Search
1000 results for “data_bene”
-
Recently, as part of our INN'formal Workshop at the DiSC, three researchers presented work-in-progress on neuroimaging, AI in research data platforms, and human-aware information access.
15-min talks + 15-min Q&A = interdisciplinary dialogue.
Participants benefited from the reduced distractions enabled by the venue at SOWI campus and “[r]eally enjoyed the meeting [...]”.
Thanks to the organizers & presenters!
#DigitalScience #Interdisciplinary #University #Research #Science
-
Progressive lawmakers
(AKA The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party)
condemned Donald Trump and Elon Musk on Monday,
➡️pointing to the attempted shuttering of the foreign aid agency USAid and the accessing of the treasury department’s federal payment system as the markings of a ⚠️“constitutional crisis”.After Musk declared that he was working to shut down USAid,
Democratic members of Congress tried to enter the agency’s Washington headquarters
but said they were turned away on the orders of Musk’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge).USAid staffers were also locked out of the building on Monday,
as the White House confirmed plans to merge the agency with the state department.Addressing reporters outside the USAid headquarters, Representative Ilhan #Omar,
a Democrat of Minnesota,
accused Trump and Musk of attempting to
“take away the constitutional power of Congress”,
which has the authority to allocate federal funds.“We are witnessing a constitutional crisis,”
Omar said.
“We talked about Trump wanting to be a dictator on day one,
and here we are.This is what the beginning of dictatorship looks like.
When you gut the constitution and you install yourself as the sole power,
that is how dictators are made.”The clash at USAid came one day after news broke that Musk’s associates had received access to the treasury department’s federal payment system,
potentially exposing the sensitive personal data of millions of Americans.Democratic lawmakers reported receiving a deluge of calls from constituents expressing alarm over the possibility that their personal information might have been jeopardized.
“Donald Trump has given unprecedented power over the federal government to an unelected, unaccountable billionaire,”
Representative Greg #Casar, a Democrat of Texas and chair of the congressional progressive caucus, said in a statement.“Progressives will fight this in the courts, on the House floor, and with every tool at our disposal
until Elon Musk is out of our government and no longer putting taxpayers, the sick, and the elderly at risk.”Senator Elizabeth #Warren, a Democrat of Massachusetts,
sent a letter to Trump’s new treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, on Sunday
to demand answers for his role in allowing Musk’s team access to the payment system.She warned that such access “puts the country at greater risk of defaulting on our debt,
which could trigger a global financial crisis”.“It is extraordinarily dangerous to meddle with the critical systems that process trillions of dollars of transactions each year, are essential to preventing a default on federal debt,
and ensure that tens of millions of Americans receive their Social Security checks, tax refunds, and Medicare benefits,”
Warren wrote.“The American people deserve answers about your role in this mismanagement,
which threatens the privacy and economic security of every American.”Representative Alexandria #Ocasio-#Cortez, a Democrat of New York,
described the intervention of Musk,
who spent more than $290m on the 2024 election,
as a “five alarm fire” and a “grave threat to national security”.“This is a plutocratic coup.
If you want the power, run for office and be chosen by the people,”
Ocasio-Cortez said in a social media post.“Short of that, this is an exercise in vigilantism.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/03/trump-musk-plutocratic-coup?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other -
4 mois sans internet : D’une histoire de vandalisme à un support Orange aux fraises – Partie 1
Bonjour,
Orange est l’opérateur de télécommunication historique en France et il est souvent mis en avant pour la qualité de son support.
Je vous propose donc ci-dessous un retour d’expérience. Accrochez-vous car bien que résumé, c’est plutôt long (tellement que j’ai décidé de découper en 2 articles) et hallucinant en 2025. A noter que ce n’est pas un cas isolé car à Nougaroulet dans le Gers, une situation plus courte mais assez similaire a eu lieu (relayée par La Dépêche) ou encore dans 4 villages à proximité de Saint-Nazaire, en Loire-Atlantique où la colère grimpe après 7 semaines sans internet au 21 Juillet 2025 (Clubic).
Tout commence 9 Avril 2025 vers 23h30, même si dans les faits, je ne serai averti que le 10 Avril 2025 à 7h11 par une alerte de la part d’Orange pour me signaler qu’un problème réseau affecte ma connexion internet. Dans le même temps, on m’annonce que des solutions me sont offertes pour me permettre d’avoir une connexion de secours le temps que l’intervention ait lieu pour un rétablissement des services au 16 Avril :
Je prends donc simplement note de cela et me dit que le sujet est pris avec sérieux. En parallèle, je viens de bénéficier de 200 Go (en plus des Go inclus dans mon forfait) pour faire du partage de connexion ou utiliser davantage mon smartphone pour naviguer donc j’ai de quoi me dépanner en attendant que ça revienne.
Le 11 Avril, j’apprends l’origine de la panne (communiquée par le Syndic de copropriété et non par Orange). Le local fibre a été vandalisé :
C’est la seconde fois que ça arrive, rien n’est volé, c’est du saccage pur et dur (certainement une histoire de complotisme derrière…). La première fois, il a fallu environ 3 semaines et demi pour remettre tout en état. A chaque fois, c’est environ 100 logements qui sont privés d’internet pendant plusieurs semaines…
A partir de là, je sais déjà qu’il y a peu de chance ce soit résolu le 16 Avril. Et en effet, ce jour là vers 13h, le verdict tombe par SMS, l’opération est reportée au 21 Avril :
Un jour férié… Ce qui me surprend beaucoup et je contacte donc le support via Chat pour demander s’il n’y a pas d’erreur sur la date. Première surprise, la personne ne voit pas le report malgré la communication reçue :
Et c’est un souci que je vais constater plusieurs fois, j’ai l’impression d’être mieux informé que les personnes du service client. C’est bien triste car ce sont ces personnes que nous avons en première ligne, celles qui essuient la colère des clients et qui font de leur mieux avec le peu de moyens à leur disposition.
Bref, on va me confirmer que les équipes techniques travaillent bien les jours fériés :
Ce qui est le cas mais cela est plutôt dédié aux urgences et je doute vraiment que l’on rentre dans cette case. A noter que dès cette étape, on valide également le fait que j’aurais un dédommagement par rapport au temps où le service n’a pas été rendu pleinement. Celui-ci étant censé être fait à la résolution du problème pour calculer le prorata.
Entre temps, le Syndic de Copropriété reçoit un numéro d’incident avec une date de résolution au 1er Mai (encore un jour férié…). Qui aura donc la bonne date ?
Pas moi en tout cas, le 21/04 au soir rien n’a bougé… Le 22/04, je recontacte le support car aucune nouvelle date d’intervention n’est affichée dans l’espace client. Malheureusement, je n’ai pas eu plus de réponse mais un engagement à être recontacté le Samedi suivant :
La personne en question a tenu son engagement et m’a bien recontacté à l’heure convenue le 26/04 pour m’annoncer une mauvaise nouvelle… Elle n’avait toujours pas de date à communiquer.
Le Mardi 29 Avril n’ayant pas de nouvelle date de résolution dans le portail client et après avoir discuté avec une personne du Syndic n’ayant pas plus d’information de son côté, je décide donc d’appeler Orange.
J’ai une personne assez rapidement et cette fois, la personne connaît le dossier, je n’ai pas besoin d’expliquer le souci, elle sait de quoi il s’agit et elle me donne une nouvelle date : le 2 Juin, soit dans plus d’un mois ! Je fais la remarque et la personne tente de me rassurer en me disant que c’est la date maximum de résolution mais que cela peut être résolu avant. Cette date a également été affichée dans l’espace client :
Visiblement, l’appel a porté ses fruits et le 5 Mai, nous avons la confirmation qu’Orange s’est bien déplacé pour faire un constat et commander le matériel nécessaire pour remplacer celui endommagé. Le technicien n’a avancé aucune date pour les commandes mais cela progresse enfin !
Le temps passe et arrive le 2 Juin au soir et toujours pas de connexion… C’est donc reparti pour un échange avec le support, d’abord via chat avec le service commercial puis par téléphone avec une personne du service technique.
La personne semble connaître le problème et me dit qu’en effet, cela a été repoussé au lendemain car l’intervention du jour n’a pas suffit. Elle s’engage à me rappeler le 3 Juin au soir pour voir ce qu’il en est.
La personne m’a rappelé comme convenu et c’est à nouveau repoussé au 9 Juin (Lundi de Pentecôte, ça sent encore la douille). Elle dit qu’elle me rappellera ce jour là et me précise qu’elle remet une couche à l’équipe en charge de la résolution pour que cela soit traité le plus rapidement possible. Elle me précise également que j’aurais le droit à un dédommagement ainsi qu’à un geste commercial.
Le 5 Juin, en regardant si l’incident a été actualisé pour mettre la date du 9 Juin, une nouvelle surprise m’attend : La résolution est maintenant prévue pour le 4 Juillet, un mois de plus dans la vue !
Je rappelle donc… Et on me confirme que c’est bien la date indiquée maintenant dans l’incident et bien que je reste toujours correct, j’ai montré mon agacement. La personne s’est engagée à activer un premier dédommagement pour la période écoulée et à me rappeler Samedi. A la suite de l’appel, j’ai reçu le mail confirmant le dédommagement indiqué par téléphone :
Et le Samedi 7 Juin, la personne m’a rappelé à l’heure indiquée et comme je n’ai pas décrochée, elle m’a rappelé plus tard et a fini par m’avoir pour me dire qu’une nouvelle date avait été donnée, celle du Jeudi 12 Juin au soir pour une remise en service.
Le 12 Juin au soir, sans surprise, je suis toujours toujours au même point et personne ne m’a rappelé cette fois. J’ai donc rappelé le lendemain et la personne en regardant le ticket a été surprise de voir depuis combien de temps cela durait… Pas d’autre date que le 4 Juillet communiqué qui est la date date maximale de résolution et la personne a vérifié que des dédommagements avaient bien été faits. Suite au prochain épisode…
Aux alentours du 25 ou 26 Juin, j’ai vu un technicien travaillant sur la fibre optique dans la rue. Je me suis donc arrêté pour discuter un peu avec lui et malheureusement, il m’informe qu’il travaille pour un autre bâtiment dans la rue ! Tant pis pour nous et tant mieux pour les personnes concernées.
Le 2 Juillet, nouvel échange avec le syndic qui a envoyé un courrier à la direction d’Orange pour signaler le problème et le mécontentement quant à la prise en charge, communication et résolution du problème. Un devis serait en cours de préparation pour l’intervention mais peu de chance que cela soit fait pour le 4 Juillet…
Le 4 Juillet, comme on pouvait le prédire, ce n’est toujours pas réparé et côté espace client, on peut voir cela :
Je rappelle le soir même le service client pour avoir des informations et réclamer à nouveau un dédommagement pour le nouveau mois sans internet. La personne au téléphone n’a pas plus d’information à me fournir sur le moment et s’engage à me rappeler le lendemain vers 15h.
Comme promis, la personne m’a rappelé pour me faire part des informations qu’on lui a transmises. La date de résolution est maintenant au 14 Juillet… Encore un jour férié, autant dire qu’on y croit (ironie, je précise). En parallèle, vu qu’un autre mois s’est quasiment écoulé, il est question du dédommagement et la personne avant de raccrocher me dit qu’elle va regarder pour le planifier pour la prochaine facture (plusieurs heures après, aucune confirmation n’est faite à ce sujet…).
Le 7 Juillet vers 20h, je regarde à nouveau l’espace client pour voir si la date du 14 Juillet a été renseignée et ce n’est pas le cas. Aucune nouvelle date n’est communiquée de ce côté là… En revanche, cela a été mis à jour le 8 Juillet pour indiquer une date au 31 Juillet et là je désespère vraiment :
Je contacte donc à nouveau le support et cette fois, bien que je n’insulte pas la personne, je suis moins agréable et n’accepte plus le blabla habituel servi où juste la date change. Cela a dû se sentir car en plus du dédommagement déjà obtenu remboursant deux mois de facture, j’en reçois un nouveau qui couvre un peu plus que les deux à venir. Malheureusement, je ne suis pas plus avancé quant à la résolution du problème et reste avec la date du 31 Juillet. Aurais-je internet avant Noël ?
Le 12 Juillet n’ayant pas reçu de confirmation par mail concernant le nouveau dédommagement, je recontacte le service client côté facturation et contrats… La personne me confirme bien qu’un dédommagement a été activé le 8 Juillet avec un montant légèrement différent, 2€ en moins. La conversation sur les montants restants à déduire a été assez lunaire mais je vais avoir les prochaines factures offertes par Orange et si le problème continue à traîner, d’autres dédommagement seront demandés.
Le 30 Juillet, la facture arrive et les dédommagements attendus sont bien là. Un petit soulagement, même si ma connexion internet n’est toujours pas revenue.
Le 31 Juillet, toujours pas de connexion internet…. La suite sera racontée dans un second article.
Ce que l’on peut retenir de cette mésaventure :
Une société comme Orange qui offre un support global désastreux à ses clients et impactant en plus ceux des autres opérateurs dans un cas comme celui-ci (le local fibre étant de leur responsabilité). Heureusement que des solutions alternatives permettent d’avoir une connexion, même si celle-ci a des limites en termes de débit ou encore sur la durée (consommation de data)…
Les personnes que nous avons en direct font leur travail et tiennent leurs engagements ! Et je les remercie car je sais que ce n’est pas évident, surtout quand ça ne suit pas derrière et qu’on risque de se prendre la colère du client…
Il faut relancer souvent, montrer son agacement tout en restant correct avec les personnes qui nous répondent et demander dès que possible un dédommagement ! Et en reparler à chaque échange. Après tout, ce n’est pas à nous de payer l’incompétence mais bien à la société qui est responsable de cela !
Par ailleurs, toucher au portefeuille, c’est souvent cela qui fait réagir une société, vu que c’est le seul truc qui est regardé avec attention de nos jours… La qualité de service, c’est totalement secondaire apparemment…
Pour finir, si vous êtes dans cette situation, je vous souhaite bien du courage ! Et si certains sont chez Orange ou ont des connaissances chez eux, n’hésitez pas à leur relayer l’article pour secouer le cocotier !
#fibre #Internet #Orange #ServiceClient #support #vandalisme
-
“Don’t eat your seed corn”*…
AI doesn’t really “think.” Rather, it remembers how we thought together. Are we’re about to stop giving it anything worth remembering? Bright Simons with a provocative analysis…
We are on the verge of the age of human redundancy. In 2023, IBM’s chief executive told Bloomberg that soon some 7,800 roles might be replaced by AI. The following year, Duolingo cut a tenth of its contractor workforce; it needed to free up desks for AI. Atlassian followed. Klarna announced that its AI assistant was performing work equivalent to 700 customer-service employees and that reducing the size of its workforce to under 2000 is now its North Star. And Jack Dorsey has been forthright about wanting to hold Block’s headcount flat while AI shoulders the growth.
The trajectory has a compelling internal logic. Routine cognitive work gets automated; junior roles thin out; productivity gains compound year on year. For boards reviewing cost structures, it is the cleanest investment proposition since the internal combustion engine retired the horse, topped up with a kind of moral momentum. Hesitate, the thinking goes, and fall behind.
But the research results of a team in the UK should give us pause. In the spring of 2024, they asked around 300 writers to produce short fiction. Some were aided by GPT-4 and others worked alone. Which stories, the researchers wanted to know, would be more creative? On average, the writers with AI help produced stories that independent judges rated as more creative than those written without it.
So far, so on message: a familiar story about the inevitable takeover by intelligent machines. But when the researchers examined the full body of stories rather than individual ones, the picture became murky. The AI-assisted stories were more similar to each other. Each writer had been individually elevated; collectively, they had converged. Anil R Doshi and Oliver Hauser, who published the study in Science Advances, reached for a phrase from ecology to explain this: a tragedy of the commons.
Hold that result in mind: individual gain, collective loss. It describes something far more consequential than a writing experiment—it describes the hidden logic of our entire relationship with artificial intelligence. And it suggests that the most successful organizations of the coming decade will be the ones that do something profoundly counterintuitive: instead of using AI to eliminate human interaction by firing droves of workers, they will use it to create more human interaction. IBM has reversed course on its earlier human redundancy fantasies. I bet more will in due course…
[Simons sketches the history of humans’ intertwined development of both social/organizational and utile technologies, concluding…]
… What the chain reveals is a dependency the AI industry has largely declined to examine. The underlying intelligence of a large language model isn’t a function of its architecture, its parameter count, or the volume of compute thrown at its training. It is not even about the training data. It is a function of the social complexity of the civilization whose language it digested.
Each epoch advanced the cognitive frontier through something far richer and more complex than the isolated genius of an individual guru or machine. It did so through new forms of collective problem-solving. Think new institutions (the Greek agora, the Roman lex, the medieval university, the scientific society, the modern corporation, and the social internet) that demanded and rewarded ever more sophisticated uses of language.
The cognitive anthropologist Edwin Hutchins studied how Navy navigation teams actually think. In his 1995 book Cognition in the Wild, he wrote something that reads today like an accidental prophecy. The physical symbol system, he observed, is “a model of the operation of the sociocultural system from which the human actor has been removed.”
That is, with eerie precision, a description of what a large language model (LLM) really is, stripped of all the unapproachable jargon and mathematical wizardry. An LLM like ChatGPT is a model of human social reasoning with the human wrangled out. And the question nobody in Silicon Valley is asking with sufficient urgency is: What happens to the model when the social reasoning that produced its training data begins to thin?…
[Simons explores evidence that this may already be materially underway, then explores what that “atrophy” might mean …]
… If AI capability depends on the social complexity of human language production—and if AI deployment systematically reduces that complexity through cognitive offloading, homogenization of creative output, and the elimination of interaction-dense work—then the technology is gradually undermining the conditions for its own advancement. Its successes, rather than failures, create a spiral: a slow attenuation of the very substrate it feeds on, spelling doom.
This is the Social Edge Paradox, and the intellectual tradition it draws from is older and more interdisciplinary than most AI commentary acknowledges…
[Simons unpacks that heritage, and puts it into dialogues with recent thoughts from Dario Amodei, Leopold Aschenbrenner, and Sam Altman, concluding…]
… The Social Edge Framework outlined here is a direct counterpoint to Amodei, Aschenbrenner, and Altman. It is a program of action to counter the human redundancy fantasy. It challenges the self-fulfilling doom-spirals created by the premature reallocation of material resources to a vision of AI. I speak of the philosophy that underestimates the sheer amount of human priming needed to support the Great Recode of legacy infrastructure before our current civilization can even benefit substantially from AI advances.
By “Great Recode,” I am paying homage to the simple but widely ignored fact that the overwhelming number of tools and services that advanced AI models still need to produce useful outputs for users are not themselves AI-like and most were built before the high-intensity computing era began with AI. In the unsexy but critical field of PDF parsing—one of the ways in which AI consumes large amounts of historical data to get smart—studies show that only a very small proportion of tools were created using techniques like deep learning that characterize the AI age. And in some important cases, the older tools remain indispensable. Vast investments are thus required to upgrade all or most of these tools—from PDF parsers to database schemas—to align with the pace of high-intensity computing driven by the power-thirst of AI. Yet, we are not at the point where AI can simply create its own dependencies.
Indeed, the so-called “legacy tech debt” supposedly hampering the faster adoption of AI has in many instances been revealed as a problem of mediation and translation. AI companies are learning that they need to hire people who deeply understand legacy systems to guide this Recoding effort. A whole new “digital archaeology” field is emerging where cutting-edge tools like ArgonSense are deployed to try to excavate the latent intelligence in legacy systems and code often after rushed modernization efforts have failed. In many cases, swashbuckling new-age AI adventurers have found that mainframe specialists of a bygone age remain critical, and multidisciplinary dialogues and contentions are essential to progress on the frontier. Hence the strange phenomenon of the COBOL hiring boom. New knowledge must keep feeding on old.
The Social Edge Framework says: yes, scaling matters, architecture matters, and compute matters. But none of these will continue to deliver if the social substrate—the complex, argumentative, institutionally diverse, perspectivally rich fabric of human interaction—is allowed to thin. And thinning is very possible…
… The Social Edge prescription is that organizations that hire more people to work in AI-enriched, high-interaction, and transmediary roles—where AI scaffolds learning rather than substituting it—will derive greater long-term advantage than those that treat the technology as a headcount-reduction device. In a world where raw cognitive throughput has been commodified, the value arc shifts to something considerably harder to replicate: the capacity to coordinate human intent with precision, speed, and genuine depth. That edge lies in trans-mediation and high human interactionism.
The AI industry is telling a story about the future of work that goes roughly like this: automate what can be automated, augment what remains, and trust that the productivity gains will compound into a wealthier, more efficient world.
The Social Edge Framework tells a different story. It says: the intelligence we are automating was never ours alone. It was forged in conversation, argument, institutional friction, and collaborative struggle. It lives in the spaces between people, and it shows up in AI capabilities only because those spaces were rich enough to leave linguistic traces worth learning from.
Every time a company automates an entry-level role, it saves a salary and loses a learning curve, unless it compensates. Every time a knowledge worker delegates a draft to an AI without engaging critically, the statistical thinning of the organizational record advances by an imperceptible increment. Every time an organization mistakes polished output for strategic progress, it consumes cognitive surplus without generating new knowledge.
None of these individual acts is catastrophic. However, their compound effect may be.
The organizations that will thrive in the next decade are not those with the highest AI utilization rates. They are those that understand something the epoch-chaining thought experiment makes vivid: that AI’s capabilities are an inheritance from the complexity of human social life. And inheritances, if consumed without reinvestment, eventually run out. This is particularly critical as AI becomes heavily customized for our organizational culture.
Making the right strategic choices about AI is going to become a defining trait in leadership. Bloom et al. cross-country research has long established that management quality explains a substantial share of productivity variance between teams and organizations, and even countries.
In the AI age, small differences in leadership quality can generate large differences in outcomes—a non-linear payoff I call convex leadership. The term is borrowed from options mathematics, where a convex payoff is one whose upside accelerates faster than the downside decelerates. Convex leaders convert cognitive abundance into structural ambition and thus avoid turning their creative and discovery pipelines into stagnant pools of polished busywork. Conversely, in organizations led by what we might call concave leaders—cautious, procedurally anchored, optimizing for error-avoidance—AI would tend to produce more noise than signal. Because leadership is such a major shaper of all our lives, it is in our interest to pay serious attention to its evolution in this new age.
The Social Edge is more than a metaphor. It is the literal boundary between what AI can do well and what it will keep struggling with due to fundamental internal contradictions. Furthermore, the framework asks us all to pay attention to how the very investment thesis behind AI also contains the seeds of its own failure. And it reminds leaders that AI’s frontier today is set by the richness of the social world that produced the data it learned from…
Eminently worth reading in full: “The Social Edge of Intelligence.”
Consider also the complementary perspectives in “What will be scarce?,” from Alex Imas (via Tim O’Reilly/ @timoreilly.bsky.social)… and in the second piece featured last Monday: ““Curiosity Is No Solo Act.“
Apposite: “Some Unintended Consequences Of AI,” from Quentin Hardy.
And finally, from the estimable Nathan Gardels, a suggestion that Open AI’s recent paper on industrial policy for the Age of AI fills a vacuum left by an unimaginative political class and should be taken seriously, at least as a conversation starter: “OpenAI Proposes A ‘Social Contract’ For The Intelligence Age.”
* Old agricultural proverb
###
As we take the long view, we might recall that today is the anniverary of a techological advance that both fed the social edge and encouraged the build out of the technostructure from which today’s AI hatched: on this date in 1993 Version 1.0 of the web browser Mosaic was released by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications. It was the first software to provide a graphical user interface for the emerging World Wide Web, including the ability to display inline graphics.
The lead Mosaic developer was Marc Andreesen, one of the future founders of Netscape, and now a principal at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (AKA “a16z”)… where he has been become a major investor in, promoter of, and politicial champion of the current crop of AI firms.
#AI #artificialIntelligence #browswer #culture #history #humans #learning #MarcAndreesen #NationalCenterForSupercomputingApplications #politics #progress #Technology #web #webBrowser -
For instance, this work uses an #EvolutionaryEconomics lens to consider #AI, finding among many things that #BigTech dominates enablement (hardware, data) and production (frameworks, algorithms, visualisation), benefitting from economies of scale and scope, especially the wide access to #data from their own sources and their many dependent customers
``the seamless, digital connectedness enabled by AI-as-technology is, in our view, a unique feature that we have yet to fully grasp in terms of its #economic, #managerial, and even #psychological implications''
-
Mini 8×8 LED Matrix
I have a few neat 20x20mm square 8×8 LED matrix modules that I want to drive.
Quite some time ago I tried to hook them up with a HT16K33 based 16×8 I2C LED matrix driver, but it was all on stripboard and not only was it quite messy, actually it really didn’t work very reliably either, so this is another attempt. Eventually this resulted in a small driver PCB.
The LED Matrix Module
The fundamental point of an LED matrix module is the matrix bit. The LEDs are arranged in a grid of some sort and consequently it isn’t possible to light up all LEDs at the same time. They have to be “scanned” and if they are scanned quickly enough then persistence of vision kicks in and it appears as if all LEDs are lit at the same time.
There are a whole range of 8×8 LED matrix modules to choose from, and often it isn’t obvious what the type or pinout for them is. At least it isn’t when they’ve been kicking around in your parts drawer for some time.
Options are:
- Size of module. I’m using a square mini module which is 20x20mm (often described as 19x19mm). A larger 8×8 version is the 32x32mm module. There are also asymmetrical arrangements too, for example 5×7 LEDs.
- Type of LED. I’m using single colour LED modules, but they are often available in different colours. There are also dual-colour versions (usually red and green, which also gives an orange option when both are lit) and even RGB versions. The RGB can be “programmable” LEDs or simply direct connections to each LED colour – so with RGB, that is 4 pins per LED…
- Common Anode or Common Cathode. This refers to which leg of a row/column or LEDs is common to that entire row/column.
- Number of pins and pinout. Different matrices are mapped onto pins differently. I’ve seen some with 14 pins and some with 16, both in DIP format.
- Arrangement of the “grid”. There are two main variants here – a grid with the same number of LEDS per common connection, or a “Charlieplexed” arrangement which is a clever way of driving more LEDs from less IO pins. I have a square grid of 8 rows and 8 columns of LEDs.
Here is a schematic with LED arrangement and pinouts for a common 8×8 LED module found very cheaply online.
The left shows a common cathode, and the right a common anode. I’m pretty sure I have common anode LEDs from an old note I found lying around, so I’m going to start with that.
I’ve used the following simple circuit to verify which pin is which. The resistor is there to limit the current passing through each LED.
In the final circuit, I’d be looking at maybe using a 1K resistor so limiting the LED current to around 3-3.5mA (assuming 5V supply and forward voltage of 1.7-2.2V for a typical red LED). For a maximum of 8 LEDs per common connection, that would still only be less than 50mA so I don’t think current would be an issue in any of the approaches I’ll be looking at. But I also have to take into account that if there are 8 scan cycles for a complete display, then each LED will only be on for 1/8th of the time of the scan, so will appear 1/8th as bright anyway.
I do seem to have a module that follows the pinout as shown above (right). In the following diagram, the pins are numbered with pins 1 to 8 along the bottom (left to right) and pins 9 to 16 across the top (right to left).
In this orientation, the ROWs and COLUMNs as described above are mapped as shown below.
Just to bring all this together, the pin functions of my matrix are as follows (row = anode; column = cathode):
PinPinR5116C8R7215C7C2314R2C3413C1R8512R4C5611C6R6710C4R389R1LED Matrix Driving
The fundamental principle for a common anode configuration is that if a positive voltage is patched onto a ROW and GND is connected to a COLumn then that LED at that position will light up. However of course, different ROWs and COLs will have different states so some kind of “scanning” will be required.
A microcontroller can do this without any additional support if it has 16 IO pins. For example, the following algorithm could be used to scan each ROW in turn, setting the appropriate COL values:
Initialise ROW and COL pins as OUTPUT
Set all ROWS and COLS to LOW
FOR EACH ROW:
FOR EACH COL:
Set HIGH or LOW according to required output pattern for that ROW.
Momentarily set ROW HIGH then return it LOWEvery COL/ROW LED will light up when the combination ROW=HIGH, COL=LOW is reached. If the ROWs are scanned quickly enough, then persistence of vision means that the LED matrix appears to be fully illuminated.
