What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[KageTokage]

Venat/Hydaelyn didn't change, but the perception of her did with the additional context behind her actions.

The breaking point for me personally was the suggestion that she let the unsundered escape on purpose despite knowing full well the misery they'd bring to the shards/Source and the despair they themselves would endure over the millenia.

Of course, none of that actually matters if you operate under the belief that preserving the future is more important then anything else or that there technically never were other options/possibilities due to time being a closed circle and what not...which is partly why I wish they never even opted for the causal loop in the first place.

I'd have been totally okay with her making the decisions she did if it was with no foreknowledge whatsoever and the current state of things came about strictly by chance.

[Atelier-Bagur]

I think that's the problem, the sundering/the aftermarth seems to have driven the unsundered ascians insane, where as Venat was able to betray and unmake her own civilisation and apparently isn't affect at all

The Ancients were very meticulous and obsessed with their perfect utopia that it gave into a somewhat unhealthy culture where people played god, putting a lot more value into the work of developing their civilization for the benefit of the star and in a weird way undervaluing their own lives by encouraging one to "die" after they fulfilled their purpose. This kind of thinking is what would have eventually gave pass to their own self-destruction, based on the examples of other civilizations we've come across at Ultima Thule such as the Niburun, The Omicrons and the Ea where their own paradises developed their flavor of nihilism. To me the Ancients were well on their way to that path. Venat gave the impression that she didnt necessarily agree with a lot of her people's ways, which is why she was the rare case of a Convocation member still being alive even though she fulfilled her purpose and gave up her seat. Factor that with her own free spirit, something that she shares with our Azem, it makes sense why she was one of the few Ancients whom didnt gave into despair like the rest of the Ancients during the Final Days.

[Lunaxia]

No, you can't separate Emet's ideals from what he did, but if we're referring back to his character as it existed in the context of Shadowbringers positively - Shadowbringers also didn't portrayal Emet as exceptional in that regard, but rather, roughly morally equivalent to everyone else put in a position of having to make that "x person versus y person" decision. The three major non-Scion figures who carried the themes, featured in Shadowbringers, were Ardbert, Emet, and the Exarch, and they were all parallels who all made roughly the same choice in resorting to destruction and death or erasure for others to save the people they "chose" in a position where they saw no alternative to having to make that "choice," right or wrong.

Yet that's what I disagree with. I understand the parallels they were trying to create between the characters, but the message I took away from that was "everyone is a hero in their own story", even when it's flagrantly clear they've more than lost sight of who they are or what once drove them - not that Emet was merely the most unfortunate of the lot and that we would have acted the same way were we in that position. I can get behind the notion that we would likewise do what we could for those we loved, but I don't readily believe that the WoL, the Scions and what have you would all be faced with an inevitable slow decline into ruthless destruction and tyranny when confronted with the same scenario. Now, I will admit it has been some time since I familiarised myself with Ardbert's story prior to the First, so correct me if I'm wrong, but was he not something of a cornered animal at that point in terms of what he had to do? I don't recall him being "sadistic" but desperate and flailing, and I don't know if you can comfortably compare antagonising beastmen to usher in a calamity under the manipulation of a third party to save a world from complete erasure to the systematic, flat out mass genocide the Ascians employed to rejoin a world long since gone with no real guarantee of the end result. The element of a "yours or mine" choice is similar to be sure, but circumstances and semantics matter here. If we do follow the train of thought the writers intended to equate these figures under the banner of "fighting to save those they love", it's a bit of a whitewash. Understanding that Emet's suffering led him to those actions is one thing, but excusing genuinely sadistic terrorism towards the Source and its shards with his turmoil and "well, we'd probably do the same thing" is... odd, and it isn't what I would I call a hero. Somewhere, the wheels fell off quite spectacularly, and though I don't mind the game referring to him as such from the point of view of the Ancients and the Ascians, I think a little more attention needs to be called to what it brought about, or at least examined more - which they did pay some lipservice to with the Omega quest, to be fair, with it pointing out that Omega saw the impact of what Emet wrought and questions whether or not this affects what you believe. But I can't help but think they're too afraid to, so we stick to rhetoric that any poor, lonely hero would follow such a road under the circumstances. Truthfully, I struggle to believe the Ancients themselves as they were portrayed would be comfortable with what they did regardless of if it meant their survival - a conflict I had hoped we might come up against in some form, but alas.

The difference, I think, is if your understanding of Emet's Shadowbringers positioning...

For me, it comes down to that I simply reject removing too much of Emet's agency in the choices he makes and what that means for his character by saying it was inevitable because of what he had been through, or citing that he had once been a good person. In fact, the shows of kindness, as you call it, should only make him more accountable - he still has the capacity for empathy and benevolence, but actively chooses to pursue denial and inflict suffering to achieve his vision. Were he apathetic, disdainful and disconnected from the get-go, I might accept this interpretation a little more readily, but in my eyes it makes his behaviour less excusable.

For what it's worth, when I emphasize Emet's kindness... fundamental instinct of kindness towards those he sees, even after millennia of having every reason to shut off that instinct, and with the pressure of every Ancient's life on the line.

