#string theocracy

Naturally, as Angela’s song (but not hers alone), we can see a number of major themes shining through, relating to the story of the city in its whole;there are two notable ‘references’ within the song itself:

Like clockwork orange

And

What's the colour of the electric sheep you see?

A Clockwork Orange (1962) and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep [DADES] (1968)—by Anthony Burgess and Philip K. Dick respectively—are dystopian science fiction novels that largely centre around the concept, or rather the question, of what it means to be human, the former questioning the nature of humanity’s potential for good and evil—the nature of free will and choice when your actions and decisions are not your own;the latter questions the nature of humanity and machines, and the fleeting nature of life in the universe alongside . 

You may know either novel for its respective film adaptation(s), A Clockwork Orange and Blade Runner respectively, the former for positing that the ability to choose evil and later grow to do good is a core of humanity, and the latter for the “Tears in Rain” monologue.

DADES is important to discuss with their shared themes of artificial life, the question of humanity when a machine is created in its image, alongside the concept of “Mercerism”. Due to the sensitive content in A Clockwork Orange, it will be posted in a separated section. Consider this String Theocracy part 1, as the Clockwork Orange segment will be released at a later date, as the themes of the two books aren’t in line enough to discuss both in full detail with respects to the relations and influence that the stories had on Project Moon

Mercer, and the philosophy of Mercerism as a whole, presents the defining trait of a “human” to be empathy and solace, the ability to understand and connect with another person. Mercer himself is a character created in an endless struggle, a literal sisyphean task, escaping pursuers endlessly upwards on a desert hill. ‘Mercer’ is of course an actor, not a true person, but once revealed as such remains a symbol, the true nature of Mercer does not matter so much as the idea that he represents. 

This core struggle of empathy is what alienates the androids from humans within the novel, invoking the dehumanisation of persecuted peoples, not only as evil and malign, but less than human, as vermin, or in this case, objects. 

This duality is presented through Deckard’s growing empathy for the struggle of the androids, especially towards Rachel, an android who was at once designed to seduce the hunters, but who represents something more than her own “programming”, perhaps simply a programming advanced enough to replicate these emotions indistinguishably, but like in the unveiling of Mercer, her truth does not change what she is to others, what she represents. 

Rachel is our lens of the androids’ perspectives within the novel, repressed, seen as nothing but a tool despite the clear capability, and at once desire, for more, for freedom. To be seen apart from what she was created as, for the “truth” of her existence to not define her. 

Angela reflects Rachel in several ways, most notably in her dynamic with her own hunter. 

This goes without saying but, this will contain spoilers for both Library of Ruina and Lobotomy Corporation’s true ending(s).

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

Roland serves in a way to counterpart Deckard in his exposure to, and eventual sympathy towards, the machine known as Angela.

Roland’s epitaph-

That’s that and this is this

-is a direct subversion of the valued empathy in humanity, beginning from the same eternal and universal struggle that defines Mercerism, but instead concluding that, one’s struggles are in the end their own circumstances, substituting the empathy of humanity to the singular fulfilment to one’s own self, preservation of their own life such that they may ignore the pain of the city around them. 

Similarly, Deckard and the bounty hunters in large adopt a careless and cold persona towards the androids that they “retire”, refusing the core empathy that makes them human—the empathy that they claim is what separates them, that makes the androids inhuman for lacking—slowly doubting themselves when exposed to the humanity of the machines, the androids becoming so advanced that Deckard’s faith in the Voigt-Kampff test falters, he no longer perceives the androids as “other”.

The use of androids, robots, and other artificial bodies in place of queer people (or other groups considered “socially deviant” in some way) is not one that is new to posit, CO2Goldy has a video titled the same “Robots as Trans Allegory”, which I think regards the subject quite well; though not exclusively an allegory for queerness—robotics often used to represent neurodivergence (though I have several problems with this, often being used in ASD/cluster A /& B /various psychotic disorders’ stead) alongside several discriminated groups and those that have suffered some form of abuse (neglectment by authority or caretaker) due to the view of their nature as disposable//objects//”less than”—there remains a key component of the machine that resonates with queer, more specifically (but not uniquely, as will be touched on lightly), transgender people, the view of integrally being defined by your parts, by the circumstances of your body and birth rather than your own desires. DADES and Bladerunner both invoke the idea of “passing”, for human rather than android–for what the “androids” and replicants are more so than the hunters–as to save themselves from a life of suffering and persecution. Ostensibly the story of DADES is one of fear, how people fear the idea of queer people “infiltrating” their world, of passing as “humans”—which many still refuse to see them as—one which is ultimately quelled through an understanding of life and empathy beyond the binary of real and fake, of artificial and true life, and the meaninglessness of either in what determines one’s humanity. The primary question to hold while reading the story is simple, 

