Sundering stuff established in the Q&A

[Kozh]

snip

The Ancients life isn't without suffering, it's just their suffering usually is on different level than the sundered. Suffering is constant in life is a fact, but her view of "to live is to suffer" is certainly an ideology, one that the writer believes in and tried to put into the story. Even by using the the Ra-La society as strawmen argument.

Besides, I don't know why "restore our paradise" is "running away from reality", when they're still changed by the Final Days. Sill had experienced the Final Days. They have the means and methods to restore the lives of those sacrificed to Zodiark (even with arguably questionable method), unlike us in real life who can't do that. If you want to talk about "running away from reality" talk to the Ironworks of 8UC timeline who literally made a time travel machine to undo everything.

We have to keep in mind a square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. The Unsundered were human, as are the sundered. Different yes, but still members of the same group. If someone says “us Hrothgars” or “we Ala Mhigans” they aren’t saying they aren’t part of the same people as every other race.

So we're not her people, got it. Just like how, since we're not the Garleans, we're not Varis's people despite being another human being. Both venat and emet called themselves "the last of my kind/the last of us" after all. The sundered are not venat's group of people. Period.

And yeah, she loveeee them so much she delete her own people because they're not up to her standard and ideal.... In another story, she would be depicted as narcissistic delusional villain.

[KageTokage]

I would've much preferred that there had been some tangible flaw with the whole Zodiark revival scheme that led to the Hydaelyn faction forming due to the Convocation either overlooking or simply not believing it to be true due to coming from the mouth of one of those they had flagged as dissidents due to opposing his summoning in the first place (Or at least I'd assume others would've followed Azem's lead in that regard).

Replacing the Ancient souls that comprised his being with those of other sentient and unwilling sacrifices could've potentially had an unpleasant result, considering how that arcane construct was driven berserk by a grief-stricken soul's influence.

[Jandor]

I do wonder how exactly restoring the Ancient souls used in Zodiarks construction would have worked. After all, Zodiark did do a bit of a trial run by restoring Elidibus, but he didn't restore him as he was, he restored him as a primal.

Would 75% of the population have been primals after the 3rd sacrifice?

[Lucida3b]

It seems it would have been mostly 'taking the fuel out of the tank and putting in some different fuel' so to speak

Which i find a tad dissappoint, to me it in ShB it sounded more like Zodiark was so powerful he would've been able to alter reality to just reconstitute the souls themselves from aether or something.

Honestly I found some of the elaborations disappointing on him, like it sounds like he just put a curtain of aether over the planet as a shield then 'altered the laws of the star' as they described it.

[Cleretic]

It seems it would have been mostly 'taking the fuel out of the tank and putting in some different fuel' so to speak

I think ultimately, this would have had to happen. Zodiark needs those people to fuel himself, so regardless of the stated requirements of the plan, to keep Zodiark around and capable you do need to give him replacement fuel. ...a lot of replacement fuel in this case.

And when you remember that the person who explained Zodiark to us was Emet-Selch, who probably didn't understand the overall mechanics of Zodiark himself let alone feel the need to explain it to us, and it makes complete sense. As we learned in the Studium Fisher quests, Zodiark laying down that shield of aether actually did cause significant changes to the ecosystem. But much like how what we first thought was Hydaelyn's plan turned out to be Hydaelyn's Plan B, or the sound the Ancients ascribed to the End of Days being just another symptom rather than a cause, the stated effect of Zodiark ended up being a side-effect rather than the direct intention.

Honestly, it's something I really like about the Ancients' story, there's a common trend of the first interpretation of things we get (either from others or by our own deduction) turning out to be from the wrong angle. The facts we get aren't wrong, they're just not telling as much of the whole story as we assume. ...which makes me wonder what facts about Pandaemonium we're looking at from a completely wrong direction right now.

[Absimiliard]

I am curious where the idea of Emet-Selch not understanding Zodiark's mechanics comes from.

[Lucida3b]

He is one of the greatest users of creation magic in ancient society and also is close to the aetherial sea inherently. Its hard to imagine him not knowing how it works.

[EaraGrace]

The Ancients life isn't without suffering, it's just their suffering usually is on different level than the sundered. Suffering is constant in life is a fact, but her view of "to live is to suffer" is certainly an ideology, one that the writer believes in and tried to put into the story. Even by using the the Ra-La society as strawmen argument.

How is it an ideology if it’s a fact? Gravity isn’t an ideology. Death isn’t an ideology. If she said “suffering is amazing” that would be an ideology, and the only thing close to that idea was the line about “true happiness,” which is pretty lacking evidence of its existence if this is supposedly the ideology that led to her Sundering the world. It’s literally a, “don’t worry friends there’s good to be found of this” statement.

And how is it a strawman. Explain exactly what makes it a strawman.

Besides, I don't know why "restore our paradise" is "running away from reality", when they're still changed by the Final Days. Sill had experienced the Final Days. They have the means and methods to restore the lives of those sacrificed to Zodiark (even with arguably questionable method), unlike us in real life who can't do that. If you want to talk about "running away from reality" talk to the Ironworks of 8UC timeline who literally made a time travel machine to undo everything.

…because they were trying to undo every single change from the Final Days? They literally say “there must be a way to restore things to the way they were, to reclaim the perfect paradise we once had.”

The Ironworks group also explicitly say they don’t believe this will undo anything, only allow others to avoid suffering.

So we're not her people, got it. Just like how, since we're not the Garleans, we're not Varis's people despite being another human being. Both venat and emet called themselves "the last of my kind/the last of us" after all. The sundered are not venat's group of people. Period.