(The fundamental kindness of slaughtering a chunk of the population with a lethal bioweapon?) By arrogance, I mean his racial arrogance that the Ancients are inherently superior and more deserving of life. I think that drove his behaviour far more than many people like to think. He is cordial to those that may potentially be of importance to his goals, but once his original view is reaffirmed it's quickly thrown out the window. "Kindness" in general is just not the word I would use in such a scenario (remarking on Ishikawa's use of the term, as well) and implies something I don't think it should - retaining some capacity for humanity/ empathy would be better, perhaps? You can psychoanalyse his behaviour endlessly to make him all the more tragic (and I'm not saying it's baseless), but a deal of his anger comes from daring to believe these sub-humans were worthy of consideration, and whether or not he beats himself up for it, the "trial" and subsequent "punishment" he sets upon them - declaring them unworthy of life for failing to meet his standards - is messed up regardless. Was Hermes not lambasted for doing something similar?

Emet's Shadowbringers arc only happened because his instinctive kindness and empathy as an individual person was in a cagematch to his devotion and duty to his people, and we saw the depth of the devotion and duty - so the kindness has to be a match for it to cause the destructive spiral he crashed down. As Ishikawa said, his downfall was ultimately caused by his kindness. When Emet lashes out and calls us not really people, not alive, no big deal to kill, that is NOT his "ideals" as we and the narrative are talking about them - those are his coping mechanisms because he's too kind to keep pressing on with what he "has" to do without lying to himself.

I'm going to disagree here and say we threw a spanner in his works through the luck of our being Azem - an Ancient, someone he loved, someone who mattered amidst the rabble. I think we invoked some small semblance of the person he once was, and we saw a more vulnerable and human side of Emet than has likely been revealed for a while, but when we did not measure up, we became expendable just like all the rest. He was capable of kindness, but the habit of attributing this to him as a defining personality trait after the flashbacks we see of him prior to ShB - and what we see once we disappoint him - seems too optimistic. Emet, deep down, knew the futility of what he was trying to do, he had lost the will go on, the years of isolation and disappointment wearing on him, and he wanted out, and it was more this that I think drove his inner turmoil - the desire to relinquish his duty but being so tired, in every sense of the word - more than reasons to do with empathy towards mortals or his better nature.

Essentially, Emet in Shadowbringers - consistent with his deep kindness ... leading to him giving in and helping them save her.

I don't want to sound like a stuck record, but gestures vaguely to Garlemald and the entirety of Stormblood. It's very tempting to push Emet into the realm of this self-destructive, tormented soul, but his kindness did not stop him waging war and staging conquests, rebellions, instigating war crimes, permitting Dalamud's fall, manipulating a ravaged and beaten down nation into doing his bidding and making himself not only leader but an unquestioned, deity-like figure the Garleans were expected to exclusively pay reverence to as you would a divinity - and that's what we know he did. He extends his hand to us to better achieve his desired ends, he deigns to save Y'shtola to better cement our trust in him, he places some hope in us because we were once Azem and show some promise of release from what he's been stuck with, and while his feelings and ability to sympathise certainly coloured his decisions - I won't deny his condolences were genuine in that part of the story - by that point there was little in the way of kindness about it and the majority of it was self-serving in some way or another, and he didn't trouble himself to withdraw it the moment he became disillusioned.

So, yeah. To summarise the best I can, while I can understand the premise that the writers were trying to make Emet out as a tragic hero and a cautionary tale should such misfortune happen to us, I'm also not letting go of the fact that we spent an entire zone in the remnants of an empire famed for hideous racism, imperial conquest and human experimentation that he created and nominated himself the supreme ruler of, and that they could scarcely bring themselves to remind us of that fact while, as you pointed out, simultaneously making Varis its figurehead despite his short-lived tenure as Emperor in his stead. There is a reason for that, and I believe it has to do with the fact it makes that original message pretty tenuous when the blatant reality of what it actually means is put right in front of you.

[Brinne]

snip

Mm, yeah, I think it might be worth refreshing on HW Ardbert and Crew’s antics, up to and including his sinister smirks and jeers as he plots murder and destruction, and his friends laughing and gloating over nearly murdering Alisaie in her brother’s face.

It also seems weird to me to be a little dismissive of the deliberate suffering they were causing, and that he was more of a “cornered animal” in his situation compared to the surviving Ancients upon seeing the destruction and mutilation (as they understood it) of the remains of their world. “Antagonizing beastmen” is a strange turn of phrase to lighten his actions compared to the rhetoric used for the Ascians – frankly, Ardbert and Crew’s actions actually mirror Emet and the Ascians’ disturbingly well – simply on a smaller scale and on a smaller timeframe, for now, due to happenstance. To put it bluntly, Ardbert was deliberately targeting, killing, and manipulating oppressed, vulnerable populations with the aim of driving them into such despair and desperation that they would fall into extremism and self-destruction that it would lead to a Calamity (“genocide,” in non-sanitized terms) and widespread, untold death across the Source. They did this “systemically,” too, going from tribe to tribe. If Ardbert and crew were “under the manipulation of a third party,” then so too were the Ascians, as we now know they were unwittingly operating under Venat’s roadmap of the timeline leading to the WoL the entire time.

A point is also made that Ardbert and crew actually do know the full stakes of what they’re doing. They’re not being “misled” by the Ascians in terms of what they’re fighting for – Alisaie and Urianger have a whole exchange about how they’re fully aware that causing the Rejoining will still result in the death of their world, just that some form of its existence will continue in the Rejoined Source, rather than the complete oblivion by the Flood of Light, so it’s easy to argue in a lot of ways his goal was less justifiable than Emet’s. Emet, though the hope was faint, was fighting with the hope to concretely save people and allow them to live the lives that were stolen from them. Ardbert was way beyond that point, fighting for something even more vague and ill-defined on behalf of his beloved people. And once again, you never actually convince him to stop, or that he was wrong. The culmination of his arc is him coming to the conclusion that he wasn’t wrong, at least in his driving feeling of fighting to save the people of the First. In the scope of Heavensward, he only relents when figures from our side concede and go "you're right, your world needs to be saved, and we're going to help you do it so that you don't need to destroy ours."