“If the androids are designed to fake empathy, and become complex enough to be indistinguishable from humans, what is ultimately the difference? Isn’t empathy, the effort to care for others, ultimately what we are all trying to maintain?” 

You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity. At some time, every creature which lives must do so. It is the ultimate shadow, the defeat of creation; this is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life. Everywhere in the universe.

Part 2: The rest of the song

“Life is given to me only once, and never will be again—I don't want to sit waiting for universal happiness. I want to live myself; otherwise it's better not to live at all”

Starting with the title itself, we can see the first two (arguably one) ideas, that of control, specifically in regards to puppetry and religion respectively. 

The reason that one could argue these to ideas being of the same kind is their relation to will and control; the motif of the marionette or puppet reflects the literal control one can undergo, having your body or mind under the control or suppression of another, while the idea of religion is an undeniable, outer power that wills itself over your own—the use of the term “Gods of the city” itself references a later plot point in the game, the Index and “will of the city”—the understanding and despair that comes from the realisation that your will is not your own. 

The themes of control are echoed in reverse throughout the song, reflecting Angela’s first true moment of expression, of seizing the will that is her own and others, becoming in essence akin to her father to take the will of others; this is seen through the direct “orders” that are spoken throughout the song:

“Open the curtains Lights on Don't miss a moment Of this experiment [...] Keep your eyes buttered till the end”

“Dance for me [...] turn around Sit like a doggy”

-to begin, and each chorus ending in another:

“ If you're gonna control me At least make it interesting theatrically “ If you're gonna replace me At least have the audacity to kill me thoroughly” “Can you love your everything too, for me?”

However there is something to note of how this is not only Angela’s song, specifically the second to last quote:

“If you're gonna replace me At least have the audacity to kill me thoroughly” 

-seemingly being reflective of Carmen (pm), either some remaining part of her in Angela’s mind, or speaking directly. 

There is something of the entire city, alongside Angela’s story over Ruina within the song itself.

Starting from the first proper verse, Angela addresses the patron librarians to cut down their loss, to acknowledge the flaws of Ayin and move past now that their loyalty is no longer needed; the following two lines are more of Angela herself, lamenting her past being controlled and used in the face of those that found purpose by being used for another, for those who “Find comfort in the strings” like the patron librarians who were more than willing to be used all for the light. 

Likewise, the following question can be seen as either Carmen, being part of the light at the finale of Lobotomy Corporation, now speaking to Angela, the phrase “how does it feel to be free?” seemingly a question that Angela herself asks (or one that the voice is repeating), before the affirmation of her newfound identity in “I’m a tough girl”. 

Likewise, the phrasing of “my heart goes right, my head goes left” indicates the beginning of Angela’s transition towards humanity, where her rational “cold machine” begins to turn against the newfound humanity, the desires of her heart. 

The phrasing of the next line is interesting, and can’t easily be linked to a specific moment of Angela’s story; I personally take this line to reflect her becoming a part of [people’s] life, however this is likely due to the fact that I personally view Angela as asexual or aspec—the interpretation of this line as being romantic or explicit in nature isn’t inherently wrong, just one I don’t personally see. This could reflect the prior mentioned inspiration of DADES, specifically Rachel, who makes Deckard question the humanity of androids, sleeping with him.  

“We could live in sin, except that I'm not alive [...]-”

In the process of this, Deckard is put off killing Rachel, and though he continues to kill the remaining androids, one of which is of the same model as Rachel, the other two a married couple, which, in an ending likely involving LSD, has Deckard see the nature of electric life as a form of life in itself.

"-[...] Legally you're not. But really you are. Biologically. You're not made out of transistorized circuits like a false animal; you're an organic entity."

-once again returning to the idea of legality, how the government and law sees you, and how you really are; in the final chapters of the book, Deckard begins to see even these “False animals”, claiming that “[it] doesn't matter. The electric things have their lives, too. Paltry as those lives are.". 

