#posthumanism

I like thinking and this movie surely made me think. I’m not doing a review, more of an analysis/interpretetation. I’m a Literature Major so I’m not concentrating that much on the film theory side such as sound design, lighting or scene cuts, because I don't know jackshit of that. Skip to ’Analysis begins here’ if you’re already familiar with the terms below. I’ve bolded main points and main ideas so one can more easily hop back and forth if one so wishes. Turns out I wrote a damn essay when I thought of doing quick notes, but you know. I got possessed and I'm still in awe. If something is unclear to you I'll happily try to help, just reply to the comments.

Quick ’academic jargon’-section, return here when you get confused;Burkean sublime– philosopher Edmund Burke wrote in 1757 about aesthetics (what is beautiful) and came up with the term ’sublime’. Burke writes ”[w]hatever is fitted in any sort to exite the ideas of pain, and danger, that is to say, whatever is in any sort terrible, or is in conversant about terrible objects, or operates in a manner analogous to terror, is a source of the sublime; that is, it is productive of the strongest emotion which the mind is capable of feeling.” (Burke, 1998, 36)

Posthumanism; a branch of philosophy and cultural studies that asks the ’you know humans are just one species on this planet we should concentrate more on the others, too’. Concentrates on unraveling strict categories such as nature-culture, technological-organic, human-animal or even living-dead.

more-than-human term used in posthumanist to refer to all kinds of things that are nonhuman, beyond human etc., like ’more-than-human character’ (example the creature in the cave)

Action Network Theory (ANT) Latour’s idea that instead of merely human-human interaction (example Ava locks Simon in the sub) there’s always multiple other, nonhuman/more-than-human actors doing their own things in the ’network of actions’ too. (like the submarine is alive and wants its own things, the sea creatures want food, the blood ocean wants this and that which mess up the goals of the humans’ the god wants god only knows what). Important note is that in ANT it’s common that the actors want different things which end up counter-acting some other actors’ doings (which, speaking of this movie, is fairly clear).

ANALYSIS BEGINS

First off I kept noticing the motifs of eyes and seeing. For example Ava quite literally turns the blind eye to Simon’s pleas. Secondly it’s her left eye, and usually in art the right eye is for reason and the left one is for feelings, which kind of makes sense here. She refers to the people she’s sending down there only as convicts, not bothering asking their names. If she would, it would make it likely harder to send them to their deaths, because to name something is to attempt understanding it. Ava is actively dehumanizing the people she’s killing so that she can keep going. To feel is to get the consequences of lives lost.

Also there’s the eye of god which is all-seeing but not all-understanding. Through a pinhole, remember? The god/entity cannot be moralized, cannot be put into the alignment chart (except maybe for true neutral) because it’s so much more-than-human that all human morality and ethics are un-usable in its case. It just exists. It’s terrifying. It sees you. It cannot be understood, try and you’ll go mad. (I’m going to get into the lovecraftian motifs later on).

Side note, if the x-ray camera is so powerful it can kill (?) a man after one shot and give Ava tumors even if she wasn’t standing in front of it (didn’t get a direct hit), and there’s ideas of synthesizing the blood into food, they’ll end up eating radiation pretty quickly. We’re not talking of chest rays. We’re talking of much more lethal levels of radiation here. So ridiculous levels of radiation that a damn eldritch being backs off from it’s burning way.

So why did Ava seal him in, then, and refused to open the hatch when he was pulled up? To keep the radiation out. It’s unlikely it was to keep the hatch more blood-proof, they have a space stations for god’s sakes, and should be able to make/salvage pressure-safe hatches that can be, you know, opened. If everything would’ve gone according to plan the information could’ve been gathered again by connecting to the computer from the outside and no-one would’ve needed to get Simon’s radiating dead body out of there. This is one reason why I think Simon has just about the same chances of survival as a hero in a Ancient Greek tragedy; he’s using the camera for light, too, and shows signs of radiation poisoning (throwing up, burns etc). Also he keeps complaining that it’s hot in the sub and radiation does cause heat, too. Instead of a one killer dose Simon’s is likely the gradual build-up that is just as lethal.

Returning to point ’eyes and seeing’ the x-ray camera is Simon’s only way of seeing when the window is covered. I think he took the picture of the people just because he wanted to see what they were doing, knowing that they were doing something that meant life or death for him. And because the window is small as heck he did what every human very likely would’ve done; attempted seeing (i.e. understanding) what was going on by taking that picture.

The same idea of seeing as an attempt of understanding plays as the leitmotif of why he’s sent down there in the first place. The samples are secondary. He’s a witness. He doesn’t have any real agency in the story (paradoxal to ANT) until the very end of the movie. He’s dead from the get-go. His only function down there is to gather information about this greater unknown and somehow give it to the scientists. He’s so far just a tool that every way of making him continue taking those pictures is used, lying, more lying, promising empty nothings etc. Consider the ’cross-the-wires-guy’ who likely was lied to less and just refused cooperation, which led Ava to keep sending more people down there with more sophisticated tactics of manipulation.

Hope is a very dangerous weapon in this film. Simon is a tool, he’s a single-use ace card of Ava’s deck. And to keep him usable he needs to be lied to, fed this idea that there might be hope, that he might get free. If he loses hope, he stops listening, he goes to the corner, lies down and waits like the Wires Guy did. So Simon cannot lose hope. Ava never says that he will be let out, she’s just giving the hypotheticals while Simon, being damn eager to live by nearly any means in the first half of the film, is the ideal candidate. It’s unclear if Ava wants to save him or just wants his data, it could be that she begins to sympathize with him and knows that it’s a willful murder but she knows that there’s nothing she can do to save him (when she begins to question herself).

Why would she give that 30 min timespan if she wasn't just giving him a clear-set mirage of hope, do x in y amount of time and you'll be fine. It’s surely easier to get Simon to actually attempt his best, maybe the earlier convicts stopped listening her and just died without giving her the info, so she sent the next one, and the next.It’s giving him a clear symbol, 30 minutes = survival. That’s Ava pulling off a psychological operation to conserve cooperation while Simon has nothing to lose. She knows that Simon’s getting more and more mentally and physically damaged, (CO- and radiation poisoning, dehydration, concussions etc etc..) he needs something he can understand easily, even in the midst of his decaying rational thinking abilities. 30 minutes is pretty easy to understand, it’s a clear-cut number that he can observe. From Ava’s part that’s nasty. That’s brilliant. And it works.

Simon’sown ’I want to live’ betrays him and murks up his rational thinking. He’s been told by both religious and scientific sources that the planets and stars are gone, but he refuses to listen and insists it’s just the ships themselves, that somewhere over the horizon things are magically fine, that someone, somewhere, is living a normal life. He refuses to accept the truth. He refuses to give in. He rips out his own arm just to keep kicking for a minute or two more. He clings onto the hope even if he knows it’ll get him nowhere. He believes in brotherhood, home, normal human things. Think of it, in the classic Humanism in the 1700s and especially in France 1789 they believed in freedom, brotherhood and equality. What is Simon believing in? The exact same things! Simon is a humanist. Maybe the last humanist.