I'm going to disagree here and say we threw a spanner in his works through the luck of our being Azem - an Ancient, someone he loved, someone who mattered amidst the rabble. I think we invoked some small semblance of the person he once was, and we saw a more vulnerable and human side of Emet than has likely been revealed for a while, but when we did not measure up, we became expendable just like all the rest. He was capable of kindness, but the habit of attributing this to him as a defining personality trait after the flashbacks we see of him prior to ShB - and what we see once we disappoint him - seems too optimistic. Emet, deep down, knew the futility of what he was trying to do, he had lost the will go on, the years of isolation and disappointment wearing on him, and he wanted out, and it was more this that I think drove his inner turmoil - the desire to relinquish his duty but being so tired, in every sense of the word - more than reasons to do with empathy towards mortals or his better nature.

This, at least, isn’t really accurate – the narrative suggests, and Yoshida explicates in interviews, that Emet has tried again and again, with “pure/earnest intent,” to believe in Sundered humanity and see them as worthy – but he was betrayed by them as a result so many times that he eventually simply gave up. We are not his first attempt to extend a chance to the Sundered. Us being Azem is, rather, cited as the what moved him to try one last time after he’d already been thoroughly burnt out, against his better instincts.

One thing I’d like to clarify is that when I refer to “kindness” in Emet’s case in particular, I don’t intend it as an evaluation of his character as such – more like an internal impulse that spurs reaction on his part due to feeling. The fact that he feels these instincts of kindness are what spurs his manic behavior that probably in many ways results in more cruelty than there would have otherwise, because it creates that element of overcompensation, of trying to prove something to himself, to resolve his internal dissonance. I’m not trying to argue that he’s a good person because he’s kind, rather, pointing that that specific aspect of his personality was always a key factor in what led him to do what he did in the way that he did it, for better and for worse, for himself and for others.

In that way, Endwalker highlighting “kindness” as his key trait as a person, divorced from his circumstances and duties and trauma, felt perfectly consistent to me and was already something I as a reader had picked up on from Shadowbringers alone. I was happy to see it reinforced, as the core factor behind much of his strange behavior, as opposed to something more straightforwardly connected to malice such as “arrogance.” Even back in Shadowbringers, this reading was far more compelling and interesting to me. “Kindness” in and of itself does not necessarily lead to a more benevolent outcome; when “kindness” is an irrepressible impulse in someone put in a position where they see no alternative to killing and tormenting others, it actually can and often does lead to incredibly ugly places. This is why a support network is so important, and Emet going so badly off the rails is attributed to being his isolation from his loved ones more than anything else.

I think there’s sort of a fundamental difference here in the disbelief of “there’s simply no way you could describe anyone who took the actions Emet did as ‘kind’” – whereas my reading has always been more “yes, I can see how an excess of kindness can actually be a destructive trait when certain types of extreme pressure are applied, and it’s really interesting character work.” I also think it’s totally fair to not really buy into Shadowbringers’s thesis – it’s just that I would point out that then, however, you can’t really indicate that as a gap between Shadowbringers as a good narrative and Endwalker as a failure of that narrative, at least in this particular case. (I think Endwalker was a failure of Shadowbringers’s narrative in a million other ways, of course.)

It’s just that Shadowbringers’s thesis has never been “regardless of how sympathetic his position, Emet-Selch is Wrong” and has always explicitly been “if you wind up in Emet-Selch’s position, you WILL end up like him, so don’t end up in his position (of being alone.)” I’m not sure there’s a lot to debate with a basic disagreement of “no, I don’t buy that premise,” although I think the added context of how long Emet-Selch has been doing this, how often it’s been implied/stated he’s earnestly tried to reach out to the Sundered and been betrayed, and therefore how hard his soul has been ground down for so long helps as a factor in understanding it. Ardbert may not have reached the sheer levels of depravity or numbers of victims Emet-Selch did, but Ardbert also had less time grinding away at his personal mission of saving the First – after millennia at it in isolation, well, who knows what Ardbert might have become, had we (or rather, Urianger) not gone out of our way to give him another way out?

[jameseoakes]

t. Factor that with her own free spirit, something that she shares with our Azem, it makes sense why she was one of the few Ancients whom didnt gave into despair like the rest of the Ancients during the Final Days.

I'd say she did give into despair though as she gave up on her own people and the sundering seems to be more about her not liking how her civilisation works than anything else given how fast she is to give up on it. I find the fact she could scour her own race from existence and seemly not be affect by really disturbing

[Lunaxia]

It also seems weird to me to ...

