Particularly fascinated with Yulia this fine evening. How her character deals with applying logic to the illogical, and her “Tripwires of Fate” theory presents an almost rational counterpart to the Mistress’ prophetic abilities. @shriika said it best, that Yulia’s character poses the question, can you accept the existence of all the miraculous and unearthly and assign it reason and logic, which Imo first subtly appears in how Yulia treats twyre and disease. She claims that despite twyre’s supposed preternatural properties are “superstitions and remarkably little else. It has psychoactive properties, after a fashion, but then so does simple wormwood.” She likewise claims that the shabnak is no less a “real” than bacteria as a plague-source; that the shabnak and microbes are two understandings of reality. I.e. she says, “You amaze me, Bachelor. Did you not make fun of the shabnak rumours yesterday? […] Still, you don’t hesitate a moment to accept a rumour of an epidemic as veritable truth. Is the concept of the disease that much more familiar to you than that of a maneating abomination made of clay?” To me, these rationalizations introduce how she is a crossroads between the fantastical elements in the story, particularly how Patho Classic treats fate.

Yulia’s character concept best clarifies her Tripwires of Fate theory; that she kept a diary in Town which allowed her to recognize “a rather symmetrical conclusion about the reaction between the movements of those people in town and the seemingly random events happen afterwards. […] Now Yulia is preoccupied with the question whether these patterns are just a coincidence.” She herself says, “The world is defined by a plethora of causal relationships. These causalities, however, are located at different tiers of human perception.” This outlines the foundations of Yulia’s construction of fate, which leads directly into discussion of the Mistresses: “Take my own death, for instance. In our town, such coincidences have put together several women whose inexplicable aptitude allows them to see the whole chain of cause-effect connections. They also see where the chain would lead; which is to my death.” Daniil can then ask how Mistresses predict the future, or whether people can affect the “course of causes and consequences.” Yulia caveats her answer, but clarifies that a Mistress “would not hesitate to reveal the future” only if she “were to intuit that there is not man or woman capable of breaking—or mending—these kinds of connections.” This explanation is based in Yulia’s vocabulary: she uses these cause-and-effect chains of likelihood to foresee events, such as anticipating Clara’s visits. But Yulia’s explanation is one of the most explicit insights the game offers on the mechanisms of the Mistress’ clairvoyance, so I’m inclined to treat it as more than just Yulia applying her own vocabulary to the phenomenon. Rather, as one way the game might want us to see how foretelling works here; especially since this explanation is remarkably close to how Simon describes magic in some game material. 

Simon claims that he does not practice magic, but manipulates “an invisible combination of causes, leading to moderately predictable consequences.” He specifically claims, “To produce a magical construct sometimes requires tens of even hundreds of people. They must be close at hand, and they must be predictable. To take their life line, read them, learn to make a match: that’s an art that you call magic.” Simon’s ‘magic’ appears to parallel the Mistress’ clairvoyance, as it rests within predictable or assured cause-and-effect. It also apparently allows for human action alongside some kind of predetermination, because as the Mistress apparently only foretell futures that individuals’ actions will not change, human will and predetermination are put aside one another, but not apparently conflated. This also recalls Yulia to me in that Simon ‘explains’ his magic through patterns and order—constructs which can be placed on the irrational to rationalize it. With regards to Yulia, Simon’s statement is most similar to when Yulia explains her apparent loss of sense to Daniil in their first dialogue; that she has “lost [her] ability to make distinctive events coincide.”

Another parallel between Yulia and Simon/the Mistresses is their role in constructing the Town. Simon/the Mistresses are its metaphysical architects, while Yulia played a role in its construction or design, having come to town with an engineering team “when the town was being rebuilt.” Yulia also joins her understanding of fate to the Town proper, as her character concept contextualises her theory thus: “there are invisible strings that cross every road in town (collectively — a Path); cutting them will result in a series of harmful accidents.” So to me, Yulia ultimately offers a “rational” equivalent to the Mistresses and Simon in a way, where she helped design the Town and is capable of perceiving the connections between events which grant one the ability to prophesy in-universe. She is logical rather than in the fantastical domain of the Mistresses, characterizing her foretelling through the scientific. She states, “[…] I base my speculations on rigorous research, even though it may not look veritable enough to you. You see, in order to calculate the probability of either outcome, I had to extrapolate the two mathematical functions, which you may find to be somewhat... esoteric” or “Oh, the joy I feel when everything falls well in line with what I have predicated—by which I don’t mean the brute probabilism your mother would sort to, but a watertight, well-ground calculation of likelihood!”  

Yulia also poses an interesting counterpart to Daniil; both are rationalists with a tendency towards the fantastic, yet Yulia is a fatalist and Daniil consistently refutes fate’s existence. Both characters’ theories foreground imminence and inevitability—Yulia literally theorizes over inevitable fate, while Daniil’s fight against death is sometimes framed as one against inevitability. Daniil even tells her, “You wouldn’t believe it, but some of my theories are quire similar to yours” and “The story of my life, believe it or not. Trying desperately to draw their attention to what seems to be painfully obvious, offering any conceivable proof that these ‘coincidences’ must be studied! To no avail.” But what really makes me want to bury myself in the floorboards is Daniil’s claim that, “I would have told you that I’d been brought here by the hand of fate not so long ago, naïve man that I was…” That is. Both Yulia and Daniil appear as people who have, to an extent, distanced themselves in different ways from aspects of Utopian doctrine, but Daniil remains a Utopian while Yulia obviously does not, and instead founded the Humble ideology. Lara’s portrait quote address this somewhat: “This fatalism of hers is depressing and crushing, and it’s appalling to see a mind that bright base its theories upon a false foundation. I believe that any predetermination is an insult to the freedom of choice. I guess it all goes back to the past, when she worked with the Dream Party.” This is my speculation, but I think Yulia’s fatalism and according view of human nature explains her potential broken alignment with the Utopians, as it is incompatible with their ideology.

For one, Yulia’s theory is ultimately about the necessity of death, which is framed as her “crime.” When Clara claims that Yulia isn’t evil, Artemy rebuts her specifically by saying that “Yulia is the ideologist of humility. She came up with a scientific justification of necessary death.” Yulia says of herself, “I don’t qualify as wicked, but you can call me a criminal… in a way. Just don’t conflate the two. You see, I am of the opinion that it was your duty to end us.” Both dialogues suggest that Yulia believed—presumably on account of her dabbles in Fate—that the Plague could only end with Clara’s sacrifice, that the only way out was through death. Besides Yulia’s general we’re doomed talk, she tells Clara, “I get the feeling that every move you make may be reliable predicted. This is not an opportunity I would ever miss for it feeds remarkably well into one of my theories… perhaps, the most pessimistic of them all.” That latter sentence feels like proof, to me, that her theory of “necessary death” is about Clara’s ending. Yulia’s conclusions thus feel antithetical with the Utopians,’ not just narratively, but that the Utopians are all about possibility.

I also want to look at this dialogue between Yulia and Daniil:

Yulia Lyuricheva: Is this so? If I die, the universe would not notice my passing. But what if there are people who are the walking embodiment of the law by which events are connected to each other? What would happen to the universe if any one of these people were to die? Bachelor: Do you think you are such a person? Yulia Lyuricheva: When I was a child I took enormous pleasure in thinking I was one. Later in my life, as a student, I rather saw it as an honour of which I was not necessarily deserving. Today, however, I treat it as a somewhat scornful affliction. Bachelor: Why? Yulia Lyuricheva: People like these are a natural hazard. Their mission exists as long as they believe in it, and others suffer from its consequences.

The dialogue trees point to Yulia speaking about Simon here, and in that sense it provides more possible internal logic for why Yulia became disaffected with Utopianism. Yet Yulia’s portrayal of Simon feels very Clara-esque to me as well. As I have mentioned before, there is a consistent idea to Clara’s character that her faith in herself is what manifests her miracle-working abilities, as according to Rat Prophet, “everything she believes in comes true.” This dialogue with Daniil then seemingly underlies Yulia’s gradual disaffection with Utopian values and subtly introduces her dynamic and view of Clara. Yulia is certainly intrigued and fascinated by Clara, but not particularly warm or empathetic to her. When Clara speaks of being a saint, Yulia is fairly harsh with her, she says, “You? A saint? What kind of imbecile would call you that? Is there even a God that you believe in? You are a changeling, and your sainthood is the lamest kind of mimetic apery.” Yulia appears interested in Clara only insofar as she is convinced that Clara is destined to end her and others in the Town, and in doing prove Yulia’s theories. On the Clara note, I think another element to Yulia’s incompatibility with Utopianism is how Yulia views humanity, since she professes to believe that human nature is evil, telling Clara “Let me remind you how intrinsically evil people are.”