And yeah, she loveeee them so much she delete her own people because they're not up to her standard and ideal.... In another story, she would be depicted as narcissistic delusional villain.

Yeah, she totally, certainly thought of us as not “her people.”

When she talked about having faith in mankind’s potential, she must have meant a different arbitrary category of mankind, a definition that just happens to make that part of her speech a contradiction. That makes sense.

And Kozh if you’re going to be bad faith then why bother having this conversation. Or are you just trolling “Venat Stan’s?”

[Brinne]

Except it’s not an ideology, it’s fact. No matter how many problems the Ancients solve, no matter how advanced they become, they will again find themselves suffering in one form or another. This is true of their universe and ours as well. To call it ideology is to make a grave mistake, that this truth can be avoided, and ignored. As she says, the Ancients did not eliminate suffering for all time, nor did they root out strife and conflict, instead “mankind was but spared it’s biting sting for a time.” Inevitably it would return, either from within like with Hermes, or without like Meteion and the Omicron.

Presenting one's ideology as fact is, in fact, what makes an ideologue. Of course suffering exists. But how one defines it, approaches it, deals with it, and processes it comes down to a personal philosophy. Venat's ideology is that suffering is to be viewed as something that makes you "stronger" and something that one must "accept" and internalize. She seems to ascribe to the idea, as per your quote, that the Ancients' society lacked suffering before the Final Days, which it demonstratably did not - it just had a lower level of suffering than the Sundered world. This is all a subjective take on her part.

At no point does she judge anyone as “weak.”

She says to the Ancients that their chosen path is "not one of wisdom, but of weakness." She saw the Ancients' decision as reflecting of them being weak. Meanwhile, she falls all over herself as both Venat and Hydaelyn to praise us for being "strong." And again, her ideology reflects on how "see how the suffering makes you strong, how it becomes scales for your armor," and what have you.

The Ancients and the Convocation she outright refuses to speak badly of, even as they damn themselves and everyone else.

You mean except for calling them weak, as Hydaelyn calling them the face of evil that must be banished, etc, etc?

Once again, if suffering was not a constant she would not advocate for us to face it.

You can't argue this and then in the same breath put forth The Plenty as a legitimate view of a world without suffering that leads to oblivion. The Plenty has been identified as Venat's fear of the Ancients' future. In other words, she sees suffering as necessary to give meaning, purpose, and once again, strength, to humanity. Without it, they would be empty. When she reacts to Meteion's two-sentence description of the Plenty, remember Meteion specifically says what damned them was that "joy lost its savor without sorrow." So no, the fact of suffering not a sad regrettable inconvenience to her - to her, it has an important, crucial place in the human experience that must be embraced for people to be their best selves, in her view. Many people adhere to a similar philosophy in real life. "Suffering builds character" and what not.

She loved the Ancient world, and there’s no indication she views the Sumdered one as preferable. In fact it’s the opposite, when we retell the story of what will happen she remarks that it will “bring death to all I hold dear.”

That quote was about the Final Days specifically. Like, she names them in the quote. Not the Sundered world. All she seems to have towards the vision we paint of the Sundered world in and of itself is wonder, excitement, and hope, really.

When she does Sunder the world she states that she does so “in spite of, or perhaps because of” her love for people. She says this due to her belief that the Sundering is necessary for survival, but not a good thing given what it will do to the world she loves.

In the same statement, she says that she will Sunder them because "she believes in mankind's potential, in his ability to find a way forward." Once again, Venat is an ideologue who thinks primarily in terms of abstract concepts. What she's focused on is "mankind" as a whole. What specific individuals "mankind" consists of doesn't particularly matter to her. And she believes in - mankind's potential for what? His ability to find his way forward through what? Implicitly, the ability to endure suffering and despair, to work their way through difficulties as a whole (yes, several [trillion?] individuals will die along the way, but MANKIND as a whole will press on! It's beautiful! Everlasting light even in deepest despair! She believes in their potential to find it! She loves mankind!) This is what she holds dearest about them.

She relates to his frustration with the Ancients inflexibility. But anguish? No. Understanding where someone is coming from does not mean sharing in it.

I mean, I'm going to be perfectly honest; I'm not sure how to respond when a fairly black and white quote is presented to someone who then says the quote does not say what it says. Venat is the one who names Hermes's anguish and connects herself to it through her refusal to return in "opposition"; the context of this statement, prior this line, is Venat mulling about how Hermes has already seen "the cracks in the veneer of perfection." The entire context of her thoughts is about Hermes's dissatisfaction with the state of the world and how he sees the Ancients' society as hollow, and Venat is contemplating how she can relate. The "Ancients' inflexibility" has literally no relevance to the conversation and never comes up. Again, I don't know what to do except repeat that she is clearly talking about an overlap between she and Hermes regarding mindset and emotional states, specifically, anguish. It's right there in the text. Right in the direct words! It's even contrasted with Emet earlier saying he couldn't understand where Hermes was coming from!

[Cleretic]

I am curious where the idea of Emet-Selch not understanding Zodiark's mechanics comes from.

He gets the concepts, but remember that he wasn't the dynamis expert, so he might not have gotten the whole thing. Perhaps 'probably didn't understand' is understating his odds of knowing, but he didn't definitely know.

But even if he did, why would he go into those specifics for us? He was telling that story largely just to make us understand his pain and woe; he doesn't need us to understand its mechanics, he needs us to understand its cost and effects. So he told us the effects rather than the intention, because the intention doesn't matter for his story.