Some of the First still survived in some measure, but they were against the clock and rapidly running out of time before it fell completely, is what I meant by that - they were trying to wildly course-correct a mistake they had made before they lost everything, which I think bears remembering. In terms of the beastmen, as I said, I don't think I've properly played through their arc in HW since it was released and vaguely recalled the Gnath and battling Ravana vis a vis something to do with hastening summonings (I did look up their scenes, but the vast majority of clips I could find focused on the confrontation prior to their being sent back to the First by Minfilia.) If they were going through the tribes and slaughtering the beastmen as you say, and I have little reason to doubt you, then I'm not especially inclined to defend them for it, and if they were "smirking and jeering" over the said killing of innocents, then that's just as bizarre a character divergence to me as it is proclaiming the supportive progenitor of a would-be bio-terrorist is actually a kind but tormented man, deep, deep (deep) down. But your primary defence of the Emet and the Ascians here is resting a great deal on whataboutism concerning Ardbert and co., when I've never really thought much of the characters or their writing, nor been especially sympathetic towards Ardbert himself, and I don't find the comparisons carry. Equating Venat especially "permitting", if you like, the Ascians to go about their schemes because it works for her with Elidibus telling Ardbert the sole way to save some semblance of his home is to wreak havoc on the Source for instance just doesn't work in my eyes - ShB even shows Emet paying heed to the idea there may be other ways to bring about what they desire, but ultimately he doesn't find them worth exploring because we disappoint him. You're trying to impress upon me the seriousness of what Ardbert did and call his reasoning "vague and ill-defined", while in the same breath telling me that Emet, who has done far, far more, on a much more calculated, terrible scale, arguably had more of a right to do that on the very shaky premise that everything would have gone back to normal, the Rejoining would have been wholly succesful, the Ancients would have even been resurrected, and that they were not a lost cause at that point or that their resurrection was even viable - we merely take Emet's word alone on this, who is so hell-bent on miring himself in denial and self-deception he is an incredibly unreliable narrator.

This, at least, isn’t really accurate – the narrative suggests, and Yoshida explicates in interviews, that Emet has tried again and again, with “pure/earnest intent,” to believe in Sundered humanity...

I think Emet approached the Sundered with the intention to be open to the possibility of their proving him wrong, but again, you're over-romanticising him and his story when it conflicts with what we've actually seen. Emet, at heart, from the very beginning, has looked down upon the Sundered, and views them as weak, feeble and foolish, and though he claims we are free to prove otherwise, because of his views, the Sundered were effectively doomed to fail from day one. His standards are impossible to meet, for they cannot overcome such perceived weaknesses as the limits of their mortality (which we see with his son) nor the constitution of their bodies or souls (the WoL.) It isn't a case of Emet just wanting to believe, but the Sundered cruelly betrayed him over and over; Emet is so filled with grief and contempt that he cannot and will not accept the Sundered regardless of their merits or flaws, as they will always be a pale reflection of the "perfection" that once was. He has burned himself out, because he cannot accept the way things are. It will never be good enough for him, and he ultimately come to terms with this and admits it himself.

The fact that he feels these instincts of kindness are what spurs his manic behavior that probably in many ways results in more cruelty [...]

That's more or less what I was explaining earlier, wherein Emet channels his frustration over his disappointment into justifying and perpetuating more misdeeds, but I take a decidedly less favourable slant on it, haha.

In that way, Endwalker highlighting “kindness” as his key trait as a person, divorced from his circumstances and duties and trauma, felt perfectly consistent to me and was already something I as a reader had picked up on from Shadowbringers alone.

I've never taken issue with the idea of pointing out Emet's compassionate streak in Endwalker, what bothered me was the way they batter you to death with it, particularly in the blatantly expositional chat with Hythlodaeus, while conveniently skating over all the things he did that may make some people stop and go, "hey, wait a minute -". The writing lost a lot of nuance there in their rush to assure us what a good, self-effacing guy he was, to the point it became near enough comedic fodder. I did enjoy his exchanges with Hermes though, and his attempts to connect with him despite struggling to understand where he was coming from. I think they illustrated his better side quite well without the need for Metetion to tumble in in her genki girl way and guilt-trip him into it.

I think there’s sort of a fundamental difference here in the disbelief of “there’s simply no way you could describe anyone who took the actions Emet did as ‘kind’” – whereas my reading has always been more “yes, I can see how an excess of kindness can actually be a destructive trait when certain types of extreme pressure are applied, and it’s really interesting character work.” I also think it’s totally fair to not really buy into Shadowbringers’s thesis – it’s just that I would point out that then, however, you can’t really indicate that as a gap between Shadowbringers as a good narrative and Endwalker as a failure of that narrative, at least in this particular case. (I think Endwalker was a failure of Shadowbringers’s narrative in a million other ways, of course.)

I can agree with that, but I still resolutely take issue with the word "kindness" and applying it to him in the way that it has been - but if we're more or less talking about the same thing in terms of "Emet's ability to feel slowly destroyed him" then we're on the same page. His inability to assume that type of disconnect that Elidibus and Lahabrea appeared to take took its toll, at times made him act more maliciously (which I don't excuse), and also made him suffer (which I can sympathise with.)

The way I see it is, ShB landed with its writing, an interesting cast, its goal in creating a sympathetic, complex antagonist, and the overarching message of dispelling concepts of black and white morality and what is "good" vs "evil" , and I can applaud what it did well while not agreeing with the antagonist's actions or the subtle implication that his turmoil made them excusable. EW, on the other hand, failed in just about every metric including writing, characterisation, tying together the plot coherently and what it was trying to convey. I'm not saying it was a black void of enjoyment - it certainly had good moments - but as ShB had niggles during an altogether enjoyable experience, EW had some highlights during what was overall a disappointment.

After millennia at it in isolation, well, who knows what Ardbert might have become, had we (or rather, Urianger) not gone out of our way to give him another way out?

There's an element of that that's true, and I said as such a few pages back. We can never really know - but in that same vein, I don't appreciate the story supposing that we do.