Of course, that might be an exception, but caveats aside: the Utopians believe emphatically in the “power of the human spirit and the infinitive scope of creativity,” a sentiment reinforced by Daniil’s “The point is that in this case, the winner will be […] mere humanity. Any kind of it—even malicious, and yet still a living one.” Humanity appears central to Utopian doctrine, and so someone who considers humanity evil feels necessarily opposed with this to me. I also have no conclusions to this, but cannot stop chewing on how in this game, which so heavily lambasts utopia, Yulia’s conviction in inevitable death is a wicked thing, particularly since she created the philosophy of the healer who manages to break free from fate. I *cannot* stop thinking of it in context of that Saburov quote, that, “A desire for miracles, an endeavour to achieve the impossible... are inherent to humans. However ugly the particular form they might take. Who can dare deprive humans of a dream?” Yet maybe Yulia has some lingering Utopian sentiments? Particularly in her affection for Eva, someone who Imo epitomizes Utopian ideology yet whom Victor describes as “enamored of death so bizarrely and persistently” and resolves her aspiration for the miraculous through her own death. There is just smth about Yulia being in love with someone who for better and worse seemingly embodies Yulia’s potential old ideals alongside her present conclusions about inevitable damning fate...

*LOSING MY MIND OVER THIS*

I’m so not normal about this

The way that Artemy tries to make Daniil feel better despite not caring solely because Daniil is upset, the “you are also better-crafted than me” like Artemy is telling him not to think of himself as some worthless unloved doll because look at yourself, you’re so much more than that; just that last line the compassion the kindness in it I cannot stand this. I’m not even that into Burakhovsky in canon but this is the most romantic thing I’ve ever witnessed in my life (←light hyperbole) 

I’ve gotten too desensitized to the doll ending that I forget what a gut punch it is. That line “Strangely, there is still not a word to be heard from the Powers That Be. Perhaps they became bored of it all... or were called back home for supper” plain devastates me. Just the futility of it all, how pointless all the characters’ suffering was, in particular the healers’. Though I enjoy the theatre-framing in Patho 2, the ‘children’s game’ meta in Patho Classic gets under my skin far more, as there’s some ‘purpose’ in Artemy/Daniil/Clara suffering onstage, playing their roles for an audience. While Patho 2 implies futility with the ‘you aren’t important, you can be recast,’ that idea of ‘you are not important, and everything you did meant nothing’ hits me harder in the game framing because the healers aren’t even worth being replaced. Everything is just some kids’ make-believe that can be tossed aside when they get bored or are called away. 

But I fucking love “The Powers That Be” concept because it’s so perfectly ominous and vague. Could be anything, likely the government, but sike actually it’s two children who orchestrated your entire living nightmare. I love the subtle references to them throughout the game, too, such as a plague victim telling Daniil “I keep hearing children’s voices... the girls are crying, and the boy is laughing... We mustn’t scare them...” or Aspity asking, “Pit-a-pat, pit-a-pat... Can you hear the kids running around?” And granted this might not truly be about The Powers That Be, but it certainly feels like it could be. Or the foreshadowing on Day 1 of the Bachelor Route when Daniil asks the kids, “How did it even cross your mind... to play epidemic!” And Clara directly references them when she goes underground with Artemy, warning him to talk as little as possible so “they who are beyond the wall won’t hear you.” 

She elaborates: 

“I can only feel them. They are obscure. They are the ones in charge of everything here. They’re big but narrow-souled, trying to hide their wretchedness from us. It was all their doing. They haven’t revealed themselves yet. [...] Their time hasn't come yet. They are waiting in the wings. They will probably break into the world when it ends. Tomorrow they will show themselves...” 

I highly enjoy Measly and Thrush’s presence being all over the game unbeknownst to the player and characters (excluding Clara). 

And it creates even more futility to me because there’s no catharsis of just anger against some cruel puppet-master, like I can’t be angry with these children who are just playing. Especially how they ask, “Heal the town, please! Just look, it’s so wonderful... It’s alive and it’s our favorite one... We won’t be able to make another one like this. If it can’t be helped, then it will disappear forever. You know how much we love it?” They’re just kids who want you to save something that they love; even if they can be devious they don’t really have malicious intentions. But even their fears about losing their town aren’t real and I’m just going to go outside and start eating handfuls of dirt 

Something I struggle to reconcile with Daniil’s character is his attitude towards violence, because he’s this impassioned doctor claiming he wants to save everyone but at the same time is pretty quick on the draw across all three routes. E.g. in the Bachelor Route, the player can say that Daniil doesn’t want others to die for him; that it’s his job to preserve lives, not waste them; and tells Saburov that Artemy couldn’t be a killer, because why would a *doctor* kill anyone? but then the next conversation he’s expressing delight when Andrey tells him he can kill marauders with impunity. Thinking about it more, though, I don’t think it’s necessarily that dissonant given how Daniil’s character is constructed within this “destroyer” idea, and I think his motivations are pretty consistent as well. 

I feel Daniil is the most emotional healer—he’s very wear-it-on-your-sleeve and seemingly easily swayed by emotion, considering how he reacts to Simon’s death/Aglaya’s betrayal. He’s not altogether impulsive, since he’s conscientious and sometimes even refuses to act without ensuring whether he’s right, but he’s clearly partly motivated by emotion. For one, he often to lashes out at people—there are frequent dialogues in his route where he can snap at someone and then say a variant of “Sorry, I lost my temper.” I don’t think Daniil is necessarily an angry person, but reactive and in a situation where he’s constantly under pressure/being prevented from doing what he needs to be done, so obviously he’d often be frustrated and angry. I also don’t think him acting violently is  because he wants to take his anger out on others, and rather his sense of justice allows him to justify violence on the grounds of who “deserves” to be punished or to die. For example, in the Haruspex/Changeling Route he only threatens to kill Artemy or use violence against Simon Kain’s murderer because eye-for-an-eye; the killer deserves to be punished, because that’s just. Daniil also expresses anger and disdain towards those who kill others, so it seems to him, killing a murderer is just righting a wrong. 

Outside his motivations, I also think Daniil’s tendency towards violence works within his broader characterization as a fighter/destroyer. He’s indirectly characterized as an apt fighter in both the Haurspex/Changeling Routes, and rhetoric of ‘fighting’ is constantly used to describe his research and actions within the town. On Day 1, both Maria and Katerina describe his fate as a battle—Maria says, “a truly terrifying battle is ahead of you [...] You will fight a foe that few can defeat” and Katerina says, “I’m talking about a very particular battle... You are one of the combatants, Bachelor Dankovsky [...] you will have to fight to the death.” I also want to point to this dialogue with an herb bride, which I know is in common, but: 

Herb Bride: How are you smart? Smart people are four-eyed nerds... bulgy heads on stunted legs. Cunning, cautious, weak, old even... no, you are not a smart man. You are a warrior.

Player: You can be both.

Herb Bride: Really? I thought you can only have one. Your eyes are throwing needles, and your teeth are clenched fast. You've got the face of a man who can sweep down anything that stands in his way. The face of a destroyer.

Player: Correct. This is the true purpose of smart people [...] I destroy death. 

Herb Bride: Oh... So that's why there are always sparks of hatred in your eyes. And that's why your smile is so spiteful.