As I say, given suitable current limiting LEDs (one per ROW) and enough IO pins a microcontroller could do this directly, but it uses a lot of GPIO and is likely to reach the current limits of the microcontroller pretty quickly if lots of LEDs are illuminated at once.
The answer is to utilise an additional chip as an LED matrix driver, both freeing up the microcontroller’s GPIO and providing the option for a higher current draw.
LED Matrix Drivers
There are a number of options. Some are general IO expanders, some are dedicated to supporting LED matrices, some include higher current sinks or sources as required.
A key benefit of these types of devices is that in some the scanning is performed by the device itself, so the MCU only has to send it the data for the complete display and then let it just get on with things.
MAX2719 Segment Display Driver
This is a “Serially Interfaced, 8-Digit LED Display Driver” (more here). From the MAXIM datasheet:
“The MAX7219/MAX7221 are compact, serial input/output common-cathode display drivers that interface microprocessors (µPs) to 7-segment numeric LED displays of up to 8 digits, bar-graph displays, or 64 individual LEDs.”
They interface to a MCU using SPI and have additional features to directly support 7 or 8-segment displays. As they support up to 8 digits with up to 8 segments, they could also perfectly support my 8×8 LED matrix.
Key parameters:
- 24 pin DIP.
- MCU Interface: Serial IO (chainable).
- Power: 4.0V – 5.5V.
- DIG sink current: 500mA; SEG source current: 100mA. Max current supply (all segments on): 330mA.
These are often paired up with a 32mm 8×8 LED display on a cheap PCB kit. For my purposes though, there is an issue – these are designed to be used with common cathode displays.
I suspect this is due to the current ratings for the digit/segment pins. The datasheet expands:
“Eight-Digit Drive Lines that sink current from the display common cathode. The MAX7219 pulls the digit outputs to V+ when turned off.”
“Seven Segment Drives and Decimal Point Drive that source current to the display. On the MAX7219, when a segment driver is turned off it is pulled to GND.”
If the LEDs are in a matrix, in principle it ought to be possible to have an arrangement that could work with a common anode display if the current limits can be balanced.
The common cathode (DIG) will assume a worst case of all 8 LEDs illuminated, meaning a maximum sink of up to 500mA or up to around 60mA per LED. The individual anode (SEG) supports up to 100mA current source per LED. These are both pretty high, especially as I’m not anticipating more than a total of around 50mA for 8 LEDs.
But can a common cathode scanning chip be used with a common anode display? As it stands it will be assuming that it can set a single cathode line LOW and drive all 8 anode lines according to the required pattern. But as the LEDs are displayed in a matrix, looking back at the circuit diagrams, I think it just means that the cathodes are the columns and the anodes are the rows. So instead of scanning rows, it will be scanning columns, so I think it would be fine.
So to summarise, for my LED matrix, the ROWs will be the anode, so connected to SEG and the COLs will be the cathode so connected to DIG.
There is one other key advantage to using the MAX7219. It supports a single “current setting” resistor (Rset in the datasheet). A single resistor between the ISET pin (18) and VCC. Looking at the table in the datasheet I think using a ~60-80K resistor would keep he current down to <10mA for the LEDs, although I must admit I’m not quite following how the values are calculated.
IS31FL3731 LED Driver
The actual IS31FL3731 driver chip is a QFN-28 or SSOP-28 surface mount device, so I won’t be using these directly, but they are available in a breakout board from Adafruit (more here and here). From the datasheet:
“The IS31FL3731 is a compact LED driver for 144 single LEDs. The device can be programmed via an I2C compatible interface. The IS31FL3731 offers two blocks each driving 72 LEDs with 1/9 cycle rate. The required lines to drive all 144 LEDs are reduced to 18 by using the cross-plexing feature optimizing space on the PCB. Additionally each of the 144 LEDs can be dimmed individually with 8-bit allowing 256 steps of linear dimming.”
I believe by “cross-plexing” they are talking about “Charlie Plexing”. The breakouts have the following key parameters:
- SMD but available as a breakout.
- MCU Interface: I2C with 4 address options.
- Power: 2.7V – 5.5V.
- Pinout compatible with Adafruit 16×9 Charlieplexed LED modules.
These are available relatively cheaply (~£6 each) but they aren’t geared up for use with a common LED matrix like mine, so they won’t be considered further either. But I do have some of the modules and the corresponding LED boards, and I can confirm they are very neat and possibly the highest density LED matrix I have.
HT16K33 LED Controller
This is the driver chip Adafruit use on their own 20x20mm 8×8 LED matrix “backpacks” (more here). From the datasheet:
“The HT16K33 is a memory mapping and multi-function LED controller driver. The max. Display segment numbers in the device is 128 patterns (16 segments and 8 commons) with a 13*3 (MAX.) matrix key scan circuit. The software configuration features of the HT16K33 makes it suitable for multiple LED applications including LED modules and display subsystems. The HT16K33 is compatible with most microcontrollers and communicates via a two-line bidirectional I2C-bus.”
Key operational parameters:
- SMD but available as a breakout.
- MCU Interface: I2C with 8 address options (although only 4 are available on some of the backpacks themselves).
- Power: 4.5V – 5.5V (although the Adafruit backpacks look like they can be powered from 3V3 too).
- Available in 8×8 (20 pin), 8×12 (24 pin) and 8×16 (28 pin) variants, although Adafruit modules are only available in 8×16 format.
- 16x ROW = anode (active HIGH to display); 8x COL = cathode (active LOW to display)
- COL sink current: 200mA; ROW source current: <40mA
These are the modules I’d originally used with my first attempt (undocumented) at driving these LED matrix displays. If I was to use them again, then it would be a case of including the footprint on a PCB for a pair of LED matrices and then providing a connector for I2C and power.
Note: I can’t just use the Adafruit LED matrix breakouts directly as I want to cascade them up to each other and these breakouts have exposed PCBs top and bottom that stops the LED matrix from being positioned right next to each other.
MCP23017 IO Expander
This is a generic 16-way GPIO I2C expander providing access to an additional 16 GPIO pins over I2C (more here) – a “16-Bit I/O Expander with Serial Interface” according to the datasheet:
“The MCP23X17 consists of multiple 8-bit configuration registers for input, output and polarity selection. The system master can enable the I/Os as either inputs or outputs by writing the I/O configuration bits (IODIRA/B). The data for each input or output is kept in the corresponding input or output register. The polarity of the Input Port register can be inverted with the Polarity Inversion register. All registers can be read by the system master.”
Key parameters:
- 28 pin DIP.
- MCU Interface: I2C (23017) or SPI (23S17).
- Power: 1.8V to 5.5V.
- Max current sink/source for IO pins: 25mA; Max through VSS/VDD: 150mA/125mA.
These devices have two 8-bit GPIO ports, so it would seem a simple matter of hooking up one port to the rows and one to the columns and then it would work fine as a matrix driver. There are a couple of issues though:
- Each common connector IO pin to be scanned should allow for up to the maximum of 8 LEDs to be illuminated. If there is a 25mA limit per IO pin, that isn’t much per LED. It could be done, e.g. by using a 2K resistor with my red LEDs, but they might not be very bright. But they still might be bright enough depending on what is required.
- There is no built-in scanning, the microcontroller will have to constantly send the new IO values over I2C for each row or column scan. That will add up pretty quickly to become a limiting factor I suspect, especially as that has to be maintained at a suitable refresh rate.
Given the current limits and lack of automated scanning, whilst these could work, they offer very little advantage, and some disadvantage, compared to the other options.
74HC595 Shift Register
Whilst it is possible to drive LEDs directly from a microcontroller (assuming they can support the current), it is more usual to use a shift register to save IO pins.
“The SNx4HC595 devices contain an 8-bit, serial-in, parallel-out shift register that feeds an 8-bit D-type storage register.”
This means that 8-bits provided over a serial link get turned into 8 IO pin outputs and as these devices can be cascaded together, they can be expanded to 16-bits, 24-bits, etc.
Operating parameters:
- 16 pin DIP.
- MCU Interface: Serial/clock IO.
- Power: 2V – 6V.
- Max IO current 20mA; max total current via VCC/GND 70mA.
In principle these could work well with a matrix, using two devices, one for rows and one for columns, but the current could be an issue. When driving (say) a single row, the device driving the row will need to support up to 8 LEDs worth of current on a single IO pin, and the device driving the columns would have to allow for up to 8 LEDs illuminated on 8 IO pins. If the currents are limited as previous described, the latter would be ok (up to 50mA total, around 3mA per LED), but the combined total for a row would be too much for a single IO pin.
Typically such devices might be used with something like a ULN2803 current sink which can sink up to 500mA in total. This would have to be provided on the cathodes and the cathode would be the scanned column in the code.
Current limiting resistors should be put in the anode side of the circuit, meaning that the resistors serve only a single LED at a time. If they were placed in the cathode side, then if multiple LEDs are lit, the brightness would change if sharing a resistor.
Using a shift register only has a minor advantage over using direct MCU IO pins – it reduces the pin count required. But in all other respects is not so different. It will still have current limitations which really need an additional chip to overcome; and all scanning will have to be handled by the microcontroller and kept at a suitable refresh rate.
Summary of Options
- MAX7219: unsurprisingly this is a device dedicated to driving segment and matrix displays. The fact it is designed for common cathode displays shouldn’t be an issue for my LED matrix. Driven via a serial IO link (SPI) and chainable.
- Disadvantages: One device is required per matrix. They are not particularly cheap. They are quite large in DIP format.
- IS31FL3731: designed for LED matrices.
- Disadvantages: This is a surface mount device, so requires a breakout for me to use it. Designed for a Charlieplex matrix, so not really suitable.
- HT16K33: again dedicated device for driving LED matrices. Can support two 8×8 matrices. Driven over I2C.
- Disadvantages: Surface mount again, but breakouts are available, but again not particularly cheap.
- MCP23017: general purpose I2C IO expander.
- Disadvantages: unlikely to support current required. Needs MCU to perform scanning.
- 74HC595: general purpose serial to parallel shift register. Can be chained.
- Disadvantages: likely to require additional current sink device. Needs MCU to perform scanning.
The choice for me is going to have to be either the MAX7219 or HT16K33. Both are too large for my mini displays, but if I can design a board for several displays at the same time there might be options to overlay chips and displays in a useful manner.
The HT16K33 is perhaps the more useful device, with each supporting two displays but I would have to design a board to accept the footprint of the breakout or attempt a SMD PCB…
Mini LED Matrix MAX2719 PCB
In the end, rather than mess around with breakouts, I just dived right in and tried to design a PCB that would support a MAX7219 and one of my mini LEDs. I went with the MAX7219 over the HT16K33 as it seemed a simpler choice at this point in time. I had to create a custom symbol for my LED matrix following the pinout as shown previously.
In terms of connecting to the MAX7219, I have the following:
- SEG A – G + DP -> ROWS 1 – 8
- DIG 0 – 7 -> COLS 1 – 8
There was no way I would get a DIP version on – and I did try. One thought was if I had a PCB for several matrices at the same time, then I would have more layout options – but it just wouldn’t go.
So I decided to go with the surface mount version of the MAX7219. This comes in a SOP-24 package which looks just about hand solderable.
I have two board designs – one for two matrices and one for four. My first four-matrix design was a 2×2 square, but I just could not get traces between pins between the two sets of boards, so in the end I went with a 1×4 layout which gives plenty of room between the two long rows of LED matrix pins.
Unfortunately I managed to get the pitch wrong for my LED matrix and the rows are one pin-row-header too wide. But to be honest, I’m not sure I’d have been able to route it with them any narrower, so maybe this is just the way I’ll have to do it!
Each MAX7219 has a 0805 footprint 62K resistor and 100nF capacitor, although when it came to it, I only had 75K resistors in my parts box, so I used those.
There are IN and OUT headers so the idea is that the boards can be chained. I’ll have to see how well that works in practice.
I initially went with standard pin header sockets for the matrix as they can be bent fairly easily, but unfortunately they don’t make very good contact with the pins on the matrix, so I switched to round-hole pin headers instead.
Example Code
Driving the displays is relatively straight forward, it is just a case of hooking it up to an Arduino’s SPI and sending a number of addr-data pairs, one for each chained MAX7219, detailing either commands or DIGIT data to be displayed.
There is one problem however.
When it comes to programming the MAX7219, the register address corresponds to a DIGIT, which for me is a “column” value; and the data programmed corresponds to the SEGMENTS to illuminate, which for me is a “row”. Recall the MAX7219 is designed for common cathode 7-segment displays, but I’m using it to drive a common anode LED matrix.
So this means I am scanning columns and setting rows. But as the matrix is rotated through 90 degrees on the circuit board, it appears that I’m scanning rows and setting columns. It gets more confusing…
Mapping to segments, I’ve made a mistake. I thought DP was the last segment, but when it comes to setting the SEGMENT values in the registers for the MAX7219, they are encoded in an 8-bit value as follows:
I’ve hooked them up as follows in the schematic
Which means that to get R8, R7…R1 in the right “column” I need the 8-bit value written to be in the following format:
MAX7219 Register Bit: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
MAX7219 Segment: DP A B C D E F G
LED Matrix "ROW": R8 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7
Physical Column: 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2This corresponds to the LED matrix being oriented with pin 1 top left. This makes the top left LED correspond to physical (row 1, column 1) and the bottom right LED is (row 8, column 8).
This means that when creating a bit pattern for the column values, they are swapped compared to bit numbers, and DP needs inserting into bit 7.
val = ((val & 0xff)>>1) | ((val & 0xff)<<7);
It does, ironically, mean that to scan columns in the order left->right, I can simply use:
for (int r=0; r<8; r++) {
for (int c=0; c<8; c++) {
// to scan columns 1 to 8
uint8_t val = (1<<c);
// adjust for DP
val = ((val & 0xff)>>1) | ((val & 0xff)<<7);
// Convert rows 0-7 to register address 1-8
sendToSPI(r+1, c);
}
}It’s quirky, but it works!
But if I stick with this approach, then any bitmaps (or fonts!) stored in memory for display will have to be stored horizontally mirrored.
The final test code for an Arduino Uno or Nano, using the standard SPI pins (13=clock; 11=data out):
#include <SPI.h>
#define SS_PIN 10
#define NUM_MAX7219 2
#define MAX7219_TEST 0x0f
#define MAX7219_BRIGHTNESS 0x0a
#define MAX7219_SCAN_LIMIT 0x0b
#define MAX7219_DECODE_MODE 0x09
#define MAX7219_SHUTDOWN 0x0C
void maxCommand (uint8_t address, uint8_t value) {
digitalWrite(SS_PIN, LOW);
for (int i=0; i<NUM_MAX7219; i++) {
SPI.transfer(address); // Send address.
SPI.transfer(value); // Send the value.
}
digitalWrite(SS_PIN, HIGH); // Finish transfer.
}
void maxData (uint8_t row, uint8_t value) {
digitalWrite(SS_PIN, LOW);
for (int i=0; i<NUM_MAX7219; i++) {
SPI.transfer(row+1); // ROW registers address 1-8
uint8_t val = value;
val = ((val & 0xff)>>1) | ((val & 0xff)<<7);
SPI.transfer(val); // Send the value.
}
digitalWrite(SS_PIN, HIGH); // Finish transfer.
}
void setup() {
pinMode(SS_PIN, OUTPUT);
SPI.setBitOrder(MSBFIRST);
SPI.begin();
maxCommand(MAX7219_TEST, 0x01); // Test mode on
delay(1000);
maxCommand(MAX7219_TEST, 0x00); // Test mode off
maxCommand(MAX7219_DECODE_MODE, 0x00); // Disable BCD mode.
maxCommand(MAX7219_BRIGHTNESS, 0x00); // Turn brightness right down
maxCommand(MAX7219_SCAN_LIMIT, 0x0f); // Use all digits
maxCommand(MAX7219_SHUTDOWN, 0x01); // Turn on
// Start with everything off
for (int r=0; r<8; r++) {
maxData(r, 0);
}
for (int r=0; r<8; r++) {
maxData(r, 255);
delay(500);
maxData(r, 0);
}
for (int c=0; c<8; c++) {
for (int r=0; r<8; r++) {
maxData(r, (1<<c));
}
delay(500);
}
for (int r=0; r<8; r++) {
maxData(r, 0);
}
}
void loop() {
for (int r=0; r<8; r++) {
for (int c=0; c<8; c++) {
maxData (r, (1<<c));
delay(200);
}
maxData (r, 0);
}
}Conclusion
I haven’t published the PCBs as I wasn’t sure many would accept the issues with them, and I didn’t want to spend ages attempting to explain them away in my GitHub repository, but if are of interest, given all the above, ping me a message somehow (via Mastodon is probably easiest) and I can send on Gerbers or KiCad files.
I’ve only tested the two-way board so far. I’m working up to soldering four devices on a PCB.
I’d like to get a whole block of 20 or so LED matrices all tied together. I’ll post back here if I manage it.
Software wise, I’ve proved the principle but can’t decide at the moment if it is more intuitive to think of the columns going left to right, or right to left. With hindsight it would have been a lot simpler to map them onto the SEGMENTS already bit-swapped. And with DP in the right place of course.
Still, amazingly, the PCBs work.
Kevin
-
INL is Microreactor Central for Testing Designs & Fuels
- INL is Microreactor Central for Testing Designs and Fuels
- Serial Deployment of SMRs Will Bring Down Their Costs
- Newcleo and Denieli to Use Nuclear Energy to Produce “Green Steel”
- Newcleo Plans MOX Fuel Center for Its Advanced Reactor
- Thorizon Secures €20M to Advance Molten Salt Reactor Development
- Rostom has Eight RITM-200 Reactors in Production
INL is Microreactor Central for Testing Designs & Fuels
A scan of multiple announcements by companies developing microreactors, e.g., less than 20 MW of electrical generation capacity, shows that eight of them, so far, have developed or are in the process of developing arrangements with the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to test their designs and, for some, also the fuels for their reactors.
As the nation’s nuclear energy research laboratory, INL is working with developers, private industry, regulators, to develop, demonstrate, test, and validate a new generation of microreactors so they can be made available to customers.
As part of its research mission, INL is also helping to develop new fuels for microreactor designs. Many of these advanced designs also require higher concentrations of U-235 than the fuel used in the current fleet of operating light water commercial reactors. The new generation of microreactors under development is focused on key design principles which are that they are simple to use, easy to transport and set up, and can go years without having to be refueled.One of the reasons for the significant interest in microreactors is anticipated lower costs to build and operate them. The costs for these new generation microreactors are still uncertain, although it is anticipated that microreactors can be cost competitive for niche applications such as high-resilience needs, including military applications, remote and geographically difficult locations, e.g., mining and remote communities, and disaster relief. Also, data centers are inking nonbinding MOUs with microreactor developers based on long-term plans to decarbonize the power supplies for their operations.
https://youtu.be/KW0zUeHhMdo?feature=shared
Competitive Costs of Power from Microreactors
A recent report by the Nuclear Energy Institute: “Cost Competitiveness of Micro-Reactors for Remote Markets,” estimates the cost to generate electricity from the first microreactor will be between $0.14/kWh and $0.41/kWh. In some remote Alaskan areas that are dependent upon diesel generators, electricity prices are more than $1/kWh.
Future costs are estimated to decrease to between $0.09/kWh and $0.33/kWh. Costs are expected to decrease after demonstration, licensing and initial deployment and will depend on the location and type of owner, whether private or public. If one more of these developers can generate enough demand to build their reactors in “fleet mode” via factory production, the costs could come down even further.Which Microreactors Are Expected to Test Designs and/or Fuels at INL?
A short list, which is incomplete, includes in no particular order, Project Pele, Aalo & MARVEL, eVinci, Radiant, Mobile Nuclear, and Nano Nuclear. Here are snapshots of these projects and their work at the Idaho lab. There are many moving pieces for each of these microreactor developers. This post contains highlights of recent milestones for each of them.
Conceptual image of a transportable microreactor. Image: US Department of EnergyProject Pele: In September 2024 the DOD broke ground on the Project Pele transportable microreactor project at Idaho National Laboratory, which could become one of the first advanced reactors to operate in the United States as early as 2026. DoD is planning to design, build, and demonstrate a transportable high-temperature gas reactor that will operate at the lab’s Critical Infrastructure Test Range Complex.
The reactor will be manufactured by BWX Technologies and connected to INL’s microgrid producing 1 to 5 MW of electrical power.
According to DOD, the prototype reactor facility will be transported in 20-foot shipping containers and tested at the lab. They then plan to transport the reactor module by truck for placement at the complex during the 2026 timeframe to conduct safety reviews and initial planning and testing.
Oklo: In February 2025 Lightbridge Corporation (Nasdaq: LTBR), announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Oklo Inc. (NYSE: OKLO) to conduct a feasibility study for co-locating a Lightbridge Commercial-scale Fuel Fabrication Facility at Oklo’s proposed commercial fuel fabrication facility and to explore opportunities for collaboration in recycling nuclear waste. Oklo plans to license, build, and operate the facility on a site at at the Idaho National Laboratory, located on the Arco desert 25 miles west of Idaho Falls, ID.
In November 2024 Oklo checked off a significant milestone in its path forward toward building a first of a kind micro reactor on a site at the Idaho National Laboratory. This was the environmental review processes of the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Idaho National Laboratory required for construction of the firm’s first micro reactor on the federal site. It is targeting its first deployment at INL in 2027.
Aalo: In December 2024 DOE identified a piece of land at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) as a potential site for Aalo Atomics to build a new experimental reactor facility. The new facility will be used to advance the company’s commercial Aalo-1 microreactor design that the company hopes to deploy before the end of the decade. It plans to submit to the NRC a combined construction and operating license application (COLA) for the project in 2026.
Aalo Atomics is developing a 10 MW sodium-cooled microreactor inspired by DOE’s MARVEL microreactor design which in October 2023 achieved 90 percent final design, a key step that will allow the project to move forward with fabrication and construction.
In May 2024 Aalo announced it had completed its conceptual design of the Aalo-1 – a factory-fabricated 10 MWe sodium-cooled microreactor that uses uranium zirconium hydride (UZrH) fuel elements.
The Austin, Texas-based company is working to optimize the reactor for mass manufacturing and plans to use existing commercial supply chains to deliver clean, low-cost heat to power everything from data centers to industrial facilities.
MARVEL Microreactor: Now in the fabrication stage on the Arco desert 25 miles west of Idaho Falls, ID, MARVEL (short for Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation) is a distinctive test platform that will aid a rapidly growing nuclear industry as the world searches for dependable low-carbon energy sources. MARVEL will help advanced nuclear developers in several key ways:
- Provide experience with design, start-up, operation and eventual decommissioning of a new reactor, one of the first built at INL in five decades;
- Development and demonstration of key technologies for microreactor development;
- Testing of key operation functions of a microreactor; and
- Enabling nuclear developers to test microreactor applications and access data to refine their designs on the path to commercialization.
eVinci: In September 2024 Westinghouse Electric Company completed the front-end engineering and experiment design (FEEED) phase to test a prototype of its eVinci microreactor at Idaho National Laboratory. The FEEED process is intended to support developers in design and planning for the fabrication, construction, and potential testing of fueled reactor experiments at the DOME test bed operated by the National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC).
The commercial heat-pipe cooled microreactor is designed to produce 5 MW of electricity on sites as small as two acres of land and will operate for 8 or more years before refueling. The eVinci microreactor is expected to support broad applications ranging from powering remote communities to mining operations and data centers.
Radiant Industries: In November 2024 Radiant Industries completed the front-end engineering and experiment design phase (FEED) to test a prototype of its Kaleidos microreactor at Idaho National Laboratory. The FEEED process supports developers in designing and planning for the fabrication, construction, and potential testing of fueled reactor experiments at the DOME microreactor test bed.
Radiant was competitively selected last year to complete the FEEED process, which includes developing a detailed schedule, budget, design, and test plan for the experiment, as well as a detailed preliminary safety report on its design to ensure safe operations during testing.
The high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) is designed to produce 1.2 MW of electricity and operate for 5 or more years before refueling.
The Kaleidos microreactor is expected to support broad applications ranging from replacing diesel generators in remote areas, to providing backup power to hospitals, military installations, and data centers.
MobileNuclear Energy, LLC: In March 2025 MobileNuclear Energy LLC (MNE) announced that it has entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA), the operator and manager of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
Under this CRADA, INL will support MNE across key aspects of reactor development, demonstration, and deployment. The collaboration will focus on reactor design, testing, safety validation, licensing support, advanced computational modeling, fuel qualification, and commissioning activities. INL’s support will be provided through the National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC), BEA staff, and other specialized INL facilities.
According to a company supplied list of specifications, the Mobile Power Module (MPM) comes with an integrated turbine-generator produces and 1 MW thermal energy and 350 kW electrical power. Add-on modules integrate with the MPM to provide atmospheric water generation, heating/cooling, hydrogen-based fuel production, EV charging, and other mission-tailored capabilities. MPM and add-on modules are equivalent in size to a 20′ ISO shipping container.
Nano Nuclear: The company has asked the INL to complete reviews of two of its conceptual designs for microreactors. In 2023 a panel of INL scientists and engineers completed a pre-conceptual design review of NANO Nuclear’s “ODIN” low-pressure coolant microreactor design.
In September 2024 Nano Nuclear announced it will collaborate with Idaho National Laboratory to evaluate the heat exchanger design of Zeus, a modular microreactor, through computational modeling and sensitivity analysis via a GAIN Voucher.
GAIN voucher recipients do not receive direct financial awards. Vouchers provide funding to DOE laboratories to help businesses overcome critical technological and commercialization challenges. All awardees are responsible for a minimum 20 percent cost share, which could be an in-kind contribution.
In December 2024 Nano Nuclear signed an MOU with DOE to establish a framework for the collaboration between NANO Nuclear and the DOE to evaluate the feasibility of siting, construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of the Company’s ‘ZEUS’ and ‘ODIN’ experimental microreactors at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
The company describes its technology offerings in technical development are “ZEUS”, a solid core battery reactor, and “ODIN”, a low-pressure coolant reactor, each representing advanced developments in clean energy solutions that are portable, on-demand capable, advanced nuclear microreactors.
~ ~ ~
There are other microreactor developers working on unique advanced designs who may yet come forward seeking testing capabilities for them and the fuels to power them. Right now it is a crowded field which means that despite the “advanced” nature of their work, the old school measures of technological differentiation and cost competitiveness will sort a few things out.
& & &
Serial Deployment of SMRs Will Bring Down Their Costs
- Alphabet, Google’s corporate parent, says the firm’s partnership with Kairos power to build seven advanced reactors to power the search engine’s data center is a key project for the firm.
(NucNet) Google parent company Alphabet is seeking to reduce the cost of constructing new nuclear reactors by deploying a series of small modular reactors (SMRs) through its partnership with developer Kairos Power, according to a recent media statement bt Alphabet’s president and chief investment officer Ruth Porat.
Google and Kairos Power announced a deal in October 2024 that would see the tech company buying power generated by seven reactors to be built by Kairos, a seven-year-old California-based startup.
The agreement targets adding 500 MW of nuclear power starting at the end of the decade, the companies said. The first reactor could be online by 2030 and additional reactors by 2035. The units for Google will include a single 50-MW reactor, with three subsequent power plants that would each have two 75-MW reactors.
Kairos is developing advanced fluoride salt-cooled high-temperature reactor (KP-FHR) technology. Construction of Hermes 1, a pilot 35-MWt version of the KP-HFR, began in July at the Oak Ridge site after a construction permit was issued in December 2023.
In November 2024, Kairos received greenlight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to proceed with construction of the two-unit Hermes 2 facility. It will be the first electricity-generating Generation IV plant to be approved in the US and will build on learnings from the Hermes 1 demonstrator.
Alphabet’s Porat was quoted by CNBC as telling the CERAWeek conference in Houston, US, that the public and private sectors should move “as soon as possible” to build a series of new plants that replicate the construction process to drive down costs.
“If we don’t start now in a focused way and replicate a number of them, which is why the Kairos multi tranche is an important kind of proof point, we’re not going to be able to drive down the cost curve,” Porat said.
& & &
Newcleo and Denieli to Use Nuclear Energy to Produce “Green Steel”
- Companies have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to explore the integration of newcleo’s LFR technology with Danieli’s Green Steel Technology and Plants.
- Agreement lays the groundwork to decarbonize steel production through combined electricity and heat from nuclear energy.