Badly for Simon, though, the world in Iron Lung is everything but humanist. It’s a post-human-ist setting along being posthumanist. I mean this the literal way, post-human-ist. Human agency and exeptionalism has long since stopped making sense. The forces at play are so much more major than human agencies. The age of the human is over, the miraculously survived humans are fighting for scraps and elongating their fight towards the ultimate grave. This is the reality of truly-after-human, the point where the darkest posthumanist philosophers’ ideas start to look like a daydream survivability wise. Believe in what you want, act or don’t, resist or comply.. you’re going to die too soon and so will everyone else. (And that’s why I fucking adore this film. The bleakness is subtle and yet demonstrated with such blunt force it leaves the audience baffled, surely there must be hope, surely this isn’t the end of the road.. in the cinema, we were all Simon. This is why the ending is so kathartic; Simon is dead but just looking at the tumblr tag Simon is also now inside our heads and cannot be erased, he got that mental gravestone he wanted.)

Speaking of mental gravestones Simon is a witness but he also wants to be witnessed and seen. He’s desperate for a metaphorical hand to hold. He’s trying to make his point clear ’I was here. I died horribly. My name was Simon.’ That’s a darker version of every ’name was here’ graffiti in the history of humankind, ever since people put mud on their palms and pressed handprints on rocks. That’s why he’s so hell-bent of telling his name. He’s actively (and in vain) trying to resist himself being rendered to just a hand which presses the camera button. Eventually, after Ava refers to him by his name, he sends the data up, knowing now that there’s no way for him to survive. It’s the first and last real trade between Ava and Simon, although still an unfair one. He’s witnessed, seen, aknowledged, remembered, he’s about to die but he’s not going to die forgotten, and because of that he follows Ava’s orders instead of rebelling and doing nothing (like the Wires Guy). Simon might also understand that if he doesn’t succeed in this, they’ll send someone else down. If you think of this, there likely is more convicts than him, he referred to the Wires Guy as ’brother’ just because he was from Eden like he was. Or just was a fellow convict. So there is a possibility he’s attempting to save someone else, even if those someones all but abandoned him (according to his own wording). Again.. maybe the last humanist.

Side note of Jesus motif, Simon’s hands get stuck a bit too ’Jesus on the cross’ /Man of Sorrows -esquely. In the beginning there’s a cross of shadow directly where he’ll get stuck later on. He repeatedly keeps asking if he’s abandoned. ”Eli eli..” but even if I won’t go there, he does offer some kind of attempt at salvation-through-self-sacrifice. The word ’attempt’ is crucial here. Simon is not going to appear all-fine after three days. The human gods are dead or not listening. What’s down there does not care.

Side note; in medieval executions the convicts had total freedom of speech before the gallows and wheels and other such nasty stuff, because well, they were already dead, so why not speak your mind and tell the authorities to go fuck themselves. Which Simon does quite frequently. Murder of a murderer makes two, the whole point why from an ethical standpoint death-sentence is a bad idea. Down there one gains the ultimate freedom of speech. Uncontrolled, indeed. Like what are they going to do? Even if they showed mercy and pulled him up, he’s going to die of radiation poisoning.. which is ironic since Ava (the executioner) very likely WOULD end up dying in the same damn way. Two graves, two coffins of lead. (Even if Ava died just as he did, attacked by the fish, they would've died with the same methods in any case). All for the sakes of some data which solves nothing but the curiosity fix.

Eden trusts in religion as the source of hope and apparently has some kind of death cult, they’re attempting reviving the last tree by the bodies of the dead. This is not a bad idea, but a dead tree doesn’t come back to life just by giving it more fertilizer (everyone who’s ever killed a houseplant knows this). It needs to grow from a seed. That’s why I think the pedant had a dried seed of maybe a tree, which could, if placed in ideal conditions, grow into a tree. Maybe this is why Simon has such a reaction of finding it. Therefore the pedant is a promise of (the last) hope. The tree could be regrown. Hope could be regrown. Then he loses it and quickly loses his own hope of survival, too.

The COI however trusts in science, unfeeling but efficient. They know what fucked up situation they all are in. Ava skips over of one of her own getting lethal levels of radiation and herself very likely getting cancer just to finish this information-gathering mission. It’s more important than anything to her. What I thought is also the cost of knowledge; the double-edged sword of how expeditions (even if they are, well, just expeditions) could end up badly, too. Think of how Marie Curie died. She discovered something incredible that did end up killing her. Think of medical knowledge now and horrible human/animal experimentation. Ava is a scientist, both in good and bad. She’s the running force behind the film (before god-like actors begin to show up), human (scientific) curiosity personified. Ava keeps saying that skills are going down and scientific discoveries being lost, the children not knowing what their grandparents did. Ava’s an example of why humanity has made it this far, how they are still here after the Quiet Rapture. Curiosty and fucking spite, man. Speaking of fucking spite, didn’t you just think of Simon, because I surely did. If Ava is the cold rational side of humanity, Simon is the feeling side, and together they represent humanity as a whole.

Quick note about the Quiet Rapture; if the stars and planets themselves are out, there’s NO hope left for anything. It’s the heat death of the universe that has happened already. Eventually everything will come to a halt when there is no way for anything to happen, because the laws of thermodynamics do not allow it. Again, Ava is a scientist and likely knows this. Faced with the end of the road COI does the antithesis of Eden and attempts understanding it from a scientific viewpoint, even if there’s possibly no-one to share that information with in a y-amount of time. It’s curiosity for knowledge just for the sakes of curiosity for knowledge. That, again, brings the point back to the ruthlessness of COI; they know the knowledge is useless but because they want to know, want to understand, they keep sending people down there. It’s not a calculated risk. It’s an outright murder in the name of science. It’s not the first; think of Laika.

But to keep Simon in the ropes she has to frame it as ’calculated risk’, put it in a scientific language, silt up the original meaning. ’Calculated' gives the idea that she knows what she’s doing, when she obviously doesn’t. To put it in the (indirect and from memory because I can’t find the quote) words of Thomas Harris from Silence of the Lambs ”Ladders are seen as threatening. People don’t climb on ladders by their free will, and surely as hell won’t if they see the hangman’s noose.” Do you think Simon would’ve been willingly climbing onto his own coffin if he’d known that it was just that? Of course not. He’d just said I’d rather not. He’d very likely would’ve put up one hell of a fight, too. He’s strong, he’s killed before. So the choices were drag him in stunned (which leads him to not cooperating) or lure him in by lies.