I’m still debating my opinions on the implications here, but I feel it’s partly related to the game’s pessimism about miracles/utopias. Specifically that in Daniil’s attempt to attain utopia:defeat death, he can only cause more destruction, as in Kaspar’s infamous “You may mean well, but you bring evil and destruction all the same [...] Your heavy hand will crush us all—even if you were only grabbing us in order to pull us out of the abyss.” The sentiment that Daniil is solely a destructive force even when he tries to do good is echoed all over the game, which frankly makes me upset because I’m too attached to this tortured little fellow. Daniil does what he thinks is right just as Artemy and Clara, but he doesn’t even get the privilege of attaining his goal like the others do in their endings. The Bachelor ending is really only a symbolic victory for Daniil; Thanatica is burned down and he hasn’t really gotten any closer to beating death. For all intents and purposes, Daniil loses even in his own ending, and I have all sorts of thoughts about that but. I shall tuck it away for another day 

God I have to say I adore how Pathologic uses the concept of haruspicy, like I am absolutely enthralled by the “body is the universe” idea, the way that Bos Turokh makes the concept of visceral divination so literal—Artemy as a haruspex is not just interpreting omens from entrails but reading fate from a living image of the universe, and I am very much an Enjoyer of the idea that to open the body and understand anatomy is to understand the universe. I am also. Abnormal. About the entire concept of ‘the Lines’ because of how Patho’s text uses the idea of threads as connected to fate and the future; the game is definitely engaging with the ‘threads of life’ given Yulia’s description of the Mistresses’ power and the multiple instances where Yulia, Lara, and Anna adopt the roles of the Three Parcae. But to me the Lines also evoke lines of the body like ligaments, veins, arteries, muscle striation, joints, etc., linking the metaphorical threads of life and fate to anatomy and the structure of flesh. Fuck I just think the entire concept has fascinating implications because it is extended to the human body, such as with one Herb Bride saying that “The naked body is the most accurate image of the world,” which is in line with Artemy’s comment that “Any body contains a world” and Daniil saying that, “Every person is a world—after a fashion.” I am throwing up blood. My lungs are failing.  

I want to talk about Georgiy Kain. Fr find that miserable old man so compelling. Imo the best way to analyze Georgiy is through his attitude surrounding Simon’s death, which is whole-hearted denial clearly predicated on Georgiy’s symbolic interpretation of Simon’s death. This is repeated ad nauseam in Georgiy’s dialogue with Clara and Daniil in their respective routes, and I shall start with Daniil. 

Georgiy insists to Daniil that “Simon could not have died a natural death, so murder is the only feasible explanation” and “under no circumstances could my brother die a natural death.” When Daniil explains that Simon died of plague, Georgiy pushes back and insists that without tangible proof he won’t credit Daniil. He says, “If what you say is true, doctor, the labour of our life is condemned. We will seek a different answer till the very end.” This introduces that Simon’s death denotes the Kains’ downfall to Georgiy, and his apparent desperation towards this is evident in his emphatic denial and repetition of this sentiment. For instance, he tells Daniil “Till the very last moment I will hope that the murderer does exist […] if you’re right, that is a death sentence for us all. Look for the murderer as long as you can.” Georgiy somewhat shows his hand here, given that he will “hope” a murder exists and accordingly implores that Daniil look for a murderer “as long as he can.”

I think my dearest Victor provides further evidence for Georgiy’s desperation-informed denial, as if Daniil asks whether Simon’s death resulted from his experiments, Victor says, “I think, between me and you, that this is precisely what my brother Georgiy fears.” But even rational Victor echoes Georgiy’s interpretation of Simon’s death: “the cause of Simon’s death is much too significant. It seems we are on the brink of a realization that will be a death warrant to all of us—and, more importantly, to our life’s work. Georgiy wants to exhaust all possibilities of finding proof that he is mistaken.” Georgiy seemingly explains this potential death warrant under Clara Oath, in a confession which contains the same sentiments as his exhortations to Daniil. That is, Georgiy claims that “if [Simon’s] death was not a tragic accident but the ruling of some remorseless law, it will mean that our family's entire cause has been condemned. The town will perish. […] I will try to keep believing that his death was an accident. For as long as I can keep this belief alive, I'll be able to strive for our creation to flourish as it always did.”

So, I think this reflects Patho Classic’s broader narrative as presented in Clara’s Route; that the Plague is the Law attempting to correct itself as the Utopians broke it with the Polyhedron. The Kains appear aware that some calamity was looming, as Maria claimed that they had expected it, and with all the Kains’ manipulation of Daniil as a successor I think the Kains knew they were fucked to Hell and back and that Simon’s “death” (infection) was the nail in the coffin. Especially since Georgiy characterises Simon’s death as the “ruling of some remorseless law” if it were not murder, which Imo evokes characters like Katerina, Griff, and Anna in the Bachelor Route, who claim that Simon’s death was inevitable. This appears further supplement through another dialogue between Georgiy and Daniil: 

Georgiy Kain: We will fight... until the very end. I will personally persecute those who would dare describe this disease as some kind of preordained divine retribution! I will attack anyone who would say Simon got what he deserved! Finally, I will not allow anyone to say that what Simon has built by ceaseless labour is subject to inevitable destruction. Bachelor: Retribution for what? [or] Is it really inevitable? So this omnipresent fatalism is in your nature too? Georgiy Kain: Sooner or later the one who dares challenge the mechanics of nature will pay the price. But this is not something we'd want to believe, is it? This is a conclusion drawn by people who tend to mistake their exhaustion for wisdom. However, even an echo would sometimes grow to become deafening noise. If people keep saying we're doomed, they might well bring about our extinction.

Two main points here. Firstly, Georgiy directly addresses disease as divine retribution, and his impassioned claim to persecute anyone who describes it as such again exemplifies his apparent desperation. Likewise Georgiy’s response to Simon references the inevitable destruction which Simon’s death apparently heralds. Yet I think this dialogue also suggests that Georgiy’s denial is not truly denial in the conventional sense, but an attempt to rewrite what has happened. That is, I find it pertinent that Georgiy claims that people may doom themselves if they *say* so—Georgiy apparently believes in performative utterance, or that speech can change reality. Thus perhaps he holds that if he empathetically claims that Simon died of murder, he could somehow manifest this in reality and preclude the inevitable downfall of his family and their labours. Georgiy thus echoes a consistent theme I’ve noticed in Patho (particularly in Clara’s Route) that individuals’ beliefs can influence reality’s course. Yulia even addresses this in respect to Simon: “People like [Simon] are a natural hazard. Their mission exists as long as they believe in it, and others suffer from its consequences.” Yulia’s dialogue suggests to me that Georgiy’s denial is an attempt at a performative speech act—that as long as he *believes* in Simon’s murder, his death was neither inevitable nor divine retribution, and thus the Kains are not doomed.

I am presenting for the jury my main evidence Georgiy’s admission that “Till the very last moment I hoped that my brother’s demise was of… mechanical nature. That he had suffered a violent death. I was waiting so eagerly for it to be proven. The cause of his death will undoubtedly become the reason all of us will die. So it’s the Plague after all…” Which Imo confirmed that the Plague is indeed the Law attempting to put the utopians back in line. This also seems apparent in Victor/Georgiy’s contrasting perspectives on Simon’s death and how they view Clara: Georgiy clings to his conviction that Clara is Simon’s murderer, and Victor is more merciful towards her. Victor’s mercy could ofc be personality difference, but there seems more to it, as he tells Clara, “Saddened though I am on Simon’s account, I am nonetheless not so foolish as to be angry with you. Only a fool would curse and threaten the wind that has torn the sail off his mast. Besides, unlike Georgiy, I profoundly doubt the imminence of your victory.” Victor apparently doubts the plague necessarily means the Kains’ downfall—perhaps he has more faith in another way out, presumably through Daniil and Maria. 

Victor also interestingly claims that “I’m doing everything I can to make [Georgiy] face the terrible truth. Simon wasn’t immortal” but Georgiy claims “Immortality is the greatest secret humanity is forbidden to posses. Still, my brother managed to break the seal that locked it away from everyone else.” I have no precise explanation for this disparity, but I have a Theory based in Georgiy’s dynamic with Simon. That is, Georgiy is particularly concerned with Simon’s soul rather than Simon as his brother. This somewhat manifests in how Georgiy’s denial seemingly rests in what Simon’s death represents, but is dragged out into the open through Clara’s “hook” for Georgiy’s soul: “Georgiy, oh Georgiy, I know of you this: you didn’t love* Simon, and you were no twin of his.” (*The translation is “you didn’t like” Simon, but the Russian uses любил and frankly that is too catastrophic a difference in meaning). This initially seems somewhat counterintuitive given how Georgiy’s relationship to Simon is defined by other characters; Victor claims “There’s no tradition Georgiy wouldn’t disregard for Simon’s sake” and Nina (as Victor) says “Georgiy Kain, who so ardently desired eternal life for his brother, has committed himself in entirety to Simon’s Memory.” In combination with Georgiy’s little denial-sponsored murder mystery, it seems somewhat out of left field, but ! I think it suggests the point I want to make that Georgiy’s care for Simon is for his soul, not his brother. 