Italy’s Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche S.p.A., a world-leader in iron and steel making plants, and Newcleo SA, the nuclear energy innovator, the nuclear energy innovator, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to explore the integration of newcleo’s Lead-cooled Fast Reactors (LFR) with Danieli’s steelmaking technology to make a further step in combining the production of green steel with nuclear energy production.
By leveraging the distinctive capability of LFRs to provide a combination of electricity and high temperature heat, the companies will focus on developing potential integrated solutions where Newcleo’s innovative LFRs provide both the electricity and high-temperature heat required to feed some of the Danieli Technologies processes for green steel production.
The initiative aligns with the Danieli vision of providing high quality green steel and has the potential to contribute to steelmaking in Europe. The agreement could lead to energy supply solutions across the iron and steel value chain, including in applications linked to the Danieli Digital Melter and possibly the production of Green Hydrogen to power Danieli’s Energiron Direct Reduction Technology to produce metallic iron.
The understanding comes at a defining moment for the European steelmaking and manufacturing industry as demonstrated by the EU Commission’s Strategic Dialogue on the Future of the Steel sector and the Clean Industrial Deal adopted in February, where the EU Commission took bold action to help energy-intensive industries lower their energy costs while also creating markets for low carbon and pledging over €100 billion in support of EU-made clean manufacturing.
The Commission also pledged to accelerate the development and deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs), recognizing their integral contribution to Europe’s competitiveness in global markets and decarbonization strategies.
Recently, the Italian government has taken concrete steps towards the reintroduction of nuclear energy in its energy mix. In this context, these agreements will generate future opportunities for the Italian and European industry to access clean energy at competitive and stable costs over the long term, allowing the continent to deliver on its net zero pledges while maintaining its competitive edge in the global scenario.
& & &
Newcleo Plans MOX Fuel Center for Its Advanced Reactor
(WNN) Reactor developer Newcleo has acquired a site in Chusclan in the Gard department in southern France on which it will build an R&D innovation and training center supporting the development of its future fuel assembly manufacturing facility in France.
Newcleo said the FASTER (Fuel process Assembly Storage Training and Enhanced Reality) center, which will not store or handle any radioactive materials, will play a key role in its strategy to close the nuclear fuel cycle.
FASTER will host: dedicated spaces for testing engineering solutions and maintenance, including office areas; advanced training facilities, featuring rooms equipped for virtual and augmented reality, simulators, and a training workshop with real production equipment; and development and qualification workshops designed to test and optimize manufacturing processes using cutting-edge technologies, such as 3D printing, within a high-tech environment dedicated to innovation and precision engineering. The FASTER centre will be developed in collaboration with leading Italian design company Pininfarina
Newcleo plans to directly invest in a mixed uranium/plutonium oxide (MOX) plant to fuel its small modular lead-cooled fast reactors. In June 2022, the company announced it had contracted France’s Orano for feasibility studies on the establishment of a MOX production plant.
According to Paris-headquartered Newcleo’s delivery roadmap, the first non-nuclear pre-cursor prototype of its reactor is expected to be ready by 2026 in Italy, the first reactor operational in France by the end of 2031, while the final investment decision for the first commercial power plant is expected around 2029.
Newcleo said its first-of-a-kind 30 MWe lead-cooled fast reactor will “serve as an industrial demonstrator, a showcase for Newcleo’s technology, and contribute to the development of the nuclear sector in France”.
Last month, Newcleo announced it had started the land acquisition process for its demonstration LFR-AS-30 small modular reactor in Indre-et-Loire in the Chinon Vienne et Loire community of municipalities in western France.
& & &
Thorizon Secures €20M to Advance Molten Salt Reactor Development
Deep-tech startup Thorizon, pioneering molten salt reactor technology, has secured €20 million in funding to accelerate the development of its advanced small modular reactor, Thorizon One. This includes €16 million as the first tranche of its Series A round, led by the Dutch National Promotional Institution, Invest-NL, backed by an InvestEU guarantee from the European Commission for the research part, with strong backing from Positron Ventures, PDENH, and Impuls Zeeland. All of Thorizon’s existing shareholders have reinforced their commitment in this investment round.
Thorizon recently secured an additional €4 million grant from the Dutch Province of Noord-Brabant in consortium with VDL Groep and Demcon. The recent investments follow an earlier €10 million grant from the France 2030 Innovative Reactor Program of the French government in 2024. In total, including its first equity round, Thorizon has raised €42.5 million to drive the commercialization of its innovative reactor technology.
This funding milestone brings Thorizon halfway to its Series A target, with a focus on attracting European investors to strengthen Europe’s energy security and leadership in nuclear innovation. The capital will drive the prototyping and demonstration of Thorizon One’s groundbreaking “cartridge” fuel system, designed to safely and cost-effectively generate power by recycling nuclear waste. Additionally, Thorizon will finalize the reactor’s basic design, advance licensing, and prototype key components as it progresses toward starting construction in 2030.
With this funding, Thorizon is advancing the development of the Thorizon One, a next-generation reactor that overcomes all traditional reservations against nuclear energy. The Thorizon One is engineered to deliver carbon-free energy while repurposing long-lived nuclear waste as fuel. Its modular design and innovative cartridge-based fuel system provide a scalable pathway to a circular nuclear economy. By harnessing molten salt technology, Thorizon is developing reactors that are inherently safe, cost-efficient, and faster to deploy than conventional nuclear plants—offering a practical solution to Europe’s clean energy transition.
Thorizon has laid a strong foundation for advancing its molten salt reactor technology, securing funding through equity and grants while building a team of 50 engineers across Amsterdam and Lyon. It has forged key partnerships with Orano for fuel development, Tractebel for engineering, and VDL Groep for prototyping, while collaborating with EPZ for early operator input, and with EDF on R&D.
Dutch and French nuclear regulators have initiated a joint preparatory review of the Thorizon One design, and the company is conducting pre-feasibility studies at three nuclear-designated sites in France and the Benelux, targeting construction by 2030.
& & &
Rostom has Eight RITM-200 Reactors in Production
(WNN) Russia’s Rosatom has begun assembling the RITM-200 reactor vessel for the Leningrad nuclear-powered icebreaker, bringing the total number of RITM reactor units currently being produced at its ZIO-Podolsk plant to eight.
The RITM-200 is a pressurized water reactor with a thermal capacity of 175 MW, which converts to 30 MW at the propellers. It is 7.3 meters high with a diameter of 3.3 meters and an integral layout which its manufacturers say means it is lighter, more compact and 25 MW more powerful than previous generations used on nuclear-powered icebreakers. The service life is 40 years.
As of March 2025 there are 8 RITM type reactors are under construction at different stages (for floating power units and for icebreakers). Project 22220 icebreaker each uses 2 of RITM-200 reactors
The new generation of Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers – the Project 22220 vessels – each feature two RITM-200 reactors and the ZIO-Podolsk plant, part of Rosatom’s machine-building division, has already manufactured 10 of them for the icebreakers Arktika, Sibir, Ural, Yakutia and Chukotka.
The RITM-200 reactors, having demonstrated their suitability for Arctic conditions, are also going to be used in floating power plants which are being built to supply electricity for a large industrial consumer in Chukotka. Another project will use the RITM-200N as part of a land-based small modular reactor nuclear power plant in Yakutia. There is also an agreement for six such reactors in Uzbekistan.
The nuclear-powered icerbreakers are a key part of Russia’s plan to develop the Northern Sea Route, the shipping lane along its north coast, which can cut the distance and speed for shipping goods by sea from northern Europe to Asia.
Rosatom’s proposed floating nuclear power plants, with power capacities of 100 MW and 106 MW, have been designed using reactors based on the RITM-200 ones used in the icebreaker fleet. Under a contract signed in 2021, Rosatom’s Machine Engineering Division is supplying four floating power units, each with a capacity of up to 106 MW of electric power, for the Baimsky Mining and Processing Plant. Three of the FPUs will be primary units, while the fourth will serve as a backup and the project is designed to be the first “serial” reference for floating power units and the world’s first experience in electrification using a floating power unit for mineral extraction projects.
The nuclear power plant agreement with Uzbekistan is for a six-unit small modular reactor project featuring the 55 MW RITM-200N, adapted from that used in the icebreakers. The Yakutia plant, which was granted a construction license in April 2023 and which has a commissioning target of 2028, is also due to feature one or two RITM-200N 55 MW reactors, with a service life of 60 years and a five-year refueling schedule. The proposed RITM-400 is an 80 MW pressurized water reactor and is an option for a 320 MW four-SMR plant in Norilsk.
# # #
-
RT Copernicus Land Monitoring Service
🌿How can land cover & land use information benefit #ecologists?
Data products like #CORINE Land Cover (CLC) & High-Resolution #Snow & #Ice (HRSI) ❄ have proven to be a significant help in bird behaviour 🐦 & conservation studies 🏞️
More👉https://lnkd.in/dph59agy🐦🔗: https://n.respublicae.eu/CopernicusLand/status/1684843669445046272
-
In case anyone wants to run their own #LLM on their personal devices, I can suggest #lmstudio It allows you to download any major model that's out there to your own laptop/desktop, and then you can use it's Graphical Interface to interact with it in a familiar interface environment, as you would #Claude or #ChatGPT or #Gemini. It will also let you know if your device has enough resources (power) to run a specific model variant: https://lmstudio.ai/
For those of you who love the Terminal (aka: Command Line Interface or #CLI), check out https://ollama.com/
For starters, I suggest the #gemma3n model (works great on tablets, laptops, or phones), or #llama3.1 for the most common interactions. While most of us geeks will have very powerful personal systems, or servers in our home racks, most people do not have high-end systems/devices. The gemma3n model is lightweight, very powerful, and a solid general purpose LLM.
What's the benefit of running LLM's locally? #Privacy is a big one (it's running on your local machine, not a cloud server) - so you can ask it questions against sensitive business data, PHI/PII, etc.. You can also run it #offline (no Internet connection required) so if you wanted to #airgap your interactions, or play with it on vacation (on a plane, lost in the back country, etc.), you can absolutely do that - even with the Deepseek model.
I started playing with both LM Studio and ollama myself - been asking models basic questions like "what is the capital of Italy" and also more complex questions like "write me a #powershell script to add users of a specific OU to a number of Security Groups within AD" and so far, it's been very accurate. The PowerShell script llama3.1 provided worked out of the box (after I revised variables to match my environment).
-
#AI tools are increasingly #requesting excessive access to #personaldata, which is not normal and should not be normalised. This access, often unnecessary for the tool’s function, poses serious #securityrisks and #privacyrisks. Users should carefully consider the cost-benefit of granting such access. https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/19/for-privacy-and-security-think-twice-before-granting-ai-access-to-your-personal-data/?eicker.news #tech #media #news
-
Why I’m a reductionist
The SEP article on scientific reductionism notes that the etymology of the word “reduction” is “to bring back” something to something else. So in a methodological sense, reduction is bringing one theory or ontology back to a simpler or more fundamental theory or ontology. The Wikipedia entry on reductionism identifies different kinds: ontological, methodological, and theory reductionism. I think the ontological one is the most interesting here, the proposition that all of reality consists of a small number of building blocks.
Most reductions aren’t particularly controversial, at least not in science. There aren’t many arguments that chemistry doesn’t reduce to physics, or geology to both those sciences. Today it’s not controversial that biology reduces to them as well, although this is a relatively recent development.
As late at the early 1900s there were people arguing that life was somehow different, that it was distinguished by a vital force, an ancient idea. Few talk about vital forces today. Biologists learned about evolution through natural selection, genetic inheritance, proteins, DNA, RNA, and overall organic chemistry. Life is now seen as largely a molecular chemical enterprise, albeit a hideously complex one.
This raises an important point. Most reductions are conservative, retaining the reduced concept, but not all. Sometimes it’s eliminative, as in the case of a vital force, or other things like phlogiston or a luminiferous ether. It seems to depend on whether the reduced concept remains useful.
Today there remain at least two areas where people tend to resist reductionist accounts: consciousness and quantum measurement.
The consciousness one goes back to Rene Descartes’ famous distinction between mental and physical substances. Descartes saw no issue with a mechanistic understanding of reality, except for the mind, which he could not conceive of being reducible to mechanisms. He was far from alone. Gottfried Leibniz presented his mill thought experiment, that if the mind were a mill which we entered, we wouldn’t find anything there that explained perception. The mind, he agreed with Descartes, had to be a different kind of thing entirely.
Although a lot of what these guys saw as irreducible has been reduced. Today, psychological concepts like memory and cognition are understood to be neural processes, albeit with still many unanswered questions. But contemporary philosophy of mind often draws a new line at perceived characteristics, typically called qualities or qualia. Because these characteristics are introspectively opaque, they seem irreducible. And studying some of them has proven hard, therefore many assume they’re fundamentally inaccessible to anyone but the subject.
The question is whether the notion of fundamental qualia really explains anything. Does it convey meaningful information? Certainly qualities understood as just perceived characteristics seem useful enough. But regarding them as fundamental seems to obscure rather than convey information.
As a reductionist, I think of qualities as categorizing conclusions. (If that seems radical, consider that the etymology of the Latin root phrase “qualis” is “of what kind.”) Our nervous system qualifies a stimulus for a category when a particular range of neural firing patterns trigger a galaxy of associations, some innate, but many learned, which collectively add to the richness of the experience of that perceived characteristic (redness, sweetness, pain, etc).
Am I completely confident this is the answer? No, but as an explanation, it seems like a more fruitful place to explore. I suspect future scientific studies will validate some aspects of it, but not others. But even if it’s completely wrong, these kinds of theories seem to spur more experimental work than simply assuming qualities are fundamental and inaccessible.
In the case of quantum mechanics, it’s observation that’s often taken to be fundamental. In its strongest forms, this ends up pairing with the idea of consciousness being fundamental. Although the more cautious variants see just measurement as fundamental (or interaction). This can be the idea that quantum states don’t really exist, that measurement itself creates reality, or that quantum states do exist but physically collapse in a measurement, a fundamental change in reality.
In the early years of quantum theory, something like these views seemed inescapable, and most of the physics community closed ranks around them. But there were holdouts, including Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrὅdinger, who kept digging, discovering the phenomenon of entanglement, which would later be used by David Bohm and Hugh Everett to posit mechanistic explanations for the disappearance of quantum effects. But it was the work of H. Dieter Zeh and Wojciech H. Zurek in the 1970s and 80s that really fleshed out the detailed explanation we now call decoherence.
Today, few question whether entanglement and decoherence happen, although many do continue to argue that they’re only useful mathematical tools. Even if they are real physical processes, whether they serve as a full explanation of what’s happening in measurement depends on your preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics. But the key thing is it’s an explanation that wasn’t found by those who were satisfied with measurement being fundamental.
Which gets to why I’m a reductionist. I can’t prove that ontological reductionism is true. Maybe there are unique aspects of reality that aren’t built on a few common building blocks. But there seems to be a lot of history showing that assuming it’s true is far more fruitful than assuming complex concepts are fundamental. From Thales positing that water was the fundamental substance to later Greeks assuming there were four fundamental elements, the history of assuming anything is fundamental seems cautionary at best.
Which is why when I hear “X is fundamental,” I’m reflexively skeptical. We can’t even confidently say that about “elemental” particles, quantum fields, space, or time. We only seem able to talk in terms of something being more fundamental or less fundamental. Scientific theories are always provisional, subject to change on new data. Absolute fundamentality seems like an assumption we can never justify. Calling something fundamental seems to say, “There’s nothing left to explain here. Stop digging.” A lot of progress seems to happen from the people who ignore these prescriptions.
What do I mean by “progress”? None of this is to argue that higher level concepts aren’t useful; thermodynamics, for instance, didn’t cease being a useful concept once it was reduced to particle physics. Or that holistic takes on phenomena can’t be beneficial. Or that in art or daily life, we can’t appreciate things without reducing them.
But reduction aids in acquiring more structurally or causally complete explanations, while assuming something is fundamental often seems to paper over structural or causal gaps. Closing these gaps, when achievable, provides more reliable knowledge, knowledge which gives us new abilities, abilities such as medical scanners, drugs, computers, and many other things. Yes, that does include nuclear weapons and other ills. It doesn’t seem like we can have the good without the bad, although usually the bad can be managed with more reliable knowledge.
At least that’s my view today.
What do you think? Are there benefits to non-reductive approaches I’m overlooking? Or drawbacks to reductionism I’m missing? If you think an alternative approach is better, what are the benefits of that alternative?
#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfMind #PhilosophyOfScience #reductionism #Science
-
Alex Karp (#Palantir) / Israel’s biggest supporter in the world: "I want to shame those who are not speaking up."
[…] Karp's support for Israel is not surprising, and possibly even beneficial, for Palantir in the Israeli market. Palantir has a office in Tel Aviv, which is home to many government agencies and security organizations that are potential clients. By positioning itself as an advocate for Israel, Palantir can differentiate itself from its competitors and attract more business. "The advantage of Israel is its ability to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies," Karp said. "Our products know how to give the best response possible in such situations. I am confident that in the near future, we will have more to say about the things that Palantir has done for Israel."
Hebrew (The Marker) https://archive.is/lnFPc
Elsewhere (Bloomberg) https://archive.is/d9Jho
[…] If the West didn’t have “real adversaries,” Karp said he’d be one of the people trying to contain #AI’s use in the military. “But the reality of our life now, as #Israel knows, is our adversaries are real, dangerous and they go so far outside the norms of behavior.
Apparently on going occupation, #ethnocide and #domicide, are within the “norms of behavior”.
Alex Karp is the son of a Jewish immigrant who came to the United States in the 1960s. Palantir is a software company that specializes in data integration and analytics. The company has been involved in several high-profile projects, including working with the US Department of Defense and the #FBI, and faced criticism for its ties to law enforcement and surveillance activities. Palantir has been involved in some controversial projects related to immigration and national security.
-
Today is the day I start my own #AITeaParty. I am throwing that shit in the harbor and I invite you to do the same.
For reasons, I am documenting multiple generations of birth certificates. I have scanned some and been emailed some. I want them all together in a good place and I started to upload them to my #Paperless install in my docker. Then I thought "Is this fucking thing hooked up to any #AI anything? Will my family's birth certificates become part of a training set if I collect them in this place?"
The fact that I had to go and check before I put sensitive information in a tool under my full control was a wake-up call. I am disconnecting everything from everything because I don't want to ever think that thought again.
I have my #Karakeep hooked up to #OpenAI but I am disconnecting it today. I'd rather not have automatically generated tags than the history of what I find interesting in a training set. They are cute but not worth it.
Generalizing from there: is there any benefit I receive from any generative AI process worth the risks of touching it at all, or of it having any aspect of my data? Fuck no. Today's the day. I've been an indifferent but unmotivated critic. From this second on, I vow to remove it from anything under my control. If it is a third or fourth party risk because the product I use, I will work to extract myself and my data from those products. If your work product was generated in whole or in part with generative AI tools, I don't want it. If you think they are a good idea, I don't want you and your judgement affecting me.
Clearly this is an uphill climb because the percentage of commercial products and freelancers that use #OpenAI or #Gemini or #Grok or #HellscapeAI rounds to everything. It won't be perfect and it won't be easy but I have the time and energy and I'm fired up.
-
The Billion-Pound Ghost: Why Project Pathfinder is the Economic Firewall Scotland’s Games Sector Needs
Project Pathfinder: Last week, the Herald published its list of the 50 most powerful people in Scottish arts and culture. It was an impressive collection of talent – but it was also a perfect snapshot of why the interactive sector remains a ‘billion-pound ghost’ in our national policy.
Despite being one of the most successful and high-value creative industries we possess, not a single person from the games industry made the list. This invisibility was not a cultural snub; it is a systemic and ingrained risk to our economy.
The Reality Check
For the first time in 14 years, the UK games market is in retreat. Recent data from TIGA shows a sharp 4.5% fall in development jobs, with over 1,500 roles lost in a single year. We are navigating a global market that is increasingly volatile, saturated, and facing increased competition.
As I recently noted in the PocketGamer.biz Mobile Mavens discussion, government support has moved from a ‘nice-to-have’ benefit to a priority. In 2026, a region without a dedicated strategy (or Games Action Plan) isn’t just less competitive – it is effectively invisible in the global market.
A Step in the Right Direction, but Only a Step
We genuinely welcome the UK Government’s recently announced £30 million Games Growth Package. This investment is a vital vote of confidence in the sector. However, it is important to note that this funding addresses only one of the five key recommendations within “Level Up: Scotland’s Games Action Plan“- specifically, the need for a dedicated IP fund.
While funding for new games is essential, it does not address the fundamental need for strategic recognition, knowledgeable business support, education & skills alignment, or the industrialisation of games technologies and techniques. Rather than simply funding more products, we must build the infrastructure that allows our talent to thrive across the entire economy.
Introducing Project Pathfinder
As the author of Level Up, I have argued that we must bridge the ‘Translation Gap’ between games and the wider economy. Today, the Scottish Games Network (SGN) is moving beyond advocacy into industrial delivery with the launch of Project Pathfinder.
We have formally applied for Ecosystem funding to support this initiative and are currently securing letters of support from organisations across Scotland’s other key industries, includeing: Healthcare, Energy, Fintech, Cyber, Data, Creative Industries, Space and more.
Project Pathfinder is not just another games project – it is the only approach currently active in the UK that treats games as an innovation engine for the wider economy and an integral part of the country’s digital future.
By industrialising the connection between game-native technologies, such as Real-Time 3D, simulation, visualisation, engagement and creative design with other critical industries, we are creating a blueprint for the future. Project Pathfinder is a pilot for Scotland (and the proposed National Games Innovation Centre), but it offers a scalable model for the UK as a whole.
(It also offers the opportunity for revenue outside the hit-driven consumer games market, which could potentially make the country’s game developers more investment-friendly).
What Is Project Pathfinder?
It’s simple. Project Pathfinder looks for ways to bring the country’s games ecosystem together with other industries and sectors, and explore opportunities to build connections, opportunities for collaboration and projects where ‘games’ offer an approach that is not yet present in those other sectors. The goal is for Scotland’s games companies, using their unique range of skills, to work with other organisations across the country to develop and deliver paid projects outside the consumer game market.
This does not stop game companies from working on videogames. Instead, it takes the unique skills and approach from the games world and makes them relevant to the challenges and opportunities in other key parts of our economy.
The project aims to deliver three major pieces of work:
- The MTG (More Than Games) Registry: A national digital directory allowing global organisations to find and understand the technical capabilities, skillsets and commercial benchmarks of Scottish games studios.
- The Public Sector Interactive Procurement Toolkit: A bespoke framework to help government departments, public sector bodies, local authorities and corporations understand how to procure interactive services.
- Industrial Activation Sprints: Tailored sessions, connecting game studios with industrial leaders across multiple sectors outside the games ecosystem. This could be a delegation going to a trade event, a tailored workshop to gather data from both sectors, or a dedicated business development sprint.
The Call to Action
The reality is that we simply do not need yet another ‘test-and-finish’ review, which pushes any sort of support another two years down the road. We need the infrastructure that turns our elite £151,382 GVA-per-head potential into a resilient and integrated national asset.
SGN is looking for Founding Industrial Partners to lead our first Activation Sprints. If you are a leader in a high-growth sector and you are struggling with complex data, engagement, or simulation, the games sector may have the solution.
We already have letters of support from some of the country’s leading innovation organisations, including: the Digital Health & Care Innovation Centre (DHI), Social Enterprise Academy (SEA), ScotlandIS, and Tech Scaler with many other organisations lining up to support the project. We’ll be sharing the letters as they are agreed and showing the appetite across Scotland’s economy for collaboration.
If your organisation is interested in exploring ways to understand and work with the games ecosystem please get in touch for an exploratory conversation.
The era of invisibility ends now. It is time to press start on the future of the UK’s interaction economy.
Photo by Jonny Gios on Unsplash
#appliedGames #cyber #data #film #Fintech #games #GamesActionPlan #ProjectPathfinder #scotland -
One could argue that the economic benefit per problem of the large computer would disappear as smaller computers improved. This would be true if smaller computers could be improved at a rate faster than the large computer. {...] Large computes are not at all limited in their rate of improvement, [...]
– J.F. Thornton, _Desing of a Computer: The Control Data 6600_, 1970
#ComputerArchitecture #ControlDataCorporation -
One could argue that the economic benefit per problem of the large computer would disappear as smaller computers improved. This would be true if smaller computers could be improved at a rate faster than the large computer. {...] Large computes are not at all limited in their rate of improvement, [...]
– J.F. Thornton, _Desing of a Computer: The Control Data 6600_, 1970
#ComputerArchitecture #ControlDataCorporation -
One could argue that the economic benefit per problem of the large computer would disappear as smaller computers improved. This would be true if smaller computers could be improved at a rate faster than the large computer. {...] Large computes are not at all limited in their rate of improvement, [...]
– J.F. Thornton, _Desing of a Computer: The Control Data 6600_, 1970
#ComputerArchitecture #ControlDataCorporation -
One could argue that the economic benefit per problem of the large computer would disappear as smaller computers improved. This would be true if smaller computers could be improved at a rate faster than the large computer. {...] Large computes are not at all limited in their rate of improvement, [...]
– J.F. Thornton, _Desing of a Computer: The Control Data 6600_, 1970
#ComputerArchitecture #ControlDataCorporation -
CW: #Intro to FreeSchool / About my account name...
Inspired by "Free School" movement in the 60's & 70's... I practice educational living and learning life together towards #DIY / #Caring / #Art of #Life etc: in whatever way that suits and directs the individual.
More on that 60/70's movement here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_school
Text and short-depth understanding isn't doing it for saving humanity. So learning and your own action / direction is important. To get better examples that lies parents were fed or chose not to face.
#FreeSchool (me) makes #Notes #Quotes about #METAPolitics / #Politics and #Cares for people good #Books #Videos #Talks #Websites
That's my life in a few keyword sentences.
#Intro / #Introduction #NotNewHere but like #NewHere info.
===================
OFFERS TO FEDIVERSE...
===================☼ MY OFFERS OF FREE TIME ☼
>> GIVEN TOWARDS FREEDOM <<<
FREE WORK editing text, pictures, audio, basic video editing. Basically anything considered. Just say it.Audio #remixes also found on #FreeSchool hashtag to help keep you working well!
MORE.... OR JUST RESPOND TO ABOVE PLEASE...
I feel like Short-text / Short-reading by people directly undervalues people and longer understanding - it's cutting corners reading only short things and proportionally killing the planet / cutting people who write more off.
That's why I'd like to do audio conversation now... (anytime) so we don't get stuck in the text realm either and just speak lightly in the ethereal / spirit of life.
People are the depth and action of the culture so if text is not deep enough then culture dies. Audio conversation I have can put back the reality into people.
Just sticking to yourself dosn't work. We can solve almost everything as our efforts can double if we are relaxed but do it constantly over tiem... it's OK "it's all political" (!) and our opinions too... so letting go too far into "Politics" of "Leaders" is not the way we want to go... as a #centralised system (of control)
Your decisions can be made and changed doing short depth + short depth (=long!) which can reinforce those bad things less by seeing the depth in tricks (like chess it's "aha! I realise why they made that move now") .
Don't let "Short-ism" make you think it works for you (it's the opposite). Communicate more and build normal people up. - Increase more #sense and #society but socialising incrementally like at a party.
The 'human condition' needs A HUMAN WAY OF FIXING THINGS in a social-communal situation... not a ultra-tech way.
We have #Mastodon and #Jitsi etc - we just need to increase trust step by step and measure ourselves as we go.🙎 Develop people, not just the tech! 💻 ✈️ 📱
I'm working with anyone aligned / those that know themselves or want to as it's a natural human thing we need to solve (not just tech etc).
Get in touch and even have fun with it all!
==============================
More description
==============================The Free School movement I feel is "the best way" for people as a transient flexible "school" of fish / people in life because it's YOUR way and your likes mixed in however you want guided by others in the same class or other t give another perspective..
As long as you trust yourself and trust a few others more while measuring while mixing, then it's all good and essential can't be bad - especially from these distances.
Opposite of the above would be: working isolated in a loop... without encouraging contact ...working for bad people / state
...while not giving back or seeing what others have to give
...and reading the news in a bad loop #doomscrolling as I do (and need your help to get out of!) ... only to complain about my adding to it.So feeding yourself better comes building others in trust and people upwards not downwards pushing. Therefore:
Mutuality, Education, and maybe Friendship can help 🎈 WIN:WIN:WIN 🎈 for us all in this world ...or at least #Fediverse to start with.
