Read on Twitter
Acknowledging Jeankasa while refuting Erehisu isn& #39;t hypocrisy. It& #39;s just understanding the fundamental core of Eren and Mikasa& #39;s characters and how it feeds into the wider themes of the story.
Eren& #39;s core conflict has always been to either embrace (Mikasa) or abandon (Historia) his humanity. He& #39;s set on a path of destruction where he thinks he needs to be a monster. It& #39;s why its Historia he tells his plan to & & #39;rejects& #39; Mikasa.
If Mikasa represents the humanity of Eren, and what he denies himself, then Historia the opposite, which he embraces.
E+H=Y cannot work at a narrative level because it would mean that Eren could not move past his most regressive trait, which is the denial of his humanity.
E+H=Y cannot work at a narrative level because it would mean that Eren could not move past his most regressive trait, which is the denial of his humanity.
It also doesn& #39;t feed into the central theme of the story which is the world being cruel, yet beautiful. How does Eren genociding the world and living out his life in guilt but with his wife and baby feed into that central theme of the series? It& #39;s not cruel or beautiful.
It can be argued that its cruel and beautiful because Eren achieved freedom at the cost of his humanity.
But is that really what Isayama is trying to go for?
Or is he going for a theme where love is beyond any pursuit of freedom?
But is that really what Isayama is trying to go for?
Or is he going for a theme where love is beyond any pursuit of freedom?
And the reason why JK still works at a narrative level is because the core conflict of Mikasa& #39;s character has always been to reduce her codependency with Eren and learn to live without him.
She& #39;s also been coded to be a mother and start a family since day one. Her moving on with Jean or even anyone else for that matter not only works on a character level but also works narratively bc while she& #39;ll always love Eren, she can live without him.