Which brings us to Wires Guy. I’d rather not is a powerful sentence. I must apologize of not having sources for this but an asylum seeker, after being thrown back and forth between agencies to sign papers and given information just refused the last one with ’I’d rather not’. What are they gonna do? Throw him out of the country? They were gonna do it in any case. So as his (?) last demonstration of free will when none is the norm and expectation, he just.. refused to. In the movie so does the Wires Guy. He knows he’s out of reach by any threat. What are they gonna do, huh? Torture him? Kill him? He’s already getting lethal amounts of radiation and even if he hadn’t taken any pictures he’s going to suffocate, and he goes, lays down and waits. Gives them nothing. Wires Guy knew he was the crucial piece of the puzzle and just didn’t do what was expected of him. That was monumental manifestation of free will in the face of the inevitable.

Conflict never solved anything. The destroyed station is a good point here. They are wasting resources battling and quarreling, and if someone knows this, it’s Ava. Think of it, Simon has done something terrible that killed 60-ish people. In a colony of survivors that’s bad. Like ’wiping out a damn country’-level bad. He might’ve done it by accident but what everyone’s left with is the consequences. And when the stations or people don’t cooperate, they dig trenches and send their butchers and executioners for the job. Again it will not solve anything… but cooperation wouldn’t either. And that is, my dear readers, a fucking curve ball.

Other works I thought of were Stalker (both the Tarkovsky movie and the original novel by Strugatskis’), Asimov’s Solaris (again also the Tarkovsky movie) and Howey’s novel Wool. The setting in Stalker is a man is going to this sentient ’zone’ where apparently some kind of alien force spent a day or two while passing by Earth. In the Zone, allegedly, is a room/place that grants the visitor their deepest wish. Of course to go into the Zone is dangerous and there’s all kinds of force fields, anomalies and places called ’the meat grinder’ and the enviroment keeps changing leaving the humans confused and/or dead. In Solaris there is a sentient ocean (sic) that plays with body doubles (sic!). There’s a research station over the planet-wide ocean of planet Solaris, and there’s scientists doing expeditions to the sea trying to make sense of it. Instead the sea sends its own agents on the way, for example a doppelgänger of the scientist’s wife, that causes them emotional and psychological distress. In Wool after a nuclear war humanity’s few survivors has gone to bunkers (called wools) and send their convicts to clean the monitors outside (sic!) which again and of course is a one way ticket, too.

Now onto the more-than-human side of Iron Lung. So far we have discussed the human characters.. and now onto the absolutely non-human. First off the Iron Lung itself, the submarine as an iron lung, a a life support mechanism. the stations too are iron lungs.. but humanity is so sick it wont survive on its own. There is no way out. The iron lung(s) are both trapping and life-giving mechanisms. Historically to get placed into one meant you’re in the lung for life or you’ll stop breathing. Which, to my humble opinion, is a chef’s kiss -level naming.

The submarine is alive, it changes and wears and tears, seems to bleed and even breathe. It communicates with bleeps and lights. It complies and it resists. It gives signs of the crawlspace. And it keeps Simon alive even if he’s supposed have to ran out of oxygen by now. The oxygen meter goes from 4 to 3 way too fast. Then from 3 to 2 quite fast. The last one seems to last for ever.. and if I saw correctly it goes back to level 2 after there’s a significant amount of blood inside the sub. Now, some hematology student on tumblr (sorry I didn’t get your handle down for referencing :c ) pointed out that the ocean is of living blood bc it hasn’t started clotting. And that it starts clotting inside the sub on the walls, which by their idea means that the ’ocean recognizes the sub as tissue’, gives it oxygen, which then shows up as the increase in the meter. The sub is becoming the ocean and the ocean is both feeding it and feeding off it. The Iron Lung, apparently, is trying to save Simon with the only way it (historically!!) knows; by assimilation.

The submarine is acting as Simon’s coffin, his life support system, his senses and his demise. It’s unclear of what the submarine itself wants or if it even can want anything. It’s a more-than-human actor in the Action Network, making Ava’s human-ist machinations and calculations untrustworthy. This goes further with the Woman on the Speaker who apparently drank the blood to solve her food and water issue, which again assimilated her further into being part of the sub and the ocean. She’s both present and distant, ghost and a living woman, actor and acted on. Human, machine and the blood ocean are all merging into one. That’s resisting all humanist dichotomies or dualisms: organic-inorganic and human-animal and alive-dead. Which, by def, makes the film a damn posthuman-ist manifest. Which makes me happy. I’m not sure if Iron Lung was made with posthumanist ideas in mind, but there’s quite many of them.

The dying light is one my favourite metaphors of this film. Ghostlight is a beautiful way of portraying the cosmic horror of Iron Lung. The stars are already dead even if they can be seen. Simon is likewise dead even if he can be seen. The ghostlight is a haunting, and because of this I must quickly venture into the territory of The Weird and Hauntology. In cultural studies, the Weird is based off the model of Lovecraft’s works, simply put something damn eldritchy jumping at the reader and the characters after an immense buildup. Hauntology is more subtle, more ’hinting not showing’, more like the classic gothic ghost story. I think that Iron Lung portrays both. Annihilation (2018) and Color out of Space (2019) are weird, while The Others (2001) is pure hauntology.

Iron Lung is portrayed often as utter eldritchy cosmic horror done right, but the sombre, melancholic mood hints towards hauntology, too. An so does the submarine remembering the people that have died in it. It’s haunted. The ocean itself is haunted, everything carries memory.. as the ghostlight does, too. And this is why Irong Lung is both a tale of hauntology and the weird. There’s the inexplicable more-than-human and the hauntings of everything that has died but refuses to stay dead.

The ’Sea Monster’ is, by my interpretation, using the light as a lure to get the subs to get closer and to keep them from radiating it out of sheer astonishment, much like an anglerfish would. It’s clever enough to know that their little cameras burn like hell. So it makes sure they won’t have time to use it. It attacks from the side, where the angle of impact of the x-ray is lessened. Unlike some, I don’t think the sea monster is the God Entity, just an alien kind of a fish. Just one more more-than-human actor that is after food. That's trying to survive after all odds are against it.

The reasoning for this is that I think the blood ocean itself is the Entity. It would be easy attempting to humanize the inhuman (the god/entity/whisperer/blood sea) being upset (for some odd reason) that the third station is gone. This could be annoyance over humans not cooperating even if the situation (not speaking of survival for a reason) could be improved by cooperation. It sees the world through a pinhole, through the people sent down there.

But this is humanizing the inhuman. It’s a simplification, a gross over-simplification. The blood ocean has trapped the remnants of the consciousnesses of the expenditionists, either willingly or it hasn’t realized it had happened. One of them could be from that station, sent in much earlier in. It could be her dismay over this fact. The blood ocean does know Simon’s name, so does the voice. The Entity might use the assimilated ’souls’ as it’s spokespersons because that’s the only way making a human understand something or even listen. Simon does not speak eldritch. So it could be that the moment the voice despairs over the station being lost is just another example of hauntology at play, the glitch where the "real persona" of the convict woman shines momentarily through the ocean being itself.