📖 Towards a more caring intelligent planet and better mindset of people... but also not over-specialising...
:ablobwave: I'm here to broaden your like as a friendly person and to encourage your own thoughts *and* action to happen.
We need to be appreciated and appreciate a few more - that alone is enough!More togetherness means more ☑️ correct communication ☑️
to get there (and balance)...Short "ism" or short reading by people kills the planet and those people don't read deeply and fall into newspaper tabloid headlines (also short) and reacting too much almost as an #addiction.
#CONSTRUCT YOUR #DREAMS !
Build your dream(s) and maybe mine at the same time (both!).
Don't be afraid to share - even though it might be natural to try pull back. I don't think there is another way around this by carefully sharing and doing it with bad people filtered out (but not everyone filtered out as we all lose that way being cut off) .
Aagain measuring me and you (and others) we can avoid killing ourselves and others killing us (directly and indirectly) for profit (it's all linked back to banks and state who as root don't #care). So while we pretend to be '#independent' (which doesn't exist or very lightly does) I think we can truly undo things 1 at a time or just by not using things too much like #AI etc.
Those who feed from #mainstream (from the people behind it) surely will mess up again and see less and less gains over time). Short-term some AI benefit but long term chained-to-machine type stuff and robots judging us (robots are just people / leaders behind it controlling..)
🗨️ I reply to your interests and you give some ideas... we do what we can and like... more freely / towards each other's freedoms.
Consider *developing people* (or just me) at the same time in your work also - not just #developing machine code, but #decent people are the KEY to everything almost FOREMOST...
If people's lives are machine-like and computer-orientated then don't complain if that's what you get !
The cold Matrix system is all using $computers and #tech.
And that tech is being bought or regulated by the likes of #Musk / #Trump / #Bezos etc mostly since they have more leverage against everyone and using #banks also as negative force / debt generators.
In the end we lose with only tech, even with Mastodon without regular chats!
(yes computers are too fast and even nice things get used badly but only we can stop it (by developing better people to use better things in a better way). Give me a hammer and I won't break windows.
Working on better people is the better way at the end..
☼ MY OFFERS ☼
FREE TIME GIVEN TOWARDS FREEDOM. FREE WORK editing text, pictures, audio, basic video editing. Basically anything considered. Just say it.Audio #remixes also found on #FreeSchool hashtag to help keep you working well!
DATA DISCLAIMER: 🚫 NO CONSENT FOR PROCESSING MORE THAN READING 🚫 :cc_nc:
No scraping. Personal temporary individual Fediverse usage is ok. All inalienable rights reserved.
#NoSearcheEngine #NoIndex #NoBot #NoBridge #NoRobots
Help Grow PEOPLE / BETTER USERS!... Not only Tech-ONLY improvements / machines and #BIGTECH!
Freedom = Respect Friendship Learning
...Grow BETTER USERS and INTERACTION
= IMPROVED PEOPLE! Not just better Tech!Better People = Better Habits = (❤+⭐+🔔) ...
Learning Better Habits ❤+🔔 ... Growing Each Other -
CW: #Intro to FreeSchool / About my account name...
Inspired by "Free School" movement in the 60's & 70's... I practice educational living and learning life together towards #DIY / #Caring / #Art of #Life etc: in whatever way that suits and directs the individual.
More on that 60/70's movement here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_school
Text and short-depth understanding isn't doing it for saving humanity. So learning and your own action / direction is important. To get better examples that lies parents were fed or chose not to face.
#FreeSchool (me) makes #Notes #Quotes about #METAPolitics / #Politics and #Cares for people good #Books #Videos #Talks #Websites
That's my life in a few keyword sentences.
#Intro / #Introduction #NotNewHere but like #NewHere info.
===================
OFFERS TO FEDIVERSE...
===================☼ MY OFFERS OF FREE TIME ☼
>> GIVEN TOWARDS FREEDOM <<<
FREE WORK editing text, pictures, audio, basic video editing. Basically anything considered. Just say it.Audio #remixes also found on #FreeSchool hashtag to help keep you working well!
MORE.... OR JUST RESPOND TO ABOVE PLEASE...
I feel like Short-text / Short-reading by people directly undervalues people and longer understanding - it's cutting corners reading only short things and proportionally killing the planet / cutting people who write more off.
That's why I'd like to do audio conversation now... (anytime) so we don't get stuck in the text realm either and just speak lightly in the ethereal / spirit of life.
People are the depth and action of the culture so if text is not deep enough then culture dies. Audio conversation I have can put back the reality into people.
Just sticking to yourself dosn't work. We can solve almost everything as our efforts can double if we are relaxed but do it constantly over tiem... it's OK "it's all political" (!) and our opinions too... so letting go too far into "Politics" of "Leaders" is not the way we want to go... as a #centralised system (of control)
Your decisions can be made and changed doing short depth + short depth (=long!) which can reinforce those bad things less by seeing the depth in tricks (like chess it's "aha! I realise why they made that move now") .
Don't let "Short-ism" make you think it works for you (it's the opposite). Communicate more and build normal people up. - Increase more #sense and #society but socialising incrementally like at a party.
The 'human condition' needs A HUMAN WAY OF FIXING THINGS in a social-communal situation... not a ultra-tech way.
We have #Mastodon and #Jitsi etc - we just need to increase trust step by step and measure ourselves as we go.🙎 Develop people, not just the tech! 💻 ✈️ 📱
I'm working with anyone aligned / those that know themselves or want to as it's a natural human thing we need to solve (not just tech etc).
Get in touch and even have fun with it all!
==============================
More description
==============================The Free School movement I feel is "the best way" for people as a transient flexible "school" of fish / people in life because it's YOUR way and your likes mixed in however you want guided by others in the same class or other t give another perspective..
As long as you trust yourself and trust a few others more while measuring while mixing, then it's all good and essential can't be bad - especially from these distances.
Opposite of the above would be: working isolated in a loop... without encouraging contact ...working for bad people / state
...while not giving back or seeing what others have to give
...and reading the news in a bad loop #doomscrolling as I do (and need your help to get out of!) ... only to complain about my adding to it.So feeding yourself better comes building others in trust and people upwards not downwards pushing. Therefore:
Mutuality, Education, and maybe Friendship can help 🎈 WIN:WIN:WIN 🎈 for us all in this world ...or at least #Fediverse to start with.
📖 Towards a more caring intelligent planet and better mindset of people... but also not over-specialising...
:ablobwave: I'm here to broaden your like as a friendly person and to encourage your own thoughts *and* action to happen.
We need to be appreciated and appreciate a few more - that alone is enough!More togetherness means more ☑️ correct communication ☑️
to get there (and balance)...Short "ism" or short reading by people kills the planet and those people don't read deeply and fall into newspaper tabloid headlines (also short) and reacting too much almost as an #addiction.
#CONSTRUCT YOUR #DREAMS !
Build your dream(s) and maybe mine at the same time (both!).
Don't be afraid to share - even though it might be natural to try pull back. I don't think there is another way around this by carefully sharing and doing it with bad people filtered out (but not everyone filtered out as we all lose that way being cut off) .
Aagain measuring me and you (and others) we can avoid killing ourselves and others killing us (directly and indirectly) for profit (it's all linked back to banks and state who as root don't #care). So while we pretend to be '#independent' (which doesn't exist or very lightly does) I think we can truly undo things 1 at a time or just by not using things too much like #AI etc.
Those who feed from #mainstream (from the people behind it) surely will mess up again and see less and less gains over time). Short-term some AI benefit but long term chained-to-machine type stuff and robots judging us (robots are just people / leaders behind it controlling..)
🗨️ I reply to your interests and you give some ideas... we do what we can and like... more freely / towards each other's freedoms.
Consider *developing people* (or just me) at the same time in your work also - not just #developing machine code, but #decent people are the KEY to everything almost FOREMOST...
If people's lives are machine-like and computer-orientated then don't complain if that's what you get !
The cold Matrix system is all using $computers and #tech.
And that tech is being bought or regulated by the likes of #Musk / #Trump / #Bezos etc mostly since they have more leverage against everyone and using #banks also as negative force / debt generators.
In the end we lose with only tech, even with Mastodon without regular chats!
(yes computers are too fast and even nice things get used badly but only we can stop it (by developing better people to use better things in a better way). Give me a hammer and I won't break windows.
Working on better people is the better way at the end..
☼ MY OFFERS ☼
FREE TIME GIVEN TOWARDS FREEDOM. FREE WORK editing text, pictures, audio, basic video editing. Basically anything considered. Just say it.Audio #remixes also found on #FreeSchool hashtag to help keep you working well!
DATA DISCLAIMER: 🚫 NO CONSENT FOR PROCESSING MORE THAN READING 🚫 :cc_nc:
No scraping. Personal temporary individual Fediverse usage is ok. All inalienable rights reserved.
#NoSearcheEngine #NoIndex #NoBot #NoBridge #NoRobots
Help Grow PEOPLE / BETTER USERS!... Not only Tech-ONLY improvements / machines and #BIGTECH!
Freedom = Respect Friendship Learning
...Grow BETTER USERS and INTERACTION
= IMPROVED PEOPLE! Not just better Tech!Better People = Better Habits = (❤+⭐+🔔) ...
Learning Better Habits ❤+🔔 ... Growing Each Other -
I listened to the latest pod episode of Random but memorable by 1Password. In the interview with Hayley Benedict, she highlighted the threat that eg state actors harvest encrypted data from internet. The data is safely encrypted for now. But when quantum computing comes, older and much current encryption can be deccrypted. It is debated when quantum computing becomes real. She is a cyber intelligence analyst at RANE.
#encryption #decryption #cybersecurity
https://randombutmemorable.simplecast.com/episodes/disrupt-conflict-risk-system
-
Ruim een kwart van de #melkkoeien loopt kreupel, blijkt uit een groot data-onderzoek van verschillende universiteiten. Als #koeien meer de #wei in kunnen, kan dat veel klachten voorkomen.
-
Clair Obscur: To be accountable to those that come after
In my prior essays, I related themes woven through Clair Obscur to show how it can parallel real world complexities and oppression.
For the character of Alicia and Gustave (and even Lune if we accept my assertion of her as neurodivergent), disability cords through the story and asks questions the game may not have intended. I explored in that essay how Disability was a class constructed by capitalism to control labor and those unable to labor, and through that I showed how disability has been used to denote evil and bad throughout American history. But Clair Obscur twists those tropes on their head and refuses to villianize the disabled within the game. Instead, Alicia, Gustave, and others are given complex journeys and heralded as heroes in a way. Yet, by the end, the final ending choice between Verso and Maelle felt as if the player was the judge determining the fate of the disabled person for them. I wrote:
Will we be given the care and support we need to thrive? Will we be given agency to choose our own fate and route to healing?
Clair Obscur offers that choice to the player, thus placing the fate of a disabled person in their hands. In a way, the player acts as the judge who determines the fate of a disabled person, to determine whether they ever access the care and benefits they need. It is a replica of how our real world works, and it forces a painful glimpse into the struggles of disabled people.
This essay led me to my next where I explored the nature of the Canvas people and whether they are real. I examined how this paralleled dehumanizing narratives that subjugate and destroy unique cultures. I laid down a map of the shifting temporal realities the game presents through the different main characters of each act: Gustave (Lumierian reality), Verso (immortal painted Dessendre reality), and Maelle (both Dessendre reality and Lumierian reality). How weaving these different realities forces us to contend with the nature of what is real and who is allowed to exist within that reality.
The conclusion I came to, which perhaps will not surprise anyone reading my writings, is that I chose the ending that gave agency to people and saved the most lives. I could not accept that the unique lives of those in the Canvas were less than the Dessendre family. Nor could I accept anyone deciding for a disabled person how they must exist and heal.
By exploring these darker aspects of Clair Obscur, I undoubtedly focused on the more abusive and manipulative aspects of the Dessendre family to show how unsupportive they’ve been to Alicia/Maelle. The evidence painted within the game left me uneasy about the Dessendre family, partly informed by my own traumas as a queer nonbinary disabled person. Yes, they do love each other but love does not mean abuse cannot happen or exist, which I argued in my essay on Disability. That darkness echoed trauma and pain that destroying the Canvas cannot truly heal. A cycle of violence doesn’t heal through the use of more violence, but only when the cycle is stopped.
One could argue that Verso sought to stop the cycle of grief, and isn’t that stopping the cycle of violence? But that negates the temporal reality of the Canvas people, who endured countless oppressive actions and outright genocide. Sacrificing a population of people in an effort to ‘heal’ one family only continues the cycle of violence, and it doesn’t solve the lack of support in the Dessendre world, which Verso’s ending never truly reconciles. Alicia is still isolated, still without a voice, still disabled in a world that has done little to meet any of her needs.
So then, do we ever exit the cycle of violence? And what would it look like to attempt such a thing?
In my Disability essay, I pointed out healing cannot begin until we exit the abusive/traumatic environment/situation. Part of healing involves the end of the cycle of violence, which differs based on who abused and who endured the abuse. Those that abuse must hold themselves accountable and engage in repair as well as work on their own healing. Those that endured abuse must work on their own healing, and recognize the best place for that, which might require them to not engage again the person who harmed them. Ending the cycle of violence and moving toward accountability and healing is not an easy process and the trajectory will differ based on who is involved.
Yet even with those differing paths, one must still hold oneself accountable in order to push forward in the healing process. We will backslide. We will mess up, but it is crucial to acknowledge when we cause harm or when we make a mistake, apologize, and do better. That’s all part of the accountability process.
So in this essay, I want to explore what accountability is and how it does and doesn’t manifest in the characters’ storylines. Whether the characters were able to truly end the cycle of violence and move forward into healing or if the game leaves those questions open-ended.
What is Accountability? And how do we do it?
Accountability within today’s culture, especially within America where I’m situated, is wrought with videos and images of call-out culture. Where people call others out publically the harm and demand repair. While this may be a useful tactic when facing off against the rich and powerful, it ultimately isn’t true accountability. Or at least not the kind that may lead to actual healing and change.
So when I speak of accountability, I do not mean that public spectacle. I instead mean conversations like what Maelle and Verso have in Clair Obscur. They happen on a personal level and/or within the community, and often are not on a public stage. They may instead happen behind closed doors with or without a mediator. The survivor may decide or not decide to be present, while the person who harmed them works toward healing and accountability. It’s a complex process that goes far, far beyond the initial identification of the harm.
In the first chapter of the anthology Beyond Suvival: Strategies and Stories from the Transformative Justice Movement, editors Ejeris Dixon and Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha writes:
“Transformative justice and community accountability are terms that describe ways to address violence without relying on police or prisons. These approaches often work to prevent violence, to intervene when harm is occurring, to hold people accountable, and to transform individuals and society to build safer communities. These strategies are some of hte only options that marginalized communities have to address harm.
The work of transformative justice can happen in a variety of ways. Some groups support survivors by helping them identify their needs and boundaries while ensuring their attackers agree to these boundaries and atone for the harm they caused. Other groups create safe spaces and sanctuaries to support people escaping from violence.”
Here they show how accountability is only one piece of a larger puzzle of addressing violence. Without accountability, much of the work to address and end the cycle of violence would fracture and fall apart, yet as crucial as it is, full healing requires far more than just accountability.
Ejeris Dixon goes on to add:
“Violence and oppression break community ties and breed fear and distrust. At its core, the work to create safety is to build meaningful, accountable relationships within our neighborhoods and communities.”
Without trust, one cannot build safety. Without safety, one struggles to be vulnerable. Without vulnerability, one struggles to heal. And without the choice to heal, one will fail to hold oneself accountable.
This isn’t to say these are steps in a process, but more they are interlinking threads that are woven into a larger tapestry. Each thread crucial to the final form, and the tapestry wouldn’t be the same without each thread and stitch. None of this is easy, but then healing isn’t ever easy.
Healing always requires a choice. Do we choose to heal? Do we choose to hold ourselves accountable to that journey? Do we choose to be accountable for our actions and engage in repair when we inevitably cause harm? How do we engage in repair? Are we willing to be responsible and listen to those harmed by us? To let those harmed take the lead? Can we separate shame from guilt? To not fear accountability but instead embrace it so all involved can move forward in healing?
Of course, asking those questions can feel daunting, and it’s why relationship-building is so crucial. Healing requires support of one’s family, friends, and/or community. We can’t really heal in isolation. In chapter three of Beyond Survival, Blythe Barnow speaks about how isolation harmed her ability to heal:
“In the end, that was the most damaging. Doing it alone. Believing it was all my responsibility. Not the assault. But the healing. The justice. The protection for nameless other girls. I leaned heavy into the skills I learned as a child, over responsibility, independence, sharp analysis, and self-sacrifice. Which meant I never asked for the support I was so desperate for.
Because what I needed, maybe more than his apology, was a community of people who could help me hold and honor the stories that led to this one, who could help me uproot the layers of silence learned through too much violence. I needed to be asked what I wanted and what I was hoping for. I needed someone to help me craft those letters, someone to remind me that I could list expectations. I needed someone who was going to sit with me through the fallout. Someone who could read the responses people sent me and tell me to wait before reading them myself. I needed someone beside me to reflect the ways my own trauma, old and new, was informing the process. I needed someone who could show me love that was deeper and more nuanced than just hating him.”
I relate deeply to Barnow’s words here because isolation can steal away our voice, where we put on a brave mask for others. Often society and even friends and family can put tremendous pressure on survivors to ‘move on’ from the harm, to not speak of it, to stay silent, but that too is part of the cycle of violence. If we cannot acknowledge violence happened, how can we ever stop it from replaying again and again? Many therapists and researchers have written of the cycle of domestic violence and how it can sometimes thread through families. Part of that relies on silence and isolation.
Breaking silence and isolation requires the support of others, and it’s not easy to do. Believe me, I’ve struggled with this my whole life, but I’ve made progress on my healing from abuse because of the support of dear friends and good therapists.
This is why Maelle and Verso are able to have any conversation that deals with accountability. Lune, Sciel, Esquie, and Monoco form a support system to help them break the cycle of silence and isolation. This chosen family gives Maelle the love she needs to learn and grow, and they attempt to offer this to Verso as well.
For example, exploring the Reacher area will lead to the peak, where Painted Alicia ignores her brother to speak with Maelle privately — here the color fades into greyscale. She leads Maelle into the cavern at the peak to show her the true axon, and also to express her thoughts to Maelle through gestures and their fencing match.
After Painted Alicia leads Maelle back to the others, the scene snaps back into color. Maelle offers Alicia “a new beginning,” and I think she meant to repaint Alicia’s face and restore her voice. However, Painted Alicia grasps Maelle’s hand and presses it against her, thus thwarting Maelle’s attempt to repaint her face. Instead, she gasps out her desire for Maelle to gommage her. Verso doesn’t have a chance to stop it, because Maelle does as Painted Alicia asks.
Verso responds by trying to stop Maelle, and ends up holding the red petal remains of Painted Alicia. Sciel is at his side to comfort him in his grief.
The conversation they have later at camp delves into the impact of Maelle’s act:
MAELLE: I’m sorry.
VERSO: …
MAELLE: It’s what she wanted. I owed her that much. We owed her that much. I honoured her wishes. That’s something neither you nor Renoir ever did. And not Maman either.
VERSO: … I didn’t get to say goodbye. You didn’t wait. You didn’t give me a chance to persuade her.
MAELLE: She knew what she wanted. You wouldn’t have been able to sway her.
VERSO: She’s not you. You don’t know that. I know her better than you do. But you didn’t even give me the chance to try. You just erased her.
MAELLE: Verso…
VERSO: You’ve lost two brothers. You know what it’s like to lose your sibling and never get the chance to say goodbye.
MAELLE: …
VERSO: You Painters. You just do what you want, you don’t care how it affects the rest of us.
MAELLE: I do care. I know you’re hurting, but the person who made that decision wasn’t me. It was her. It would have been wrong to deny her just so you could try and talk her out of her decision.Here Maelle seeks to understand Verso and why he is upset. She wants him to understand her reasons, where she sought to honor Painted Alicia’s wishes. She argues here for Painted Alicia’s agency in this, and how taking away her agency wouldn’t have been right.
Verso lashes out because of his grief and pain, but his words here “you don’t care how it affects the rest of us,” doesn’t align with the truth of Painted Alicia and Maelle’s actions at the peak of Reacher. Painted Alicia had made her wishes known, where she did not wish to continue in the disabled body Aline had given her in punishment for an action she’d never done. Perhaps there could have been other ways for her to thrive, but Painted Alicia had tried for decades to find that. Yet, perhaps it is irony that she sought the same annihilation that Painted Verso secretly seeks.
Maelle tries, in her own way, to honor the agency of others. To offer them different solutions, but Painted Alicia didn’t want any other solution. She had taken Maelle’s hand to press against her and urged her to gommage her away.
Does Maelle come to understand what Verso is trying to articulate here? Because so far, she gives her reasons and argues for Painted Alicia’s agency. The scene continues:
VERSO: She’s the last of my family. I have no one left now.
MAELLE: You have me. You have us.
VERSO: MAELLE. I wasn’t ready.
MAELLE: I don’t understand. You were ready when you set Papa free. You expected that he would erase the Canvas and everyone in it. Isn’t that the same thing?
VERSO: It’s different! It’s different. Why did she do that?
MAELLE: You know why.
VERSO: …
MAELLE: But you’re right. I should have thought of you. I should have given you a chance to say goodbye. I’m truly sorry, Verso.
VERSO: … *cries* At least she’s free now.Maelle briefly gets defensive because she struggles to understand, but then she takes a moment to think. She may view the two events of setting Renoir free to erase everyone versus her honoring Alicia’s wishes to be erased as equivalent, but Verso does not. We then see Maelle hold herself accountable by putting herself in Verso’s shoes in an effort to understand. She admits that Verso is indeed right. She should have thought of him, and she apologizes. As one continues through the journey, Maelle does her best to honor this by doing better.
She also tries to show Verso that he does have people left. He has Maelle, Lune, Sciel, Monoco, and others as they all have been trying to reach out and build connections with him. He chooses to hold himself in isolation from them, whether he is conscious of it or not.
She actively does her best to hold herself accountable, to learn from her actions, and this shows how she wishes to end the cycle of harm. She wants everyone’s agency to be honored, for people to find what they need, and although she may offer different ways to do that, if the person ultimately rejects a solution, who is Maelle to refuse to honor their decision? For a sixteen-year-old, she’s remarkably mature here.
Verso, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to hold that same self-awareness, or if he did, he seems to have lost it. He’s so caught up in his cycle of violence, that he struggles to see any other solution as viable. To see this, let’s look at a conversation near the start of Act 3, when Maelle returns to the Canvas:
MAELLE: You should have helped me remember.
VERSO: Yeah… I wanted to, but I… I’m sorry.
MAELLE: I’m sorry too. If I’d listened to Maman… if I hadn’t trusted the Writers, Verso would still be alive, and you —
VERSO: Wouldn’t exist.
MAELLE: Wouldn’t be caught in the middle. Maman did a terrible thing, painting you into Verso’s Canvas. Giving you his memories. Pretending the fire only took me. But I’m glad you exist.
VERSO: Your father was right to erase everyone. It’s better this way.
MAELLE: Better for who? Verso would have never wanted his Canvas gone. He loved Esquie and his Gestrals and the Grandis.
VERSO: It was killing my … our mother, staying here so long in a make-believe world with her make-believe family.
MAELLE: It’s not make-believe. It’s not… you’re not.. To me…Here Verso sees only one solution: annihilation. However, his reasons for why he manipulated and lied to Maelle are just that — excuses. So he acknowledges the hurt he did and apologizes. For true accountability to happen, it’s not enough to simply apologize; one’s present and future behaviors will need changed to avoid replicating the harm and continuing the cycle of violence.
For Maelle, she also apologizes, but in this instance, what is there for her to apologize for? Perhaps she shouldn’t have trusted whoever the Writers were, but she is not responsible for them starting a fire and for Verso’s death. Maelle is only responsible for her own actions, not the actions of others. This shows how she’s internalized the shame and guilt Clea and Aline both shoved onto her; both needed someone to blame, and Alicia, the survivor, is a convenient person to lay down the blame. Maelle/Alicia is young and lacking the support to realize that she does not need to carry this blame as it is not hers to bear.
Painted Verso does not try to negate the blame Maelle/Alicia puts on herself. Instead, he tries to convince Maelle that it is better for those in the Canvas to not exist, for the Canvas to be destroyed, but Maelle refuses to accept that destruction of entire people’s is the right answer. She disagrees that everyone in the Canvas is make-believe. To her they are as real as herself. This ties into what I discussed in my Right to Exist essay.
I wrote there:
We have now returned to one of the most crucial questions in the game: What is the right decision in regards to the fate of the Canvas people and the fate of Alicia/Maelle? As I have hopefully shown thus far, erasing people’s temporal realities causes immense harm and is genocide; people have a right to exist, and sacrificing them for the ‘greater good of society’ (or in this case the Dessendre family) cannot ever be the morally right answer.
Necrosecurity, as I spoke of earlier, paints a bleak and death-filled reality, where healing cannot ever take place because denial and control is at its roots. Until people’s temporal realities are respected and their agency honored, healing will forever stay out of reach.
Thus, escaping pain by committing genocide is not healing. It’s a continuation of the cycle of violence. The marginalized populations facing genocide have a right to exist, and their temporal realities are as valid and important as the oppressor. Just as the temporal reality of the Canvas people are as valid and important as the Dessendre family.
Healing can only happen when the cycle of violence ends.
Verso tries to justify the death and destruction as necessary to end the cycle, but Maelle refuses to accept that reasoning. She believes Verso is wrong when he claims his self and those of the Canvas people are make-believe, and she believes they have a right to exist. She acknowledges harm happened to Painted Verso. She apologizes for her part in it. This is a step forward in the addressing of harm and ending the cycle: acknowledging what happened and why it wasn’t okay.
Again, Maelle cannot repair what her mother did because it’s not her burden to bear. Only Aline can take responsibility for her own actions. Maelle can only take responsibility for Maelle’s actions, which Maelle tries her best to do. She tries to hold herself accountable, which is something neither Clea nor Aline ever seem to do. This act of being accountable seems to have been taught to Maelle perhaps by Renoir, but far more likely it was Gustave, Lune, Sciel, and the Lumierians who taught her this.
She may have regained her memories from the real world, but that doesn’t mean she lost her memories of growing up as a Lumierian. She holds both in her head, as she will admit to Lune and Sciel after she brings them back:
MAELLE: I’m sorry. I didn’t — My memories — I would’ve told you if I’d known —
LUNE: Don’t apologize. You were trapped too. You lived among us. You’re one of us. Even if you’re also one of them.
MAELLE: It’s… so weird. I have memories of two childhoods. Two homes. Two Lumieres.
SCIEL: You’re not an orphan anymore. You just found your family. Don’t you want to be with them?
MAELLE: I love my family, but … they’re all gone. In one way of another. And you’re my family too. So are Gustave and Emma. And I didn’t see it at the time, but all the families who took turns taking care of me…Here Maelle, once again, tries to take on burdens that aren’t hers to hold. She had no memory of being a Paintress, so how could she have told them? Lune understands this and gently points this out to her. To root her in the facts of what they now know. She accepts who Maelle is — Maelle’s full self of being of Lune’s Lumiere but also of the Dessendre’s Lumiere — and provides comfort in this way.
Sciel, in turn, asks a crucial question, even though her voice aches with grief. “Don’t you want to be with them?”
Maelle’s answer is heart-rending, because truthfully, her family is gone. Clea is off fighting a one-person war with the Writers, Aline — Maelle’s mother — blames Maelle and casts her aside, Renoir may seek to bring Maelle back but he too has been neglectful of her, and Verso is gone. So what roots her in the Dessendre World? There she is disabled with no support system and half the family is abusive toward her (as I discuss in my Disability essay). So in a way, her Dessendre family is “gone” in the sense they do not truly support her, not like the Canvas Lumierians.
When Maelle blames herself for those that have harmed her or those she loved, she exhibits a common traumatic response; when she apologizes for actions that aren’t truly hers to own, that is also a traumatic response.
