having thoughts about like. how the flashbacks we see of setrákus, pittacus, and celwe are ambiguous enough--the tiny slices we get of their dynamic, and all of the missing context in between--that pittacus' nastiness toward setrákus might be in response to setrákus being abusive toward him while they were growing up. and setrákus' nastiness toward him might be in response to pittacus being abusive toward him while they were growing up. or maybe they were just shitty to each other and in general, with celwe and Everyone Else getting caught in the crossfire.

the authors probably intended for it to be the first option, to the extent they were thinking about it in those terms at all: pittacus grew up with a friend who's been shitty to downright abusive toward him, and by their big confrontation he's had enough time away from him to unpack how fucked up his behavior was, and understand his tactics in order to call them out. you could interpret it that way, and were probably meant to, and it would make sense.

but... that assumption is kind of the problem, to me. because the other very much valid way to interpret what we see is a certain kind of abuse that's bad enough by itself, but is primarily aimed at neurodivergent and otherwise marginalized people in particular. (and setrákus is autistic as fuck.) and it's abuse that widely goes unseen and ignored, and is most often perpetuated by people who know they can afford to do it, or think they can.

might have to come back to it in more detail in a reblog, honestly, because it's a lot to talk about; but essentially it comes down to silencing someone by either openly dismissing what they say as nonsense that no one can understand but them, and isn't important enough to try, or disguising it behind a bad faith ''attempt'' to understand so they can say they tried and there's no point. it's a lifelong trauma which has shaped enormous parts of my personality and how i communicate, i can spot it a mile away, and i see all the hallmarks of it in their relationship and how setrákus is affected by it.

and that bothers me. it bothers me a lot that we're supposed to see one and not the other. it bothers me that it's not even 'pittacus' behavior is genuinely shit, but it's somewhat more understandable in the version of events where the context is that he was abused'; he's framed as the hero of the situation either way, who's acting out of pure kindness and reason and good intent. it bothers me that the person who is easy to interpret as having been abused this way would, even then, still be depicted as the Abusive Hate Sink Incarnation of Evil. (because he is abusive, and he is very much an evil son of a bitch. regardless of who was worse in his relationship with pittacus, that's true.) and it bothers me that that framing makes it harder to explore how the cycle of abuse manifests in this scenario, because it absolutely is a thing that happens and is worth telling stories about.

just, i don't know. thoughts. hm.