For my damning I-rest-my-case evidence I offer Rubin’s claim that “I won’t be able to bring Simon back, but I might try to discover his secret. If Georgiy cares more about his brother’s mission than his person, he’ll agree.” Because Georgiy does just that !! Even though Rubin and others are bewildered that Georgiy chooses to forgive him rather than smite him dead for snatching Simon’s body. This seems more likely given that Georgiy explicitly tells Daniil that “It isn’t Simon himself that we [the Kains] need—but the power of creation he wields. We live for its sake. Simon is not the Polyhedron’s purpose; rather, Simon’s purpose was to allow such Polyhedrons to spring up in this world.” Another circumstantial detail is that Georgiy is routinely described a fanatic above anyone else in the Kain family, apparently obsessed with their mission.

Now everyone stay with me but. I do think that Simon Kain was a living breathing twin of Georgiy, but that he is potentially holding an immortal soul passed down through the Kain family, since the Kains have practiced reincarnation for five generations and Georgiy routinely discusses Simon’s soul as its own entity. Also how the game complicates whether Simon *really* exists, because on the one hand, Rubin and Victor’s dialogues indicate that he did. When Daniil asks whether Simon truly existed, Victor claims: “There is indeed a spark of genius to you. Alas… yes. Yes, he did […] Alas—for that would be too simple an explanation. Simon well and truly did exist.” Likewise Rubin: “You think I don’t know what Simon looked like? You think his greatness, his noble visage, is comparable to his brother or anyone else?” This may explain the contrast between Victor and Georgiy’s conceptions of him—that Victor thinks of Simon more as his brother, and Georgiy as the “soul of creation” for which the Kains live, capable of becoming quasi-divine or an udurgh, with the Polyhedron as his new body. I mean. This theory is not perfect but it helps me sleep at night. 

On that note of “comparable to his brother,” I also want to examine some possible jealousy of Georgiy’s. In particular because Patho insists that Georgiy cannot replace Simon, which seemingly seeks to suggest that Georgiy was lesser to Simon. Clara can ask Georgiy outright whether he will replace Simon, and Georgiy claims “None of us [the Kains] would be able to advance and sustain the town in the way Simon did,” which suggests that he recognizes an inferiority to Simon. Then there is all that Victor Lore which I will throw on the table again, where the Stamatins claim that Victor could succeed Simon. Peter says, “I think [Victor’s] waiting for Georgiy to make an unpopular move to finally show his real face. Just kidding,” and Andrey claims, “Victor was a good disciple to Simon. He’ll manage to renew his achievement. Georgiy won’t,” and “Victor is a natural born ruler; he could be doing it all by himself. It’s Victor, not Georgiy, who is Simon’s true heir.” Even goddamn Daniil is framed as an heir for Simon over Georgiy. Now. I DO NOT think this is literal, that Victor or Daniil (<3) are capable of what Simon was. Rather, this is more about Victor’s leadership and that Victor is pragmatic and Georgiy too fanatic. In fact, it seems like Georgiy’s Achilles’ heel is indeed his fanaticism; that is why he could never replace Simon, because he is just oh so obsessed. BUT. I think it’s interesting that there is one way Georgiy was apparently Simon’s intellectual superior: he created the philosophy of Focus and Memory. 

Victor explicitly informs the player that Georgiy “had rather simplistic views on the connection between the human body and the soul. Disregarding the opinions of theologians and philosophers, and ignoring serious studies on the subject, he worked out a doctrine of his own. Try to imagine our shock when it turned out to be true. […] We don't understand it ourselves. This necrosophy was probably the only area in which Georgiy had surpassed his great brother. No one knows why, but his recipes for communicating with the dead did work. All this terminology—‘Memory', 'the Focus’—is of his coinage.” The phrasing of “surpassed” is what again suggests some potential competition between Georgiy and Simon. Then Georgiy elucidates his methodology in dialogues with Daniil, which I am compelled to include for my personal reference: 

“Dealing with the dead calls for scientific precision, doctor. I reality there is neither magic, nor necromancy. […] There is life after death. That much is certain. A man most certainly has a soul. And that soul certainly belongs to a better world—more so than to the one it leaves behind. Trying to prolong the time the soul has to stay here is not doing it any favours” and “To bring one’s dearly departed back to life [….] The fact of the matter is that the dead linger inside us—their living counterparts […] the dead may be brought back to life by the focussed emotions of the living.” Given that the Kains have apparently practiced reincarnation for centuries, Georgiy thus appears to have innovated or improved upon this methodology, and in so doing did one thing Simon could not, but still in service Simon—or rather, Simon’s immortal soul.  

Time to put Daniil back on the vivisection table because I am not done with him. I’ve been thinking recently about Daniil’s reaction to Aglaya’s ‘betrayal,’ because honestly I feel like people don’t talk enough about how much it affects him, or how much it influences his decision in the Cathedral. When I finished the Haruspex Route, I was kind of surprised by how central Aglaya’s death was to Daniil’s arguments in favor of the utopian ending—when Daniil tries to convince Artemy to save the Polyhedron, one of his main points is that in doing so, Aglaya will die. I also remember being struck on Day 12 of the Bachelor Route by that lengthy dialogue with Artemy, where he defends Aglaya and Daniil insists upon her betrayal. In the Bachelor Route, this breach of Daniil’s trust is a fundamental aspect of what informs his final decision, and is arguably centred more than the Polyhedron or Kains’ miracles. 

This makes sense to me, because I don’t think Daniil has such a strong reaction to anything else in Patho, not even Simon’s death—even though there’s much customary Dankovsky rage in his reaction, it seems underlined by genuine hurt. For instance, when he asks, “Aglaya, how could you do this? This is an honest to God betrayal. I trusted you...” It even feels a little childish, for want of a better word, how he says “I don’t want to talk to you. I despise you.” It’s also ridiculously hypocritical how he lashes out at Aglaya, telling her that revenge is a poor companion for someone like her, while simultaneously saying shit like “I do not want to take revenge on the Powers That Be anymore. I want to take revenge on you, Aglaya,” or “Watch me sign your death sentence.”

Returning to that dialogue with Artemy, I enjoy how his defense of Aglaya sort of picks apart this reaction: 

Haruspex: You're just holding a grudge, oynon, nothing more. You only feel betrayed because you've entrusted yourself to her—but that was your own choice. It's unwise to brand someone a savior beforehand and then denounce them when they fail to live up to your expectations—even though they didn't know you had them.

> She knew. That's the difference. She knew and exploited my hopes.

[...] 

Haruspex: The feeling that hinders you now is rage, oynon. You feel deceived because you put too much hope in those who have been guiding you all this time. Consider the fact that Aglaya has been guiding you according to her own truth. She is a servant of the Law.

> It doesn't matter—she has deceived and betrayed me. She treated me like a pawn, and I won't ever forgive her for that.

I feel Aremy’s emphasis on how Daniil feels hurt because he put too much hope and trust in Aglaya gestures to that Daniil seems pretty trusting by nature. I think how he acts in the Haruspex Route in particular suggests that he might not give out his trust completely right away, but he still strikes me as quite a social and collaborative person, despite everything. Just in how he quickly refers to Aglaya and Block as his best friends, or works amicably with Rubin and Artemy, or refers to his relationship with characters like Saburov as friendship, rather than an alliance or something similar. And it seems that Daniil truly did trust Aglaya, because when Clara first tells him about her plot, he shoots back, “You liar. Aglaya is my best friend and the most reliable ally I have.” So again, I think there’s an undertone of personal hurt here that goes beyond anger at being a pawn or made to tell lies (though in my opinion, they weren’t *really* lies).   

In this vein, I want to mention that Daniil already seems to associate lies with deception and a breach of trust, given this dialogue: 

Herb Bride: Do you really never tell lies?

> I hate lies. 

> Nothing is more villainous than deceit.* 

Herb Bride: Why? I didn't say 'deceit'. Telling a lie doesn't equal deceit.

> All my life those who pretended that black was white prohibited me from winning. Every deceit hides someone's dark intentions.

Herb Bride: What makes you think they have to be dark?

> Because they replace the true state of affairs with a false one to profit from someone else's suffering.

> It's in their nature.

The exchange provides some interesting insight into why Daniil despises lies so much—they have been used to fool him before, and prevented him from accomplishing his goals. I doubt this is his singular reason, but he seems to see lies as inherently manipulative and exploitative, which probably added salt to wound in the Aglaya situation. Daniil likely assumed that she had the worst intentions and took it as a personal attack against his victory, when really, Aglaya’s deceit was in their mutual interest in terms of getting back at The Powers That Be. After all, they wanted the Town unchanged, so to destroy part of it would indeed allow Daniil and Aglaya revenge. 