I know I’ve fallen into those trauma responses, where I had internalized the blame that it was my fault for the abuse done to me, my fault for the sexual assault. However, that blame is false. In reality, it wasn’t my fault as I did not do those actions. Those actions were done by other people to me. Just as Maelle did not paint Painted Verso, Aline did that. Just as Maelle didn’t start the fire, the Writers did that. Just as Maelle didn’t kill Verso, the fire and whoever started the fire did that. Just as Maelle didn’t lie to Lune and Sciel, she had no memories of her Dessendre life and thus no information to share; instead, Verso had that information and chose to not share it.
Maelle still tries to take accountability, but truthfully, it is not hers to bear. Lune gently teaches her that in that scene above.
Understanding these truths are hard when society and/or loved ones pressure us into thinking it’s our fault we were hurt. That’s just a falsehood to avoid accountability and to pressure survivors into silence, which effectively continues the cycle of violence.
To break out of that cycle, we must acknowledge that we are only responsible for our own actions and speech. Then we must separate out shame and guilt. We must choose to heal and continue toward healing no matter how hard that trajectory may become. But to even make that choice requires us to have support of others, to help us see when we are falling back into harmful thought processes that inhibit our ability to heal. Those that support us help us stay accountable to the process of healing.
Lune and Sciel both act as supporters for Maelle here. Lune, especially as she has also been hurt by Verso’s actions, seeks to hold Verso accountable. At this point in the game, Lune acts as a protective older sister to Maelle, while Sciel often falls into a motherly role. That’s part of how chosen families relate to one another — they fall into roles with one another, and those roles may change depending on the situation. Sometimes Maelle may be the more sisterly one to offer support to Lune or Sciel.
Chosen family can be a powerful support group and a crucial one, especially if one’s biological family has been abusive toward us. In the case of Maelle, some of her family members have been abusive toward her. So her chosen family provides the support for Maelle to work toward healing from that.
So what about Painted Verso? How does he hold himself accountable after this massive reveal? He hid the truth of who Maelle was from not only Maelle but everyone in the party. He manipulated them toward his end-goals. He chooses to talk to each individually, which the player can choose which character to start these conversations (or could choose to avoid them). If the player chooses to have these conversations, then how do they go?
Lune calls Painted Verso out for his lies:
LUNE: I was right not to trust you.
VERSO: And what would you have done in my position?
LUNE: I wouldn’t have betrayed my expedition. I would have warned them that everyone they cared about was about to be erased. That THEY were about to be erased. I would have told them the truth. Because after everything we’ve been through, we deserved that.
VERSO: So you’d choose your expedition over your mother?
LUNE: That’s your problem. You think in false dichotomies. It wasn’t an “either / or” a situation. Other solutions were possible, if you’d only trusted us enough to ask.
VERSO: Knowing what you know now, would you have helped me force my mother out of the Canvas?
LUNE: … *sighs*
VERSO: I don’t apologize for saving her. But I am sorry I broke your trust. And I will do everything I can to help bring everyone back.
LUNE: I guess we’ll see.Here Verso is intent on his reasons for his lies and manipulations. Lune, of course, points to the faults in his argument, because there might have been more solutions possible. Verso’s response is to put Lune on the spot, which when it comes to intense conversations like this? It’s very hard to consider alternatives when one is upset, so of course Lune couldn’t respond right away. She takes her time deliberating and analyzing possible solutions. Put her on the spot? And she falls quiet because she has not been given adequate time to process the information and analyze for other solutions. So Verso acts rather unfairly toward her, and then makes a promise to win back her trust.
For Sciel, she processes her anger and hurt differently. She may have chosen to ‘get over’ her anger, but the hurt in her voice betrays how she feels. She tries to keep her tone light, but the desperate hope still slips through. Their conversation ends with her saying:
SCIEL: As long as you help me bring Pierre back. You owe me.
VERSO: You got it.Once again, he makes a promise. Yet, his conversation with Maelle shows he may not honor the promise to Lune and Sciel:
MAELLE: We have to push Papa out of the Canvas before he erases everything.
VERSO: I’m surprised he hasn’t already.
MAELLE: He’s been weakened by his battle with Maman. That’s probably why he hasn’t come after us. But it won’t stop him for long.
VERSO: If you and your father keep fighting, you risk breaking the world again. Another Fracture, but this time, it might be you trapped inside the Monolith.
MAELLE: What’s the alternative?
VERSO: Maybe… maybe you should go home.
MAELLE: Verso…
VERSO: You’re fighting each other but you’re all doing the same thing.
MAELLE: No.
VERSO: Aline wants her son back. Renoir wants you and Aline back. You want Gustave back. The cycle we needed to break wasn’t the Gommage. It’s your family’s cycle of grief.
MAELLE: …
VERSO: Our whole world carries the burden of your family’s grief.Although there is truth that the Canvas world carries the burden of the Dessendre’s family’s grief, he makes an assumption about Maelle’s motivations. Yes, Maelle may want Gustave back, but she earlier had clarified that she doesn’t believe Painted Verso nor the Canvas people are ‘make-believe.’ She views them as real, and she refuses to let people die simply because her father decided they were a threat. So his assertion that it’s her continuing the cycle fails to understand the complexity in her motivations.
Instead, Verso tries to argue again why Maelle should leave the Canvas, but if she does, that means Renoir will finish erasing the Canvas and Lune and Sciel will never see their friends and family again. In fact, Lune and Sciel will cease to exist too. This conversation reveals that Verso is simply telling Lune and Sciel what they want to hear so that they can aid him in his goals. He isn’t holding himself accountable here. He’s manipulating everyone to push them toward the end-goal that he’s decided is best.
In doing this, he shows a lack of ability to understand and learn from the hurt and pain he’s done to others. He’s not really listening to them because he’s mapped out ways to carefully push each person into the actions he needs for his own goals. Thus, he’s continuing the cycle of violence.
Maelle has made it clear she wants the cycle of violence to end. She wants to save the Canvas people, because she believes they have a right to exist, that they are not ‘make-believe’ but real. Yet in these conversations, Verso turns up his charm and manipulation tactics to try to tweak the situation to his benefit. He wants Maelle to give up and leave the canvas so Renoir can erase it. He needs Lune and Sciel to work with them so that he can reach Renoir as he suspects that confrontation will be the only way he can push Maelle out of the Canvas.
Healing cannot happen in a manipulative environment that continues to cause harm to others. In the Beyond Survival Anthology, Kai Cheng Thom’s essay called ‘What to Do when You’ve Been Abusive,’ has a list of steps to assist people on that journey toward accountability and healing. The first step:
“‘Learn to Listen When Someone Says You Have Hurt Them.’ When one has been abusive, the very first — and one of the most difficult — skills of holding oneself accountable is learning to simply listen to the person or people whom one has harmed:
- Listening without becoming defensive.
- Listening without trying to equivocate or make excuses.
- Listening without minimizing or denying the extent of the harm.
- Listening without trying to make oneself the center of the story being told.
When someone, particularly a partner or loved one, tells you that you have hurt or abused them, it can be easy to understand this as an accusation or attack…”
Thom here lists what Verso struggles to do in these conversations. He listens but is also defensive with Lune about his actions and proceeds to make excuses for his actions. In a way, Verso struggles to not see these confrontation as an attack, but truthfully, Lune calling out the harm isn’t an attack, it’s a consequence. Pointing out harm isn’t an attack but a courageous moment of honesty and vulnerability. Whether Verso sees that gift of vulnerability is hard to say as his actions and words are conflict depending on the person to whom he speaks.
Verso tends to make himself the center of the story being told in both Lune and Maelle’s conversations. The only one he doesn’t do this with is Sciel, but then Sciel doesn’t really give him that chance. Sciel recognizes that he speaks to give his reasons, and she doesn’t want to hear it, so she instead takes the conversation toward what they will do next. It’s a masterful way of pivoting the conversation to a more active form of accountability — Sciel is essentially asking Verso, “So, you hurt us, what are you going to do to fix this? Here’s one solution.”
Verso accepts Sciel solution, but then his conversation with Maelle, he goes on the rampage. He points out her family’s cycle of grief continues to hurt this Canvas, but he also knows that if Maelle leaves, there is no possible way he can honor his promises to Sciel and Lune. He speaks of a cycle of grief that causes harm, which is important to acknowledge, yet he refuses to listen to what Maelle is saying. In turn, Maelle goes quiet, which she often does to think over what others have said.
Thus, Verso’s defensiveness with Lune and Maelle ends up being:
“… the cycle of violence talking. This is the script that rape culture has built for us: a script in which there must be a hero and a villain, a right and a wrong, an accuser and an accused. What if we understood being confronted about perpetuating abuse as an act of courage — even a gift — on the part of the survivor?
What if, instead of reacting immediately in our own defense, we instead took the time to listen, to really try to understand the harm we might have done to another person?
When we think of accountability in terms of listening and love instead of accusation and punishment, everything changes. Listenign without becoming defensive does not necessarily mean relinquishing one’s own truth. We must be able to make room for varying perspectives and multiple emotional truths in our hearts.”
Painted Verso doesn’t make room for varying perspectives or multiple emotional truths. He may take some responsibility for his actions, or at least acknowledges the harm his actions have done, where he takes on only what he has done — no more, no less, but he doesn’t truly grow from that.
Thom writes how taking responsibility for the abuse is next but one must also “accept that your reasons are not excuses.”
There is no reason good enough to excuse abusive behavior. Reasons help us understand abuse, but they do not excuse it. Accepting this is essential to transforming culpability into accountability and turning justice into healing.
Painted Verso spends a lot of time giving his reasons and expecting that to excuse his actions. Lune will have none of it as his reasons doesn’t excuse his lying and manipulative actions. He didn’t just betray them but also lied to them and manipulated them in harmful ways. Can Verso recognize the harm and truly be accountable?
This is where support of others can be crucial. Thom writes:
“When having a dialogue with someone who has been abused, it’s essential to give the survivor the space to take the lead in expressive their needs and setting boundaries. You should also take time to think about your own needs and boundaries without making the person you have harmed take care of you. This is why having support in the community is crucial. If basic needs are going unmet, no one can heal from abuse, nor can anyone truly be accountable.
If you have abused someone, it’s not up to you to decide how the process of healing or accountability should work. This doesn’t mean that you don’t get to have rights or boundaries, or that you can’t contribute actively to the process. It means that you don’t get to say that the person you have hurt is “crazy” or that what they are expressing doesn’t matter.
Instead, it might be good idea to try asking the person who has confronted you questions like these: what do you need right now? Is there anything I can do to make this feel better? How much contact would you like to have with me going forward? If we share a community, how should I navigate situations where we might end up int he same place? How does this conversation feel for you, right now?
At the same time, it’s important to understand that the needs of survivors of abuse can change over time, and that survivors may not always know right away — or ever — what their needs are.
Being accountable and responsible for abuse means being patient, flexible, and reflective about the process of having dialogue with the survivor.”
It’s crucial to note here that Thom is not saying that the survivor is an expert on accountability or that they should have full control over the process. Thom adds:
“I feel strongly that as long as punishment remains at the center of our thinking around accountability and justice, survivor-led processes are doomed to fall into the trap of individuals desperately trying to avoid accountability out of fear. Survivor-led, to me, means that survivors get to lead their own process of recovery, that survivors are given space to tell their stories and speak their needs (which criminal justice usually does not allow).
It does not mean that people who have been deeply wounded are suddenly handed full responsibility for a community dialogue and rehabilitation process. Survivor-led does not mean that the community gets to abdicate its responsibility for providing support, safety, expertise, and leadership in making healing happen.”
There are multiple paths in the accountability and healing process: the survivor, the one who caused harm, and the community. These paths may intersect at times, but Thom is arguing that none should exert control over the other’s path. Instead, listening, understanding, and opening onself up to changing present and future behaviors is what ‘survivor-led’ should mean.
Thom also makes it clear that the community itself needs to be involved to lay the groundwork to meet the needs of those within this process. Support by building safety, sharing expertise to help guide, and providing leadership to keep those involved accountable are all needed to assist in the healing process here.
Community support allows those involved to have someone with which to work through their emotions and thoughts. By working through emotions and thoughts, one can come to understand one’s own behaviors, emotions, actions, and through that find a path forward. This work means they are also holding themself accountable in the sense they are continuing to move forward on the path toward healing. Supportive friends, family, and community members can assist in helping those in this process stay on the healing path — that’s another type of accountability.
Supportive community is is what Painted Verso lacks. He does not allow anyone to truly be in community with him, and those that try are held at arm’s length with him manipulating events toward his own ends. Whether he ever allowed community to help him work through his trauma and pain relies on his own shared stories, of which seem suspect since what he says to one person doesn’t always align with what he says to another of the same event. The best we have is a journal entry from a prior expedition where he expresses his pain and hopes — hopes he doesn’t seem to have in Maelle’s time.
VERSO’S JOURNAL:
I miss you. I don’t have the right to miss you but I do. I wish I could talk to you. Tell you. Fuck. I don’t know what I would tell you. Just ask that you forgive me. Julie, forgive me. I’m not… I’m not a traitor. I’m not. I’m trying to save… I’m trying to save us all. But you’re right. I am a coward. I’m a fucking coward. You deserved to know why. But I couldn’t. I couldn’t face you properly. Not and still do what had to be done. Papa believes you are Clea’s creation, and even if you’re not, we can no longer trust you. But I think you just wanted answers.
Why? Why couldn’t you just let it go? Why did you convince them to abduct me? Interrogate me? No. I shouldn’t say that. You thought I was a traitor. You were doing what you thought was right, just like we are. I swear to you, I’m doing what’s right. I should have known when you started questioning things that you wouldn’t be fooled. But how could I even explain? You’d have thought I’d gone mad. Doppelgangers. Countless worlds. But Papa’s right. We can’t take the risk. Too much is at stake. Too much. It had to be done. It had to. Clea already took our sister. If we want to save our family, our world, our people, we can’t take any chances. And once we free Maman, she… she’ll bring you back. It won’t be forever. I promise. We deserve to live. All of us. We deserve to exist.
In this journal, Verso admits to his pain and how much he misses Julie, who seems to be a loved one. He justifies his actions, but also shows a willingness to understand why Julie did what she thought was right. He does his best to not internalize the hurtful words that Julie and her expedition likely threw at him — traitor for one. However, he makes a crucial mistake here by assuming Julie’s reactions to the actual truth. He doesn’t allow her to have agency, and instead took that from her by keeping her in the dark. This fueled distrust, especially as he acknowledges Julie had started to question things and notice what doesn’t make sense. Julie wanted answers, and Verso, here at least, acknowledges that she did deserve to know why things transpired the way they did.
He also asserts that they “deserve to exist.” Yet, in Maelle’s time, he seems to have changed his mind entirely as he spends far too much energy trying to convince Maelle to let the Canvas be erased. In his ending, he goes to great lengths to make sure the Canvas is erased. So he breaks all of his promises, and decides that no one deserves to exist in the Canvas. That they are not real and thus it is okay to erase populations.
Why does he come to this conclusion? Partly due to the massive amount of death he witnesses over the decades, and also because he doesn’t have a community to hold him accountable. When one is isolated like Painted Verso, it is all too easy to fall into despair and a desire for annihilation. This is why those who are suicidal shouldn’t be left alone, but need supportive family and friends to help them heal and find new meaning in life.
In Maelle’s ending, Maelle will try to give Verso that opportunity when she offers him the choice of “if you could grow old, would you… find a reason to smile?”
She’s trying to break the cycle of violence by making sure Verso doesn’t have to live the immortal life he so abhors. So she offers solutions that doesn’t end in a genocide of peoples or Painted Verso’s death. Despite the harm Verso has done, Maelle seeks to humanize him and offer him a compromise. Her ending hints strongly that he accepts her alternate solution and seems to find some hope in it, as he does indeed grow old.
This humanization of the person causing harm is also critical to the healing process. The survivor of abuse doesn’t have to be the one to humanize the one causing harm, but those in the community ought to be able to step in for that.
In another essay in the Beyond Survival Anthology, there is an excerpt from the handbook, Ending Child Sexual Abuse:
“We see that abuse happens when one person believes, consciously or unconsciously, that their needs, wants, and preferences take precedence over others. People engaging in abusive behaviors are often numb to, or seemingly unable to feel, the impacts of their behaviors on others.
A process of accountability and transformation requires that the person who has been harmful:
- Stop doing the harm.
- Feels empathy and remorse for the pain and impact of their actions.
- Takes measures, like restitution or reparations, to address the harm caused.
- Takes measures to prevent future harm.
- Works to understand the root causes of their harmful behavior.
- Engages in the ongoing work of accountability, healing, and integration.
- Take action and organizes to support others to heal or to be part of changing community and social conditions that allow for CSA and other forms of violence.”
Here the list shows how difficult healing can be, and how scary it is to make the choice to heal. Yet, it’s crucial for ending the cycle of violence to not dehumanize anyone involved. Dehumanization continues the cycle of violence. As the handbook excerpt says:
“It is important to center the needs of those most directly impacted by the harm in a situation. We also hold that recognizing and attending to the humanity of those who harm is a central aspect of transforming our families, communities, and society. Seeing and dignifying the healing needs of people who abuse also runs counter to the idea that some people “out there” are “monsters” who are expendable or need to be “weeded out.” By standing for everyone’s need for healing, we challenge the dehumanizing logic that is central to systems of oppression, domination, and abuse. By standing for everyone’s need for healing, we maintain our commitment to a vision of true liberation.”
Part of this process means those who cause harm need to understand that not all consequences are “harm.” Consequences to their actions are often necessary and may not be a form of “harm.” For example, Lune calling out the harm of Verso’s lies is the consequence of his actions. She lost trust in him is another consequence. Him having to earn back that trust is yet another consequence. None of these consequences are “harms” done to Verso. It’s simply part of the accountability process.
Humanizing those involved are absolutely critical to ending the cycle of violence. When people are dehumanized, they are stripped of who they are, and this causes harm to all involved. If the cycle of violence is to be ended, then those involved must be humanized and their dignity honored.
This is incredibly difficult to do at times. As a survivor of abuse, I struggled greatly with wanting my abuser to feel the weight of my pain, but through therapy, I learned that truthfully I didn’t want my abuser to be harmed in return. I wanted the cycle of abuse to end. That revelation allowed me to move past the anger and make a conscious choice to heal.
This conscious choice to heal is required of those that cause harm as well. However, shame, guilt, and fear can often make that choice extremely difficult.
Both Verso and Maelle struggle with shame and guilt. Maelle’s guilt and shame lay in her internalizing the blame Aline and Clea lay at her feet. Except, the fire is not Maelle’s fault, but that of the Writers that cause it. Her guilt and shame originate from actions that are not her own.
However, for Verso, his guilt and shame do originate from his own actions, for he did kill members of his prior expeditions, he did lie to people, and he did manipulate people for his own ends. However, it’s crucial to separate shame from guilt. In Kai Cheng Thom’s essay, shame and guilt is defined:
“Shame and social stigma are powerful emotional forces that can prevent us from holding ourselves accountable for being abusive. We don’t want to admit to “being that person,” so we don’t admit to having been abusive at all.
Some people might suggest that people who have been abusive ought to feel shame — after all, perpetuating abuse is wrong. I would argue, though, that this is where the difference between guilt and shame is key. Guilt is feeling bad about something you’ve done; shame is feeling bad about who you are. People who have been abusive should feel guilty for the specific acts of abuse they are responsible for. They should not feel shame about who they are because this means that abuse has become a part of their identity. It means they believe that they are fundamentally a bad person — in other words, “an abuser.”
But if you believe that you are an “abuser,” a bad person who hurts others, then you have already lost the struggle for change — because we cannot change who we are. If you believe that you are a fundamentally good person who has done hurtful or abusive things, then you open the possibility for change.”
When Thom says we “cannot change who we are,” this is in regard to our identities and personality. The “possibility for change” is in regard to our decisions, actions, and future decisions and actions. Those we can change, but we shouldn’t try to alter our personality and identity to be someone we are not. We should focus on how to make better decisions and to act in ways that are more healthy and holistic for us and those around us.
Verso, when he first introduces himself to Expedition 33, calls himself a liar. By doing so, he shows he internalized his actions as part of his identity. This makes it very difficult to hold oneself accountable and being open to the “possibility for change.” If he views lying as crucial to his identity, then why should he stop? It’s who he is, isn’t it? It’s a complete 180 from his journal entry where he refused to accept ‘traitor’ as being who he is.
But lying isn’t who he truly is. He’s, instead, taken a behavior and marked it as a personality trait. Truthfully, his personality isn’t a lying manipulator — we can see bits and pieces of who he is in the scenes where he plays a piano with Maelle, goes out of his way to help Sciel move past her fear of water, shares music with Lune, chats with Esquie, or hangs out with Monoco. He’s a bit silly, fun-loving, jokester, that wants to do the right thing but doesn’t know how. He’s trapped in a cycle of his own making, yet he’s unwilling to recognize his own cycle. Instead, he internalizes the lies as part of who he is, when it’s not — that’s his trauma speaking.
Until Verso can recognize his own cycle of violence and shame, he remains trapped in his cycle, unable to acknowledge his abuse and never able to progress toward healing. Even in his ending, when he fights Maelle to force her from the Canvas, his solution to his cycle is to annihilate himself and everyone in the Canvas. He refuses to see another way. Yet, until he recognizes that his harmful behaviors are not core to his personality, he won’t ever see how to stop his cycle of harm.
This is where Thom goes on to state that as much as those who cause harm shouldn’t “expect anyone to forgive you,” they should, however, forgive themselves:
“Being accountable is not about earning forgiveness. This is to say, it doesn’t matter how accountable you are — nobody has to forgive you for being abusive, least of all the person you have abused. In fact, using the process of “doing” accountability to manipulate or coerce someone into their forgiveness to you is an extension of the abuse dynamic. It center the abuser, not the survivor. One shouldn’t aim for forgiveness when holding oneself accountable. Rather self-accountability is about learning how we have harmed others, why we have harmed others, and how we can stop.
But… you do have to forgive yourself. Because you can’t stop hurting other people until you stop hurting yourself. When one is abusive, when one is hurting so much on the inside that it feels like the only way to make it stop is to hurt other people, it can be terrifying to face the hard truth of words like abuse and accountability. One might rather blame others, blame society, blame the people we love, instead of ourselves.
This is true, I think, of community as well as individuals. It is so much easier, so much simpler, to create hard lines between good and bad people, to create walls to shut the shadowy archetype of “the abuser” out instead of mirrors to look at the abuser within.
Perhaps this is why self-accountability tools like this list are so rare. It takes courage to be accountable. To decide to heal. But when we do decide, we discover incredible new possibilities. There is good and bad in everyone. Anyone can heal, given the right circumstances, and everyone can heal, given the same. You are capable of loving and being loved. Always. Always. Always.”
These are critical points for accountability. The process isn’t so we can “earn forgiveness” like it’s some sort of game achievement. Accountability is about learning, listening, seeking to understand why we did what we did, and finding solutions on how we can stop. Where we end the cycle of violence and instead move into a trajectory toward healing and choosing actions that cause the least harm and the most good.
And what is the most good? How do we know what is good?
To understand what ‘good’ means, we need to briefly explore ethics and morality. This game, thankfully, has already given us that exploration already in the Lumierians — Gustave and Lune in particular. I won’t dig too deeply into this as I feel that Lord Khoury does a much better job in his video here (which I recommend as he lays out an excellent case for why Maelle’s ending is a morally good one). I will simply briefly highlight Gustave’s and Lune’s use of Utilitarianism.
Consequences and Utilitarianism
Gustave, at the start of the game points out how the Gommage seems almost gentle, how it makes Lumiere seem complacent, but it is no less violent. He defines the act of violence and injustice, and in his temporal reality, Lumiere identified the best route to liberation is through confrontation with the Paintress.
Throughout the Prologue and Act 1, we are shown how Gustave lives his morals and how he determines actions to be morally good. These deliberations rely on what is known as utilitarianism. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines this as:
“…utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one’s own good.”
Gustave’s moralism shows through the projects he describes — teaching his apprentices, Aquafarms, etc. — and in how he interacts with those around him. He understands quite well the consequences of possible actions, and chooses the ones that will do the most good.
For example, when Expedition 33 is separated, Gustave determines the right action is to seek Maelle. He evaluates the consequences of this, and although his emotions push for a specific end result, he still evaluates based on the known information at that time. As in, the note inscribed on the Indigo Tree, the lack of survivors at the Indigo Tree meeting point, and the knowledge of how difficult it is to survive alone.
GUSTAVE: It’s a lead, or only lead, whoever this is has Maelle. We have to go.
LUNE: No, not yet. Protocol is to regroup at rendevous point and wait three days. This message feels off. If it was an Expeditioner, they would have stayed here. Everyone knows the protocol.
GUSTAVE: Right, but they may have been in danger. Maybe this location has been compromised. Things change in the field.
LUNE: There’s a reason its protocol.
GUSTAVE: Protocol doesn’t cover every contingency. You know that.
LUNE: There’s a reason its Protocol. We designed it to yield the optimal result in the vast majority of situations.
GUSTAVE: Was our entire team dying part of that “optimal result?”
LUNE: …
GUSTAVE: Look, I’m going after Maelle. Protocol also states ‘never move solo.’ I’ll let you choose what protocol to break.Here we see how both Gustave and Lune lay out their reasoning for the preferred actions. Gustave focuses on the consequences and concludes going after Maelle will save the most lives based on their current information. Lune, who attempts to argue for the Protocol, finds herself faced with possible consequences that could either endanger Gustave — if he goes alone — or herself — if she stays and he goes — or the mission — if the team is split up.
Lune follows him because of the two protocols they are breaking — one results in a higher number of lives saved and better chance at surviving long enough to complete their mission. Thus, after evaluating what is known and the consequences of various actions, she determines the action that achieve the most good.
In survival, determining the consequences of actions that result in the most lives saved fits firmly in the utilitarianism worldview. Thus, in determining what actions are ‘good,’ it is crucial to seek to understand the consequences of that action for everyone — not just ourselves. This is where Verso falls short as his understanding of the consequences of his actions revolves around the impact on himself; he continues to assert his view, even when others protest and show the harm of it.
Part of that is because he doesn’t show a willingness to examine the situation fully with other people. He’s kept himself relatively isolated for decades, and sought to meet his needs on his own. Isolation can easily distort our thinking and lead us toward despair.
With the Lumierians, we see an alternate route. Gustave and Lune actively talk through the situation at the Indigo Tree. Gustave lays out his analysis and Lune does as well. Gustave, however, focuses on the lives he can actively save in that moment rather than the lives they do not know still live or not. Though this dialogue, the two examine consequences of their actions. Both go back and forth in acknowledging what the other is saying, and also responding to the concerns brought up. In the end, Gustave’s decision to go after Maelle is vindicated in his eyes, and he offers Lune a choice. Lune, in turn, honors the protocol that will save the most lives — staying with Gustave and saving someone that is likely still alive. Considering, they have no further data on anyone else surviving, going after Maelle ends up being justified as the ‘good’ decision through the consequences of their actions.
We see this same sort of analysis play out a few times in Act 1 with how the group analyzes the situation, examines consequences, and come to a decision. Gustave and Lune lead the charge here, and their example provides a litmus test for Maelle to use in trying to determine what decisions are ‘good.’
For another example, Gustave and Lune’s intense fight before they find Maelle:
GUSTAVE: I am not letting Maelle die out here. I’m taking her home.
LUNE: What? No, no, no, we have a mission —
GUSTAVE: Oh, fuck the mission! Fuck the mission, Lune. What are we gonna do? Tell me. What are we gonna do? We’re gonna take down the Paintress, just the three of us? My — my gun and your sparks?
LUNE: I didn’t take you for a coward.
GUSTAVE: I’m not a coward.
LUNE: You swore the oath. “When one falls, we continue.”
GUSTAVE: Yes, I know.
LUNE: When one falls. WHEN one falls. Not if. When. We knew not all of us would make it. But “We Continue.” As long even one of us stands, our fight is not over.
GUSTAVE: But I’m not afraid to fight, it’s just Maelle, she’s —
LUNE: Maelle swore the same oath!
GUSTAVE: I know that!
LUNE: She choose her life! Come on, we always said that the future of Lumiere was more important than any —
GUSTAVE: individual life, yes.
LUNE: Do you still believe that?Here Lune reminds Gustave of the consequences of swearing their oath. Consequences all of them knew before they swore the oath. She also makes it clear that Maelle also swore this oath, knowing the risks, and that she choose that. Lune is reminding Gustave of Maelle’s agency. Through this conversation, she’s challenging him on the consequences of what will happen if he takes Maelle back: he’d break his oath, he’d leave Lune here to continue alone, he’d violate Maelle’s agency, and he would put the future of Lumiere at risk.