The ocean forms teeth from the blood. It gives life and takes it at will. It messes with their heads. It doesn’t know mercy or ruthlessness. It just inspects. Acts. Watches through the pinhole. It’s the closest thing to Lovecraftian Unknown Unnamed that’s so overpowering it becomes the best examples of Burkean sublime (see very top of this long post) I’ve seen in ages. I’m emphazizing Burkean sublime by a reason, and that is that Kantian sublime (Immanuel Kant see reference list) is the same feeling but with the idea of ”yes that is terrifying and I’m going to possibly die but also I possess and undying soul and therefore I’ll be fine”. It’s too religious, too human.. in this context.

The source of life-threatening terror that is so all-consuming that it’s the most powerful emotion the human is capable to feel. In the face of the sublime one has to experience it from a distance or it’s just pure horror with no meaning (Burke, 1998, 37). The fear annihilates, the walls of the submarine give Simon no adequate distance. He admits that ’it’s bigger than me’. He gives in, surrenders. Sits back.

Simon examines (for a tiny while) his own destruction, meets it eye to eye instead of trying to run from it. Mentally gives himself just enough distance for that utter feeling of peril and doom to turn into the feeling of the sublime. That’s why I think he dies by his own terms, after he’s had an audience with God. He realizes human frailty. Humanity’s frailty. The whole bleak picture, attempts giving hope for the hopeless in the form of the life jacket and data, which in turn might be a serious, life-threatening radiating object. It's unclear if the data can be gone through or if this last testimony of Simon, his handprint on the rock, is just another thing to be locked up under lead.. because the source of knowledge is now actively killing everyone  in sight. Maybe that’s true to his nickname. Did he wish for it or not, the Butcher gets a few people down after he’s dead - if they get too close to what he attempted being a tiny beacon of hope. Which again is a lovely, lovely tone of how utterly vicious this film is.

In his last moments Simon sees everything and nothing. He sees God through the pinhole, God sees him through the pinhole. The pinhole itself is both the message and the medium, nothing, not even God, can get the complexity of the whole picture. For a moment there’s seeing without regocnition. Witnessing without understanding. There’s terrifying beauty in that.

(And I’m in love with it. This is a love letter written in the form that I know best.)

REFERENCES / further reading

Burke, E. & Phillips, A.(introduction) 1998. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK.

Clarke, B. & Rossini, M. 2017. The Cambridge companion to literature and the posthuman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ersoy, G. 2019. Crossing the boundaries of the unknown with Jeff VanderMeer: The monstrous fantastic and “abcanny” in Annihilation. Orbis litterarum, 74(4), pp. 251-263. doi:10.1111/oli.12227

Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haraway, D. J. 2004. The Haraway reader. New York: Routledge.

Harman, G. 2012. Weird realism: Lovecraft and philosophy. Winchester: Zero Books.

Joshi, S. 2003. The weird tale: Arthur Machen, Lord Dunsany, Algernon Blackwood, M. R. James, Ambrose Bierce, H. P. Lovecraft. Holicong, PA: Wildside Press.

Kant, I. & Walker, N. (introduction). 2007. Critique of judgement. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Thacker, E. 2015. Tentacles longer than night. Horror of Philosophy vol 3 Winchester, UK: Zero Books.

Trigg, D. 2011. The memory of place: A phenomenology of the uncanny. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Finally finished this zine I've been working on for over a year! Thank you to everyone who contributed :)

I'm currently looking into places/events in my area where I could sell physical copies

___

.

.

.

6769275111

Finally gathered thoughts that floated in my mind since Season 2 had ended. These will literally be my first posts ever, will be a bit chaotic, please be kind, I’m shy. But also very critical.

I’ll preface this by saying that I’m not a person with a disability. I cannot claim to know this experience, because I simply don’t. I love Viktor as a character and it so happens he has a disability, it’s something I always consider when engaging with his story. Besides, his story revolves around his disability since S1 Act 2 and he kind of falls into the trope of ‘disability as character motivation’, but he’s much more than that. And that’s what I want to explore in these posts.

My analytical approach is obviously influenced by my experience as a non-disabled person. I’ve had extensive courses on disability studies while at university and focused my bachelor’s thesis partially on disability representation in media (I focused on scars and ‘deformities’, something many Arcane characters have, but that’s perhaps for another post). To people out there who have disabilities and wish to engage with this post - please let me know your thoughts, I’m genuinely trying to learn more.

I want to stress that in my analysis I’m not saying Viktor is entirely ruined as a character or is bad disability representation. I analyse his story from the perspective of philosophical, cultural and social contexts, and through theories developed within disability studies. I’m not an expert and certainly can't speak on behalf of people with disabilities, I'm talking as an anthropologist and enjoyer of storytelling and art.

That being said, I’ll try to make it coherent and divided by topics, because these’ll be long posts. Some thoughts are a bit disjointed, I’ll be sharing some of my ideas for how Viktor’s arc could’ve been improved. Hopefully it makes sense as a whole.

Sorry for the lack of sources, I tried to give exact titles of works I reference but I had no more energy left to make a bibliography. It's not academia anymore, I graduated and I'm freeeee!!!!

TRANSHUMANISM & POSTHUMANISIM

Transhumanism as a philosophy and social movement originates from the notion that many people are forced to live worse lives than necessary and can’t reach their full potential. One of the most important thinkers of transhumanism Julian Huxley argued that application of science can prevent poverty, illness and change the world for the better. He literally wrote that ‘the man can manage evolution’. 

Viktor represents transhumanist ideology in a way that, in Season 2, he literally can’t refuse the job - he was forced the moment Jayce fused him with the Hexcore. Sure, he could have refused to use its power now residing in his body. But the writers chose to disallow him that choice. So Viktor ‘heals’ Huck and begins his Jesus Era. Viktor later asks Singed if the doctor believes in fate, which is followed by Viktor declaring evolution has a course - superseding nature. This way Viktor exemplifies Huxley’s idea of what transhumanism is:

(...) whether he [man, as in human] is conscious of what he is doing or not, he is in point of fact determining the future direction of evolution (...). That is his inescapable destiny and the sooner he realizes it and starts believing in it, the better for all concerned. (Huxley, ''Transhumanism'')

If the Hexcore was actually sentient and controlled Viktor, then I guess it’s the soul of Julian Huxley.

The same way Huxley's work was grounded in a desire to make the world a better place, so is Viktor’s. His dream of betterment of his people's lives was the primary motivation of Viktor’s character, but it got hijacked by the magical mumbo jumbo of the Hexcore and Arcane powers in S2. His transhumanist ideology wasn’t developed organically, the story just jumps to act 2 and then 3 without proper explanation as to why he turned to this philosophy so radically.

