pine away. That is when Focus was created. [...] I don’t know how [Peter] managed to do it. I think it’s because he loved Nina so much. Anyway—he ended up creating a space she could inhabit. Can you imagine? You come into a room and can definitely feel that she’s there—as if you’ve simply turned away from her for a second… And you can talk to her.”

The Kains’ soul-state mechanisms do seem to allow Memory to be retained in multiple places, so. Say Nina is already reflected in the Polyhedron, but her Memory is simultaneously retained in the Crucible—when Simon dies (quasi) Nina’s Memory is ousted from the Crucible but remains in the Polyhedron, hence why Victor says “Shall we extract her memory from within the Focus, or do we need Simon more? The choice is not at all clear.” His uncertainty recalls Maria’s line, about her saying everything would have been fine if not for Kaspar—presumably Simon could replace Nina’s reflection in the Polyedron and Nina could remain in the Crucible.

Victoria holds the position of ‘protector’ within the conflict between her and Nina; the Chrestomathy describes that “…The Town was torn in two by the confrontation between [Vlad and Victor’s] formidable wives […] some days, everything was bound by a terrible tension—it meant that the Mistresses were “spinning their yarn.” […] Their confrontation did not stop, but the people stopped feeling its depth. It was Victoria’s merit.” Likewise, Victoria is characterized as the people’s protector against Nina within the game text proper, with Katerina speculating that Vlad only brought Victoria to the Town to provide much-needed opposition to the newly-arrived Nina. Two further selections from the Chrestomathy even suggest that Victoria died to maintain this role, that after her death, she “became something like a local patron saint. Flowers, pastries, embroideries, apples, cups of salt and all sorts of offerings are placed on her grave every day [in] gratitude for protection from Nina Kaina, who even after her death continues to disturb people.” Likewise: “Victoria left shortly after Nina’s death for no apparent reason. It is believed that she did it on purpose in order to continue to be able to restrain her unbridled rival, who after her death gained some mystical power over the city. Indeed, after Victoria joined Nina, people breathed a sigh of relief and felt again […] that invisible wings were sheltering them.” This bird symbolism also accompanies Capella in the game-text; for instance, in how she characterizes her ascension to Mistresshood: “You do not know what it’s like… when a freckled bare-legged nymph breaks apart, and a graceful alabaster swallowtail emerged in all its glory, its wings covered the people, its love enfolding the world…” Birds are of course evocative of hope and perhaps even the Holy Spirit, which is likely a reach but perhaps not outside the realm of possibility given Victoria being informally beatified—she can be connected to holy protection in that sense.

Victoria’s posthumous characterization as a near-saint after her death is notable to me in how Victoria and Nina appear to embody their own mythos upon death. That is, Victoria—held as a benefactor despite doing “few good deeds”—is treated a patron saint and a “guardian of the family hearth, the protector of the weak and the poor…” despite being married to Vlad and not apparently providing any opposition to his exploitation of the indigenous population. Nina was instead describes as a “vampiress” or a “witch,” and in death is treated as almost a literal nightmare of evil spirit. Returning to the animal symbolism, Nina’s assigned beast in Patho Classic’s files is a mare, and I wonder if this is connected to the ‘mare’ of folklore (little detail: Katerina once refers to Maria as a “filly” so. Horse girl Kaina women <3).

And here is how toxic middle-aged yuri can still win:

“They believe in vain that Victoria fought Nina. Stupid are those who try to show Victoria’s greatness, dressing her up in the clothes of a white sorceress who defeated the evil witch. That wasn’t the greatness of Victoria. Naive are those who present her as good mother who protects children from a nightmare. Heat and cold, house and road, wool and shine, darkness and star—they, who embodied the extreme of extremes, were extremely close to each other. Only with each other could the Mistresses share their cosmic loneliness. [A/N I’m spitting blood 👍] Victoria’s greatness was that she loved her rival much more than she loved her. Being stronger than Nina, Victoria, the protector of the people, opened the way for Nina and allowed her ruthless truth to triumph.”

Yuri aside (the crowd boos) this fascinates me because this is the second instance where Victoria is described as stronger than Nina, the first being “The first and most powerful of the Mistresses was Olgimskaya.” This is a potential discrepancy with the game, wherein Katerina implies that Nina preceded Victoria, though 1) there are other inconsistencies in Nina’s timeline, which may be purposeful obfuscation to play into the meta, and 2) Katerina says that “[Vlad] married her a long time ago… but she and their son, Vlad the Younger […] used to live far away,” so perhaps in this vein, Victoria was the first. As for her strength, there are two points of interest for me.