This conversation pushes Gustave toward the ‘good’ decision, which is to honor Maelle’s agency. Something he will confirm in a later conversation after they are reunited with Maelle and have found Sciel with the Gestrals:
GUSTAVE: Maybe you should stay…
MAELLE: What?
GUSTAVE: It’s safer in the village.
MAELLE: And miss the change to meet Esquie? No way.
GUSTAVE: Maelle…
MAELLE: I’m okay. We stick together.This conversation proved Lune to be correct. The consequences Lune had laid out as her reasoning on the ‘good choice,’ made it clear that Maelle had chosen this life. Gustave here confirms it with Maelle herself, and he then honors that choice.
Thus, Gustave and Lune provide excellent examples of the use of utilitarianism for determining the morally ‘good’ choice, as well as how to handle conflict. They also show how the Canvas Lumierians honor the agency of others.
It’s through our dialogue with those around us that we come to understand possible consequences and how they may impact others. That dialog then allows us to generate ideas that cause the least harm to all involved and saves the most lives (or in less dire situations, helps the most people feel heard, understood, and agency honored). This can be difficult to do, and in times of danger, we often act on instinct because there isn’t enough time to deliberate on consequences.
However, after the danger is over, we must be willing to analyze what happened and take accountability for our actions. We must not take on the responsibility of other people’s actions, only take on our own. We need to listen to others, and they in turn listen to us. We need to be open to change behaviors if we cause harm, which we see Lune, Gustave, Maelle, and Sciel do on their journey. That’s part of holding one another accountable and choosing healing.
Maelle having the support of her Canvas family is critical to her own journey toward healing. The scene where Maelle has a waking nightmare in Act 1 after the Gestral Village, we see Gustave, Sciel, and Lune gather around her to comfort her. They bring down her panic, and stay at her side until she’s calm. This level of care is not shown by the Dessendre family toward Maelle. Thus, Maelle finds her strongest support system within the Canvas, away from an environment of abuse and neglect. This chosen family helps hold her accountable and supports her as she makes decisions to end the cycle of violence. To choose to heal.
Verso struggles to understand this lesson the entirety of the game. The only clue we are given that he may finally learn it is in Maelle’s ending, when Maelle offers a different solution to his desire to cease his immortal life. He still lives in her ending, but he’s grown old. His fingers find it harder to play the piano — hence the dissonance at first before he plays. Perhaps in this ending he learns how to be accountable and chooses healing. The game seems to imply it, but the game also leaves it open-ended.
In Verso’s ending, Verso doesn’t choose healing but instead chooses to take the agency from everyone involved — Maelle, the faded boy, the different Canvas peoples — and fades into annihilation. Maelle, then, returns to life as Alicia Dessendre, who is disabled and essentially institutionalized in her family’s manor. She has no support system, and her mother still looks at her with disdain. Clea still offers no support, only goes off to do her one-person war. In the ending, Renoir doesn’t even look at Alicia — only at Aline. Alicia stands isolated, and tries to smile, tries to see anything good in this, but instead, she hallucinates the family she’s lost. As they gommage away, I noticed how her shoulders droop and she holds Esquie tighter. A sign that her hope evaporates with them? Again, the game leaves it open-ended.
When still in an abusive environment, healing is out of reach, even if one chooses it, because the circumstances causing the trauma is ongoing. One must exit the abusive environment, but to do so often requires support of others to assist in finding a safer place to be. If there is no one there to provide the necessary support to heal, then it is incredibly difficult to actively heal.
Thus, healing from grief and from abuse both require breaking cycles, but to break those cycles, we need the necessarily family/friends and/or community support. It is not truly possible to do this when we are isolated, because isolation itself is a form of harm that can easily lead us into despair, as we saw with Painted Verso.
Breaking the cycle of violence can only happen when we have built up a community of people who love us for who we are. Then and only then, will we have the support to choose to heal, to hold ourselves accountable, to actively listen to others, and when needed alter our behaviors toward more healthy patterns.
This is not an easy process, and it will require hard work from all involved. Yet the payoff is a healthier existence and a chance to thrive rather than just survive.
#abuse #accountability #Characters #clairObscurExpedition33 #disability #GameAnalysis #gameNarrative #healing #healingJourney #justice #mentalHealth #narrativeAnalysis #responsibility #transformativeJustice #writing
-
Clair Obscur: To be accountable to those that come after
CROSSPOST FROM COMRADERY. Part of a three part series: Disability (part 1), Right to Exist (part 2), and Accountability and Healing (part 3).
In my prior essays, I related themes woven through Clair Obscur to show how it can parallel real world complexities and oppression.
For the character of Alicia and Gustave (and even Lune if we accept my assertion of her as neurodivergent), disability cords through the story and asks questions the game may not have intended. I explored in that essay how Disability was a class constructed by capitalism to control labor and those unable to labor, and through that I showed how disability has been used to denote evil and bad throughout American history. But Clair Obscur twists those tropes on their head and refuses to villianize the disabled within the game. Instead, Alicia, Gustave, and others are given complex journeys and heralded as heroes in a way. Yet, by the end, the final ending choice between Verso and Maelle felt as if the player was the judge determining the fate of the disabled person for them. I wrote:
Will we be given the care and support we need to thrive? Will we be given agency to choose our own fate and route to healing?
Clair Obscur offers that choice to the player, thus placing the fate of a disabled person in their hands. In a way, the player acts as the judge who determines the fate of a disabled person, to determine whether they ever access the care and benefits they need. It is a replica of how our real world works, and it forces a painful glimpse into the struggles of disabled people.
This essay led me to my next where I explored the nature of the Canvas people and whether they are real. I examined how this paralleled dehumanizing narratives that subjugate and destroy unique cultures. I laid down a map of the shifting temporal realities the game presents through the different main characters of each act: Gustave (Lumierian reality), Verso (immortal painted Dessendre reality), and Maelle (both Dessendre reality and Lumierian reality). How weaving these different realities forces us to contend with the nature of what is real and who is allowed to exist within that reality.
The conclusion I came to, which perhaps will not surprise anyone reading my writings, is that I chose the ending that gave agency to people and saved the most lives. I could not accept that the unique lives of those in the Canvas were less than the Dessendre family. Nor could I accept anyone deciding for a disabled person how they must exist and heal.
By exploring these darker aspects of Clair Obscur, I undoubtedly focused on the more abusive and manipulative aspects of the Dessendre family to show how unsupportive they’ve been to Alicia/Maelle. The evidence painted within the game left me uneasy about the Dessendre family, partly informed by my own traumas as a queer nonbinary disabled person. Yes, they do love each other but love does not mean abuse cannot happen or exist, which I argued in my essay on Disability. That darkness echoed trauma and pain that destroying the Canvas cannot truly heal. A cycle of violence doesn’t heal through the use of more violence, but only when the cycle is stopped.
One could argue that Verso sought to stop the cycle of grief, and isn’t that stopping the cycle of violence? But that negates the temporal reality of the Canvas people, who endured countless oppressive actions and outright genocide. Sacrificing a population of people in an effort to ‘heal’ one family only continues the cycle of violence, and it doesn’t solve the lack of support in the Dessendre world, which Verso’s ending never truly reconciles. Alicia is still isolated, still without a voice, still disabled in a world that has done little to meet any of her needs.
So then, do we ever exit the cycle of violence? And what would it look like to attempt such a thing?
In my Disability essay, I pointed out healing cannot begin until we exit the abusive/traumatic environment/situation. Part of healing involves the end of the cycle of violence, which differs based on who abused and who endured the abuse. Those that abuse must hold themselves accountable and engage in repair as well as work on their own healing. Those that endured abuse must work on their own healing, and recognize the best place for that, which might require them to not engage again the person who harmed them. Ending the cycle of violence and moving toward accountability and healing is not an easy process and the trajectory will differ based on who is involved.
Yet even with those differing paths, one must still hold oneself accountable in order to push forward in the healing process. We will backslide. We will mess up, but it is crucial to acknowledge when we cause harm or when we make a mistake, apologize, and do better. That’s all part of the accountability process.
So in this essay, I want to explore what accountability is and how it does and doesn’t manifest in the characters’ storylines. Whether the characters were able to truly end the cycle of violence and move forward into healing or if the game leaves those questions open-ended.
What is Accountability? And how do we do it?
Accountability within today’s culture, especially within America where I’m situated, is wrought with videos and images of call-out culture. Where people call others out publically the harm and demand repair. While this may be a useful tactic when facing off against the rich and powerful, it ultimately isn’t true accountability. Or at least not the kind that may lead to actual healing and change.
So when I speak of accountability, I do not mean that public spectacle. I instead mean conversations like what Maelle and Verso have in Clair Obscur. They happen on a personal level and/or within the community, and often are not on a public stage. They may instead happen behind closed doors with or without a mediator. The survivor may decide or not decide to be present, while the person who harmed them works toward healing and accountability. It’s a complex process that goes far, far beyond the initial identification of the harm.
In the first chapter of the anthology Beyond Suvival: Strategies and Stories from the Transformative Justice Movement, editors Ejeris Dixon and Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha writes:
“Transformative justice and community accountability are terms that describe ways to address violence without relying on police or prisons. These approaches often work to prevent violence, to intervene when harm is occurring, to hold people accountable, and to transform individuals and society to build safer communities. These strategies are some of hte only options that marginalized communities have to address harm.
The work of transformative justice can happen in a variety of ways. Some groups support survivors by helping them identify their needs and boundaries while ensuring their attackers agree to these boundaries and atone for the harm they caused. Other groups create safe spaces and sanctuaries to support people escaping from violence.”
Here they show how accountability is only one piece of a larger puzzle of addressing violence. Without accountability, much of the work to address and end the cycle of violence would fracture and fall apart, yet as crucial as it is, full healing requires far more than just accountability.
Ejeris Dixon goes on to add:
“Violence and oppression break community ties and breed fear and distrust. At its core, the work to create safety is to build meaningful, accountable relationships within our neighborhoods and communities.”
Without trust, one cannot build safety. Without safety, one struggles to be vulnerable. Without vulnerability, one struggles to heal. And without the choice to heal, one will fail to hold oneself accountable.
This isn’t to say these are steps in a process, but more they are interlinking threads that are woven into a larger tapestry. Each thread crucial to the final form, and the tapestry wouldn’t be the same without each thread and stitch. None of this is easy, but then healing isn’t ever easy.
Healing always requires a choice. Do we choose to heal? Do we choose to hold ourselves accountable to that journey? Do we choose to be accountable for our actions and engage in repair when we inevitably cause harm? How do we engage in repair? Are we willing to be responsible and listen to those harmed by us? To let those harmed take the lead? Can we separate shame from guilt? To not fear accountability but instead embrace it so all involved can move forward in healing?
Of course, asking those questions can feel daunting, and it’s why relationship-building is so crucial. Healing requires support of one’s family, friends, and/or community. We can’t really heal in isolation. In chapter three of Beyond Survival, Blythe Barnow speaks about how isolation harmed her ability to heal:
“In the end, that was the most damaging. Doing it alone. Believing it was all my responsibility. Not the assault. But the healing. The justice. The protection for nameless other girls. I leaned heavy into the skills I learned as a child, over responsibility, independence, sharp analysis, and self-sacrifice. Which meant I never asked for the support I was so desperate for.
Because what I needed, maybe more than his apology, was a community of people who could help me hold and honor the stories that led to this one, who could help me uproot the layers of silence learned through too much violence. I needed to be asked what I wanted and what I was hoping for. I needed someone to help me craft those letters, someone to remind me that I could list expectations. I needed someone who was going to sit with me through the fallout. Someone who could read the responses people sent me and tell me to wait before reading them myself. I needed someone beside me to reflect the ways my own trauma, old and new, was informing the process. I needed someone who could show me love that was deeper and more nuanced than just hating him.”
I relate deeply to Barnow’s words here because isolation can steal away our voice, where we put on a brave mask for others. Often society and even friends and family can put tremendous pressure on survivors to ‘move on’ from the harm, to not speak of it, to stay silent, but that too is part of the cycle of violence. If we cannot acknowledge violence happened, how can we ever stop it from replaying again and again? Many therapists and researchers have written of the cycle of domestic violence and how it can sometimes thread through families. Part of that relies on silence and isolation.
Breaking silence and isolation requires the support of others, and it’s not easy to do. Believe me, I’ve struggled with this my whole life, but I’ve made progress on my healing from abuse because of the support of dear friends and good therapists.
This is why Maelle and Verso are able to have any conversation that deals with accountability. Lune, Sciel, Esquie, and Monoco form a support system to help them break the cycle of silence and isolation. This chosen family gives Maelle the love she needs to learn and grow, and they attempt to offer this to Verso as well.
For example, exploring the Reacher area will lead to the peak, where Painted Alicia ignores her brother to speak with Maelle privately — here the color fades into greyscale. She leads Maelle into the cavern at the peak to show her the true axon, and also to express her thoughts to Maelle through gestures and their fencing match.
After Painted Alicia leads Maelle back to the others, the scene snaps back into color. Maelle offers Alicia “a new beginning,” and I think she meant to repaint Alicia’s face and restore her voice. However, Painted Alicia grasps Maelle’s hand and presses it against her, thus thwarting Maelle’s attempt to repaint her face. Instead, she gasps out her desire for Maelle to gommage her. Verso doesn’t have a chance to stop it, because Maelle does as Painted Alicia asks.
Verso responds by trying to stop Maelle, and ends up holding the red petal remains of Painted Alicia. Sciel is at his side to comfort him in his grief.
The conversation they have later at camp delves into the impact of Maelle’s act:
MAELLE: I’m sorry.
VERSO: …
MAELLE: It’s what she wanted. I owed her that much. We owed her that much. I honoured her wishes. That’s something neither you nor Renoir ever did. And not Maman either.
VERSO: … I didn’t get to say goodbye. You didn’t wait. You didn’t give me a chance to persuade her.
MAELLE: She knew what she wanted. You wouldn’t have been able to sway her.
VERSO: She’s not you. You don’t know that. I know her better than you do. But you didn’t even give me the chance to try. You just erased her.
MAELLE: Verso…
VERSO: You’ve lost two brothers. You know what it’s like to lose your sibling and never get the chance to say goodbye.
MAELLE: …
VERSO: You Painters. You just do what you want, you don’t care how it affects the rest of us.
MAELLE: I do care. I know you’re hurting, but the person who made that decision wasn’t me. It was her. It would have been wrong to deny her just so you could try and talk her out of her decision.Here Maelle seeks to understand Verso and why he is upset. She wants him to understand her reasons, where she sought to honor Painted Alicia’s wishes. She argues here for Painted Alicia’s agency in this, and how taking away her agency wouldn’t have been right.
Verso lashes out because of his grief and pain, but his words here “you don’t care how it affects the rest of us,” doesn’t align with the truth of Painted Alicia and Maelle’s actions at the peak of Reacher. Painted Alicia had made her wishes known, where she did not wish to continue in the disabled body Aline had given her in punishment for an action she’d never done. Perhaps there could have been other ways for her to thrive, but Painted Alicia had tried for decades to find that. Yet, perhaps it is irony that she sought the same annihilation that Painted Verso secretly seeks.
Maelle tries, in her own way, to honor the agency of others. To offer them different solutions, but Painted Alicia didn’t want any other solution. She had taken Maelle’s hand to press against her and urged her to gommage her away.
Does Maelle come to understand what Verso is trying to articulate here? Because so far, she gives her reasons and argues for Painted Alicia’s agency. The scene continues:
VERSO: She’s the last of my family. I have no one left now.
MAELLE: You have me. You have us.
VERSO: MAELLE. I wasn’t ready.
MAELLE: I don’t understand. You were ready when you set Papa free. You expected that he would erase the Canvas and everyone in it. Isn’t that the same thing?
VERSO: It’s different! It’s different. Why did she do that?
MAELLE: You know why.
VERSO: …
MAELLE: But you’re right. I should have thought of you. I should have given you a chance to say goodbye. I’m truly sorry, Verso.
VERSO: … *cries* At least she’s free now.Maelle briefly gets defensive because she struggles to understand, but then she takes a moment to think. She may view the two events of setting Renoir free to erase everyone versus her honoring Alicia’s wishes to be erased as equivalent, but Verso does not. We then see Maelle hold herself accountable by putting herself in Verso’s shoes in an effort to understand. She admits that Verso is indeed right. She should have thought of him, and she apologizes. As one continues through the journey, Maelle does her best to honor this by doing better.
She also tries to show Verso that he does have people left. He has Maelle, Lune, Sciel, Monoco, and others as they all have been trying to reach out and build connections with him. He chooses to hold himself in isolation from them, whether he is conscious of it or not.
She actively does her best to hold herself accountable, to learn from her actions, and this shows how she wishes to end the cycle of harm. She wants everyone’s agency to be honored, for people to find what they need, and although she may offer different ways to do that, if the person ultimately rejects a solution, who is Maelle to refuse to honor their decision? For a sixteen-year-old, she’s remarkably mature here.
Verso, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to hold that same self-awareness, or if he did, he seems to have lost it. He’s so caught up in his cycle of violence, that he struggles to see any other solution as viable. To see this, let’s look at a conversation near the start of Act 3, when Maelle returns to the Canvas:
MAELLE: You should have helped me remember.
VERSO: Yeah… I wanted to, but I… I’m sorry.
MAELLE: I’m sorry too. If I’d listened to Maman… if I hadn’t trusted the Writers, Verso would still be alive, and you —
VERSO: Wouldn’t exist.
MAELLE: Wouldn’t be caught in the middle. Maman did a terrible thing, painting you into Verso’s Canvas. Giving you his memories. Pretending the fire only took me. But I’m glad you exist.
VERSO: Your father was right to erase everyone. It’s better this way.
MAELLE: Better for who? Verso would have never wanted his Canvas gone. He loved Esquie and his Gestrals and the Grandis.
VERSO: It was killing my … our mother, staying here so long in a make-believe world with her make-believe family.
MAELLE: It’s not make-believe. It’s not… you’re not.. To me…Here Verso sees only one solution: annihilation. However, his reasons for why he manipulated and lied to Maelle are just that — excuses. So he acknowledges the hurt he did and apologizes. For true accountability to happen, it’s not enough to simply apologize; one’s present and future behaviors will need changed to avoid replicating the harm and continuing the cycle of violence.
For Maelle, she also apologizes, but in this instance, what is there for her to apologize for? Perhaps she shouldn’t have trusted whoever the Writers were, but she is not responsible for them starting a fire and for Verso’s death. Maelle is only responsible for her own actions, not the actions of others. This shows how she’s internalized the shame and guilt Clea and Aline both shoved onto her; both needed someone to blame, and Alicia, the survivor, is a convenient person to lay down the blame. Maelle/Alicia is young and lacking the support to realize that she does not need to carry this blame as it is not hers to bear.
Painted Verso does not try to negate the blame Maelle/Alicia puts on herself. Instead, he tries to convince Maelle that it is better for those in the Canvas to not exist, for the Canvas to be destroyed, but Maelle refuses to accept that destruction of entire people’s is the right answer. She disagrees that everyone in the Canvas is make-believe. To her they are as real as herself. This ties into what I discussed in my Right to Exist essay.
I wrote there:
We have now returned to one of the most crucial questions in the game: What is the right decision in regards to the fate of the Canvas people and the fate of Alicia/Maelle? As I have hopefully shown thus far, erasing people’s temporal realities causes immense harm and is genocide; people have a right to exist, and sacrificing them for the ‘greater good of society’ (or in this case the Dessendre family) cannot ever be the morally right answer.
Necrosecurity, as I spoke of earlier, paints a bleak and death-filled reality, where healing cannot ever take place because denial and control is at its roots. [Defined as sacrificing a population for the greater ‘good’ of society.] Until people’s temporal realities are respected and their agency honored, healing will forever stay out of reach.
Thus, escaping pain by committing genocide is not healing. It’s a continuation of the cycle of violence. The marginalized populations facing genocide have a right to exist, and their temporal realities are as valid and important as the oppressor. Just as the temporal reality of the Canvas people are as valid and important as the Dessendre family.
Healing can only happen when the cycle of violence ends.
Verso tries to justify the death and destruction as necessary to end the cycle, but Maelle refuses to accept that reasoning. She believes Verso is wrong when he claims his self and those of the Canvas people are make-believe, and she believes they have a right to exist. She acknowledges harm happened to Painted Verso. She apologizes for her part in it. This is a step forward in the addressing of harm and ending the cycle: acknowledging what happened and why it wasn’t okay.
Again, Maelle cannot repair what her mother did because it’s not her burden to bear. Only Aline can take responsibility for her own actions. Maelle can only take responsibility for Maelle’s actions, which Maelle tries her best to do. She tries to hold herself accountable, which is something neither Clea nor Aline ever seem to do. This act of being accountable seems to have been taught to Maelle perhaps by Renoir, but far more likely it was Gustave, Lune, Sciel, and the Lumierians who taught her this.
She may have regained her memories from the real world, but that doesn’t mean she lost her memories of growing up as a Lumierian. She holds both in her head, as she will admit to Lune and Sciel after she brings them back:
MAELLE: I’m sorry. I didn’t — My memories — I would’ve told you if I’d known —
LUNE: Don’t apologize. You were trapped too. You lived among us. You’re one of us. Even if you’re also one of them.
MAELLE: It’s… so weird. I have memories of two childhoods. Two homes. Two Lumieres.
SCIEL: You’re not an orphan anymore. You just found your family. Don’t you want to be with them?
MAELLE: I love my family, but … they’re all gone. In one way of another. And you’re my family too. So are Gustave and Emma. And I didn’t see it at the time, but all the families who took turns taking care of me…Here Maelle, once again, tries to take on burdens that aren’t hers to hold. She had no memory of being a Paintress, so how could she have told them? Lune understands this and gently points this out to her. To root her in the facts of what they now know. She accepts who Maelle is — Maelle’s full self of being of Lune’s Lumiere but also of the Dessendre’s Lumiere — and provides comfort in this way.
Sciel, in turn, asks a crucial question, even though her voice aches with grief. “Don’t you want to be with them?”
Maelle’s answer is heart-rending, because truthfully, her family is gone. Clea is off fighting a one-person war with the Writers, Aline — Maelle’s mother — blames Maelle and casts her aside, Renoir may seek to bring Maelle back but he too has been neglectful of her, and Verso is gone. So what roots her in the Dessendre World? There she is disabled with no support system and half the family is abusive toward her (as I discuss in my Disability essay). So in a way, her Dessendre family is “gone” in the sense they do not truly support her, not like the Canvas Lumierians.
When Maelle blames herself for those that have harmed her or those she loved, she exhibits a common traumatic response; when she apologizes for actions that aren’t truly hers to own, that is also a traumatic response.
I know I’ve fallen into those trauma responses, where I had internalized the blame that it was my fault for the abuse done to me, my fault for the sexual assault. However, that blame is false. In reality, it wasn’t my fault as I did not do those actions. Those actions were done by other people to me. Just as Maelle did not paint Painted Verso, Aline did that. Just as Maelle didn’t start the fire, the Writers did that. Just as Maelle didn’t kill Verso, the fire and whoever started the fire did that. Just as Maelle didn’t lie to Lune and Sciel, she had no memories of her Dessendre life and thus no information to share; instead, Verso had that information and chose to not share it.
Maelle still tries to take accountability, but truthfully, it is not hers to bear. Lune gently teaches her that in that scene above.
Understanding these truths are hard when society and/or loved ones pressure us into thinking it’s our fault we were hurt. That’s just a falsehood to avoid accountability and to pressure survivors into silence, which effectively continues the cycle of violence.
To break out of that cycle, we must acknowledge that we are only responsible for our own actions and speech. Then we must separate out shame and guilt. We must choose to heal and continue toward healing no matter how hard that trajectory may become. But to even make that choice requires us to have support of others, to help us see when we are falling back into harmful thought processes that inhibit our ability to heal. Those that support us help us stay accountable to the process of healing.
Lune and Sciel both act as supporters for Maelle here. Lune, especially as she has also been hurt by Verso’s actions, seeks to hold Verso accountable. At this point in the game, Lune acts as a protective older sister to Maelle, while Sciel often falls into a motherly role. That’s part of how chosen families relate to one another — they fall into roles with one another, and those roles may change depending on the situation. Sometimes Maelle may be the more sisterly one to offer support to Lune or Sciel.
Chosen family can be a powerful support group and a crucial one, especially if one’s biological family has been abusive toward us. In the case of Maelle, some of her family members have been abusive toward her. So her chosen family provides the support for Maelle to work toward healing from that.
So what about Painted Verso? How does he hold himself accountable after this massive reveal? He hid the truth of who Maelle was from not only Maelle but everyone in the party. He manipulated them toward his end-goals. He chooses to talk to each individually, which the player can choose which character to start these conversations (or could choose to avoid them). If the player chooses to have these conversations, then how do they go?
Lune calls Painted Verso out for his lies:
LUNE: I was right not to trust you.
VERSO: And what would you have done in my position?
LUNE: I wouldn’t have betrayed my expedition. I would have warned them that everyone they cared about was about to be erased. That THEY were about to be erased. I would have told them the truth. Because after everything we’ve been through, we deserved that.
VERSO: So you’d choose your expedition over your mother?
LUNE: That’s your problem. You think in false dichotomies. It wasn’t an “either / or” a situation. Other solutions were possible, if you’d only trusted us enough to ask.
VERSO: Knowing what you know now, would you have helped me force my mother out of the Canvas?
LUNE: … *sighs*
VERSO: I don’t apologize for saving her. But I am sorry I broke your trust. And I will do everything I can to help bring everyone back.
LUNE: I guess we’ll see.Here Verso is intent on his reasons for his lies and manipulations. Lune, of course, points to the faults in his argument, because there might have been more solutions possible. Verso’s response is to put Lune on the spot, which when it comes to intense conversations like this? It’s very hard to consider alternatives when one is upset, so of course Lune couldn’t respond right away. She takes her time deliberating and analyzing possible solutions. Put her on the spot? And she falls quiet because she has not been given adequate time to process the information and analyze for other solutions. So Verso acts rather unfairly toward her, and then makes a promise to win back her trust.
For Sciel, she processes her anger and hurt differently. She may have chosen to ‘get over’ her anger, but the hurt in her voice betrays how she feels. She tries to keep her tone light, but the desperate hope still slips through. Their conversation ends with her saying:
SCIEL: As long as you help me bring Pierre back. You owe me.
VERSO: You got it.Once again, he makes a promise. Yet, his conversation with Maelle shows he may not honor the promise to Lune and Sciel:
MAELLE: We have to push Papa out of the Canvas before he erases everything.
VERSO: I’m surprised he hasn’t already.
MAELLE: He’s been weakened by his battle with Maman. That’s probably why he hasn’t come after us. But it won’t stop him for long.
VERSO: If you and your father keep fighting, you risk breaking the world again. Another Fracture, but this time, it might be you trapped inside the Monolith.
MAELLE: What’s the alternative?
VERSO: Maybe… maybe you should go home.
MAELLE: Verso…
VERSO: You’re fighting each other but you’re all doing the same thing.
MAELLE: No.
VERSO: Aline wants her son back. Renoir wants you and Aline back. You want Gustave back. The cycle we needed to break wasn’t the Gommage. It’s your family’s cycle of grief.
MAELLE: …
VERSO: Our whole world carries the burden of your family’s grief.Although there is truth that the Canvas world carries the burden of the Dessendre’s family’s grief, he makes an assumption about Maelle’s motivations. Yes, Maelle may want Gustave back, but she earlier clarified that she doesn’t believe Painted Verso nor the Canvas people are ‘make-believe.’ She views them as real, and she refuses to let people die simply because her father decided they were a threat. So his assertion that it’s her continuing the cycle fails to understand the complexity in her motivations.
Instead, Verso tries to argue again why Maelle should leave the Canvas, but if she does, that means Renoir will finish erasing the Canvas and Lune and Sciel will never see their friends and family again. In fact, Lune and Sciel will cease to exist too. This conversation reveals that Verso is simply telling Lune and Sciel what they want to hear so that they can aid him in his goals. He isn’t holding himself accountable here. He’s manipulating everyone to push them toward the end-goal that he’s decided is best.