Important to add, Huxley was a eugenicist. Kinda wild to take transhumanist ideas and write Viktor’s, a disabled man’s arc, the way they did. Viktor wanted to use technology to change the world, but writers said: ‘hmm, what if… magic?? And eugenics! because he has internalised ableism now!’ But more on that later.

Central question regarding transhumanism is who decides what’s an enhancement and what’s a limitation. The short answer is: it’s a personal choice, we can use inventions to improve quality of life if we wish. Yes, some things can be a choice, but in reality it’s kind of compulsory, because the society is built in a way that demands conformity.

Viktor changed himself instead of trying to change the world the way he intended to in S1. His arc was derailed from his initial will to act for the society that needed positive change. Progress for Piltover meant technological advancement in the name of scientific and economic gain. In Viktor’s transhumanist vision progress is about extending the self - to live without suffering, to cure physical and mental afflictions of Zaunites. It goes beyond his motivation to cure his disease, his actions in S2 don’t fit his characterization in S1. This is why I believe inserting parts of his original League Lore into Arcane would have made an amazing story with transhumanism as background.

Good part of technology is that it gives us opportunities for different forms of embodiment. Embodiment, important in phenomenology and feminist studies, means how one experiences themself as a living body that feels the world as they inhabit it -  how we experience it in connection to us, simultaneously being influenced and influencing the world. There’re plenty of theories that tackle this concept, but let me go the short way.

Transhumanist philosophers talk at length about progress in relation to embodiment. Critics ask questions about the ethical side: who’s gonna get to use the technology to enhance themselves? What about people who can’t afford technology used for the enhancement? How will technology influence the embodiment of certain people? Specifically, what does this philosophy say about disability?

I will talk more about disability in another section, but generally transhumanists consider physical disabilities as something open to change. Different technologies can be used as mobility aids, advanced procedures could help with improving the standard of life for people with disabilities.

But there still remains a question: what kinds of disability are considered in need of improvement/fixing? If technology changes a disabled person's body so they can function similar to non-disabled people, then is the category of 'disabled' even relevant anymore? Is there a definite line when it comes to influencing the body with technology? What kind of progress do transhumanists actually seek and for whom?

We don't hear Viktor’s stance on ideas similar to transhumanist ones until his talk with Singed, but it's a bit convoluted and isn't developed well enough to be an interesting take on a very controversial and fascinating philosophy that is transhumanism. It’s only indirectly addressed at the end by Old Man Jenkins Viktor when he says ‘'There’s no prize to perfection, only an end to pursuit’', meaning that the glorious evolution doesn't really have a final destination, even though Viktor believed so.

The change transhumanists seek can never actually reach any final perfect end - who and when will decide what the end of human evolution looks like? What is the ultimate, trans- or even posthuman form we’re supposed to achieve? Arcane seems to argue that nobody will ever be able to decide, even with godlike powers and knowledge.

Old Man Jenkins Viktor calls back to primary belief of posthumanism, which Nietzshe already wrote about even before transumanisim started developing as a theory:

Man is not the effect of some special purpose, of a will, an end; nor is he an object of an attempt to attain an ‘ideal of humanity’ or ‘an ideal of happiness’ or an ‘ideal of morality’. It is absurd to wish to devolve one’s essence on some end or other. We have invented the concept of ‘end’: in reality there is no end. (Nietzshe, ''Twilight of the Idols'')

Posthumanism is another philosophy that provides an interesting context for analysing Viktor’s arc in S2. I first focused on transhumanism since his story originally involved using technology to change lives. But Viktor's arc seems to touch upon transhumanism and a little bit of posthumanism (edit: check out the comment @beetlekoctor wrote ^^)

Posthumanism is more about getting rid of core values of humanism. It’s about going beyond what makes humans, well, humans, which is a lot of things (biology, culture, economy, science, politics, environment, religion, social relations ect.). Posthumanism states that humans aren’t really that special and argues that there are many other creatures and things that are equally as innovative as humans. It’s a philosophy critiquing anthropocentrism. It dismisses the notion of humans as apex creatures that can control and bend the world to their needs and will. The will to extend ourselves and find power within us isn’t exclusively a human trait - all organisms and things on Earth have that potential (interesting that in the destroyed Piltover Jayce saw, the flora and fauna still expanded at the top of the Hexgates).

Viktor’s story isn’t really about that, but it ties to posthumanism when Viktor declares that emotions clash with reason, humanity is a contradiction which causes destruction, so there’s the need to go beyond humanism. Viktor’s ideas about human nature aren't really posthuman. His thought as he was dying after Jayce's attack revolved around the humanist idea that humans actually have an unchangeable essence.

Posthumanism, as understood by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guatarri, states that there’s no essence of ‘humans’. There’s only the potentiality, which comes from an individual will to create oneself, apart from fixed rules of the world. Funny enough, Viktor speaks about similar ‘charge, potential, impulse', but I don’t think it’s in any way connected to Deleuze’s idea. The philosophy of Viktor in S2 seems all over the place with transhumanist ideas underneath, had the potential to explore posthumanism, but it's an interesting mix that I wanted to explore, even if only on surface level.

Deleuze is fucking difficult to understand, French philosophers are the demons that always kick my ass, but they had some good stuff to say. In Postscript on the Societies of Control Deleuze claims that society is made by machines, not only in technological sense, but also by different systems: social, political, economic, religious ect. Every system is a machine. In the case of Piltover and Zaun, the social and political machines categorize people and program them to inhabit certain identities and spaces. Human body is also a machine consisting of different anatomical systems. We are machines living in machines, the flow of information and experiences between us and the world is constant. In a way, even before Viktor tried to change everyone into machines, the world was already run by machines.

I also think that technological posthumanism is an amazing lens to analyse the usage of Hextech and its final destruction of the world in Arcane. Technological posthumanism states that humans use tools and technology as integral to our identity and functioning. Inventions are made by humans, but inventions also invent humans - we use tools, art, machines that extend us, that make us. Humans don’t make technology because they’re free and rational, rather they’re free and rational because they make technology.

Donna Haraway says we're already cyborgs, because tool-making and technology is always a part of our evolution - we incorporate the world into our bodies. We use tools, but according to posthumanism, tools use us in some sense, like a parasite. Interesting that Viktor becomes literally a mix of flesh and machine, influenced by the Hexcore.

Going further, posthumanist thinker Bernard Stiegler writes:

(...) the pursuit of the evolution of the living by other means than life - which is what the history of technics consists in, from the first flaked pebbles to today, a history that is also the history of humanity. (Stiegler, ''Technics and Time, 1'')

Evolution's course is always directed by technology and tools. Stiegler asks: ‘Who’ or ‘what’ does the inventing? ‘Who’ or ‘what’ is invented?.