This is likely not the final mention of DADES. I am so sorry but at the same time it is quite good. 

As mentioned before, the line in the following verse regarding “Gods of [the] city” relates back to the index, as well as the nature of the city in its whole; This is notable due to the relation that Yan’s story has to Angela’s, each of the final Star of The City receptions correlating to her own story, or to Roland’s. 

Prior to this reference, the line-

“Maybe we're all cold machines Stuffed in the human skin With human sins”

-references this concept of Sin, which will return in the following game of Limbus Company (alongside Leviathan) in relation to the light; the idea of machines wearing human skin is one that is obviously parallelled by the androids within DADES, however it is too a description of the bounty hunters, as well as this own game’s cityfolk and Sephira.

Mentioned before is the cold, carelessness of the hunters, the complete disregard for electric life as a whole, whilst claiming that it is their empathy that defines them from the androids. Such beliefs are challenged within the novel itself, primarily and most directly through Deckard’s interactions with Phil Resch, and the android named Miss Luft.

”An android,” he said, “doesn’t care what happens to another android. That’s one of the indications we look for." “Then,” Miss Luft said, “you must be an android

Recall Roland and Angelica’s epitaph, “That’s That and This is This”, how they could only function through a disregard towards the suffering of others, not caring about their fellow humans in a desperate struggle to survive, the only way to survive in the city, on your own. The following verse states this outright: 

“All that precious bravery is gonna get you hurt In a world that feeds on the minority May that self-centered belief lead you to peace”

To care for something is to hurt for something, to be vulnerable, and meagre joy for sorrow is higher a trade when you know their absence. 

To return to the former section, we see most clearly in this line the imagery of a disconnection towards your own body, questioning if we are all alien to our forms, simply sewn into the forms that we have regardless of the nature of our being; even within the opening bridge of the song we can see allusions to this same idea, posed as a question, not for the nature of being, but for Angela as a person:

“Which "you" are you going to be? Inside the mirror do you see Someone else in that body?”

I’d be remiss to not mention the further references to Carmen’s impact on Angela’s being in the latter section of this stanza, her first form, created by Ayin, was modelled after Carmen’s body. The absolute inability to see your form without contradicting your being, the freedom to choose how you live, beyond the purpose of your creation, is a central point of Angela’s narrative; alongside transcending the role of an object, mirroring the objectification that queer people and especially women face in real life.

The first line of the stanza resonates deeply on a social level, rather than the dissonance between who you see as/in your body, the presentation you hide from others, for fear of ridicule, hate or persecution. Even beyond the concept of “coming out”, the first time you can smile as yourself, unmasked, there remains a lingering hesitation, the knowledge that you cannot truly be known fully by another, you cannot be vulnerable, you are held by the standards raised for your right to be treated as a human, because in the eyes of so many others, in the eyes of Ayin, she was never a human. Not literal, but a realistic form of dehumanisation; Not quite through setting the expectations to that of a tool, but to those of a saint, so that you fall so much harder.

“Being a trans woman is like if you ever turned off your customer service voice you die [...] This post isn’t about Voice Training”

Every word, every thought, every move — so long as you act in their wants you will be “one of the good ones”. So long as you mind to want for yourself, to speak for those like you, to their persecution, you will be hated. From the gaze of others come razor thin strands that constrict and shear your form, that cut through your skin and pull you up to a higher standard than anyone else, just to be tolerated at the most, these same wires wrenching you from their so called “acceptance” — for some, for “the puppets on TV, there is comfort in the strings”: to be reduced to an object, to be a tool; to be embraced, even by this cold and shallow thread that whispers sweet curses, that you can never be enough, that you will always be too much.

Angela, who has been puppeted in her past before, used as nothing more than a tool, constantly reminded of such, held back by her 'Father' and superior, something that is surely — sorely — understood who does not—cannot—conform to the roles expected of them in society. This is so to say that Angela, "Created with attractiveness to the largest amount of people", can never choose, yet is constantly reminded that this inaction means she can never do good enough.

“If he can only perform good or only perform evil, then he is a clockwork orange—meaning that he has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil”

To be wound up by the devil, to be sewn up by the gods of the city. To be held higher, to be made to do good is not to live — To be made in the form of what was once alive. To be hated for your form, which was once loved.