In doing this, he shows a lack of ability to understand and learn from the hurt and pain he’s done to others. He’s not really listening to them because he’s mapped out ways to carefully push each person into the actions he needs for his own goals. Thus, he’s continuing the cycle of violence.
Maelle has made it clear she wants the cycle of violence to end. She wants to save the Canvas people, because she believes they have a right to exist, that they are not ‘make-believe’ but real. Yet in these conversations, Verso turns up his charm and manipulation tactics to try to tweak the situation to his benefit. He wants Maelle to give up and leave the canvas so Renoir can erase it. He needs Lune and Sciel to work with them so that he can reach Renoir as he suspects that confrontation will be the only way he can push Maelle out of the Canvas.
Healing cannot happen in a manipulative environment that continues to cause harm to others. In the Beyond Survival Anthology, Kai Cheng Thom’s essay called ‘What to Do when You’ve Been Abusive,’ has a list of steps to assist people on that journey toward accountability and healing. The first step:
“‘Learn to Listen When Someone Says You Have Hurt Them.’ When one has been abusive, the very first — and one of the most difficult — skills of holding oneself accountable is learning to simply listen to the person or people whom one has harmed:
- Listening without becoming defensive.
- Listening without trying to equivocate or make excuses.
- Listening without minimizing or denying the extent of the harm.
- Listening without trying to make oneself the center of the story being told.
When someone, particularly a partner or loved one, tells you that you have hurt or abused them, it can be easy to understand this as an accusation or attack…”
Thom here lists what Verso struggles to do in these conversations. He listens but is also defensive with Lune about his actions and proceeds to make excuses for his actions. In a way, Verso struggles to not see these confrontation as an attack, but truthfully, Lune calling out the harm isn’t an attack, it’s a consequence. Pointing out harm isn’t an attack but a courageous moment of honesty and vulnerability. Whether Verso sees that gift of vulnerability is hard to say as his actions and words are conflict depending on the person to whom he speaks.
Verso tends to make himself the center of the story being told in both Lune and Maelle’s conversations. The only one he doesn’t do this with is Sciel, but then Sciel doesn’t really give him that chance. Sciel recognizes that he speaks to give his reasons, and she doesn’t want to hear it, so she instead takes the conversation toward what they will do next. It’s a masterful way of pivoting the conversation to a more active form of accountability — Sciel is essentially asking Verso, “So, you hurt us, what are you going to do to fix this? Here’s one solution.”
Verso accepts Sciel’s solution, but then his conversation with Maelle, he goes on the rampage. He points out her family’s cycle of grief continues to hurt this Canvas, but he also knows that if Maelle leaves, there is no possible way he can honor his promises to Sciel and Lune. He speaks of a cycle of grief that causes harm, which is important to acknowledge, yet he refuses to listen to what Maelle is saying. In turn, Maelle goes quiet, which she often does to think over what others have said.
Thus, Verso’s defensiveness with Lune and Maelle ends up being:
“… the cycle of violence talking. This is the script that rape culture has built for us: a script in which there must be a hero and a villain, a right and a wrong, an accuser and an accused. What if we understood being confronted about perpetuating abuse as an act of courage — even a gift — on the part of the survivor?
What if, instead of reacting immediately in our own defense, we instead took the time to listen, to really try to understand the harm we might have done to another person?
When we think of accountability in terms of listening and love instead of accusation and punishment, everything changes. Listenign without becoming defensive does not necessarily mean relinquishing one’s own truth. We must be able to make room for varying perspectives and multiple emotional truths in our hearts.”
Painted Verso doesn’t make room for varying perspectives or multiple emotional truths. He may take some responsibility for his actions, or at least acknowledges the harm his actions have done, where he takes on only what he has done — no more, no less, but he doesn’t truly grow from that.
Thom writes how taking responsibility for the abuse is a crucial step, but one must also “accept that your reasons are not excuses.”
There is no reason good enough to excuse abusive behavior. Reasons help us understand abuse, but they do not excuse it. Accepting this is essential to transforming culpability into accountability and turning justice into healing.
Painted Verso spends a lot of time giving his reasons and expecting that to excuse his actions. Lune will have none of it as his reasons doesn’t excuse his lying and manipulative actions. He didn’t just betray them but also lied to them and manipulated them in harmful ways. Can Verso recognize the harm and truly be accountable?
This is where support of others can be crucial. Thom writes:
“When having a dialogue with someone who has been abused, it’s essential to give the survivor the space to take the lead in expressive their needs and setting boundaries. You should also take time to think about your own needs and boundaries without making the person you have harmed take care of you. This is why having support in the community is crucial. If basic needs are going unmet, no one can heal from abuse, nor can anyone truly be accountable.
If you have abused someone, it’s not up to you to decide how the process of healing or accountability should work. This doesn’t mean that you don’t get to have rights or boundaries, or that you can’t contribute actively to the process. It means that you don’t get to say that the person you have hurt is “crazy” or that what they are expressing doesn’t matter.
Instead, it might be good idea to try asking the person who has confronted you questions like these: what do you need right now? Is there anything I can do to make this feel better? How much contact would you like to have with me going forward? If we share a community, how should I navigate situations where we might end up int he same place? How does this conversation feel for you, right now?
At the same time, it’s important to understand that the needs of survivors of abuse can change over time, and that survivors may not always know right away — or ever — what their needs are.
Being accountable and responsible for abuse means being patient, flexible, and reflective about the process of having dialogue with the survivor.”
It’s crucial to note here that Thom is not saying that the survivor is an expert on accountability or that they should have full control over the process. Thom adds:
“I feel strongly that as long as punishment remains at the center of our thinking around accountability and justice, survivor-led processes are doomed to fall into the trap of individuals desperately trying to avoid accountability out of fear. Survivor-led, to me, means that survivors get to lead their own process of recovery, that survivors are given space to tell their stories and speak their needs (which criminal justice usually does not allow).
It does not mean that people who have been deeply wounded are suddenly handed full responsibility for a community dialogue and rehabilitation process. Survivor-led does not mean that the community gets to abdicate its responsibility for providing support, safety, expertise, and leadership in making healing happen.”
There are multiple paths in the accountability and healing process: the survivor, the one who caused harm, and the community. These paths may intersect at times, but Thom is arguing that none should exert control over the other’s path. Instead, listening, understanding, honoring boundaries, and opening onself up to changing present and future behaviors is what ‘survivor-led’ should mean.
Thom also makes it clear that the community itself needs to be involved to lay the groundwork to meet the needs of those within this process. Support by building safety, sharing expertise to help guide, and providing leadership to keep those involved accountable are all needed to assist in the healing process here.
Community support allows those involved to have someone with which to work through their emotions and thoughts. By working through emotions and thoughts, one can come to understand one’s own behaviors, emotions, actions, and through that find a path forward. This work means they are also holding themself accountable in the sense they are continuing to move forward on the path toward healing. Supportive friends, family, and community members can assist in helping those in this process stay on the healing path — that’s another type of accountability.
Supportive community is is what Painted Verso lacks. He does not allow anyone to truly be in community with him, and those that try are held at arm’s length with him manipulating events toward his own ends. Whether he ever allowed community to help him work through his trauma and pain relies on his own shared stories, of which seem suspect since what he says to one person doesn’t always align with what he says to another of the same event. The best we have is a journal entry from a prior expedition where he expresses his pain and hopes — hopes he doesn’t seem to have in Maelle’s time.
VERSO’S JOURNAL:
I miss you. I don’t have the right to miss you but I do. I wish I could talk to you. Tell you. Fuck. I don’t know what I would tell you. Just ask that you forgive me. Julie, forgive me. I’m not… I’m not a traitor. I’m not. I’m trying to save… I’m trying to save us all. But you’re right. I am a coward. I’m a fucking coward. You deserved to know why. But I couldn’t. I couldn’t face you properly. Not and still do what had to be done. Papa believes you are Clea’s creation, and even if you’re not, we can no longer trust you. But I think you just wanted answers.
Why? Why couldn’t you just let it go? Why did you convince them to abduct me? Interrogate me? No. I shouldn’t say that. You thought I was a traitor. You were doing what you thought was right, just like we are. I swear to you, I’m doing what’s right. I should have known when you started questioning things that you wouldn’t be fooled. But how could I even explain? You’d have thought I’d gone mad. Doppelgangers. Countless worlds. But Papa’s right. We can’t take the risk. Too much is at stake. Too much. It had to be done. It had to. Clea already took our sister. If we want to save our family, our world, our people, we can’t take any chances. And once we free Maman, she… she’ll bring you back. It won’t be forever. I promise. We deserve to live. All of us. We deserve to exist.
In this journal, Verso admits to his pain and how much he misses Julie, who seems to be a loved one. He justifies his actions, but also shows a willingness to understand why Julie did what she thought was right. He does his best to not internalize the hurtful words that Julie and her expedition likely threw at him — traitor for one. However, he makes a crucial mistake here by assuming Julie’s reactions to the actual truth. He doesn’t allow her to have agency, and instead took that from her by keeping her in the dark. This fueled distrust, especially as he acknowledges Julie had started to question things and notice what doesn’t make sense. Julie wanted answers, and Verso, here at least, acknowledges that she did deserve to know why things transpired the way they did.
He also asserts that they “deserve to exist.” Yet, in Maelle’s time, he seems to have changed his mind entirely as he spends far too much energy trying to convince Maelle to let the Canvas be erased. In his ending, he goes to great lengths to make sure the Canvas is erased. So he breaks all of his promises, and decides that no one deserves to exist in the Canvas. That they are not real and thus it is okay to erase populations.
Why does he come to this conclusion? Partly due to the massive amount of death he witnesses over the decades, and also because he doesn’t have a community to hold him accountable. When one is isolated like Painted Verso, it is all too easy to fall into despair and a desire for annihilation. This is why those who are suicidal shouldn’t be left alone, but need supportive family and friends to help them heal and find new meaning in life.
In Maelle’s ending, Maelle will try to give Verso that opportunity when she offers him the choice of “if you could grow old, would you… find a reason to smile?”
She’s trying to break the cycle of violence by making sure Verso doesn’t have to live the immortal life he so abhors. So she offers solutions that doesn’t end in a genocide of peoples or Painted Verso’s death. Despite the harm Verso has done, Maelle seeks to humanize him and offer him a compromise. Her ending hints strongly that he accepts her alternate solution and seems to find some hope in it, as he does indeed grow old.
This humanization of the person causing harm is also critical to the healing process. The survivor of abuse doesn’t have to be the one to humanize the one causing harm, but those in the community ought to be able to step in for that.
In another essay in the Beyond Survival Anthology, there is an excerpt from the handbook, Ending Child Sexual Abuse:
“We see that abuse happens when one person believes, consciously or unconsciously, that their needs, wants, and preferences take precedence over others. People engaging in abusive behaviors are often numb to, or seemingly unable to feel, the impacts of their behaviors on others.
A process of accountability and transformation requires that the person who has been harmful:
- Stop doing the harm.
- Feels empathy and remorse for the pain and impact of their actions.
- Takes measures, like restitution or reparations, to address the harm caused.
- Takes measures to prevent future harm.
- Works to understand the root causes of their harmful behavior.
- Engages in the ongoing work of accountability, healing, and integration.
- Take action and organizes to support others to heal or to be part of changing community and social conditions that allow for CSA and other forms of violence.”
Here the list shows how difficult healing can be, and how scary it is to make the choice to heal. Yet, it’s crucial for ending the cycle of violence to not dehumanize anyone involved. Dehumanization continues the cycle of violence. As the handbook excerpt says:
“It is important to center the needs of those most directly impacted by the harm in a situation. We also hold that recognizing and attending to the humanity of those who harm is a central aspect of transforming our families, communities, and society. Seeing and dignifying the healing needs of people who abuse also runs counter to the idea that some people “out there” are “monsters” who are expendable or need to be “weeded out.” By standing for everyone’s need for healing, we challenge the dehumanizing logic that is central to systems of oppression, domination, and abuse. By standing for everyone’s need for healing, we maintain our commitment to a vision of true liberation.”
Part of this process means those who cause harm need to understand that not all consequences are “harm.” Consequences to their actions are often necessary and may not be a form of “harm.” For example, Lune calling out the harm of Verso’s lies is the consequence of his actions. She lost trust in him is another consequence. Him having to earn back that trust is yet another consequence. None of these consequences are “harms” done to Verso. It’s simply part of the accountability process.
Humanizing those involved are absolutely critical to ending the cycle of violence. When people are dehumanized, they are stripped of who they are, and this causes harm to all involved. If the cycle of violence is to be ended, then those involved must be humanized and their dignity honored.
This is incredibly difficult to do at times. As a survivor of abuse, I struggled greatly with wanting my abuser to feel the weight of my pain, but through therapy, I learned that truthfully I didn’t want my abuser to be harmed in return. I wanted the cycle of abuse to end. That revelation allowed me to move past the anger and make a conscious choice to heal.
This conscious choice to heal is required of those that cause harm as well. However, shame, guilt, and fear can often make that choice extremely difficult.
Both Verso and Maelle struggle with shame and guilt. Maelle’s guilt and shame lay in her internalizing the blame Aline and Clea lay at her feet. Except, the fire is not Maelle’s fault, but that of the Writers that cause it. Her guilt and shame originate from actions that are not her own.
However, for Verso, his guilt and shame do originate from his own actions, for he did kill members of his prior expeditions, he did lie to people, and he did manipulate people for his own ends. However, it’s crucial to separate shame from guilt. In Kai Cheng Thom’s essay, shame and guilt is defined:
“Shame and social stigma are powerful emotional forces that can prevent us from holding ourselves accountable for being abusive. We don’t want to admit to “being that person,” so we don’t admit to having been abusive at all.
Some people might suggest that people who have been abusive ought to feel shame — after all, perpetuating abuse is wrong. I would argue, though, that this is where the difference between guilt and shame is key. Guilt is feeling bad about something you’ve done; shame is feeling bad about who you are. People who have been abusive should feel guilty for the specific acts of abuse they are responsible for. They should not feel shame about who they are because this means that abuse has become a part of their identity. It means they believe that they are fundamentally a bad person — in other words, “an abuser.”
But if you believe that you are an “abuser,” a bad person who hurts others, then you have already lost the struggle for change — because we cannot change who we are. If you believe that you are a fundamentally good person who has done hurtful or abusive things, then you open the possibility for change.”
When Thom says we “cannot change who we are,” this is in regard to our identities and personality. The “possibility for change” is in regard to our decisions, actions, and future decisions and actions. Those we can change, but we shouldn’t try to alter our personality and identity to be someone we are not. We should focus on how to make better decisions and to act in ways that are more healthy and holistic for us and those around us.
Verso, when he first introduces himself to Expedition 33, calls himself a liar. By doing so, he shows he internalized his actions as part of his identity. This makes it very difficult to hold oneself accountable and being open to the “possibility for change.” If he views lying as crucial to his identity, then why should he stop? It’s who he is, isn’t it? It’s a complete 180 from his journal entry where he refused to accept ‘traitor’ as being who he is.
But lying isn’t who he truly is. He’s, instead, taken a behavior and marked it as a personality trait. Truthfully, his personality isn’t a lying manipulator — we can see bits and pieces of who he is in the scenes where he plays a piano with Maelle, goes out of his way to help Sciel move past her fear of water, shares music with Lune, chats with Esquie, or hangs out with Monoco. He’s a bit silly, fun-loving, jokester, that wants to do the right thing but doesn’t know how. He’s trapped in a cycle of his own making, yet he’s unwilling to recognize his own cycle. Instead, he internalizes the lies as part of who he is, when it’s not — that’s his trauma speaking.
Until Verso can recognize his own cycle of violence and shame, he remains trapped in his cycle, unable to acknowledge his abuse and never able to progress toward healing. Even in his ending, when he fights Maelle to force her from the Canvas, his solution to his cycle is to annihilate himself and everyone in the Canvas. He refuses to see another way. Yet, until he recognizes that his harmful behaviors are not core to his personality, he won’t ever see how to stop his cycle of harm.
This is where Thom goes on to state that as much as those who cause harm shouldn’t “expect anyone to forgive you,” they should, however, forgive themselves:
“Being accountable is not about earning forgiveness. This is to say, it doesn’t matter how accountable you are — nobody has to forgive you for being abusive, least of all the person you have abused. In fact, using the process of “doing” accountability to manipulate or coerce someone into their forgiveness to you is an extension of the abuse dynamic. It center the abuser, not the survivor. One shouldn’t aim for forgiveness when holding oneself accountable. Rather self-accountability is about learning how we have harmed others, why we have harmed others, and how we can stop.
But… you do have to forgive yourself. Because you can’t stop hurting other people until you stop hurting yourself. When one is abusive, when one is hurting so much on the inside that it feels like the only way to make it stop is to hurt other people, it can be terrifying to face the hard truth of words like abuse and accountability. One might rather blame others, blame society, blame the people we love, instead of ourselves.
This is true, I think, of community as well as individuals. It is so much easier, so much simpler, to create hard lines between good and bad people, to create walls to shut the shadowy archetype of “the abuser” out instead of mirrors to look at the abuser within.
Perhaps this is why self-accountability tools like this list are so rare. It takes courage to be accountable. To decide to heal. But when we do decide, we discover incredible new possibilities. There is good and bad in everyone. Anyone can heal, given the right circumstances, and everyone can heal, given the same. You are capable of loving and being loved. Always. Always. Always.”
These are critical points for accountability. The process isn’t so we can “earn forgiveness” like it’s some sort of game achievement. Accountability is about learning, listening, seeking to understand why we did what we did, and finding solutions on how we can stop. Where we end the cycle of violence and instead move into a trajectory toward healing and choosing actions that cause the least harm and the most good.
And what is the most good? How do we know what is good?
To understand what ‘good’ means, we need to briefly explore ethics and morality. This game, thankfully, has already given us that exploration already in the Lumierians — Gustave and Lune in particular. I won’t dig too deeply into this as I feel that Lord Khoury does a much better job in his video here (which I recommend as he lays out an excellent case for why Maelle’s ending is a morally good one). I will simply briefly highlight Gustave’s and Lune’s use of Utilitarianism.
Consequences and Utilitarianism
Gustave, at the start of the game points out how the Gommage seems almost gentle, how it makes Lumiere seem complacent, but it is no less violent. He defines the act of violence and injustice, and in his temporal reality, Lumiere identified the best route to liberation is through confrontation with the Paintress.
Throughout the Prologue and Act 1, we are shown how Gustave lives his morals and how he determines actions to be morally good. These deliberations rely on what is known as utilitarianism. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines this as:
“…utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one’s own good.”
Gustave’s moralism shows through the projects he describes — teaching his apprentices, Aquafarms, etc. — and in how he interacts with those around him. He understands quite well the consequences of possible actions, and chooses the ones that will do the most good.
For example, when Expedition 33 is separated, Gustave determines the right action is to seek Maelle. He evaluates the consequences of this, and although his emotions push for a specific end result, he still evaluates based on the known information at that time. As in, the note inscribed on the Indigo Tree, the lack of survivors at the Indigo Tree meeting point, and the knowledge of how difficult it is to survive alone.
GUSTAVE: It’s a lead, or only lead, whoever this is has Maelle. We have to go.
LUNE: No, not yet. Protocol is to regroup at rendevous point and wait three days. This message feels off. If it was an Expeditioner, they would have stayed here. Everyone knows the protocol.
GUSTAVE: Right, but they may have been in danger. Maybe this location has been compromised. Things change in the field.
LUNE: There’s a reason its protocol.
GUSTAVE: Protocol doesn’t cover every contingency. You know that.
LUNE: There’s a reason its Protocol. We designed it to yield the optimal result in the vast majority of situations.
GUSTAVE: Was our entire team dying part of that “optimal result?”
LUNE: …
GUSTAVE: Look, I’m going after Maelle. Protocol also states ‘never move solo.’ I’ll let you choose what protocol to break.Here we see how both Gustave and Lune lay out their reasoning for the preferred actions. Gustave focuses on the consequences and concludes going after Maelle will save the most lives based on their current information. Lune, who attempts to argue for the Protocol, finds herself faced with possible consequences that could either endanger Gustave — if he goes alone — or herself — if she stays and he goes — or the mission — if the team is split up.
Lune follows him because of the two protocols they are breaking — one results in a higher number of lives saved and better chance at surviving long enough to complete their mission. Thus, after evaluating what is known and the consequences of various actions, she determines the action that achieve the most good.
In survival, determining the consequences of actions that result in the most lives saved fits firmly in the utilitarianism worldview. Thus, in determining what actions are ‘good,’ it is crucial to seek to understand the consequences of that action for everyone — not just ourselves. This is where Verso falls short as his understanding of the consequences of his actions revolves around the impact on himself; he continues to assert his view, even when others protest and show the harm of it.
Part of that is because he doesn’t show a willingness to examine the situation fully with other people. He’s kept himself relatively isolated for decades, and sought to meet his needs on his own. Isolation can easily distort our thinking and lead us toward despair.
With the Lumierians, we see an alternate route. Gustave and Lune actively talk through the situation at the Indigo Tree. Gustave lays out his analysis and Lune does as well. Gustave, however, focuses on the lives he can actively save in that moment rather than the lives they do not know still live or not. Though this dialogue, the two examine consequences of their actions. Both go back and forth in acknowledging what the other is saying, and also responding to the concerns brought up. In the end, Gustave’s decision to go after Maelle is vindicated in his eyes, and he offers Lune a choice. Lune, in turn, honors the protocol that will save the most lives — staying with Gustave and saving someone that is likely still alive. Considering, they have no further data on anyone else surviving, going after Maelle ends up being justified as the ‘good’ decision through the consequences of their actions.
We see this same sort of analysis play out a few times in Act 1 with how the group analyzes the situation, examines consequences, and come to a decision. Gustave and Lune lead the charge here, and their example provides a litmus test for Maelle to use in trying to determine what decisions are ‘good.’
For another example, Gustave and Lune’s intense fight before they find Maelle:
GUSTAVE: I am not letting Maelle die out here. I’m taking her home.
LUNE: What? No, no, no, we have a mission —
GUSTAVE: Oh, fuck the mission! Fuck the mission, Lune. What are we gonna do? Tell me. What are we gonna do? We’re gonna take down the Paintress, just the three of us? My — my gun and your sparks?
LUNE: I didn’t take you for a coward.
GUSTAVE: I’m not a coward.
LUNE: You swore the oath. “When one falls, we continue.”
GUSTAVE: Yes, I know.
LUNE: When one falls. WHEN one falls. Not if. When. We knew not all of us would make it. But “We Continue.” As long even one of us stands, our fight is not over.
GUSTAVE: But I’m not afraid to fight, it’s just Maelle, she’s —
LUNE: Maelle swore the same oath!
GUSTAVE: I know that!
LUNE: She choose her life! Come on, we always said that the future of Lumiere was more important than any —
GUSTAVE: individual life, yes.
LUNE: Do you still believe that?Here Lune reminds Gustave of the consequences of swearing their oath. Consequences all of them knew before they swore the oath. She also makes it clear that Maelle also swore this oath, knowing the risks, and that she choose that. Lune is reminding Gustave of Maelle’s agency. Through this conversation, she’s challenging him on the consequences of what will happen if he takes Maelle back: he’d break his oath, he’d leave Lune here to continue alone, he’d violate Maelle’s agency, and he would put the future of Lumiere at risk.
This conversation pushes Gustave toward the ‘good’ decision, which is to honor Maelle’s agency. Something he will confirm in a later conversation after they are reunited with Maelle and have found Sciel with the Gestrals:
GUSTAVE: Maybe you should stay…
MAELLE: What?
GUSTAVE: It’s safer in the village.
MAELLE: And miss the change to meet Esquie? No way.
GUSTAVE: Maelle…
MAELLE: I’m okay. We stick together.This conversation proved Lune to be correct. The consequences Lune had laid out as her reasoning on the ‘good choice,’ made it clear that Maelle had chosen this life. Gustave here confirms it with Maelle herself, and he then honors that choice.
Thus, Gustave and Lune provide excellent examples of the use of utilitarianism for determining the morally ‘good’ choice, as well as how to handle conflict. They also show how the Canvas Lumierians honor the agency of others.
It’s through our dialogue with those around us that we come to understand possible consequences and how they may impact others. That dialog then allows us to generate ideas that cause the least harm to all involved and saves the most lives (or in less dire situations, helps the most people feel heard, understood, and agency honored). This can be difficult to do, and in times of danger, we often act on instinct because there isn’t enough time to deliberate on consequences.
However, after the danger is over, we must be willing to analyze what happened and take accountability for our actions. We must not take on the responsibility of other people’s actions, only take on our own. We need to listen to others, and they in turn listen to us. We need to be open to change behaviors if we cause harm, which we see Lune, Gustave, Maelle, and Sciel do on their journey. That’s part of holding one another accountable and choosing healing.
Maelle having the support of her Canvas family is critical to her own journey toward healing. The scene where Maelle has a waking nightmare in Act 1 after the Gestral Village, we see Gustave, Sciel, and Lune gather around her to comfort her. They bring down her panic, and stay at her side until she’s calm. This level of care is not shown by the Dessendre family toward Maelle. Thus, Maelle finds her strongest support system within the Canvas, away from an environment of abuse and neglect. This chosen family helps hold her accountable and supports her as she makes decisions to end the cycle of violence. To choose to heal.
Verso struggles to understand this lesson the entirety of the game. The only clue we are given that he may finally learn it is in Maelle’s ending, when Maelle offers a different solution to his desire to cease his immortal life. He still lives in her ending, but he’s grown old. His fingers find it harder to play the piano — hence the dissonance at first before he plays. Perhaps in this ending he learns how to be accountable and chooses healing. The game seems to imply it, but the game also leaves it open-ended.
In Verso’s ending, Verso doesn’t choose healing but instead chooses to take the agency from everyone involved — Maelle, the faded boy, the different Canvas peoples — and fades into annihilation. Maelle, then, returns to life as Alicia Dessendre, who is disabled and essentially institutionalized in her family’s manor. She has no support system, and her mother still looks at her with disdain. Clea still offers no support, only goes off to do her one-person war. In the ending, Renoir doesn’t even look at Alicia — only at Aline. Alicia stands isolated, and tries to smile, tries to see anything good in this, but instead, she hallucinates the family she’s lost. As they gommage away, I noticed how her shoulders droop and she holds Esquie tighter. A sign that her hope evaporates with them? Again, the game leaves it open-ended.
When still in an abusive environment, healing is out of reach, even if one chooses it, because the circumstances causing the trauma is ongoing. One must exit the abusive environment, but to do so often requires support of others to assist in finding a safer place to be. If there is no one there to provide the necessary support to heal, then it is incredibly difficult to actively heal.
Thus, healing from grief and from abuse both require breaking cycles, but to break those cycles, we need the necessarily family/friends and/or community support. It is not truly possible to do this when we are isolated, because isolation itself is a form of harm that can easily lead us into despair, as we saw with Painted Verso.
Breaking the cycle of violence can only happen when we have built up a community of people who love us for who we are. Then and only then, will we have the support to choose to heal, to hold ourselves accountable, to actively listen to others, and when needed alter our behaviors toward more healthy patterns.
This is not an easy process, and it will require hard work from all involved. Yet the payoff is a healthier existence and a chance to thrive rather than just survive.
#abuse #accountability #Characters #clairObscurExpedition33 #disability #GameAnalysis #gameNarrative #healing #healingJourney #justice #mentalHealth #narrativeAnalysis #responsibility #transformativeJustice #writing
-
Clair Obscur: To be accountable to those that come after
CROSSPOST FROM COMRADERY. Part of a three part series: Disability (part 1), Right to Exist (part 2), and Accountability and Healing (part 3).
In my prior essays, I related themes woven through Clair Obscur to show how it can parallel real world complexities and oppression.
For the character of Alicia and Gustave (and even Lune if we accept my assertion of her as neurodivergent), disability cords through the story and asks questions the game may not have intended. I explored in that essay how Disability was a class constructed by capitalism to control labor and those unable to labor, and through that I showed how disability has been used to denote evil and bad throughout American history. But Clair Obscur twists those tropes on their head and refuses to villianize the disabled within the game. Instead, Alicia, Gustave, and others are given complex journeys and heralded as heroes in a way. Yet, by the end, the final ending choice between Verso and Maelle felt as if the player was the judge determining the fate of the disabled person for them. I wrote:
Will we be given the care and support we need to thrive? Will we be given agency to choose our own fate and route to healing?