A final thing I want to mention is in an opening dialogue, when an Executor tells Daniil that “He who trusts everyone is asking to be deceived.” One of Daniil’s replies is, “Yet he who trusts no one is deluded. I know that from experience.” Which potentially makes this even more depressing, if Daniil was previously rather guarded. I could see how Daniil could  fall into considering himself his only ally, as he has rather outlandish goals that many people likely wouldn’t take seriously. Or perhaps it was from a place of ‘I know better than everyone else,’ which drove him to not take others seriously. Either way, the dialogue implies that Daniil was initially not as trusting as he seems in the game proper.  

I like that Daniil is trusting and hopeful; I personally dislike the idea that that is somehow more naïve than being guarded or pessimistic. I consider it one of his strengths, which allows him to work with others (even if he can be exceedingly ornery sometimes) and is an important foundation for his ideals. It’s all just sad to me how Daniil’s own virtues end up being used against him, but it makes an interesting case study of his character 

Suddenly stricken thinking about the Commander and Clara. I feel like there's not much attention given to what Clara tells the Bachelor about planning to accompany Block to the battlefront and essentially wage holy war. Again I feel like Clara's religiosity can be overlooked at times, in particular her frequent talk of salvation, which comes across in her ending but also is at the forefront in her dynamic with Block. And admittedly I find their interaction strangely sweet, for lack of a better word; it's not really father-daughter to me, given that Block sees her as a guiding vessel of the Holy Spirit (“I need a voice from above—because I don't know who to listen to anymore.”) It's more like a mutual belief and protection that I feel like Clara doesn't really get from anyone else.

I think a lot about how Patho emphasises that Clara's capability to be holy largely depends on her belief that she is, despite nearly every character either decrying her as the Plague or otherwise belittling her faith. Block believes in her holiness right away, and I feel he's the only character who truly believes in Clara's sainthood as much as she does herself, and is perhaps the only other character as passionate a believer as her. I feel like that creates an interesting symbiosis between them, where both affirm the other's faith and offer one another protection on account of that idea of Clara's holiness. Block protects Clara because he sees her as a saint girl who can guide his armies, and side note but I admit it I am emotional over Clara when Block tells her “I won't allow anyone to harm you,” and she says, “No one's ever said anything like this to me before...” But Clara is Block's protector, too—that's part of why she says that she'll go to battle with him, that her divine inspiration will guide his army and that “his force is to become unconquerable, empowered by my spirit.” I kind of wish they had done more with their dynamic in the Changeling Route because it's really unique but I do appreciate it for what it is

Proper (but non exhaustive!) Nina Kaina post. 

I continue to obsess over how Nina is framed within Patho Classic's text and how players may be meant to view her. To me, she occupies a half-divine or mythic role to other characters and within the text itself that portrays her as an epitome of utopian ideals. I think Nina's character is, to an extent, the ideal of utopia that the Kains and other utopians are fighting under. In particular given Victor deadass says that “Nina is not just my beloved wife. She is a spirit in whose name one could charge into battle with despair itself.” But another line that haunts me about Nina being revered as an ideal is when Yulia tells Daniil “They loved her for being a true queen. They love her for having died young.” She likewise says that “people adore her even more now than when she was alive.” Whether purposeful or not, Yulia brings to mind the objectified ideal of a beautiful woman who dies young and thus retains perpetual beauty alongside the potential of youth and all the possibilities which attend that.

The player’s understanding of Nina is often informed by those who desired or adored her, with character descriptions generally reiterating that Nina was foremost imposing and attractive—that she had a “terrible and powerful presence” and “imperial deportment;” that she was “a radiantly beautiful woman,” “The most gorgeous woman I’ve ever seen.” These descriptions further paint her as charming virago type, “So wild and fierce and intimidating! Just one brief look at her walking down the street—with or without her escort—could make you weak in the knees. You could almost picture her upon a throne. She could cut you with a knife looking you in the eye—and no one would say a thing.” Even Aglaya’s vitriolic description of Nina forefronts her as beautiful, blue-blooded, and fierce: “Nina was  the embodiment of absolute evil. The charming, intoxicating, beautiful evil, the evil that can drive you mad. The graceful and elegant evil that is fast to capture anyone in its web—even those who stand up to evil till the very last.” Thus that, I feel, is the primary portrait of her offered in passing—that Nina was beautiful, regal, and untouchable. 

Yet Katerina offers more insight into Nina’s actual self when she confides Victor/Nina’s history to Clara. She says, “Nina Lilich [was a] bright, refined, devilish aristocrat who fell for Victor for some reason, and he brought her here, in this faraway corner of the Steppe. It turned out then that Nina was harbouring plans concerning this place… And the Kains’ elders, Georgiy and Simon, had certainly impressed her… To put it briefly, Nina became the ruler of this land. […] Nina was striving to get to a place where no human being is allowed, and dragging her followers along, believing that her goal justified their suffering.” Is this conversation, Katerina further notes, “To Nina, human lives were tools.” Little Vlad similarly says, “Nina the Wild never held human lives in high regard.” An implication of cruelty, yet one employed to achieve noble aims. Yulia too points to this, saying that “Whatever power Nina had to dominate the souls of her subjects, she hardly ever resorted to it. Not that she needed to. She was worshipped all the same and her most inhumane endeavours were eagerly forgiven […] The reason would be, perhaps, that whatever Nina did, she did to appease the people. However cruel, her every undertaking would illuminate the town with festivity and high spirits.” 

Katerina, Yulia, and Vlad’s dialogues suggest that Nina was cruel by necessity, but adored nonetheless because her aims were ultimately for a greater good—similar, in my mind, to how the game engages with utopia itself. I feel even the emphasis on her attractiveness plays into this (though. hardy fucking side eye) to frame her in-text as synonymous with utopia. 

Yet! I feel Nina is not confined to being the dead beautiful woman, in particular through her involvement with the Polyhedron. Katerina does, after all, state that Nina had her own pre-existing plots. Peter corroborates this, that “Nobody would have allowed me to even model them… if not for Nina the Wild! Nina gave me a whole living town—a town aching and craving to go heavenwards, to the stars—a town desperately hungering for a crown—the crown I’ve given to it!” Given this; yes, the Polyhedron is for Simon, but to me Nina seems no less instrumental to it, namely the Polyhedron’s powers (though I might be misinterpreting this. lmao.) I completely overlooked thus far that it’s seemingly Nina’s soul which affords the Polyhedron its power to allow children to see their dreams. That is, both Victor and Georgiy tell Clara that should she enter the Polyhedron, she is unlikely to see anything because of Nina specifically, not merely because she is no longer a child (debatable, gentlemen). Georgiy says, “I’m afraid Nina will show you nothing, since you’re no longer a child.” Likewise Victor: “I am afraid you’re not going to see anything there. I doubt that Nina will be favorably disposed towards you.” This to suggest the that Nina actively gives the Polyhedron its power, which I feel is further corroborated by Andrey. He describes the Polyhedron as a “mirror that preserves the reflection of the person that has looked into it the last. You know, when Nina died, Maria said she may never be able to cope with grief […] That is when Focus was created.” And another thing!!! Yes, the Polyhedron was created for Simon, but Andrey implies Focus was only created due to Nina; he explains that Peter created Focus likely “because he loved Nina so much […] he ended up creating a space she could inhabit. Can you imagine? You come into a room and can definitely feel that she's there-as if you've simply turned away from her for a second... And you can talk to her.” 

It just compels me to think of the Polyhedron’s machinations not as fucked-up magic (for want of a better word) but Nina actively allowing these children to see their dreams. In this way, Nina is the literal utopia/miracle, but not merely a passive representation of it; rather the active author of it. I think Nina’s role here ties into broader themes about childhood/imagination/motherhood in Patho from which I will abstain because God knows this post is too long already and I am NOT done. Anyway. I think Nina’s involvement with the Polyhedron affords her more characterisation beyond these immortalising/alluring descriptions which more so confine her to occupy the role of utopia incarnate in-text, just as she does in the Townspeoples’ minds. 

