[“One of the very hardest things about preventing and ending violence is that most of our work isn’t really about getting someone to stop being violent. Most of the time, that’s not the heart of the thing. The even-more-rigorous struggle is to cultivate all of the awareness and skills that would have been necessary for the violence not to have happened in the first place.
Which is why, when we talk about violence, we always end up talking about everything: slavery, binary gender, the original disconnection of humans from the rest of life on this planet, and so on. Solving violence is rarely as much about the moment at hand as it is about everything else that preceded it.
Which is where shame comes in.
As a therapist who has spent the last decade working with movement folks who are survivors of intimate violence—as well as with many people who have caused harm—I see shame as one of the most pervasive, painful, and insidious barriers to our efforts to fulfill the aspirations of transformative justice.
In order to develop real responses to the myriad harms in our lives—or even the capacity to develop real responses—we need to understand shame and develop tools for working with it, individually and collectively.
(…) Shame is different than guilt. While guilt focuses on our behavior (“I did something bad”), shame creates an identity: “I am bad.” Shame keeps us stuck, isolated, and hiding. With no way to escape from the totality of our belief (“I just am wrong”), we may do some of the following:
hide what we feel is bad about ourselves and try hard to pass as “good.”
overcompensate in other parts of life through overwork, caretaking, or perfectionism to make up for whatever is “wrong” about us.
defend ourselves from any insinuation that we might have done wrong, attempt to rationalize, or justify our actions.
blame someone else, try to divert responsibility, or shift the focus onto another.
attack anyone who draws attention toward the source of our shame, try to have power by dominating or shaming others.
numb through self-harming use of alcohol, substances, food, sex, technology, and so on.
Most of us use all of these strategies in different moments. Overaccountability and underaccountability are two sides of the same coin: “I can’t stand how bad I feel and can’t imagine making it right (overaccountability) so I’m going to hide that it (whatever it is) even happened, or lie about it or blame someone else (underaccountability).”]
Nathan Shara, Facing Shame: From Saying Sorry to Doing Sorry, from Beyond Survival: Strategies and Stories From The Transformative Justice Movement
Looking back on Ch 90, I failed to fully appreciate this panel.
Eren’s words here echo what Levi told him back in the Female Titan arc.
Which is why the Ch 90 panel includes Levi looking thoughtful. He realises that what he told Eren back then clearly stuck with him and influenced his attempts to save Armin.
Additionally, the words ‘How can anyone know the future?’ carry an immense irony. It’s in this very chapter that Eren will see the future when he kisses Historia’s hand. From there, it is not ignorance that he struggles with, but painful awareness. Instead of trying to decipher the best option, he has to reconcile himself with a nightmarish outcome.
I just noticed the parallel between these scenes.
When faced with an outcome as horrible as the Rumbling, most other characters try to think back to a point where they could have gone down a different path or where the trouble originated from. Eren even briefly does this.
But he not only refuses to consider other possibilities, he even rejects the utility of retrospecting in the first place. To Eren, the Rumbling happening is not a problem of the right choice or the circumstances that shaped it, it's just about who he is and his "primitive desire".
So I guess in Eren's mind, the Rumbling was an existential dilemma. So long as he exists he will surely bring ruin to the world, so is it better to never have been born? Or take away his life? He couldn't possibly do so after Historia and Carla's lessons.
So he tried to change the world by facing judgement through death for his actions, or as @jeanandthedreamofhorses said, he tried to use this inherent ‘evil’ to make the world better, by gearing his desires towards their own self destruction.
But it seems to me that a curse, no matter the good brought about by it, remains a curse, 80% percent of humanity is too great a price to pay for the end that was reached, but Eren and the Alliance were at least able to prevent total extinction, and no matter when, Eren was able to temper his desires. So he may have brought about a great amount of suffering, but his final acts contain seeds of good in them.
Ironically, after writing a very long critique of the ending, I believe I have found a way to redeem it. Isayama’s comments on the manga ‘Himeanole’, as well as the analyses put forward by @twilight-paradise88 and @cosmicjoke, led me down a very interesting path of interpretation that makes the ending - thematically, at least - justified.
In the 2017 Bessatsu Shonen interview, Isayama says this about ‘Himeanole’:
Ultimately, I don’t think the series [SNK] passes judgment on what is “right” or “wrong.” For example, when I read Furuya Minoru’s “Himeanole,” I knew society would consider the serial killer in the story unforgivable under social norms. But when I took into account his life and background I still wondered, “If this was his nature, then who is to blame…?” I even thought, “Is it merely coincidence that I wasn’t born as a murderer?”
Does this sound familiar?