Jayce and Viktor invent Hextech. Piltover, City of Progress, is made by the development of Hextech. Hextech invents Piltover’s identity, makes its citizens and government free, rational, innovative and progressive, in opposition to Zaun, which supposedly lacks these traits. Is it really Viktor who causes the calamity in the end? Or is it Viktor and Jayce’s invention of Hextech that caused the end of Piltover? Was it humans using technology, or was it technology influencing humans? Technology can be human’s progression in evolution (as Viktor represented) but it can be the destruction of the world (as Jayce saw in the apocalyptic Piltover). There is no predestined essence or course, there is only the potentiality.

Viktor’s arc with the transhumanist/posthumanist Messiah plot fits a subgenre of these philosophies which states there’s a possibility of a Posthuman God. It means that humans, no longer limited by nature, flesh and emotions, will be able to grow into a god-like state of intelligence. It’s not about ascending to a literal god like Viktor did, but more about posthumans being so advanced and intelligent that modern-day humans wouldn’t be able to comprehend it. It is tied to Nietzshe’s Overman ideal, but that’s another long story.

Summing up, the writers butchered Viktor’s character and did something typical for the general transhumanist discourse. That our problems are technological, not political and social, it’s about science that changes our embodiment, and we need this change because the world is unfair. But why is it unfair? Too difficult of a question for the writers apparently… I'll be dissecting it further below.

* Interesting to add, transhumanists of today go as far as suggesting we’ll be able to upload our minds into computers/certain devices and this way live forever. Viktor sorta reminded me about that with his astral plane self. There was a movie with Johnny Depp with this idea, Transcendence. This movie is bad tho (*Wendy Williams voice* Guess who’s jealous of Viktor Arcane? … JOHNNY DEPP!)

DISABILITY

In The capacity of contract Stacy Clifford Simplican distinguishes two ways of thinking about disability: medical and social. Medical model means that people have a medical problem when we compare their state to fixed diagnostic norms. The social model is about how society creates disability by making the world adjusted to non-disabled people, while disability is an exception to the norm, an anomaly. 

What the social model explains is that the problem isn’t the disabled person’s body, the problem is that they didn’t have a chance to design the world that would accommodate everybody. Medical model is appealing to non-disabled people because it allows them to dismiss their anxieties connected to disability and the possibility of acquiring it. People would have to face the fact that society is actually unfair, so the medical model allows thinking there’s a distinct difference between 'able-bodied, normal’ people and persons with disabilities. There is ‘us’ (so called 'able-bodied') and the Other.

The idea of a cultural Other is key in various theories, especially in post-colonial critical theories, disability studies, social stigma theory ect. It basically means that the dominant group considers everyone who’s an outsider or lacks certain attributes essential to the group as inherently different, oftentimes meaning lesser, therefore considered ‘other than us’. The Other needs to be distinctly alien to the normative group or culture. In case of people with disabilities the line marking the difference is located in their bodies.

In season 2 Viktor literally crossed the line (haha see what i did there) by rejecting his disabled body and changing into the Machine Herald. By rejecting his embodiment, he wished to fit into the ‘perfect’ embodiment represented by the people of Piltover. However, I consider Machine Herald Viktor as the epitome of what Piltover society considers as the Other. At the end of S2, for people of Piltover the line between what’s worth saving and what’s dangerous yet again locates itself in the body of the Other. The body that originated from the embodiment of the disabled Zaunite.

Viktor’s body is central to his character. We see his embodiment is an experience of pain, struggle, not only physical (he feels his body eroding) and emotional, but also social, he’s a Zaunite in Piltover. He’s double stigmatised as an undercitizen and a disabled person. Theory of stigma tells us that problems disabled people experience oftentimes aren’t connected to the disability itself but to the unequal, negative approach, harmful representations and institutionalised practices that cause the stigmatisation. It all reveals itself in ableism. One of the most important authors of disability studies, Rosemary Garland-Thompson wrote at length about these topics, notably in Extraordinary bodies. I’ll be referring to her work a lot in this post.

Viktor changed his body in S1 and then again in S2, he became Machine Herald, what he thinks is ‘the most he’s ever been’. But Piltover still thinks of him as the Other, a threat - and we know that in their worldview ‘Zaunites’ equals ‘danger’. And here’s the thing - ‘disabled’ is a position you get in a concrete socioeconomic context.

Viktor’s Jesus arc and commune activities focus on ‘fixing’ people and allowing them to live on the outskirts, away from the stigmatising society. Paradoxically, he fixed Zaunites to be 'able-bodied', like Piltover’s society accepts, but Zaunites can’t join that society, they’re still on the outside. Arguably, they’re trying to create an alternative for the stigmatising society, a new ‘Herald’s vision’. But why does this vision involve getting rid of disabilities? 

‘Overcoming limitations’ isn't really about transforming the body. As Abigail Thorn said: ‘You're not gonna fix homelessness by turning homeless people into inspector Gadget’. Arcane S2 Viktor took the wrong angle on the whole ‘helping the Zaunites’ thing. The show for sure states that. And that makes me sad and mad because it’s just.. idk stupid? Viktor as he’s established in S1 is fiercely intelligent, has very strong morals and convictions. He acts recklessly and crosses ethical limits only when it comes to saving himself from literally dying. I don't see how he would go from ‘In pursuit of great we failed to do good’ to complete opposite and being SO misguided in acts 2&3 in the 2nd season. They character assassinated my pookie so hard it’s almost unbearable. Still love him, but gods, look how they massacred my boy. Anyway-

Viktor’s disability makes him significantly different from the rest of the cast - as Garland-Thompson wrote, the figure of Otherness is a result of interpreting and giving meaning to bodies. It gives categories and paradigms, which then give us identities. By making Viktor a person with disability the creators had the responsibility of understanding that their writing has real life consequences. Representation in art and media is a means of identification for real life people who relate to Viktor’s embodiment.

Disability is not only a physical state of being, a form of individual embodiment, but also an economic one. It’s true for Viktor - he self-described in S1 as ‘a poor cripple’, using the language of his oppressors, clearly to pinpoint how he’s perceived by the normative majority of Piltover. I’d argue this doesn’t tell us how he actually feels about his disability. We don't really get his thoughts on it at all. I see many people assuming he thinks of it as an imperfection from the start and point to S1 when he shies away from the spotlight and then more obviously in S2 Jayce basically confirms to the audience Viktor’s internalised ableism in The Speech.

But I’m not so convinced. Viktor in S1 strikes me as someone who hopes his work will talk for itself, so he doesn't crave the spotlight, but it absolutely could be argued that the reason he hides in shadows is to protect himself from the scrutiny of onlookers. His physique contrasts with Jayce's significantly. He's overshadowed by thr Golden Boy. It might be an argument for Viktor thinking poorly about himself and Arcane is known for ‘show don't tell’, but I sort of… wish they told us?