Also that as Daniil, the player can converse with her; though I think there is something to be said that it is still through another’s mouth. I trust that we speak to Nina herself, that it is literally her soul—especially given that Maria tells Daniil that she had been sheltering Nina’s memory before Victor; it feels quite literal. BUT. Let’s indulge ! It compels me to consider the ramifications if the player rather speaks to Nina’s ‘memory’—how Victor remembers her, rather than necessarily Nina as she was. That if we speak to Nina’s memory, our interaction her is merely with Nina as an ideal. I wonder whether Victor saw her more as utopia or a woman he fell in love with or both. I mean. I am leaning towards both, given what he tells Clara or how he refers to Nina with the epithet “divine.”

On this note I want to conclude with Victor/Nina’s relationship. In particular that several characters say that Nina was held back by Victor, that Maria’s lack of a husband is what will allow her to surpass her mother. This is echoed most notably, in my opinion, by Khan and Maria herself. Khan also adds that because Nina was “held back by Father […] her power brought more good than evil.” That latter clause interests me in connection to when Peter claims that “Victor was the only person that Nina used to obey not out of fear, but having recognize his superiority […] she rendered complete obedience to Victor, even though he never asked for it.” This implies that Victor could or would stay Nina’s hand from more unsavory means to achieve her goals. That seems consistent with Victor’s character, given that from tossing him on the vivisection table he does seem most compassionate of the Kains. But he never asked her to listen to him, per se, so that implies he would have let her do whatever necessary. 

I do genuinely think that Nina loved Victor rather than potentially seeing him as an instrument for her own aims, given that she only learned of Georgiy/Simon post-marriage (though I do think the opposite reading is possible). Also that simple line when Victor tells Clara that “[Nina] loves me, and is pained by the thought of me having to part with my life…” So perhaps Nina answered to him from her own affections? But then, Peter does make that distinction of ‘superiority,’ which. Perhaps that is clearer in the Russian but it admittedly confuses me. Superiority as in ye olde husband-wife dynamics? That feels doubtful to me; it’s inconsistent with Nina’s character, and the game seems to point away from this—when Daniil states that many wives obey their husbands, Peter argues, “Wives like Nina? No way in hell.” So. Where does that leave us. Was Victor just 'darling if you want. could you perhaps be slightly less evil today but only if you feel like it <3' and Nina decided 'alright perhaps I could be a little less evil. for you <3' but AGAIN Victor did not actually intend Nina to listen to him, which suggests that he would not have stopped her like the domesticated househusband he is. Or the Kains in general, who will purportedly sacrifice anything necessary to achieve their aims. To me all this hinges on what that ‘superiority’ is and honestly I have no satisfactory answer. Does this whole 'Victor held Nina back' insinuate that it was Nina's decision, that Nina chose to hold herself back? 

By way of conclusion I would say I don’t think Nina is truly “evil,” nor are players meant to consider her so. Capella says as much, and I think her characterization ultimately parallels Classic’s preoccupations with utopia. Someone motivated entirely by love and good intentions who is willing to achieve miracles by any means necessary; the latter informing her supposed cruelty or indifference to human life. 

Pathologic plays around with plague history/iconography a lot and this is often on my mind but especially Clara and the macabre. Whether purposefully or not, she’s such a delightful representation of macabre iconography, in particular how she embodies macabre doubles. Repetition and doubles were all over macabre art, used to centre the contrast between one’s living body and their corpse. Clara’s contrast with the Changeling reminds me of that imagery—the Changeling’s bare bones for legs evoke the macabre double with skeletal limbs to demonstrate decay and their death-state. I find it even more delicious since the double was essentially synonymous with death, and Clara’s double isn’t her dead body, but the embodiment of disease and death itself. Doubles were used to create a jarring interaction between living and dead, where a person recognized their “true self” (mortality/flesh) in confronting their corpse. I don’t think Clara is meant to confront her mortality, but the recognition of the “true self” can certainly be read into it. The game also seemingly references macabre art in framing Clara as death; e.g. when Yulia describes what she expected Clara would look like, which echoes depictions of death as a skeletal woman in plague iconography. I think this was a purposeful reference, as Clara asks her, “Nice. Was I by any chance carrying a long, rapaciously curved scythe?” On that note, I feel there’s further reference to the ‘Triumph of Death’ in plague/macabre art in that lovely line from the Rat Prophet about the Town becoming a temple for the pest, and Clara being enthroned there. 

Also I really enjoy how the disease is personified, especially by Aspity whom I love so dearly, when she says “The infection goes straight to the head. It talks to you a bit with this little inner voice, and then it moves in completely [...] the body makes for lousy lodging—it breaks apart all too easily.” Or when Eva says, “Death only comes after those who are trying to hide! It knocks on your head, knocks from the inside... having appeared within you... it’s not an external affliction.” Not exactly the same sentiment, but both carry the idea of an unwanted guest, and framing disease or death as an unwanted visitor certainly reminds me of Clara, as she is often an unwelcome guest in her route. Conversely, in the Bachelor Route, she says “[the Changeling] spreads the disease from house to house! That’s how it gets through walls, people open their doors to her willingly!” The line still carries a similar idea to me, of disease being “let inside” or otherwise making its way in, and oh do I love a good analogy to the body and a house, to Clara being an unwanted visitor in someone’s home and disease an unwanted visitor in the body. Also. My Russian is shit, so I can’t confirm, but I remember the Wiki saying that самозванка in its context can translate to “one who is uninvited” and oh I hope that’s true because that would be absolutely sumptuous in the context of how the disease is described. God I just really think we should let Clara be the plague incarnate more often I really do 

Need to rant about the Marble Nest because I just. I cannot get over it. It is everything to me. Every time I hear “Birdies... birdies... Gather ye here...” I want to eat door hinges and run up the walls and put myself in a blender

There’s something utterly tragic to me about the image of Daniil lying in bed delirious and feverish and dying while these children who care about this weird Capital doctor so much are trying to break his fevers like he taught them to, and it fucks me up even more considering when Spichka asks Daniil who looks after him when he’s sick Daniil just. Doesn’t answer him. And the narrator’s line (I love that they got Martin Cooke he absolutely ate and imo elevates the entire game) “a warm, dry hand seemed to have touched your forehead soothingly. It’s going to be all right” OH MY GOD I just. I can only wretch and sob about the fact that Daniil is being taken care of and at least for a moment he feels like it’s all going to be okay, exactly as he’s been saying throughout the beginning. Also when the narrator says “Somewhere, bells are chiming, softly. Bells are chiming around the marble nest. The bells, are chiming, softly.” Not only does Cooke’s delivery make me feral beyond words (particularly that last one where he whispers ‘softly’) but I mean. surely this is referring to Daniil hearing his own goddamn funeral bells which just SCREAMING CRYING BITING SCRATCHING COMMITTING UNSPEAKABLE ACTS. 

Plus when Spichka warns Daniil against giving Shrew nuts because, as we learn, Shrew wants to let Daniil die. I unfortunately can’t find the exact quote but I believe Spichka says smth about how Shrew doesn’t think it’s right for Daniil to suffer as he is (there is blood in my mouth !!!!!). She clearly just wants Daniil to rest and not be in pain anymore; she thinks she can create a Focus so she can still talk to him. I’m also Highly Emotional about Spichka because he’s so adamant about Daniil continuing to live, even if it’s just in his fever dream, this poor kid just wants Daniil to keep going. These kids have known Daniil Bitchelor for all of ten days and they care about him so much !!! 

I’m also hung up on everyone telling Daniil that he doesn’t know how to die properly, especially when Aspity likens him to a child covering his eyes because he doesn’t want to see the truth, which gets me too because it makes me think about how defeated and afraid Daniil probably is when he realizes what’s going on. I think it’s even more tragic in the sense that Daniil is dying having failed to meet Simon and save Thanatica, failed to prove death can be conquered, and couldn’t even protect the Town from the plague, either, and I can’t imagine Daniil would handle any of that well. I feel like he’d think everything—plague and all—was his fault, especially with the context of the Executor/Death saying, “Who was the murderer: a sickness that let no second go to waste—or you, who bothered not to hurry? I think it’s the latter.” 

Also when Daniil does agree to die properly and the Executor tells Daniil “Give me your hand,” and Daniil can say “Here it is”,,,,,, Yes I am being dramatic but actually it makes me insane to imagine Daniil finally taking Death’s hand after fighting it for so many years. Even though I love this horrible little man with all my heart, I disagree with his whole “no more death” thing. I’m not going to like. Expound on my philosophy about death here aafnkgk but suffice it to say I like the idea of Daniil accepting that death is not something that can be defeated; though, I don’t think his idealism is useless or a negative trait, only that it has to be tempered with some realism. 

