User blog comment:Eden Ushinatta/The duality in Attack on Titan aka how the series will end/@comment-1327106-20200530232208

I'm trying not to be too critical here, but I really expected this essay to be about how the dual nature of the world being both cruel and beautiful thematically requires the ending to play out a certain way (and then see that way presented), and I didn't get that.

Instead I got something about stopping the violence (which negates the duality of the title since the world would no longer be cruel) and miracles, which aren't elaborated on more than Mikasa and Eren will face off, neither of them will actually kill each other, and Eren will fail. Eren and Mikasa haven't seen eye to before, and while this time it could come to blows, I'm not buying how this connects to the world being both cruel and beautiful.

The thing is, that line about the world being cruel isn't only Mikasa's, so you can't apply the theme just to her perspective, especially when you're using them as arc words for the series as a whole. Bertolt makes a similar comment before resigning himself to the battle in Shiganshina: "Nothing could have made a difference. Not in a world...that is this...cruel." And you better believe I think that was written to parallel Mikasa's perspective.

How does the world being cruel and beautiful apply to other people? How does it impact their fates at the end of the series? I mean, the series is a lot more than just Eren and Mikasa. You posit endings for a lot of characters but neglect how any of that is related to the dual nature of Attack on Titan.

The essay even stops talking about duality after about a quarter of the way through and then recaps the time loop before going into various character endings. This blog is really about breaking the cycle and speculating endings, which is probably why you stop mentioning duality early on. It was just your jumping off point.

I don't mind the blog being long, and I love how well you cited things, but I think it could have used some better organization because I had a really hard time following it. I thought you were taking a ton of digressions and kept expecting you to get back to the point (the duality) and then realized that duality wasn't the point at all.