Eren, like the protagonist of that manga, is presented as being a certain way since birth. From the Attack Titan’s power to see the future, we know that Eren bringing about the Rumbling was an inevitability.
The kernel of this idea is preserved in the ending. Although Eren’s motivations become more complex, the core of his being still compels him towards that act of destruction. He cannot understand it, because it is not a logical demand. It is simply the nature of who he is.
Keep reading
Thank you! That was an amazing articulation of the points I brought up. Personally, I think the ideas executed in this ending are good(except how the Titan Curse ended), but the execution and tone are terrible, add that to the fact that it's pacing is off and plotlines were abandoned, and it strikes us as bad, but I think there's still quite a bit of good to be detected behind the fan-service. About Eren wanting not to be seen as a monster by his best friend, I've been thinking about that quite a bit. He did push away Armin and Mikasa but deep down he's still lonely and wants to be accepted, I think the ending could have portrayed this better by diving into the complex emotions Armin and Eren must be feeling towards each other right then. There's a lot of tension, but there's also a desire to understand and reunite and the internal conflict caused by this should have been better presented.
After an unreasonably long wait, here are my thoughts on the ending in more detail. I’ve always tried my best to decipher the author’s reasons behind their narrative decisions instead of dismissing them off the bat if they rub me the wrong way. But, in the case of this final chapter, I can’t help but find it unworthy of all that came before it.
This critique is divided into four subsections: ‘An Irresponsible Plan’, ‘Underwhelming Heroes’, ‘Wasted Characters’, and ‘A Gimmicky Solution’. The ending launched so much new information at us that I can’t cover everything, but I have addressed those errors in plot, themes, tone, and characterisation that disappointed me most.
Keep reading
"They were just there wherever I looked from the day I was born. Those miserable walls."
I think this is the most important line we need for understanding Eren. From the moment he was born Eren felt caged no matter what he did and he longed for release.
This desire was unconscious at first, but seeing Armin dream so passionately brought about the realization that Armin was seeing and believing in something that Eren couldn't, and this brings about the realization in him that he's restrained/caged from doing something.
He initially believes that this indignation from a sense of being caged is because of the Titans or oppressors but as time goes on and the circumstances change, Eren realises that this is something internal and the fact that it's something that no one else experiences is one of the sources of his tragedy: he can't communicate/share this desire.
(There's probably some symbolism in the fact that Eren confessed his truest desires to a child that didn't speak the same language)
At first, Eren associated release with the "sight" of the things in Armin's book. He believed that seeing those things will give him the release and liberty he's been longing for, though it should be noted that Eren says he doesn't care what the particular sights *are* just that he sees them so I think he cares much more about the feeling of liberation that those things stand for than the sights themselves.
So I think that even though Eren might say that he's disappointed that the world wasn't what was in Armin's book I think what he's really sad about is that he didn't feel liberated by the world beyond the walls, but because he associated those feelings with the sights in Armin's book he uses them interchangeably(I think this is supported by the fact that Eren still feels caged and empty when actually seeing those sights in 139).
The reason Eren slaughters humanity beyond the walls is because from his perspective, *they* are walls/barriers obstructing his freedom. "That Scenery" is one of the most important motifs with Eren, it's the liberty that comes with transcending or breaking a wall, but one of the ironies in 131 is that Eren is deluding himself to think that it's freedom. Eren's very nature demands that he cannot see beyond the "walls" and this is testified to by Eren looking unfulfilled immediately after the freedom panel and the fact that he still needs Armin's approval. Besides Isayama deliberately contrasts Eren and Armin by saying that Armin still believes in a world beyond the walls, with a panel of Eren's eyes closed.
Eren's tragedy is that of a man born with the inability to look past the repression of life(or you could say he was born with the ability to see restraints everywhere). I think this solves all the contradictions I thought I saw in Eren's character and addresses the "Problem of being a Slave" that Isayama once brought up.
Before I go there's one last thing I have to say about the final chapter and this motif, Eren can't see the dream Armin enjoys and he can't see the future that lies ahead, but his love for his friend(s) let's him transcend that nature by putting his hopes in them at the end. He won't ever be able to see beyond the walls, that's just how he is, but he can be at peace with the fact that his friends will.
Edit: I made this post mainly because I was tired of people rooting Eren's actions in trauma or an ideological mistake or lack of development. Eren has developed enough as a protagonist, especially by chapter 100, his "mistakes" in the Final Arc are a result of his nature, I think that's what Isayama wanted to convey.
"The ancient dome of heaven sheer was pricked with distant light; A star came shining white and clear, Alone above the night."
95 posts