Firstly, how this might communicate parallels between Victor and Victoria. Victoria allowing Nina’s “truth to triumph” evokes the consistent sentiment in Patho Classic that every truth must ‘speak in its own voice,’ so this reads to me as though Victoria allowed the Utopians to have some sort of victory—perhaps with the construction of the Polyhedron, as that is roughly meant to coincide with Nina’s death, barring the aforementioned temporal inconsistencies. But Victoria’s decision to “open the way” for Nina frankly reminds me of Victor. Like Victoria, Victor supposedly had the influence to convince Nina to abandon her apparently bloodthirsty intrigues, as “Victor was the only person that Nina used to obey not out of fear, but having recognized his superiority,” but that he “allow[ed] her absolute freedom of choice.” I still have no gd idea what that ‘superiority’ is supposed to mean, but perhaps there is a quasi-answer in Victoria. She, too, apparently had a strength or “”superiority”” over Nina, and could have theoretically stopped her, but chose the opposite. And Pathologic is clearly highly purposeful with its names, I doubt it’s random that the two characters who were supposedly truly able to control Nina have the same name.

Classic Daniil obviously appears in Town-on-Gorkhon in desperate circumstances, so I find it notable that Georgiy first claims that the Kains are not only familiar with Daniil’s work, but “aware of the difficulties you were experiencing and well-prepared to do our utmost to support you.” That Georgiy tells Daniil this directly before the ‘Simon is dead’ reveal and Georgiy’s request for Daniil’s help reads like an attempt to establish an immediate quid pro quo rapport between Daniil and the Kains. In particular how Georgiy—having professed to know the dire nature of Daniil’s situation—does indeed introduce a quid pro quo: that he will reveal the secret to Simon’s longevity, provided that Daniil helps the Kains:

Georgiy Kain: Immortality is the greatest secret humanity is forbidden to possess. Still, my brother managed to break the seal that locked it away from everyone else. > How? > Well, fine! In any case, I came here to see a mystery, not a person. I am willing to sell my soul to you if you help me reveal it. How can I help? * Georgiy Kain: I will tell you who my brother was, and who he has become, if you find his murderer. For now, let me bring up the fact that Simon lived one hundred and fifty seven years without being susceptible to any kind of disease—no influenza, no pneumonia, no hemorrhage, no organ failures or malignant growths have ever plagued him. > Yes. I believe in that. >I came here to witness the possibility of such a phenomenon; but immortality…

Here I want to take a detour about that “How can I help?” I know Daniil has a fanon reputation for being an impassioned dickhead to anyone who has the displeasure of speaking with him, but across routes he appears collaborative when not in the throes of frustration or anger. I.e. with Rubin: “If we act deliberately, and with calm mind, we can prevent this epidemic. Stay strong, I won't leave you on your own.” He’s always struck me as quick to and even overly-trusting; one dialogue that particularly interests me in this respect is with the tutorial Executor, who notes, “He who trusts everyone is asking to be deceived,” to which Daniil can reply, “Yet he who trusts no one is deluded. I know that from experience.” I would argue trust appears important to Daniil and his collaborators, given that he tells Victor “I hope we will be able to work in the atmosphere of mutual trust” and Artemy, “I have good reasons to trust you. I count on your integrity.” That trust is shown beside that apparent willingness to collaborate in the Haruspex Route in particular, Imo, when Daniil says, “Come no, Artemy… I’m sorry if I came across as condescending. I only want to help. Remember how you helped me when I was running circles in the dark?” and “Then help me out, Artemy, and I’ll help you back.” I find it particularly important that Daniil apologizes for potentially being condescending, which particularly suggests a desire to work as equals to me.