[Brinne]

What I'm getting at with the Ardbert comparisons is not a personal attempt on my part to defend either Ardbert or Emet, to clarify - it's my attempt to demonstrate that FFXIV's writing (and Ishikawa's especially, as she's responsible for both the Warriors of Darkness arc in Heavensward and, obviously, all of Shadowbringers) has been consistent in regards to the capacity for twisted villainy and cruelty from the origins of what it portrays as not just kind, good people - but exceptionally kind, good people, with, again, the thesis that this IS the inevitable road a "hero" will wind up on under certain conditions (solitude, the agony and desperation of feeling solely responsible for protecting those around them.) In terms of Ishikawa's writing, this is also very consistent with how she approached the tenor of the Dark Knight quests. That the Warrior of Light themselves, out of their life of goodwill and having to inflict violence on some in defense of others, inevitably nurtures a subconscious darker half full of bile, hate, and resentment, and that can only be partially-mollified or at least kept in check by having a strong support network around them.

It's an Ishikawa thing not remotely specific to Endwalker, but it's been almost shockingly consistent in terms of how she approached the topic. For my part, I would say I fall on the side of appreciating it more than disliking it, and it overlaps with some of my own pet thematic fixations (which mostly has to do with rejecting Othering and protagonist-isms - I personally prioritize the sentiment of "the Ancients as a people deserved to be loved, validated and saved, and acknowledged as being so rather than discarded as necessary fodder for the 'greater good', even if their survival was sadly not the outcome as things turned out" over "Emet needs to be condemned for his methods" for that reason), but "the burden of solo heroism without sufficient emotional support from others will inevitably drive a person into a pile of twisted, self-loathing destruction" also isn't specifically something I feel strongly for, either. But it's pretty clear what the text has been getting at, and not very subtly, on a variety of fronts on the subject.

I think Emet approached the Sundered with the intention to be open to the possibility of their proving him wrong, but again, you're over-romanticising him and his story when it conflicts with what we've actually seen. Emet, at heart, from the very beginning, has looked down upon the Sundered, and views them as weak, feeble and foolish, and though he claims we are free to prove otherwise, because of his views, the Sundered were effectively doomed to fail from day one. His standards are impossible to meet, for they cannot overcome such perceived weaknesses as the limits of their mortality (which we see with his son) nor the constitution of their bodies or souls (the WoL.) It isn't a case of Emet just wanting to believe, but the Sundered cruelly betrayed him over and over; Emet is so filled with grief and contempt that he cannot and will not accept the Sundered regardless of their merits or flaws, as they will always be a pale reflection of the "perfection" that once was. He has burned himself out, because he cannot accept the way things are. It will never be good enough for him, and he ultimately come to terms with this and admits it himself.

I think your reading of this is a totally valid interpretation based on the text itself, but it's also explicit it's not the writer intent or interpretation at this point. I think it's very fair to point out the ways Emet trying to position himself (to himself, even) as more reasonable than he was really prepared to be due to a variety of his own shortcomings (and he's such a complex and nuanced character that it's GOOD that there are so many layers and cracks you can reach into to show the myriad of ways and levels he continued to betray himself), but since you mentioned in your posts not being sure where the writers were coming from in regards to his character and its treatment in Endwalker, their thought has always been, yeah, his attempts were in good faith and in earnest, even in regards to the unseen non-Azem figures he's reached out to throughout history. This isn't an Endwalker-exclusive pivot. Yoshida was giving the quotes about Emet's "pure-hearted" intentions all along back during the Shadowbringers era. As mentioned, at least going from translated interviews, "his kindness was his downfall" is Ishikawa's terms and framing.

That being said, I completely sympathize with and root for your right to go "okay, if that is the writer's intent, then I think that's stupid and wrong and undermined by the nuances of what they actually wrote." While I'm not wholly there in regards to this aspect of Emet-Selch (though he is complicated, self-sabotaging on pretty much every level, and his resentment and bitterness is also a huge driving force that can't be dismissed - not to mention it's a hell of an ask for others to reasonably understand him even when/if he is trying to be earnest because he's so outright nonsensically stupid and backwards about expressing it, in both the past and the present - but you're not wrong that I overall skew pretty sympathetic to him; part of that is that I think it's "easier" and thus more emotionally tempting for "our group" to write off his attempts to reach out as empty from the beginning, rather than daring to engage), that's basically how I feel about Venat and the Sundering myself. I see your intent there and it's bad in both thought and execution, writers.

The way I see it is, ShB landed with its writing, an interesting cast, its goal in creating a sympathetic, complex antagonist, and the overarching message of dispelling concepts of black and white morality and what is "good" vs "evil" , and I can applaud what it did well while not agreeing with the antagonist's actions or the subtle implication that his turmoil made them excusable. EW, on the other hand, failed in just about every metric including writing, characterisation, tying together the plot coherently and what it was trying to convey. I'm not saying it was a black void of enjoyment - it certainly had good moments - but as ShB had niggles during an altogether enjoyable experience, EW had some highlights during what was overall a disappointment.

All of this, for sure, I can nod along with and happily shake hands on, haha!

(And yes, Emet and Hermes's interactions were insanely good. One of my favorite parts of Elpis and of both characters.)

[Lunaxia]

What I'm getting at with the Ardbert comparisons is not a personal attempt on my part to defend either Ardbert or Emet, to clarify...