Viktor talks about his disease and focuses on his incoming death, which is central to his character in S1 after act 1. Disability and actively dying are different things though, but in sociocultural contexts are often considered almost the same. It seems to me that the writers made such an assumption - treating Viktor’s leg and his disease interchangeably.

Viktor’s internalised ableism wasn't prominent, I'd say nonexistent, in S1, his focus was on preventing his death, not on getting rid of his disability. He experimented on his leg and tested its durability when running. Season 1 already established that it was the wrong choice (although the running scene is contradictory with its message because of the ‘victorious’ framing and music). Viktor changes his mind at the end of S1 and asks Jayce to destroy the Hexcore. Never, not once, in S1 Viktor declares that he wishes to help people of the Undercity with getting rid of disabilities or that he wants his own to go away. He only speaks about his general health deteriorating.

But then we get Jayce saying Viktor ‘always wanted to cure what he thought were weaknesses; his leg, his disease’. Um- no, not true? Viktor always wanted to invent things to make a change for the disenfranchised. He couldn't do so because of his terminal illness and Piltover’s politicians not giving a damn about Zaunites. We don't know how he feels about his disability apart from recognising it as a part of his social status as a Zaunite in Piltover. We get the scene when as a child he shows Singed his leg, meaning he can’t play with kids and is lonely. This could mean he’s either shunned or can't access places where kids play. That's an issue of accessibility and how disability is created by alienating disabled people. It’s not enough proof to argue that Viktor dislikes his disability to the point of wishing to fix it when he becomes an adult.

I argue that Viktor’s internalised ableism was forced onto him by the writers. This way they put the responsibility of dealing with ableism on the disabled individual instead of asking the real question: why is Viktor experiencing ableism in the first place? Why is it Viktor who has to bear the burden of injustice and feel bad about himself? Apart from the positive sentiment of ‘disability is a part of humanity and doesn’t mean you’re broken’, the message of the ending seems to be: 'it's sad you feel bad about yourself, you need to hear you’re valid and get over your internalised ableism or you’ll doom everybody, but we won’t be addressing systemic oppression you'd experienced'.

The feminist, lesbian, poet, mother, warrior and an icon Audre Lorde pointed out the issues that stigmatised people face, especially having to be representatives of their marginalised position, having to use their intellectual and emotional labor to address oppression. I can’t agree that Viktor taking on the labor of realising his internalised ableism thanks to Jayce’s Speech is amazing writing. His humanity was denied by the oppressors so much he ended up rejecting it all together? The framing of Viktor’s motivation after becoming Machine Herald is extremely detached from his original character’s. I can’t- it seems like they made him self-loath and cause harm just because the final battle would look cool?

I like Arcane’s message that erasing disability is like erasing humanity and love wins in the end. But it's so naive, because it’s done at the cost of the disabled character’s entire arc and positions him as the villain to a society of mostly non-disabled people. I don't vibe with that writing choice. If the writers had the guts and we didn't live in capitalism, maybe we’d get more seasons and something truly revolutionary.

Feminist scholars pointed out how people’s standpoints shape politics, how identity, personhood and body are cultural constructs that need to be questioned. Standpoint theory suggests that representation is always a political act and thus disability representation needs to be treated as such. I don't think Linke and others thought about it this way while writing Viktor. They created a great character though, so allow me to open my ao3 tab and look up canon-divergent fics.

Because Viktor’s arc in S2 became about having his autonomy revoked and about his supposed internalised ableism, we unfortunately got an interpretation that Garland-Thomson considers as widely accepted - that physical disability is a part of lower social status and a personal tragedy. We could have had Viktor as a transformative example of a physically disabled person who exposes social institutions of power and questions the notion of othering as a rule that permeates the Zaun-Piltover conflict. For that to happen, it wouldn't be Jayce who affirmed Viktor as valid - it would be Viktor affirming himself.

And we know he had the capacity to do that. In S1 act 1 he’s self-confident and we know he got to Piltover thanks to his intellect and resilience. Why would he lose these parts of himself so radically in S2? I understand that he was severely depressed and dying, that did change his perception of self when his health deteriorated. Yet, I believe in S2 the acceptance Jayce talks about could have come from Viktor seeing his own value. Garland-Thomson calls it 'speaking with one’s voice’. To be seen and accepted means having autonomy and possibility to speak about our embodiment with other people. We don't get to see/hear Viktor do that. He speaks of his mortality and deteriorating body in the context of disease, not disability. And he doesn’t really react to Jayce’s Speech.

If the creators wanted a really empowering story about a disabled character, they needed to address that. According to Garland-Thomson, the body is a text that needs interpretation by their owners. Giving meaning to his body, affirming it (maybe choosing to change it only to stop himself from dying) would mean that Viktor frees himself from symbolic and systemic violence, and rebels against fantasies and anxiety projected onto him by the normative society. That would have been based as fuck.

I ship JayVik, but it doesn't mean The Speech is all fine. Jayce might understand some of Viktor’s struggles but he’ll never understand him fully. It’s true that Jayce experienced horrors beyond comprehension, saw how his dream destroyed the world, he starved, had to reflect on his decisions sitting in a dark cave and injured his leg. Him acquiring a disability to parallel Viktor is a very important moment, yet it’s not the same as knowing Viktor’s experience of embodiment.

Jayce didn't live with a disability all his life in the society that considered it as something inferior. Jayce didn't live with despair and desperation of struggling to prevent himself from dying of an illness caused by the actions of an oppressive state. Jayce’s speech is emotional and important for his relationship with Viktor, and I did get teary eyed when he expressed how much he adored Viktor. But they lost me with ‘fix weaknesses, your leg, disease, and there’s beauty in imperfections’.

The Speech is sweet on the surface level but it rubbed me the wrong way, because not only it didn't make sense for Viktor’s arc, but it also feels weird to say that disability and terminal illness are imperfections in which there's beauty. Imperfection is a tad insensitive of a term in this context... Having Jayce - who was more privileged socially, essentially not disabled all his life and acquired his disability only recently - say this to Viktor, is kind of an odd choice. I do see what they’re trying to say: such experiences shape us but they don't define us. That Jayce loved Viktor as a whole human being with every part as integral to who he is.

At the end Jayce frees Viktor from his loneliness. Lovely stuff and I like it on personal level, altho the Speech was poorly worded. Narratively, it tells me that the disabled character needed another person to tell them, they were all they needed to be from the start. But it ignores the social context of why Viktor was lonely. Jayce's speech shifts focus from systemic oppression and inaccessibility to interpersonal connection he had with Viktor and the emotional side of it. It's possible to both establish a loving bond and acknowledge the discrimination Viktor experienced. But that didn’t happen in the story.