But I feel this dialogue especially effectively introduces Daniil’s perceived sense of responsibility. He basically professes his philosophy in this department, telling Georgiy “Categories like ‘time,’ nature,’ and ‘fate’ deprive man of responsibility for what goes on around him. I was taught to avoid this worldview.” This implies to me that Daniil has an internal locus of control and potentially views his reality as largely influenced by his own action. (In particular joined with comments like “I always follow my principles” or “I do not trust anyone blindly. That goes against my principles.”) I gesture to this dialogue a lot but I think it’s pretty pivotal to his characterization, and is of foremost importance in Georgiy’s tactic to ally Daniil with the Kains (and consequently set him on his narrative path) given how much Georgiy hammers into that poor sod’s skull that Simon’s death happened on his account. But I want to briefly digress, because even though Daniil says this, Daniil’s decision to go to Town-on-Gorkhon is one “to follow what he believes to be a sign of divine providence.” Daniil also tells Yulia, “I would have told you that I’d been brought here by the hand of fate not so long ago, naïve man that I was…” Which. I have no entire answer to this but it strikes me juxtaposed to that previous trust quote with “I know that from experience,” as though Daniil has undergone some sort of shift in his worldview OR (which I lean towards) he was just that desperate he believed it was fate. Again, I have no further insight on that, but. Intrigue.

To return to the main event:

Georgiy Kain: It could be that my mind is clouded by sorrow, but I cannot escape the feeling that your arrival is no coincidence. Your choice was made for you, my dear doctor! Let us not blame… fate for it. > So Simon wasn't aware I would come? Georgiy Kain: Even though we were uncertain of when you would arrive, my brother was looking forward to meeting you! The tragedy may have been a consequence of the actions he took in preparation for your arrival. Somebody has taken a powerful piece from the chessboard; a piece upon which your position here depended. It is doubly regrettable that Simon was playing on your side... > So you presume the queen knew of the blow and sacrificed itself for a pawn? But why? > My sincerest condolences to you. Is there anything I can do to help? Georgiy Kain: To grant you victory over death! Was it not your ultimate aspiration? To help you, Simon seems to have played a very dangerous game with… fate itself. He went out of his way to provide you with a body of evidence. > What did he do? > If that is indeed so, I feel obliged.

Firstly, Georgiy potentially appeals to Daniil’s sense of collaboration with that insistence that Simon was anticipating their meeting—perhaps strengthening that previous claim that the Kains would “do their utmost” to help him. He proceeds to again emphasize that Daniil’s arrival is tied to Simon’s death and thus assign responsibility to Daniil, and I think it’s a clever writing move that Daniil can respond with a reciprocal Chess metaphor. Not only does this suggest Daniil is picking up what Georgiy is putting down, figuratively playing his game, but the dialogue also shows Daniil assuming responsibility by framing Simon as having sacrificed himself for him.

And Georgiy’s next line makes me fucking crazy the way he positions Simon’s death was directly for Daniil’s benefit, to provide precisely what Daniil needs to save himself and his lifework. That second dialogue option also reinforces Georgiy’s tactic to me, how Daniil explicitly says that he feels personally responsible to help the Kains if Simon died for his sake. Georgiy continues in customary Kain Brother Manipulation of treating Daniil like the chosen one, which—to be fair, given Simon’s dialogue, he very much is. Georgiy says: “I am convinced that if there is anyone at all that can help us solve this puzzle, then it is you. This mission calls for someone as astute and inventive as yourself,” in appeal to Daniil’s intelligence, but Georgiy again reinforces Daniil’s personal responsibility with “If Isidor was an instrument of fate, then Simon’s murder is a message that fate intended for you personally,” and twists the knife with “I repeat: everything that is happening here is happening on your account.”

> If the Polyhedron alone caused so many deaths, how much evil will a whole city of incarnated miracles beget?  Bachelor: Rather a lot. Let’s be realistic here. Does this mean, however, that we—all of us, humanity, I mean—should abandon our attempts, efforts, and search? You’ll never convince me of it. 

So Aglaya’s dialogue reinforces that recurrent theme of pursuing impossibility, but the ramifications for her individual character interest me more. Like. She despises Nina for being the literal “embodiment of evil,” yet she considers human nature inherently that? Perhaps & perchance Aglaya’s hatred for Nina (pre-Polyhedron) is because Nina embodies Utopianism, which is *arguably* the most ‘humanity-’ oriented philosophy, as its ideologues are “those who believe in the power of the human spirit and the infinite scope of creativity.” Outlandish conclusion to draw but this is a Tumblr post so I shall say my piece: maybe on some narrative level, Aglaya despises Nina for being an embodiment of some kind of human nature. 