So here is as good a point as any to scream about endings. 

It's a cycle. A pause. Things will change. And the day starts anew.

That. Tjat second sentence is lodged in my cortex and it is not coming out I ougghh I love stories that repeat so much. And I’ve played the Marble Nest just. Too many times (and I’ll do it again) and I might be imagining it, because I’ve never seen anyone else talk about it, but every time I’ve gotten a different ending the game is a little different when I play it again. I find that extremely immersive if I’m not just gaslighting myself, because it puts the player in the same situation as Daniil, with things changing subtly; you get to accompany Daniil on his Fun Fever Delirium Death Adventure. On the one hand I think it’s a little painful that Daniil is going to just live in this delirium forever, but on the other one, I like how Daniil’s decision to repeat the day encapsulates continuing to fight for life, even if it seems hopeless or in vain.  It feels very “Do not go gentle into that good night / Rage, rage against the dying of the light"

And finally The transition is real, and the timeline continues. So does the entity I call myself.

I don’t want to get into meta too much, but. I kind of like this line knowing people have written/drawn/etc. endings to this nightmare where Artemy saves him with panacea (Magpie Crown’s “Conjunction of Spheres” animatic !!). All these different endings people have given Daniil’s story in general. This is silly but I like to think of it as yeah, The Powers That Be played a cruel game with you, but other people are kinder to you (or make you suffer more, depends on their persuasion). Your story keeps going, depending on who picks up the thread, you’re going to keep going. 

Anyway everyone go watch CodexEntry’s video on the Marble Nest <3 

I have a light rant/appreciation post for Eva Yan because I have been thinking about her a lot recently. I find her character concept compelling, being a utopian in love with utopia itself; with miracles, love, and dreams. All the utopians (excluding perhaps Vlad and Mark) desire miracles, and seemingly resolve that desire through an obsession and commitment to their respective utopias, i.e. the Polyhedron or defeating death. It’s interesting how Eva fits in here, as a utopian utterly “in love with her own dream,” as Clara describes her. I don’t think her aspirations are completely directionless, though—they’re centered on the Cathedral, and I have thoughts (derogatory) about how the game handles this. 

I will say that I actually like Daniil and Eva’s similarities, and what their dynamic communicates about the two of them. I particularly want to dissect this conversation Eva has with Clara:

Eva Yan: Is [the chasm between us] that great? Not really. He longs for miracles; he needs living evidence of the impossible... Yet was this not what I used to brood on daily and nightly? Was this not the reason I shed so many tears over our useless Cathedral?

> Look at me, Eva. I can work miracles. I can sense their nature. Mark my words: neither you nor he will get any miracles for as long as you're expecting them with such greed and entitlement!

[...]

Eva Yan: Those who watched Scarlet Nina build the town, who watched Simon play with our children, would never say it's futile to demand a miracle... One can, and in a way, one must!

It strikes me how Eva claims that she and Daniil need ‘living evidence of the impossible,’ like it’s not enough for them to merely dream about utopia—they want proof that it’s achievable, and to enact miracles themselves. Eva’s rebuttal to Clara also shows a similar adherence to hope that Daniil expresses, and in my opinion runs through all the utopians. After all, they are described as “those who believe in the power of the human spirit and the infinite scope of creativity.” The utopians are ultimately about humanity, even if they are often careless towards others; it’s all in service to an idealistic greater good. Daniil and the Kains likewise claim to be motivated by love, which is central to Eva’s character; this is why I don’t inherently hate Eva becoming infatuated with Daniil. It makes sense in that she is a Romantic and Daniil embodies many of her ideals, but at the same time, I hate how her obsession with Daniil is treated, especially how it comes into play on Day 7.  

Eva says that she didn’t sacrifice for Daniil: “Don’t torture yourself... Do not assume I’ve done it for you. Not at all. I just wanted to inhabit this place. To bring the Cathedral to life a bit... so that there were at least something miraculous here.” And likewise Daniil writes that, “All she wanted was to put a miracle into practice and become the living soul of the lifeless Cathedral.” With this context, I was willing to put my side-eye away and entertain that her choice was the consequence of her being so eager for a miracle. 

But then the game makes it explicit that she did in fact do this for Daniil. It’s especially damning in Clara’s Route, where Eva asks her, “Will you take care of him when I die? Maria let slip that he has three days left to win; it's a commitment he is bound by. I will have to give my own life so he may survive...” which contextualizes the murmurs about Maria somehow convincing Eva to do it. Clara alludes to this in the Bachelor Route, writing, “I know why Eva did what she did. Would you like me to tell you? [...] The true blasphemy is your negligence. You were meant to achieve victory yesterday. You did not.” And there’s more: Eva tells Daniil, “You know... I’m almost happy now, my dear Daniil... I’ve found a way to help you! But hush... for now it’s a secret!” and tells Clara “I’m sure that the Cathedral will spring back to life very soon—for his sake. And I will help...” And besides all this, Eva makes constant comments about how she wants to help Daniil, how she would turn herself inside out for him, and there’s this fucking line, which makes me bite and scratch: “The moment his boots stepped on the dusty soil of our roads, the moment he took a deep breath of our air, the moment his shadow fell on the cobbles of our town, I knew that my life had changed, and that it was approaching its acme. He has come, and now I live for his sake...” like good god I’m sorry I hate it. 

To offer a tepid defense, I do think this fits into a larger pattern in Patho about one person giving their life for another, which is particularly prevalent with the Utopians/Humbles. But I still really dislike Eva making this choice for Daniil’s sake, it takes away from it being her personal, if tragic, way to resolve her utopian desire for the miraculous, and does a disservice to her characterization—instead of her motivation resting in her inner conflict, it again becomes “she’s obsessed with Daniil.” And obviously this is complicated, but the entire thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I just think they did her dirty and I hate it because I really enjoy her dialogues, like I love her perspective about the disease and the events of the game. I’m so sorry for what they did to you ms yan 

I continue to be afflicted with Victor Kain thoughts. In particular the somewhat blatant insistence that he is rather opposed to his lot in life. I mean all the characters who say that Victor hates being a leader, and when Peter says that Victor “wants to leave this place to further his education and get a degree." And when he tells Daniil, “Before you leave this place, please, save as many people as you can. I will reward you for every life you save. If only I could, I would get myself tools and medicine and walk around the town curing the infected.” Like. Amusing to me to imagine maybe he also wanted to be a doctor or get some insufferable philosophy degree. Also. While I am at it. I have always been haunted laid up in bed stricken with The Thoughts about how Daniil is Simon's heir (Taya's fairytale about the cold prince and the rose !), how when Simon first speaks to Daniil and tells him, “My boy, when Isidor described you to me… I knew that this is the way I would like my heir to be,” and Peter says “It's Victor, not Georgiy, who is Simon’s true heir.” Parallels. Intrigue.

No idea why I feel compelled to talk about this on this fine evening but I am literally such a fan of Daniil/Victor Kain. Like I know Victor is too much of a wife guy for this to ever hold water in canon but I could not care less about that. Just when I first played the Bachelor Route and talked with Victor I was like yeah. He gets me. We could be in love. Victor Kain is Town-on-Gorkhon’s most viable dilf and gets absolutely no credit for it. The piercing green eyes. The lovely sternocleidomastoid muscles. Least worst father. Whenever he jumped up right away to talk to me in his little green study I was like yeah. Run away to the Capital with me. You can get your degree. We can be weird fucked up academics there. together. Take my hand you know you want it

At last….I have Katerina thoughts……That is. There is consistent reference to the dichotomy of good/evil in Katerina’s character, in her words, how others speak of her, and her narrative position as arbiter between Nina and Victoria. Her character concept states that Katerina previously “served as independent arbiter to opposition of the two Mistresses,” and likewise Lara’s portrait quote: “Who could survive between Nina’s rock and Victoria’s hard place? That’s how the town worked back then—upon this rock Nina was forging it, while Victoria maintained a firm stance to keep it in check; Katerina was the one to ensure the balance was in place.” Katerina’s prior position appears in her philosophy in-game, where she tells Clara that three ends are possible and that while Simon generally bound Utopians and Termites, “I insist that he’s built the town as a triangle… and so I declare loyalty to the third idea—the faith of Humility! I am their Mistress. There’s neither heat nor cold anymore; there is only Earth…” Katerina again identifies herself in between dichotomies, in Town philosophy and earth as opposed to heat and cold. 