I will definitely agree there's a strong precedent for the "solitude and isolation will leave you a terrible, broken human being" narrative, and I noticed that initially with Yotsuyu and Ysayle, though on my part I'm not sure I'm thrilled with their (continued) take on it. I said this in my analysis of Endwalker, but I always found the message that life is a meaningless void and you're better off dead than without a support network behind you to be a pretty dreadful one, considering how often these circumstances are beyond our control, and I was dismayed how traumatised and isolated characters are are frequently seen as wounded animals that need putting out of their misery. Which is why for all my emphasis on his past actions, I'm not actually saying I want Emet condemned and forever scorned as a villain for what he did, because what he went through was an absolute tragedy, but something closer to what we wish for with Venat - a more open and appraising look at his character outside of what the story tells us we should think.

This also ties in to why I don't really find it totally viable to compare Ardbert with Emet, since I see the latter as more on par with Venat in terms of the scale of his actions. If you look at it from their mindset, to Ardbert's mind, he was causing destruction to save something of his world after he brought about its near total annihilation, but the Source would live on and eventually recover - Emet, on the other hand, wanted nothing less than the erasure of Sundered life and history completely. So it's sort of, yes, you're right in they did both did terrible things for what they perceived as doing the right thing, and the writers no doubt wanted to continue that isolated narrative with them, but do I think that their implying Ardbert had justification for his actions is also giving something of a pass to Emet? Not quite.

I think your reading of this is a totally valid interpretation based on the text itself, but it's also explicit it's not the writer intent or interpretation at this point.

Do you not think? I would have said the writers did intend for Emet to be setting himself up for inevitable disappointment, even if that wasn't his conscious intent. JP translations can be a little tricky since the vocabulary employed often carries different nuances to what we would first assume, but when they talk about pure-hearted intentions I see that as their saying he truly wasn't deceiving you, and he was genuinely receptive to being proven wrong - but that could simply never happen due to Emet's own distorted thinking, though he didn't realise that himself. I think that really came through in Through His Eyes - even his child, possibly the Sundered figure most in with a chance of getting close to Emet and breaking through his barriers, was simply not enough to able to tear down those biases and change his mind. In the end, he was unable to accept our mortality as anything other than a weakness, as opposed to a fundamental part of life, and rather than taking anything meaningful from it, losing his son only embittered him further. At that point, you have the sense of fighting a battle already lost.

That being said, I completely sympathize with...

Ironically, I lean the other way - seeing the fans be extraordinarily sympathetic towards him (the "Emet-Selch was right all along!" faction in equal parts amuses and concerns me) made me want to rip the bandaid off the darker parts of Emet's character and view him critically, because honestly, he is such an endearing and enjoyable character it's admittedly incredibly tempting to view him in this broken, tragic light, and I've even been guilty of it myself in the past. But after revisiting the story since the saga finished (I suppose I was waiting for the end of the story before really jumping into a character analysis) I don't believe it's quite accurate to do so. But I understand why so many do.

All of this, for sure, I can nod along with and happily shake hands on, haha!

(And yes, Emet and Hermes's interactions were insanely good. One of my favorite parts of Elpis and of both characters.)

There were a few times in Elpis the arrow really did hit the bullseye, and it was so good and so terrible (and I mean that in a positive way, if that makes sense) - like when Emet broods outside after the meeting and wonders what it must be like to grieve something so intently, I was just strangled crying noises.

[Brinne]

I will definitely agree there's a strong precedent for the "solitude and isolation will leave you a terrible, broken human being" narrative, and I noticed that initially with Yotsuyu and Ysayle, though on my part I'm not sure I'm thrilled with their (continued) take on it. I said this in my analysis of Endwalker, but I always found the message that life is a meaningless void and you're better off dead than without a support network behind you to be a pretty dreadful one, considering how often these circumstances are beyond our control, and I was dismayed how traumatised and isolated characters are are frequently seen as wounded animals that need putting out of their misery. Which is why for all my emphasis on his past actions, I'm not actually saying I want Emet condemned and forever scorned as a villain for what he did, because what he went through was an absolute tragedy, but something closer to what we wish for with Venat - a more open and appraising look at his character outside of what the story tells us we should think.

I think we're actually vibing on similar wavelengths here in terms of what we usually want from texts like this - there are totally ways to scrutinize the "don't let yourself be in Emet-Selch/Ardbert's positions [of being alone]" thesis because then, okay sure, that's all well and good to tell to us/the WoL, surrounded by friends, but then what about the people who don't have any say about it? Even in the text, you can easily argue that Emet-Selch and Ardbert themselves had no choice in the matter, that their positions of solitude are largely the result of things done to them and it's absurd to hold them responsible for their original pain and loss that left them isolated and thus launched onto their downward spirals - so what, exactly, were they supposed to have done, under this premise? And you're right that there's a callousness and something disturbing about a story drawing a line as far as "if you're too traumatized in this particular way, then you're broken and need to be put down." (Elidibus stands out to me in this regard, but Yotsuyu and Ysayle too in concert, for sure.) That does need to be critically examined and called out for being potentially troubling and callous for people who are vulnerable. I am 1000000% with you on there. The narrative not being sensitive enough to "the people who are left behind" by its feel-good platitudes are one of the myriad of issues I have with EW, where it became too egregious for me to ignore.