Mark is clearly cognizant of Patho’s narrative to an extent, and seemingly represents another play on “lines” as a mechanism for prophesying in Patho. As Artemy knows the lines in viscera as a Haruspex, Yulia/the Mistresses know cause-and-effect chains/threads of fate, Mark knows the lines as in theatre. Eva describes Mark’s performances thus: “Staggering, prophetic performances! They predict fates. […] Two ritual Masks pick a volunteer from the crowd. Mark looks at his hands, then shows them to the Masks. They improvise. Without a word they play out either the nearest future or the whole life of the person—depending on the price. And it always comes true!” Notkin says, “They say they tell your fortune, right? Might be just a game, might be note; it does come true. I think though that it’s Mark himself who manipulates the events to align someone’s life with his ideas. […] I mean, [his predictions] do come true, though not every time, and if they don’t, he explains it away as a metaphor, or says they did come true but we didn’t notice.” Notkin differs from Eva’s depiction somewhat; at least, he complicates whether Mark’s performances really come true, and this reliance on metaphor to me is reminiscent of an idea in Patho where obfuscation, story-telling, or performance are the most efficient means to communicate truth (lovely Nina is an apparent exception but I am not talking about that right now <3).

For instance, a Town child tells the player, “Mark—he knows the truth and is afraid to distort it. That’s why he uses masks, puppets, and riddles.” This echoes Katerina’s line, “I can’t leave my smoke and mirrors be […] Because I cannot lie when it comes to details… My lips literally cannot enunciate something that is untrue. Riddles and vagueness leave me a degree of freedom.” Mark himself voices something similar: “Like any game, play-acting is a mere shadow of Existence, a tiny fragment of it, a semblance—not a hollow semblance, mind you, quite the contrary, filled to the brim! Play-acting is fuller than reality... since it’s smaller.” To me, this gestures to how storytelling and theatre—with their ability to exaggerate reality—allow one to address issues in a roundabout way which can be more efficient than clear-cut truth. Simplicity is absolutely a necessary tool, but can inevitably hinder necessary nuance, and I think that is what Patho is getting at here. Similarly, it’s suggested that people *interpret* these plays rather than the acts being clear depictions of future events, e.g. when Mark talks about the bull in the Bone Stake Lot incident: “Everybody started to talk about it, interpreting and reinterpreting the… act. Just like they do with our very own Mask Act here. The prophetic excitement is growing by the hour…” just as he later says, “No, I am no longer a mime show interpreter.” All this suggesting that Mark perhaps interpreted simulacra or semblances, and this is how he understood Pathologic’s narrative.

Characters further suggest that Mark’s Masks did not merely show the future, but enforced it. Daniil says, “You were a puppeteer. Your Masks foretold our future—or maybe imposed it upon us; in all honesty, I don’t see the difference.” Maria similarly states, “his performances don’t show a person’s fate, they impose it,” and Lara says, “Mark’s mime shows seem to incorporate us too… everyone’s playing along to avoid disrupting the performance, and that’s exactly how he’s manipulating us.” I interpret this from the meta angle, because obviously the Theatre demonstrates the game’s events, which the characters act out because. Well. They are characters. Even Mark doesn’t appear above it all, as Lara says “I think it’s the Masks who play him and not the other way around,” and Mark refers to himself as an actor, such as when he muses that “I’ve been thinking about leaving this place of the dead for a while now, but I get the feeling that this is exactly the place for me to fulfill my part…” 

Though, Mark obviously more often references the player’s role as an actor, which again points to his understanding of fate. Namely when he tells Daniil “[The next performance is] for you to decide. You are part of the lineup. The playscript is not yet complete, you see. […] Your fate isn’t bound yet. It will take time, effort, and of course your direct participation. Come to see us every evening. We’ll show how you’re doing bit by bit.” This dialogue is obviously stepped in the meta: the playscript depends on our actions, as the game unfolds according to our choices in words and deeds. This reminds me of how the Mistresses and Simon’s fortune-telling all seems to juxtapose predetermination alongside some kind of free will. That is, while there is room for a player to subtly influence the narrative’s progression, it is obviously all set out for us in the end. It has to end in a particular way, and it feels like this is what Mark understands. Namely when he discusses the three families with Daniil, and when Daniil asks which will be victorious, Immortell says, “You don’t need me to tell you that; the answer is yours. They're so different... Which one do you prefer? […] It's up to you.” Mark knows that the player must inevitably side with one philosophy according to their choices: choice decides the outcome, but that outcome is obviously already determined.