Viktor’s actions as written in S2 seem to stem from an immense need for acceptance and a wish not to be lonely. Of course he has Jayce in the end. My JayVik side is kicking its feet in the air and giggling, but when I look at it from a representation perspective it's kind of bad. Jayce is after all a privileged man who has never experienced life long marginalisation, chronic pain and despair of accepting his death when there's so much work to do for a good cause. And he might have understood how lonely Viktor was, how Jayce neglected his partner but still, Jayce cannot fully get it if it's not his lived experience.

Viktor is defined by his body by the unfair society he exists in and it's impossible for him to ignore it, because that's what shapes him every day. It's understandable he’d want to be healthy but I dislike the ‘Magic Cure for disability’ trope they went with in S2 when Viktor merged with the Hexcore. The trope is widely considered regressive and even harmful when it comes to nuanced disability representation. Viktor's case isn't as obvious, so I'm not trying to pass any finite judgement here. But I generally don't vibe with it.

I wish we knew if there were people with disabilities or sensitivity readers at any stage of the creative process of making Arcane.

I’ll be referring to the topic of Viktor’s disability in other sections of my posts, so it’s not really the end of this subject.

THE RADICAL OTHER

As I wrote earlier, the concept of the Other is extremely important in anthropology. There’s a more expanded and emancipatory theory that I'd like to touch upon - the concept of Radical Otherness.

In itself, this concept is disruptive. When we’re faced with the Radical Other, we’re confused. We cannot relate to them, cannot ignore them, our predisposed opinions and structures of understanding are being postponed. It creates a cognitive dissonance, forces us to change perspective, create space for the Other and look for Otherness in ourselves. It can also cause bigger fear and cause us to alienate the Other even further than we initially did.

Experiencing Otherness touches our bodies and senses without us having prior notice of it. This experience disturbs us, it calls on us, it asks us to respond and to react. German philosopher, Bernhard Waldenfels writes in  Bodily experience between selfhood and otherness that people usually either welcome the Other as a guest or exclude the Other as an enemy. The Other is always transformed in a way that the normative society has disposal over them or they're available for the society's intentions. Radical Otherness, according to Waldenfels, is not available to anyone.

Viktor's disabled body is turned into a grotesque fusion of flesh and metal, then into an alien-like creature, not a cyborg which would be more in sync with transhumanist ideas of technological augmentation of the human body. The way Viktor looks in his god-like form is aesthetic but foreign.

What it means for disability visual representation is that Viktor either reinforces or rejects the sociopolitical relations that make the disability a kind of Otherness.

Interpreting Viktor the Machine Herald as rejecting oppressive notions, I’d say he symbolises what’s rebellious, exposing injustice and disrupting social order. He left Piltover behind and came back to cause a radical reinterpretation of the world. He looks absolutely different, strange, magical - and we know people of Piltover fear magic. But because he’s the villain and dies at the end, I'm more inclined to say the writers meant to show his transformation as a symbol of unpredictability, lack of stabilization, anarchy - and that’s both dangerous and brave.

Viktor as Machine Herald can be read as embodiment of personal freedom by rejection of cultural uniformisation. But if it were to be true, he should have rejected conformity while still disabled or at least not transform with Singed’s alchemy. By the time we reach the last episode his arc is a story of Piltover having to tame 'the freak’ as Garland-Thomson would describe it.

The freakiness of Machine Herald’s form is also an interesting choice, because it’s somewhat humanoid but unnatural. It reminds me of the practice of freak shows where people with unusual bodies and disabilities were displayed as freaks of nature, odd creatures. Non-disabled audience gawked at them and while looking in the face of the Others, they’d re-establish themselves as ‘the normal ones’. I hope you catch my drift and see how this is not a good look to have Viktor morph into an alien looking creature that all of Piltover fights in the end…

If I try to find positives in S2’s writing, I can speculate that Viktor becoming the Radical Other in an empowering sense would mean that he embodied an alternative to the status quo. Him leaving and in sense rebelling against domination of Piltover wouldn’t be an intellectual choice but a manifestation of his condition as a person. In this interpretation, his transformation is radical, it’s a positive marker of his individual story.

It’s still a story of oppression though - our Viktor doesn't save himself, Jayce does it for him. I’m not gonna be talking about Old Man Jenkins Viktor orchestrating everything to save himself by having Jayce sent on a mission to save main timeline Viktor. I’m focusing on the Viktor we got to know in S1. It’s beautiful to be seen and supported, the scene at the end was loving and my AroAce ass relished it. I love JayVik, yeah, though I think the message of Viktor’s arc being so centered on Jayce’s affirmation of him made the message a bit less complex. They’re soulmates, your honor, but they’re so codependent it' easily toxic yaoi.

Jokes aside, it would be amazing if Viktor chose to become the radical Other. He’d make an autonomous decision to use his status of the Other as the ultimate ‘fuck you’ to the system. The system that overlooked him and prescribed him the identity of an undercitizen, ‘an outsider looking in’.

His arc would be even more profound if he recognised his internalised ableism and chose to become the Machine Herald the way he did in the League Lore. In League, his practices aren’t entirely ethical either, but that's besides the point. His decisions were made out of dissatisfaction with Piltover’s corrupt academia and politics, and the moral duty he felt to aid his fellow Zaunites in the face of calamities and everyday hardships. The old LOL Viktor is actually iconic for that.

The Arcane version of the Divorce arc could’ve made JayVik more complex if they let Viktor express disappointment with Jayce’s decision to weaponize Hextech and Council’s lack of interest in the Undercity’s issues. Then the 'our paths diverged long ago' would be more inpactful.

The character arc is a mess but I tried to reach and look for sth more interesting within it. I think the Radical Otherness of Machine Herald is a compelling angle. Not what writers intended, for sure not, I don’t think they taught anything through that deeply.

ENDING PART I...

I think it all could have been more interesting if Viktor wasn't influenced by Hexcore as we’re led to believe, because… this is cheap writing and yet again takes away his autonomy, which he was denied far too much in S2. The magical stuff took away from Viktor’s character and lost focus of his actual motivation.

I think what we got isn’t good enough, but I appreciate bits that can be read as more meaningful, that's where my idea for this post came from. I just wish the writers had the guts to let Viktor be angry, come back to Zaun, not do the cult stuff and just help people, join the rebellion, basically tell the Pilties: ‘I hope I confuse the hell out of you’.

That’s it for the first part of this analysis. Part 2 coming soon i guess. (Edit: Second paaaart here)

 literally me writing this fucking dissertation:

"he had a third martini. he looked at me intensely and took a hold of my arm. 'Look,' he said. 'You're a fish in a pond. it's drying up. you have to mutate into an amphibian, but someone keeps hanging on to you and telling you to stay in the pond, that everything is going to be alright.'"