But like I said, one of my own pet thematic fixations is breaking down heroic essentialism or, sort of, protagonist-centric entitlement, so I also enjoy the challenging aspect of "they are the same as us and we hold the same potential for ugliness within us if the shoe was on the other foot" and therefore, the urging of empathy, compassion, and offering a different path whenever possible. Again, the solution to Ardbert isn't actually to forcefully put him down, it was to recognize his need and the worthiness of his cause and those he wanted to save, even beyond any possible grudge that could be held for his methods in achieving it - and thus reach out a hand to help him fulfill his cause in a different, non-destructive way. We weren't able to reach a similar accord with Emet-Selch in terms of "look, neither of us actually want to destroy each other, let's find a way to save both of our worlds," but it meant a lot to me that the Warrior of Light still responded to him with empathy and with recognition of him as a fellow hero in terms of what they were fundamentally both fighting for and suffering for.

So mileage may vary, but in terms of my personal complex about "Othering," the making hay about "if you don't have a proper support system you're effed" sucks in a lot of ways (and I'm happy to beat it down with you in steel-toed boots), but I liked the sort of sense of "but this principle also applies equally to you, these antagonists are the same as you but with worse fortunes and contexts - you're simply lucky, not exceptional, and need to appreciate that" in this regard towards us as the vaguely entitled-by-virtue-of-playing-the-heroes player characters.

This also ties in to why I don't really find it totally viable to compare Ardbert with Emet, since I see the latter as more on par with Venat in terms of the scale of his actions. If you look at it from their mindset, to Ardbert's mind, he was causing destruction to save something of his world after he brought about its near total annihilation, but the Source would live on and eventually recover - Emet, on the other hand, wanted nothing less than the erasure of Sundered life and history completely. So it's sort of, yes, you're right in they did both did terrible things for what they perceived as doing the right thing, and the writers no doubt wanted to continue that isolated narrative with them, but do I think that their implying Ardbert had justification for his actions is also giving something of a pass to Emet? Not quite.

Just for kicks (because I don't think these particulars are the most important thing to this discussion, lol) to further clarify what was going on with Ardbert and company, they weren't fighting to preserve what was left of the First, or Norvrandt. They were fighting to cause a Rejoining, aka, killing what was left of the First by merging it with the Source, but at least some semblence of the First's existence would continue on through being a part of the Source, as opposed to presumed complete obliteration to a Flood of Light. The First and all of its history would still be destroyed. They knew they were not actually fighting to save any actual lives, but were still willing to torture and mass murder people on the Source for it. Ardbert was indeed driven by a sense of responsibility from the guilt of causing it, but that sense of "responsibility" is also something emphasized with Emet-Selch. To stop what he was doing would be a complete betrayal of his people, consigning them to either continuing to remain in purgatory within Zodiark or as shattered pieces condemned to an existence of suffering, death, and never reclaiming their true selves or history through the Shards. His entire dilemma is being caught between two forms of unacceptable cruelty. It might be a case of us just disagreeing here, but I don't think it's a wide leap at all to compare the two in terms of "tragic hero who we are meant to sympathize with and see ourselves in, driven to horrific action out of desperation. We oppose them because the cost of them saving their loves ones is our loved ones, but we still feel for their desperation and that they're fighting for people who do deserve salvation as much as our own in-groups."

Do you not think? I would have said the writers did intend for Emet to be setting himself up for inevitable disappointment, even if that wasn't his conscious intent.

Mm, you're getting into really textured character analysis here, and I would say I don't even disagree with you when looking at the nuances of his character this closely - I'm not sure if I'd put stock into any significant real chance about Emet being able to bring himself to abandon the Ancients. But speaking broadly in terms of his intent and what the writers are describing, that he believed himself to be earnest, made an effort to be earnest - even if that was also largely him lying to himself in another convoluted means to cope and navigate the dissonance ripping him apart - because of an instinctual revulsion to "having" to be cruel and thus needing to pad himself with further justification, then we're probably roughly on the same page about it. Basically, his depth of feeling as a person, and being unable to shut it off, meant he couldn't move forward without resorting to kind of cowardly mental gymnastics that ended in the dehumanization of others. Emet-Selch is a good character!

Ironically, I lean the other way - seeing the fans be extraordinarily sympathetic towards him (the "Emet-Selch was right all along!" faction in equal parts amuses and concerns me) made me want to rip the bandaid off the darker parts of Emet's character and view him critically, because honestly, he is such an endearing and enjoyable character it's admittedly incredibly tempting to view him in this broken, tragic light, and I've even been guilty of it myself in the past. But after revisiting the story since the saga finished (I suppose I was waiting for the end of the story before really jumping into a character analysis) I don't believe it's quite accurate to do so. But I understand why so many do.

I mean, I think your voice is a very needed one in this regard! I totally get being cautious - and tired of - the feeling of romanticizing or looking for excuses for destructive, vile figures at the expense of their victims (or being used to blunt necessary action to stop them). That (very real) issue can exist in complicated conversation with the simultaneous need to not deny others their humanity, even if they are your Opposition, but it does get tricky sometimes. I've just gotten too frustrated from my own subjective encounters with people coming from the other direction (Emet-Selch was always a bad man who just needs to be put down, there's no need to think too hard about anything he was saying or feeling, and the Ancients he loved were probably just bad people who brought it on themselves too, no need for further self-reflection here, Good Triumphs!)

I think we honestly probably think along similar lines in the desire to be cautious of and challenge the "easy" impulses when it comes to reading the narratives - your criticism of Emet is more along the lines of recognizing him as a fan favorite, so it's a sense of people going "I really like him, therefore, he must not be That Bad/must be Good Somehow" which does often deserve to be challenged. I'm a bit more stuck on a (probably Western-informed) perspective of challenging "Well, I'm the heroic protagonist, therefore, those opposed to me must be my enemy for some necessarily Righteously Justified and Good reason, and I WILL work backwards by whatever means necessary to maintain that comfortable equilibrium for myself." EW's weird and disturbing approach to the Ancient narrative, all to prop up the species players are more aligned with, has made me all the more salty in this regard.