Mark instead tells Clara that she is “against the rules” because she is “an imposter and a changeling.” Against the game’s rules, presumably as Clara is the only character capable of breaking her fate and so going off-script, as it were, in Mark’s performances. In the secret endings, the gamemakers say that Clara’s twin was a “gimmick of choosing one’s own fate” and that “She was indeed conceived as a disease, an instrument of the Law… but she was born a thief. At the very moment of her birth, she got a chance to become someone completely different. The girl came into this world, having stolen for herself the fate of a miracle-worker.” From a mechanical standpoint, Clara is obviously unique in that she has a choice—most people probably know that curing all the Bound allows you any choice, but that aside, Daniil and Artemy have only one decision. So setting aside that Clara obviously is still bound by a preset narrative, she is capable of choosing to oppose her predetermination and thus the capital-L Law, as fate/inevitability/the Law are closely intwined and often conflated. Breaking the Law is indeed ‘miraculous,’ which is referenced in a dialogue between Imortell and Daniil about the Polyhedron: 

Mark Immortell: […] First of all, I also believe in lofty ideals—don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. […] But recently I came to realize something that has blown me out of the water completely and made me reevaluate my worldview. So... I believe in Vlad's transformation. Bachelor: What did you realize? Mark Immortell: That fate can be overcome. I’m so tired of all this... You know, many people consider my shows to be mere tricks—but I know that’s untrue. They are daily reminders of Predetermination reigning over us... it’s depressing. But now I see that a miracle is not completely impossible. Bachelor: Please, go on! What makes it possible? Mark Immortell: It’s the Tower. The only thing that leads the plots of my performances astray is the Tower. The Tower—and everything that has to do with it... those are the only things that cannot be tossed and turned and manipulated like puppets. A miracle overcomes the inevitable. The Tower can do miracles. It all makes sense. Bachelor: I’m not sure it does. Mark Immortell: You will still have an opportunity to ponder it. The Tower is an ambiguous phenomenon. There’s no need to rush to conclusions. I have, as you can see, fallen in love with it... I think of it as my safe haven. But you should keep a cool head.

I am gleeful about this dialogue btw there is so much to work with here. For one, it maintains the link between opposing fate and the miraculous found in Clara’s character, as Mark’s conviction that “fate can be overcome” derives from the Polyhedron’s capacity for miracles. Again, then, the miraculous is positioned opposite inevitability and fate. But what is Mark’s actual relationship to Utopia and the Utopians? I have always wanted to throw up blood over Daniil and Mark’s final conversation. When he tells Mark, “I thought that the whole point of the Utopians’ ideology was neglecting the laws of fate and the limits it imposes upon us,” to which Mark replies, “You are correct, oh the keenest of the astute! So what? I have cognized this side of Existence from backstage, so to speak; from where the strings go and the machinery is hidden—and yet I willingly swore allegiance to the Utopia. Does that tell you nothing?” That line goddamn haunts me. It always reinforced to me that there is an undercurrent in this game that people should strive for utopia, even if it’s a perpetually doomed endeavor, given Saburov and Eva’s statements to this effect. Mark appears sincere in this, given his “I also believe in lofty ideals” or how he gives his life to Maria; Katerina claims that Maria is the only one who can influence Mark, and indeed we see his collusion with Maria in the Changeling Route. 

But Clara throws potential doubt on Mark’s allegiance to the Utopians when she reports to Katerina, “He’s not one to side with either the Utopians or the Humble. He stands apart.” [or] “Maria thinks he’s under her charms and in the ranks of the utopians. He’s playing along [with her]. But that’s not how it really is!” I think Mark could well be playing along with Maria, considering a dialogue with Andrey where he suggests that Mark “Claims that the local mimes can tell the future. As for me, I think he’s making fun of the Mistresses—and, by extension, of us all.” Maria herself says of him, “He makes me anxious; his performances don’t show a person’s fate, they impose it. I’d really like to see someone grab and pull the puppeteer’s strings. […] one day I shall tame this crafty imp—no matter what it takes.” “Makes me anxious”?? Maria of Scarlet Mistress fame ??? This reminds me of Mark’s voice lines “There is a great ability in knowing how to conceal one's ability,” and “It is sometimes necessary to play the fool to avoid being deceived by cunning men.” These lines need not necessarily be related, but imply a deceptive character that suggests he could be following Maria’s lead out of amusement.