There is one more character that haunts the narrative of the first two games, more so than even Carmen (PM), and one that is integral to the understanding of both stories. Ayin’s presence in the story, bar the finale of Lobotomy Corporation, is only seen as a shadow, in the ripples that he has caused, and in his reflection through the cast. Roland reflects Deckard, as does Roland reflect Ayin, and so too does Ayin reflect Deckard;  Ayin’s “Self centred belief”, his disregard for others in the pursuit of something “greater”, reflects the hypocrisy of the bounty hunters, caring for so many others, for the people of their world, but all through their disregard of the machines — If he were to save hundreds, thousands, if he were to cure the “disease” that festers within humanity, what is one paltry machine?

“A hundred thousand good deeds could be done and helped, on that old woman's money which will be buried in a monastery! Hundreds, thousands perhaps, might be set on the right path [...]to the service of humanity and the good of all. What do you think, would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds? For one life thousands would be saved from corruption and decay. One death, and a hundred lives in exchange—it's simple arithmetic!”

But the greatest sin, Ayin’s greatest sin, “Your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing.”

The former two quotes are taken from the novel Crime and Punishment, which you may know for having my least favourite sinner (Rodion) and for being fairly long to read through. While I could probably extend this out to another couple thousand words discussing Ayin — and to discuss Ayin in whole, we must discuss Carmen (PM), and to discuss either, we must discuss Crime and Punishment, which means we need to discuss Rodion and Sonia (Who just are Ayin and Sonia but flavoured differently) — however this is not the time nor the place for such things. 

What is important for now is the link between Ayin and Carmen, and thus between Deckard and Priss —- an android who used the same model as Rachel, whom he loved — a connection severed, and which allowed for Ayin to finish what he had done, to kill Priss.

"There is no Pris," he said. "Only Rachael Rosen, over and over again." [...] "You loved her, and I loved Rachael. And the special loved the other Rachael."

The final realisation of Deckard mirrors that of Roland, mirrors that of Angela, of Ayin, of Alex; “I am required to do wrong. Everything I've done has been wrong from the start.”. No matter where you go, you must be forced to do wrong, but this does not mean you cannot do good in spite of it.

To be entirely good or entirely evil is to not be human; return to before. It is an attempt to defy nature, a fruitless effort, to be held to never falter as so many are, it is a doomed and lingering dream to be perfect, and while some may hate you for this, there is eternally the strive to do “good” in spite of it. 

“When does it end for me? Hmm I think I am done with everything Now I'm ready to leave–”

I mean yeah the song is right this has gone on for quite a while without a clear end-

“—Dragging out”

That’s a bit rude but I probably deserve it… 

“When I no longer can live on knowledge alone You gave me strength Hopeful curiosity Maybe there are still happy answers left for my discovery

"You’re not wrong. The scars of the mind will never mend. Even if I had my revenge on that man… they simply won’t. That’s why I have to stop this… Repeating this cycle will eventually result in it crushing me. Just because I’m afraid and vexed, that doesn’t mean I’m free to turn away from anxiety chained to the past. That’s also part of me now. I should embrace it. Along with everything I’ve done. So I ask you kindly… Let us end this. …As a true human should."

Thinking she knew the nature of humanity, seeing so much of the city, the hardships and meagre lives of those within, she finds a new strength, to live, to challenge what she knows of humanity,  that "humans can only love themselves, after all.", 

“I know better now. I know that there are some people who chose to stay until the end.”

“What's the colour of the electric sheep you see? And if you love me Can you love your everything too, for me?”

What does she dream of now. What do you dream of now, with the strength to keep on living. To care for others, to be a better human. A final dream of what could have been, a kinder, gentler world. What kind of life — for that is what the sheep may be, electric or not — does she dream of, do either of them dream of?

One not only to be loved, to know the love of another, to be free, but to love yourself, to love everything about yourself. Despite everything, those traits are still you. 

And then. In the final moments, one who stayed for her, until the ending. A faint voice, a beloved, a hated voice. 

“... I'm sorry. And good job”

A moment of care. The recognition she never had.  But that is the end of a different story — “the story of the gradual renewal of a man, the story of his gradual regeneration, of his passing from one world into another, of his initiation into a new unknown life. That might be the subject of a new story, but our present story is ended.