I think this connection to good/evil per se first appears in the Bachelor Route, when Katerina tells Daniil “Any conflict that has two sides inevitably turns into a battle of good and evil” and the infamous question she poses to him: “Do you favour good or evil?” Altogether a little precursor to a later delicious dialogue between Katerina and Clara: 

Katerina Saburova: A period of your antagonism with Maria is beginning. Along what lines will it be? Which of you will be the good one, and which one wicked? Will it be up to the Kains once again to determine the meaning of good and evil? How are you to take the good path if Maria doesn't choose the evil one...? Changeling: Why divide everything into good and evil right away? Could that have been your mistake? Our mistake... Katerina Saburova: That was what I thought—when I chose my own dark path... I thought the conflict was not between good and evil, that neither good nor evil existed... That wasn't true! For it is in the nature of humans to translate even a dichotomy of red and green into the language of good battling evil. We are doomed to make choices... Changeling: But did you really choose evil? Katerina Saburova: I now think I did... Nina could control it at the time... and I couldn't. Nor was Nina wearing the black tiara... But don't put your trust in what is more alluring, more attractive! That is usually where evil lies!

To properly analyze this I want to first discuss how Andrey and Lara characterize Katerina’s failed attempt to emulate either Victoria or Nina. Andrey claims, “As the Mistresses were dying, Katerina was throwing herself hither and thither, unable to choose a role; she tried to be Nina and she tried to be Victoria, but neither light nor darkness have worked out for her—she sucks at both.” Lara echoes this claim: “When Victoria died, Katerina rushed to take her place—she was quite afraid of playing games with Mother Darkness by then. The last of the Mistresses was struggling and throwing herself from one extreme to another.” Both dialogues emphasize Katerina’s inability to adhere to either part of the dichotomy, yet other dialogues suggest Katerina favored darkness. Maria claims Katerina “always found evil attractive,” and Lara states that after Nina’s death, “Katerina, who had been inclined towards Darkness before, became the Black Mistress…” The latter of course reinforces Katerina’s response to Clara that she chose evil, but I think Lara/Aspity’s portrait quotes and her character concept again complicate this and. Might I add. Make it far more devastating. 

Aspity describes Katerina as “A queen turned witch. That’s what you get for dabbling with the spirits of the night. After Nina died, Katerina shamelessly rushed to take the place of the Dark Mistress; the burden of caring for the town was Victoria’s […] She got carried away though…” Aspity implies that Katerina became the Dark Mistress only because Victoria was still alive—because there were only two Mistresses, and Victoria was “good,” Katerina must be “evil;” this idea appears again in Katerina asking how Clara can take the good path “if Maria doesn’t choose the evil one.” This makes me wonder: was Katerina truly drawn to Darkness or was she just led to it by virtue of being half of a dichotomy? Her character concept states that Katerina “heartily replaced the infernal Nina. After Victoria’s death, she was left on her own and rushed to become the white Mistress, but it was too late. The evil seeds grew strong roots in her soul.” Which could imply that she *did* favor evil, or suggests her desire to be a proper Mistress (more on that momentarily). The last sentence parallels Aspity’s assertion that Katerina “got carried away” and perhaps Katerina’s own claim that she could not control “evil” as Nina could or Lara saying that Katerina was “afraid of playing games with Mother Darkness” by the time Victoria died.

To me, it feels less like Katerina was always drawn to evil—maybe she was, but the way these quotes describe her, it feels more as though she had to choose evil and was subsumed by it through no fault of her own. The main culprit instead being, of course, the Rat Prophet. The character concept reads: “[Katerina’s] game with the poltergeist called the Rat Prophet, who appeared to her as both her inner voice and a character of prophetic dreams, went too far. The poor woman who wanted to become a Mistress so badly was deceived.” Which contextualizes a line of Katerina’s which obliterates me: “There is nothing to tell. Everything is clear. I never had the power. I am not a true Mistress. I lied… but not for gain. Merely because I wanted so much to be like them. No… wishing for a miracle is not enough to become a miracle-worker…” AGH that last line makes me goddamn throw up blood !!!!! Even more so how her character concept concludes ??? “The Rat Prophet indoctrinated her with the idea that the Town’s demise is inevitable and fighting it would be as pointless as resisting the coming of winter.” TRAGEDY !!!!!!!!

ough okay I want to talk about Daniil’s motivations because it is so very fascinating to me, and I think he’s honestly the most hopeful character of the three despite being so him all the time

Granted it seems left to the player (at least in Patho Classic) whether Daniil is afraid of death. When Peter accuses him of being afraid of it in Daniil’s route, he can either say “Well, no I don’t [fear death], but go on...” or “And you don’t?” Yet given how he behaves absent of the player’s control and in The Marble Nest, I don’t really think Daniil is afraid of death beyond what is kind of unavoidable but virtue of being a mortal human being. And speaking of I really do think Daniil’s character is the most painfully human in a lot of ways, especially his hopefulness/tendency towards grand ideals  

For instance, Daniil claims that he wants to “defeat death,” and yet is openly skeptical and even scornful towards Georgiy’s claims that Simon has never been ill/wounded/etc., saying “I do not doubt that your brother could fight death like no other, but there was not and could not be an immortal man!” and that Daniil uses his infamous “fighting death” phrasing makes me think he’s more focused on extending human life more than anything, which he alludes to when speaking to Lara on Day 6: “it's entirely possible that my victory award would be a discovery that'll prolong human life from 60-70 years to a hundred.”

This interests me because it seems Daniil does have plausible, achievable goals, but he also constantly talks about defeating/fighting/destroying death utterly, and his attitude towards the Polyhedron suggests that he has is drawn towards idealism and has a tendency towards lofty goals, which I think derive from his intense sense of hope, responsibility, and belief in his own abilities.

That is, in the Marble Nest (which is my absolute favorite characterization of Daniil) I get the sense that Daniil has an extremely strong locus of control, and so sees almost everything that goes on around him as his responsibility. In MN he repeatedly tells Aspity that he can still fix it, and says to death itself “It’s all right. It’s all right. There is still a chance to fix everything,” lines which are absolutely heartbreaking to me because we know he’s straight up dying, and yet he’s still fighting and fighting.

And not only is the theme of fighting extremely prevalent in Daniil’s characterization, but he is the character that has numerous dialogue options to insist that people keep hope. For instance, he can say “there’s always hope” to Georgiy, and “hope lives forever” to Eva. And in Clara’s route, Eva tells Clara that Daniil “says we have to fight... To hope for the impossible until the very end.” AFHFKJKK !!!! IM WRETCHING. And the fact that Daniil is labeled as a fighter/destroyer in my mind makes him a model of human perseverance, and gives him an intense drive not to give in.

ALSO. “It allows us a hope of possibility that some false-truths of our ill-fated epoch might be overthrown. It is a delicate fortress that holds veritable proof that however well-established our notions of possibility are, they still fail to account for what may or may not exist. This is the bastion I am willing to fight for.” I think these lines when Daniil chooses to save the Polyhedron reveal so much about his character, especially regarding his fierce pushback against taking things as they are, and instead believing in possibility (hope). And I feel that’s crucial for Daniil’s character—challenging what’s possible.

Plus for all Daniil’s snake bitch from the Capital moments he does really seem like he wants to help people, especially in Artemy’s route/The Marble Nest. He even says “I’m sorry if I came across as condescending. I only want to help. Remember how you helped me when I was running circles in the dark?” and no this does no absolve him from his bastardry, but this combined with his actions shows to me that he really does want to do good, a theme especially present in the Marble Nest as he’s trying so hard to help everyone, and even intends to shoot himself when he gets in the presence of the two carriers; like he’s willing to end it all to protect other people. There’s even a part where he talks about needing to protect the people he said he would (I think in Clara’s route?).

He just. he does care, and he tries hard to do the right thing; when Artemy asks him who he can look in the face on Day 12, and Daniil can say “I don’t know... I did everything I could" god it makes me want to lie down and bang my fists on the floor

All that to say I really don’t think he’s motivated by a fear of death. I think he has some fear of it, given that he drinks himself absolutely silly when he thinks the Inquisitor will kill him, but I don’t think that’s what motivates him. I imagine instead that Daniil is an intense idealist who really wants to help others and believes that if he fights hard enough he can do it, no matter the circumstances around him, which can lead him towards utopianism and lofty ideals that just aren’t possible.

Okay that’s the end of my ability to articulate coherently I’m going to just start screaming now