Another suggestion that Mark is taking the piss is that he quotes Professor Pangloss from Candide, who represents the naïve optimism and theodicy Voltaire lambasts: “All is for the best in this best of the worlds” (Всё к лучшему в этом лучшем из миров/Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles). The Utopians are not necessarily naïve optimists, but are dreamers who ascribe to the miraculous, even emphatically self-proclaimed rationalist Daniil. Theodicy also intended to vindicate divine justice, and Patho’s narrative involves its own ‘divine justice’ through plague; so Mark quoting Pangloss feels quite tongue-in-cheek to me. 

Yulia’s character concept best clarifies her Tripwires of Fate theory; that she kept a diary in Town which allowed her to recognize “a rather symmetrical conclusion about the reaction between the movements of those people in town and the seemingly random events happen afterwards. […] Now Yulia is preoccupied with the question whether these patterns are just a coincidence.” She herself says, “The world is defined by a plethora of causal relationships. These causalities, however, are located at different tiers of human perception.” This outlines the foundations of Yulia’s construction of fate, which leads directly into discussion of the Mistresses: “Take my own death, for instance. In our town, such coincidences have put together several women whose inexplicable aptitude allows them to see the whole chain of cause-effect connections. They also see where the chain would lead; which is to my death.” Daniil can then ask how Mistresses predict the future, or whether people can affect the “course of causes and consequences.” Yulia caveats her answer, but clarifies that a Mistress “would not hesitate to reveal the future” only if she “were to intuit that there is not man or woman capable of breaking—or mending—these kinds of connections.” This explanation is based in Yulia’s vocabulary: she uses these cause-and-effect chains of likelihood to foresee events, such as anticipating Clara’s visits. But Yulia’s explanation is one of the most explicit insights the game offers on the mechanisms of the Mistress’ clairvoyance, so I’m inclined to treat it as more than just Yulia applying her own vocabulary to the phenomenon. Rather, as one way the game might want us to see how foretelling works here; especially since this explanation is remarkably close to how Simon describes magic in some game material. 

Simon claims that he does not practice magic, but manipulates “an invisible combination of causes, leading to moderately predictable consequences.” He specifically claims, “To produce a magical construct sometimes requires tens of even hundreds of people. They must be close at hand, and they must be predictable. To take their life line, read them, learn to make a match: that’s an art that you call magic.” Simon’s ‘magic’ appears to parallel the Mistress’ clairvoyance, as it rests within predictable or assured cause-and-effect. It also apparently allows for human action alongside some kind of predetermination, because as the Mistress apparently only foretell futures that individuals’ actions will not change, human will and predetermination are put aside one another, but not apparently conflated. This also recalls Yulia to me in that Simon ‘explains’ his magic through patterns and order—constructs which can be placed on the irrational to rationalize it. With regards to Yulia, Simon’s statement is most similar to when Yulia explains her apparent loss of sense to Daniil in their first dialogue; that she has “lost [her] ability to make distinctive events coincide.”

Another parallel between Yulia and Simon/the Mistresses is their role in constructing the Town. Simon/the Mistresses are its metaphysical architects, while Yulia played a role in its construction or design, having come to town with an engineering team “when the town was being rebuilt.” Yulia also joins her understanding of fate to the Town proper, as her character concept contextualises her theory thus: “there are invisible strings that cross every road in town (collectively — a Path); cutting them will result in a series of harmful accidents.” So to me, Yulia ultimately offers a “rational” equivalent to the Mistresses and Simon in a way, where she helped design the Town and is capable of perceiving the connections between events which grant one the ability to prophesy in-universe. She is logical rather than in the fantastical domain of the Mistresses, characterizing her foretelling through the scientific. She states, “[…] I base my speculations on rigorous research, even though it may not look veritable enough to you. You see, in order to calculate the probability of either outcome, I had to extrapolate the two mathematical functions, which you may find to be somewhat... esoteric” or “Oh, the joy I feel when everything falls well in line with what I have predicated—by which I don’t mean the brute probabilism your mother would sort to, but a watertight, well-ground calculation of likelihood!”  