There were a few times in Elpis the arrow really did hit the bullseye, and it was so good and so terrible (and I mean that in a positive way, if that makes sense) - like when Emet broods outside after the meeting and wonders what it must be like to grieve something so intently, I was just strangled crying noises.

That Hermes-as-Amon was still bitter enough about Emet-Selch to seethe about him from afar in that last encounter in the Aitiascope was just pure Chef's Kiss. The absolute disconnect between those two, the complete breakdown of communication as a result of the personal weaknesses of both, was a total delight. Watching a trainwreck in slow, largely well-meaning motion. It ruled.

[Lunaxia]

I think we're actually vibing on similar wavelengths...

I'm relieved to hear someone else actually feels similar, because of all the view points I've heard for and against EW, I've never seen this actually addressed, and it was one of the things that bothered me the most about it. I was completely flummoxed by the outpouring of people following the game's release proclaiming how it made them feel better, or helped their depression, or that they found it uplifting and inspirational, because my first thought on finishing it was if you're struggling or have ever struggled with feelings of loneliness or isolation during a difficult time in your life, EW was frustrating at best and almost, I dare to use the word triggering, at worst? That element of "haha, well, we sure are lucky to have one another, so let's make sure we don't lose that!" and generously helping various folk find meaning in their life via reconnecting with their community completely ignores the reality that often we really don't have a choice in the matter, to say nothing of those who are actively rejected or abused despite their best efforts. "Reach out for help when you're struggling" is one thing to preach, but to suggest that you cannot hope to survive adversity alone - or that your life only holds worth in relation to other people (which is especially "ahhh!") is ridiculously short-sighted, and yes, really quite callous to those unfortunate enough to not automatically have that going for them.

But like I said, one of my own pet thematic fixations is...

I completely agree! And if it comes down to the moustache-twirling villains of yesteryear's ARR or having complex, relatable antagonists, there's no contest. In the end, I did truly want to help Emet, and I understood the motives that drove him and the tragedy of what he had to bear - but I also liked how they didn't handle him with kid gloves, and the out-and-out disdain and distrust the Scions had for him all the while giving him that chance, because they had every right to feel that way. I loved the dynamic of "I don't like you and you don't like me, but let's try to co-operate" and the fascinating exchanges it led to, the way it challenged their previously held view points, and even the grudging impression you can tell Emet left on them all by the off-hand remarks they make about him later. It goes back again to why I think casting him in an excessively sympathetic light and excusing him to the extent some do is a negative thing - because it loses a lot of what made the original scenario so interesting.

Just for kicks (because I don't think these particulars are the most important thing to this discussion, lol) to further clarify what was going on with Ardbert and company, they weren't fighting to preserve what was left of the First, or Norvrandt.

Really, the best way I guess I can put it is, while I can appreciate they want us to look at these characters from the standpoint of "what might happen when you're faced with a terrible situation and desperate to save your loved ones", and see how they deal with the cruel hand dealt to them (alongside the commentary of the importance of support, etc.), I don't think how the story ultimately comes to view the the actions of one is any comment on how we're meant to perceive the actions of the other. The initial situations are similar, but the outcomes are not, the difference in scale and external factors too extreme to be comparable. So I don't think the parallels are intended to stretch that far, and maybe that's where we disagree. To me, it's more like "here's three people at the same starting point, and here's how their respective journeys play out", rather than "well Ardbert winds up being treated empathetically and embraced despite what he did, so this must be applicable to how they want us to view Emet." I feel like on some level the writers at least know that the bus left that station for him too long ago, whereas Ardbert was not yet at that point. But as a commentary on where he or we could end up? Sure. But I just can't imagine taking in Emet to the degree we did Ardbert, because too much has happened with the Ascians and the Sundered, whereas Ardbert, being in a more immediately desperate situation and without that chasm of spite, resentment and suffering inflicted throughout the ages to cross... is possible to do that with, despite doing bad things. That's the best way I can hope to describe it, I think.

Mm, you're getting into really textured character analysis here...

He is! And it's what makes picking him apart so fascinating, because the more you delve into it and think about it, the more you see how much is there, and how it explains and throws into a new light the thinking behind what may appear to be conflicting or inexplicable actions at first glance.

I mean, I think your voice is...

I've seen enough rants about how people daring to enjoy Emet as a character conflates with a sympathetic view towards fascism myself, so I can understand that! I've also been surprised by the apparent dismissal fans have had towards the Ancients and will never not defend them, because while I can see how Emet can be a divisive figure for some (putting moral policing aside) the mental gymnastics you would have to do to somehow validate our continued existence at the cost of theirs is just... staggering. The most common reason I see is the implication their future would have played out like the Dead Ends, so in some way they deserved their fate - which completely ignores only, you know, the entire argument we rested our case to Emet on; that in spite of the uncertainty and likely eventual doom mortals would face, we still have the right to see that future, and that there is meaning in it, despite its potential transcience.

I don't know, though, right now I'm daring to be moderately hopeful with the Ancients, seeing the way Pandaemonium is heading. The implications of it reappearing in the present day Aetherial Sea can be discussed and theorised endlessly, but I'm wondering if the writers haven't seen the dismayed reaction to the way their story played out, and that they may have something in the works. We shall see!