#well sorta

I saw someone on Twitter say that their masks wouldn't let them kiss. Tragic.

full cred for sergeant plushes to @fishiechipies the coolest chip fish to ever fish chip

also a child psychologist friend of my parents said that I was “the most unusual case of a favorite animal” she had ever seen.

Talking about isterik with victim/abuser dynamics is so interesting, sometimes it feels like ppl r like “what thats nonsense” when istvan is subjected to “abuser” analysis. Im sympathetic to istvan but feel it a stretch to say that what he did to Erik’s village benefited anyone but himself. It’s interesting bc there is validity in that Erik is opened up to more opportunities with istvan, etc, sure, it’s true. But the raid was never about Erik. It wasn’t altruistic. It’s hard to believe it was anything more than a senseless act of cruelty. While i think reducing Istvan to a groomer is unfair to his character but it’s not entirely unfitting or untrue. Erik is a soldier, and Istvan is his leader. But also, it’s not like his character is hiding this manipulative nature of his, the story doesn’t portray Istvan as some underdog hero in disguise bc he isn’t. He’s a man. He’s multifaceted, and above all else he’s an antagonist who wrongs our protagonist. He’s quite literally the villain in Henry’s story, his influence in Erik’s life is not portrayed positively either, Erik’s left bloody, laughing madly, nothing more than a dead mercenary’s lover. Istvan himself is regretful for putting someone he cares about in this position. The subversion comes when we learn that Erik and istvan value each other greatly not just as assets but as individuals (“he meant the world to me” “drown me in blood if you want but let him be” “Erik never did anything to you!”), they deeply respect each others and istvan encourages his individuality, Erik never tells istvan to not send him away either, he’s comfortable doing whatever istvan needs him to do. Istvan even suggests he’s too comfortable “fight for your place in the sun” and Erik replies “I won’t forget that”.

PERSONALLY i really don’t think Erik was that young when his village was razed (logistically it doesn’t make sense to me that istvan would spare a child based on… nothing?)(ik what the art book say but i dont rlly consider a sentence in concept art to be fully canon), but thats just the thing, it’s sort of up to you. I think the idea that istvan captured Erik for conquest is… perverse, and unfounded. I don’t think thats the story thats laid out for us, especially not when considering Markvarts “I remember everyone I’ve ever killed, don’t you?”/“war is a nasty buisness”. I feel this relationship was def made to humanize both of them. Monsters they may be but they were capable of love. Why else would the game include Istvan’s begging? Eriks emotional display of grief? Theres an effort to make the viewer sympathize with Erik and istvan both, ALL three are orphans, not to mention the emphasis on Erik’s peasant parentage too.

But i can’t deny the perversion thats in the pairing itself, i mean, power dynamics and all. Theres no real choice to join Istvan’s band anyway, Erik joins or he dies. I think istvan clearly does treat Erik as an equal, it’s his intention, but fundamentally i think it’s impossible to treat them like they are. Their circumstances don’t allow it, istvan from the very start is at the center of Erik’s.. everything. His heart, his soul. I think what makes it more interesting is how Istvan’s influences can’t absolve Erik of his own cruelty… Erik is awful not because of istvan, but because he knows he’s awful and does it anyway.