Yulia also poses an interesting counterpart to Daniil; both are rationalists with a tendency towards the fantastic, yet Yulia is a fatalist and Daniil consistently refutes fate’s existence. Both characters’ theories foreground imminence and inevitability—Yulia literally theorizes over inevitable fate, while Daniil’s fight against death is sometimes framed as one against inevitability. Daniil even tells her, “You wouldn’t believe it, but some of my theories are quire similar to yours” and “The story of my life, believe it or not. Trying desperately to draw their attention to what seems to be painfully obvious, offering any conceivable proof that these ‘coincidences’ must be studied! To no avail.” But what really makes me want to bury myself in the floorboards is Daniil’s claim that, “I would have told you that I’d been brought here by the hand of fate not so long ago, naïve man that I was…” That is. Both Yulia and Daniil appear as people who have, to an extent, distanced themselves in different ways from aspects of Utopian doctrine, but Daniil remains a Utopian while Yulia obviously does not, and instead founded the Humble ideology. Lara’s portrait quote address this somewhat: “This fatalism of hers is depressing and crushing, and it’s appalling to see a mind that bright base its theories upon a false foundation. I believe that any predetermination is an insult to the freedom of choice. I guess it all goes back to the past, when she worked with the Dream Party.” This is my speculation, but I think Yulia’s fatalism and according view of human nature explains her potential broken alignment with the Utopians, as it is incompatible with their ideology.

For one, Yulia’s theory is ultimately about the necessity of death, which is framed as her “crime.” When Clara claims that Yulia isn’t evil, Artemy rebuts her specifically by saying that “Yulia is the ideologist of humility. She came up with a scientific justification of necessary death.” Yulia says of herself, “I don’t qualify as wicked, but you can call me a criminal… in a way. Just don’t conflate the two. You see, I am of the opinion that it was your duty to end us.” Both dialogues suggest that Yulia believed—presumably on account of her dabbles in Fate—that the Plague could only end with Clara’s sacrifice, that the only way out was through death. Besides Yulia’s general we’re doomed talk, she tells Clara, “I get the feeling that every move you make may be reliable predicted. This is not an opportunity I would ever miss for it feeds remarkably well into one of my theories… perhaps, the most pessimistic of them all.” That latter sentence feels like proof, to me, that her theory of “necessary death” is about Clara’s ending. Yulia’s conclusions thus feel antithetical with the Utopians,’ not just narratively, but that the Utopians are all about possibility.

I also want to look at this dialogue between Yulia and Daniil:

Yulia Lyuricheva: Is this so? If I die, the universe would not notice my passing. But what if there are people who are the walking embodiment of the law by which events are connected to each other? What would happen to the universe if any one of these people were to die? Bachelor: Do you think you are such a person? Yulia Lyuricheva: When I was a child I took enormous pleasure in thinking I was one. Later in my life, as a student, I rather saw it as an honour of which I was not necessarily deserving. Today, however, I treat it as a somewhat scornful affliction. Bachelor: Why? Yulia Lyuricheva: People like these are a natural hazard. Their mission exists as long as they believe in it, and others suffer from its consequences.

The dialogue trees point to Yulia speaking about Simon here, and in that sense it provides more possible internal logic for why Yulia became disaffected with Utopianism. Yet Yulia’s portrayal of Simon feels very Clara-esque to me as well. As I have mentioned before, there is a consistent idea to Clara’s character that her faith in herself is what manifests her miracle-working abilities, as according to Rat Prophet, “everything she believes in comes true.” This dialogue with Daniil then seemingly underlies Yulia’s gradual disaffection with Utopian values and subtly introduces her dynamic and view of Clara. Yulia is certainly intrigued and fascinated by Clara, but not particularly warm or empathetic to her. When Clara speaks of being a saint, Yulia is fairly harsh with her, she says, “You? A saint? What kind of imbecile would call you that? Is there even a God that you believe in? You are a changeling, and your sainthood is the lamest kind of mimetic apery.” Yulia appears interested in Clara only insofar as she is convinced that Clara is destined to end her and others in the Town, and in doing prove Yulia’s theories. On the Clara note, I think another element to Yulia’s incompatibility with Utopianism is how Yulia views humanity, since she professes to believe that human nature is evil, telling Clara “Let me remind you how intrinsically evil people are.”