Clair Obscur offers that choice to the player, thus placing the fate of a disabled person in their hands. In a way, the player acts as the judge who determines the fate of a disabled person, to determine whether they ever access the care and benefits they need. It is a replica of how our real world works, and it forces a painful glimpse into the struggles of disabled people.
This essay led me to my next where I explored the nature of the Canvas people and whether they are real. I examined how this paralleled dehumanizing narratives that subjugate and destroy unique cultures. I laid down a map of the shifting temporal realities the game presents through the different main characters of each act: Gustave (Lumierian reality), Verso (immortal painted Dessendre reality), and Maelle (both Dessendre reality and Lumierian reality). How weaving these different realities forces us to contend with the nature of what is real and who is allowed to exist within that reality.
The conclusion I came to, which perhaps will not surprise anyone reading my writings, is that I chose the ending that gave agency to people and saved the most lives. I could not accept that the unique lives of those in the Canvas were less than the Dessendre family. Nor could I accept anyone deciding for a disabled person how they must exist and heal.
By exploring these darker aspects of Clair Obscur, I undoubtedly focused on the more abusive and manipulative aspects of the Dessendre family to show how unsupportive they’ve been to Alicia/Maelle. The evidence painted within the game left me uneasy about the Dessendre family, partly informed by my own traumas as a queer nonbinary disabled person. Yes, they do love each other but love does not mean abuse cannot happen or exist, which I argued in my essay on Disability. That darkness echoed trauma and pain that destroying the Canvas cannot truly heal. A cycle of violence doesn’t heal through the use of more violence, but only when the cycle is stopped.
One could argue that Verso sought to stop the cycle of grief, and isn’t that stopping the cycle of violence? But that negates the temporal reality of the Canvas people, who endured countless oppressive actions and outright genocide. Sacrificing a population of people in an effort to ‘heal’ one family only continues the cycle of violence, and it doesn’t solve the lack of support in the Dessendre world, which Verso’s ending never truly reconciles. Alicia is still isolated, still without a voice, still disabled in a world that has done little to meet any of her needs.
So then, do we ever exit the cycle of violence? And what would it look like to attempt such a thing?
In my Disability essay, I pointed out healing cannot begin until we exit the abusive/traumatic environment/situation. Part of healing involves the end of the cycle of violence, which differs based on who abused and who endured the abuse. Those that abuse must hold themselves accountable and engage in repair as well as work on their own healing. Those that endured abuse must work on their own healing, and recognize the best place for that, which might require them to not engage again the person who harmed them. Ending the cycle of violence and moving toward accountability and healing is not an easy process and the trajectory will differ based on who is involved.
Yet even with those differing paths, one must still hold oneself accountable in order to push forward in the healing process. We will backslide. We will mess up, but it is crucial to acknowledge when we cause harm or when we make a mistake, apologize, and do better. That’s all part of the accountability process.
So in this essay, I want to explore what accountability is and how it does and doesn’t manifest in the characters’ storylines. Whether the characters were able to truly end the cycle of violence and move forward into healing or if the game leaves those questions open-ended.
What is Accountability? And how do we do it?
Accountability within today’s culture, especially within America where I’m situated, is wrought with videos and images of call-out culture. Where people call others out publically the harm and demand repair. While this may be a useful tactic when facing off against the rich and powerful, it ultimately isn’t true accountability. Or at least not the kind that may lead to actual healing and change.
So when I speak of accountability, I do not mean that public spectacle. I instead mean conversations like what Maelle and Verso have in Clair Obscur. They happen on a personal level and/or within the community, and often are not on a public stage. They may instead happen behind closed doors with or without a mediator. The survivor may decide or not decide to be present, while the person who harmed them works toward healing and accountability. It’s a complex process that goes far, far beyond the initial identification of the harm.
In the first chapter of the anthology Beyond Suvival: Strategies and Stories from the Transformative Justice Movement, editors Ejeris Dixon and Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha writes:
“Transformative justice and community accountability are terms that describe ways to address violence without relying on police or prisons. These approaches often work to prevent violence, to intervene when harm is occurring, to hold people accountable, and to transform individuals and society to build safer communities. These strategies are some of hte only options that marginalized communities have to address harm.
The work of transformative justice can happen in a variety of ways. Some groups support survivors by helping them identify their needs and boundaries while ensuring their attackers agree to these boundaries and atone for the harm they caused. Other groups create safe spaces and sanctuaries to support people escaping from violence.”
Here they show how accountability is only one piece of a larger puzzle of addressing violence. Without accountability, much of the work to address and end the cycle of violence would fracture and fall apart, yet as crucial as it is, full healing requires far more than just accountability.
Ejeris Dixon goes on to add:
“Violence and oppression break community ties and breed fear and distrust. At its core, the work to create safety is to build meaningful, accountable relationships within our neighborhoods and communities.”
Without trust, one cannot build safety. Without safety, one struggles to be vulnerable. Without vulnerability, one struggles to heal. And without the choice to heal, one will fail to hold oneself accountable.
This isn’t to say these are steps in a process, but more they are interlinking threads that are woven into a larger tapestry. Each thread crucial to the final form, and the tapestry wouldn’t be the same without each thread and stitch. None of this is easy, but then healing isn’t ever easy.
Healing always requires a choice. Do we choose to heal? Do we choose to hold ourselves accountable to that journey? Do we choose to be accountable for our actions and engage in repair when we inevitably cause harm? How do we engage in repair? Are we willing to be responsible and listen to those harmed by us? To let those harmed take the lead? Can we separate shame from guilt? To not fear accountability but instead embrace it so all involved can move forward in healing?
Of course, asking those questions can feel daunting, and it’s why relationship-building is so crucial. Healing requires support of one’s family, friends, and/or community. We can’t really heal in isolation. In chapter three of Beyond Survival, Blythe Barnow speaks about how isolation harmed her ability to heal:
“In the end, that was the most damaging. Doing it alone. Believing it was all my responsibility. Not the assault. But the healing. The justice. The protection for nameless other girls. I leaned heavy into the skills I learned as a child, over responsibility, independence, sharp analysis, and self-sacrifice. Which meant I never asked for the support I was so desperate for.
Because what I needed, maybe more than his apology, was a community of people who could help me hold and honor the stories that led to this one, who could help me uproot the layers of silence learned through too much violence. I needed to be asked what I wanted and what I was hoping for. I needed someone to help me craft those letters, someone to remind me that I could list expectations. I needed someone who was going to sit with me through the fallout. Someone who could read the responses people sent me and tell me to wait before reading them myself. I needed someone beside me to reflect the ways my own trauma, old and new, was informing the process. I needed someone who could show me love that was deeper and more nuanced than just hating him.”
I relate deeply to Barnow’s words here because isolation can steal away our voice, where we put on a brave mask for others. Often society and even friends and family can put tremendous pressure on survivors to ‘move on’ from the harm, to not speak of it, to stay silent, but that too is part of the cycle of violence. If we cannot acknowledge violence happened, how can we ever stop it from replaying again and again? Many therapists and researchers have written of the cycle of domestic violence and how it can sometimes thread through families. Part of that relies on silence and isolation.
Breaking silence and isolation requires the support of others, and it’s not easy to do. Believe me, I’ve struggled with this my whole life, but I’ve made progress on my healing from abuse because of the support of dear friends and good therapists.
This is why Maelle and Verso are able to have any conversation that deals with accountability. Lune, Sciel, Esquie, and Monoco form a support system to help them break the cycle of silence and isolation. This chosen family gives Maelle the love she needs to learn and grow, and they attempt to offer this to Verso as well.
For example, exploring the Reacher area will lead to the peak, where Painted Alicia ignores her brother to speak with Maelle privately — here the color fades into greyscale. She leads Maelle into the cavern at the peak to show her the true axon, and also to express her thoughts to Maelle through gestures and their fencing match.
After Painted Alicia leads Maelle back to the others, the scene snaps back into color. Maelle offers Alicia “a new beginning,” and I think she meant to repaint Alicia’s face and restore her voice. However, Painted Alicia grasps Maelle’s hand and presses it against her, thus thwarting Maelle’s attempt to repaint her face. Instead, she gasps out her desire for Maelle to gommage her. Verso doesn’t have a chance to stop it, because Maelle does as Painted Alicia asks.
Verso responds by trying to stop Maelle, and ends up holding the red petal remains of Painted Alicia. Sciel is at his side to comfort him in his grief.
The conversation they have later at camp delves into the impact of Maelle’s act:
MAELLE: I’m sorry.
VERSO: …
MAELLE: It’s what she wanted. I owed her that much. We owed her that much. I honoured her wishes. That’s something neither you nor Renoir ever did. And not Maman either.
VERSO: … I didn’t get to say goodbye. You didn’t wait. You didn’t give me a chance to persuade her.
MAELLE: She knew what she wanted. You wouldn’t have been able to sway her.
VERSO: She’s not you. You don’t know that. I know her better than you do. But you didn’t even give me the chance to try. You just erased her.
MAELLE: Verso…
VERSO: You’ve lost two brothers. You know what it’s like to lose your sibling and never get the chance to say goodbye.
MAELLE: …
VERSO: You Painters. You just do what you want, you don’t care how it affects the rest of us.
MAELLE: I do care. I know you’re hurting, but the person who made that decision wasn’t me. It was her. It would have been wrong to deny her just so you could try and talk her out of her decision.Here Maelle seeks to understand Verso and why he is upset. She wants him to understand her reasons, where she sought to honor Painted Alicia’s wishes. She argues here for Painted Alicia’s agency in this, and how taking away her agency wouldn’t have been right.
Verso lashes out because of his grief and pain, but his words here “you don’t care how it affects the rest of us,” doesn’t align with the truth of Painted Alicia and Maelle’s actions at the peak of Reacher. Painted Alicia had made her wishes known, where she did not wish to continue in the disabled body Aline had given her in punishment for an action she’d never done. Perhaps there could have been other ways for her to thrive, but Painted Alicia had tried for decades to find that. Yet, perhaps it is irony that she sought the same annihilation that Painted Verso secretly seeks.
Maelle tries, in her own way, to honor the agency of others. To offer them different solutions, but Painted Alicia didn’t want any other solution. She had taken Maelle’s hand to press against her and urged her to gommage her away.
Does Maelle come to understand what Verso is trying to articulate here? Because so far, she gives her reasons and argues for Painted Alicia’s agency. The scene continues:
VERSO: She’s the last of my family. I have no one left now.
MAELLE: You have me. You have us.
VERSO: MAELLE. I wasn’t ready.
MAELLE: I don’t understand. You were ready when you set Papa free. You expected that he would erase the Canvas and everyone in it. Isn’t that the same thing?
VERSO: It’s different! It’s different. Why did she do that?
MAELLE: You know why.
VERSO: …
MAELLE: But you’re right. I should have thought of you. I should have given you a chance to say goodbye. I’m truly sorry, Verso.
VERSO: … *cries* At least she’s free now.Maelle briefly gets defensive because she struggles to understand, but then she takes a moment to think. She may view the two events of setting Renoir free to erase everyone versus her honoring Alicia’s wishes to be erased as equivalent, but Verso does not. We then see Maelle hold herself accountable by putting herself in Verso’s shoes in an effort to understand. She admits that Verso is indeed right. She should have thought of him, and she apologizes. As one continues through the journey, Maelle does her best to honor this by doing better.
She also tries to show Verso that he does have people left. He has Maelle, Lune, Sciel, Monoco, and others as they all have been trying to reach out and build connections with him. He chooses to hold himself in isolation from them, whether he is conscious of it or not.
She actively does her best to hold herself accountable, to learn from her actions, and this shows how she wishes to end the cycle of harm. She wants everyone’s agency to be honored, for people to find what they need, and although she may offer different ways to do that, if the person ultimately rejects a solution, who is Maelle to refuse to honor their decision? For a sixteen-year-old, she’s remarkably mature here.
Verso, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to hold that same self-awareness, or if he did, he seems to have lost it. He’s so caught up in his cycle of violence, that he struggles to see any other solution as viable. To see this, let’s look at a conversation near the start of Act 3, when Maelle returns to the Canvas:
MAELLE: You should have helped me remember.
VERSO: Yeah… I wanted to, but I… I’m sorry.
MAELLE: I’m sorry too. If I’d listened to Maman… if I hadn’t trusted the Writers, Verso would still be alive, and you —
VERSO: Wouldn’t exist.
MAELLE: Wouldn’t be caught in the middle. Maman did a terrible thing, painting you into Verso’s Canvas. Giving you his memories. Pretending the fire only took me. But I’m glad you exist.
VERSO: Your father was right to erase everyone. It’s better this way.
MAELLE: Better for who? Verso would have never wanted his Canvas gone. He loved Esquie and his Gestrals and the Grandis.
VERSO: It was killing my … our mother, staying here so long in a make-believe world with her make-believe family.
MAELLE: It’s not make-believe. It’s not… you’re not.. To me…Here Verso sees only one solution: annihilation. However, his reasons for why he manipulated and lied to Maelle are just that — excuses. So he acknowledges the hurt he did and apologizes. For true accountability to happen, it’s not enough to simply apologize; one’s present and future behaviors will need changed to avoid replicating the harm and continuing the cycle of violence.
For Maelle, she also apologizes, but in this instance, what is there for her to apologize for? Perhaps she shouldn’t have trusted whoever the Writers were, but she is not responsible for them starting a fire and for Verso’s death. Maelle is only responsible for her own actions, not the actions of others. This shows how she’s internalized the shame and guilt Clea and Aline both shoved onto her; both needed someone to blame, and Alicia, the survivor, is a convenient person to lay down the blame. Maelle/Alicia is young and lacking the support to realize that she does not need to carry this blame as it is not hers to bear.
Painted Verso does not try to negate the blame Maelle/Alicia puts on herself. Instead, he tries to convince Maelle that it is better for those in the Canvas to not exist, for the Canvas to be destroyed, but Maelle refuses to accept that destruction of entire people’s is the right answer. She disagrees that everyone in the Canvas is make-believe. To her they are as real as herself. This ties into what I discussed in my Right to Exist essay.
I wrote there:
We have now returned to one of the most crucial questions in the game: What is the right decision in regards to the fate of the Canvas people and the fate of Alicia/Maelle? As I have hopefully shown thus far, erasing people’s temporal realities causes immense harm and is genocide; people have a right to exist, and sacrificing them for the ‘greater good of society’ (or in this case the Dessendre family) cannot ever be the morally right answer.
Necrosecurity, as I spoke of earlier, paints a bleak and death-filled reality, where healing cannot ever take place because denial and control is at its roots. [Defined as sacrificing a population for the greater ‘good’ of society.] Until people’s temporal realities are respected and their agency honored, healing will forever stay out of reach.
Thus, escaping pain by committing genocide is not healing. It’s a continuation of the cycle of violence. The marginalized populations facing genocide have a right to exist, and their temporal realities are as valid and important as the oppressor. Just as the temporal reality of the Canvas people are as valid and important as the Dessendre family.
Healing can only happen when the cycle of violence ends.
Verso tries to justify the death and destruction as necessary to end the cycle, but Maelle refuses to accept that reasoning. She believes Verso is wrong when he claims his self and those of the Canvas people are make-believe, and she believes they have a right to exist. She acknowledges harm happened to Painted Verso. She apologizes for her part in it. This is a step forward in the addressing of harm and ending the cycle: acknowledging what happened and why it wasn’t okay.
Again, Maelle cannot repair what her mother did because it’s not her burden to bear. Only Aline can take responsibility for her own actions. Maelle can only take responsibility for Maelle’s actions, which Maelle tries her best to do. She tries to hold herself accountable, which is something neither Clea nor Aline ever seem to do. This act of being accountable seems to have been taught to Maelle perhaps by Renoir, but far more likely it was Gustave, Lune, Sciel, and the Lumierians who taught her this.
She may have regained her memories from the real world, but that doesn’t mean she lost her memories of growing up as a Lumierian. She holds both in her head, as she will admit to Lune and Sciel after she brings them back:
MAELLE: I’m sorry. I didn’t — My memories — I would’ve told you if I’d known —
LUNE: Don’t apologize. You were trapped too. You lived among us. You’re one of us. Even if you’re also one of them.
MAELLE: It’s… so weird. I have memories of two childhoods. Two homes. Two Lumieres.
SCIEL: You’re not an orphan anymore. You just found your family. Don’t you want to be with them?
MAELLE: I love my family, but … they’re all gone. In one way of another. And you’re my family too. So are Gustave and Emma. And I didn’t see it at the time, but all the families who took turns taking care of me…Here Maelle, once again, tries to take on burdens that aren’t hers to hold. She had no memory of being a Paintress, so how could she have told them? Lune understands this and gently points this out to her. To root her in the facts of what they now know. She accepts who Maelle is — Maelle’s full self of being of Lune’s Lumiere but also of the Dessendre’s Lumiere — and provides comfort in this way.
Sciel, in turn, asks a crucial question, even though her voice aches with grief. “Don’t you want to be with them?”
Maelle’s answer is heart-rending, because truthfully, her family is gone. Clea is off fighting a one-person war with the Writers, Aline — Maelle’s mother — blames Maelle and casts her aside, Renoir may seek to bring Maelle back but he too has been neglectful of her, and Verso is gone. So what roots her in the Dessendre World? There she is disabled with no support system and half the family is abusive toward her (as I discuss in my Disability essay). So in a way, her Dessendre family is “gone” in the sense they do not truly support her, not like the Canvas Lumierians.
When Maelle blames herself for those that have harmed her or those she loved, she exhibits a common traumatic response; when she apologizes for actions that aren’t truly hers to own, that is also a traumatic response.
I know I’ve fallen into those trauma responses, where I had internalized the blame that it was my fault for the abuse done to me, my fault for the sexual assault. However, that blame is false. In reality, it wasn’t my fault as I did not do those actions. Those actions were done by other people to me. Just as Maelle did not paint Painted Verso, Aline did that. Just as Maelle didn’t start the fire, the Writers did that. Just as Maelle didn’t kill Verso, the fire and whoever started the fire did that. Just as Maelle didn’t lie to Lune and Sciel, she had no memories of her Dessendre life and thus no information to share; instead, Verso had that information and chose to not share it.
Maelle still tries to take accountability, but truthfully, it is not hers to bear. Lune gently teaches her that in that scene above.
Understanding these truths are hard when society and/or loved ones pressure us into thinking it’s our fault we were hurt. That’s just a falsehood to avoid accountability and to pressure survivors into silence, which effectively continues the cycle of violence.
To break out of that cycle, we must acknowledge that we are only responsible for our own actions and speech. Then we must separate out shame and guilt. We must choose to heal and continue toward healing no matter how hard that trajectory may become. But to even make that choice requires us to have support of others, to help us see when we are falling back into harmful thought processes that inhibit our ability to heal. Those that support us help us stay accountable to the process of healing.
Lune and Sciel both act as supporters for Maelle here. Lune, especially as she has also been hurt by Verso’s actions, seeks to hold Verso accountable. At this point in the game, Lune acts as a protective older sister to Maelle, while Sciel often falls into a motherly role. That’s part of how chosen families relate to one another — they fall into roles with one another, and those roles may change depending on the situation. Sometimes Maelle may be the more sisterly one to offer support to Lune or Sciel.
Chosen family can be a powerful support group and a crucial one, especially if one’s biological family has been abusive toward us. In the case of Maelle, some of her family members have been abusive toward her. So her chosen family provides the support for Maelle to work toward healing from that.
So what about Painted Verso? How does he hold himself accountable after this massive reveal? He hid the truth of who Maelle was from not only Maelle but everyone in the party. He manipulated them toward his end-goals. He chooses to talk to each individually, which the player can choose which character to start these conversations (or could choose to avoid them). If the player chooses to have these conversations, then how do they go?
Lune calls Painted Verso out for his lies:
LUNE: I was right not to trust you.
VERSO: And what would you have done in my position?
LUNE: I wouldn’t have betrayed my expedition. I would have warned them that everyone they cared about was about to be erased. That THEY were about to be erased. I would have told them the truth. Because after everything we’ve been through, we deserved that.
VERSO: So you’d choose your expedition over your mother?
LUNE: That’s your problem. You think in false dichotomies. It wasn’t an “either / or” a situation. Other solutions were possible, if you’d only trusted us enough to ask.
VERSO: Knowing what you know now, would you have helped me force my mother out of the Canvas?
LUNE: … *sighs*
VERSO: I don’t apologize for saving her. But I am sorry I broke your trust. And I will do everything I can to help bring everyone back.
LUNE: I guess we’ll see.Here Verso is intent on his reasons for his lies and manipulations. Lune, of course, points to the faults in his argument, because there might have been more solutions possible. Verso’s response is to put Lune on the spot, which when it comes to intense conversations like this? It’s very hard to consider alternatives when one is upset, so of course Lune couldn’t respond right away. She takes her time deliberating and analyzing possible solutions. Put her on the spot? And she falls quiet because she has not been given adequate time to process the information and analyze for other solutions. So Verso acts rather unfairly toward her, and then makes a promise to win back her trust.
For Sciel, she processes her anger and hurt differently. She may have chosen to ‘get over’ her anger, but the hurt in her voice betrays how she feels. She tries to keep her tone light, but the desperate hope still slips through. Their conversation ends with her saying:
SCIEL: As long as you help me bring Pierre back. You owe me.
VERSO: You got it.Once again, he makes a promise. Yet, his conversation with Maelle shows he may not honor the promise to Lune and Sciel:
MAELLE: We have to push Papa out of the Canvas before he erases everything.
VERSO: I’m surprised he hasn’t already.
MAELLE: He’s been weakened by his battle with Maman. That’s probably why he hasn’t come after us. But it won’t stop him for long.
VERSO: If you and your father keep fighting, you risk breaking the world again. Another Fracture, but this time, it might be you trapped inside the Monolith.
MAELLE: What’s the alternative?
VERSO: Maybe… maybe you should go home.
MAELLE: Verso…
VERSO: You’re fighting each other but you’re all doing the same thing.
MAELLE: No.
VERSO: Aline wants her son back. Renoir wants you and Aline back. You want Gustave back. The cycle we needed to break wasn’t the Gommage. It’s your family’s cycle of grief.
MAELLE: …
VERSO: Our whole world carries the burden of your family’s grief.Although there is truth that the Canvas world carries the burden of the Dessendre’s family’s grief, he makes an assumption about Maelle’s motivations. Yes, Maelle may want Gustave back, but she earlier clarified that she doesn’t believe Painted Verso nor the Canvas people are ‘make-believe.’ She views them as real, and she refuses to let people die simply because her father decided they were a threat. So his assertion that it’s her continuing the cycle fails to understand the complexity in her motivations.
Instead, Verso tries to argue again why Maelle should leave the Canvas, but if she does, that means Renoir will finish erasing the Canvas and Lune and Sciel will never see their friends and family again. In fact, Lune and Sciel will cease to exist too. This conversation reveals that Verso is simply telling Lune and Sciel what they want to hear so that they can aid him in his goals. He isn’t holding himself accountable here. He’s manipulating everyone to push them toward the end-goal that he’s decided is best.
In doing this, he shows a lack of ability to understand and learn from the hurt and pain he’s done to others. He’s not really listening to them because he’s mapped out ways to carefully push each person into the actions he needs for his own goals. Thus, he’s continuing the cycle of violence.
Maelle has made it clear she wants the cycle of violence to end. She wants to save the Canvas people, because she believes they have a right to exist, that they are not ‘make-believe’ but real. Yet in these conversations, Verso turns up his charm and manipulation tactics to try to tweak the situation to his benefit. He wants Maelle to give up and leave the canvas so Renoir can erase it. He needs Lune and Sciel to work with them so that he can reach Renoir as he suspects that confrontation will be the only way he can push Maelle out of the Canvas.
Healing cannot happen in a manipulative environment that continues to cause harm to others. In the Beyond Survival Anthology, Kai Cheng Thom’s essay called ‘What to Do when You’ve Been Abusive,’ has a list of steps to assist people on that journey toward accountability and healing. The first step:
“‘Learn to Listen When Someone Says You Have Hurt Them.’ When one has been abusive, the very first — and one of the most difficult — skills of holding oneself accountable is learning to simply listen to the person or people whom one has harmed:
- Listening without becoming defensive.
- Listening without trying to equivocate or make excuses.
- Listening without minimizing or denying the extent of the harm.
- Listening without trying to make oneself the center of the story being told.
When someone, particularly a partner or loved one, tells you that you have hurt or abused them, it can be easy to understand this as an accusation or attack…”
Thom here lists what Verso struggles to do in these conversations. He listens but is also defensive with Lune about his actions and proceeds to make excuses for his actions. In a way, Verso struggles to not see these confrontation as an attack, but truthfully, Lune calling out the harm isn’t an attack, it’s a consequence. Pointing out harm isn’t an attack but a courageous moment of honesty and vulnerability. Whether Verso sees that gift of vulnerability is hard to say as his actions and words are conflict depending on the person to whom he speaks.
Verso tends to make himself the center of the story being told in both Lune and Maelle’s conversations. The only one he doesn’t do this with is Sciel, but then Sciel doesn’t really give him that chance. Sciel recognizes that he speaks to give his reasons, and she doesn’t want to hear it, so she instead takes the conversation toward what they will do next. It’s a masterful way of pivoting the conversation to a more active form of accountability — Sciel is essentially asking Verso, “So, you hurt us, what are you going to do to fix this? Here’s one solution.”
Verso accepts Sciel’s solution, but then his conversation with Maelle, he goes on the rampage. He points out her family’s cycle of grief continues to hurt this Canvas, but he also knows that if Maelle leaves, there is no possible way he can honor his promises to Sciel and Lune. He speaks of a cycle of grief that causes harm, which is important to acknowledge, yet he refuses to listen to what Maelle is saying. In turn, Maelle goes quiet, which she often does to think over what others have said.
Thus, Verso’s defensiveness with Lune and Maelle ends up being:
“… the cycle of violence talking. This is the script that rape culture has built for us: a script in which there must be a hero and a villain, a right and a wrong, an accuser and an accused. What if we understood being confronted about perpetuating abuse as an act of courage — even a gift — on the part of the survivor?
What if, instead of reacting immediately in our own defense, we instead took the time to listen, to really try to understand the harm we might have done to another person?
When we think of accountability in terms of listening and love instead of accusation and punishment, everything changes. Listenign without becoming defensive does not necessarily mean relinquishing one’s own truth. We must be able to make room for varying perspectives and multiple emotional truths in our hearts.”
Painted Verso doesn’t make room for varying perspectives or multiple emotional truths. He may take some responsibility for his actions, or at least acknowledges the harm his actions have done, where he takes on only what he has done — no more, no less, but he doesn’t truly grow from that.
Thom writes how taking responsibility for the abuse is a crucial step, but one must also “accept that your reasons are not excuses.”
There is no reason good enough to excuse abusive behavior. Reasons help us understand abuse, but they do not excuse it. Accepting this is essential to transforming culpability into accountability and turning justice into healing.
Painted Verso spends a lot of time giving his reasons and expecting that to excuse his actions. Lune will have none of it as his reasons doesn’t excuse his lying and manipulative actions. He didn’t just betray them but also lied to them and manipulated them in harmful ways. Can Verso recognize the harm and truly be accountable?
This is where support of others can be crucial. Thom writes:
“When having a dialogue with someone who has been abused, it’s essential to give the survivor the space to take the lead in expressive their needs and setting boundaries. You should also take time to think about your own needs and boundaries without making the person you have harmed take care of you. This is why having support in the community is crucial. If basic needs are going unmet, no one can heal from abuse, nor can anyone truly be accountable.
If you have abused someone, it’s not up to you to decide how the process of healing or accountability should work. This doesn’t mean that you don’t get to have rights or boundaries, or that you can’t contribute actively to the process. It means that you don’t get to say that the person you have hurt is “crazy” or that what they are expressing doesn’t matter.
Instead, it might be good idea to try asking the person who has confronted you questions like these: what do you need right now? Is there anything I can do to make this feel better? How much contact would you like to have with me going forward? If we share a community, how should I navigate situations where we might end up int he same place? How does this conversation feel for you, right now?
At the same time, it’s important to understand that the needs of survivors of abuse can change over time, and that survivors may not always know right away — or ever — what their needs are.
Being accountable and responsible for abuse means being patient, flexible, and reflective about the process of having dialogue with the survivor.”
It’s crucial to note here that Thom is not saying that the survivor is an expert on accountability or that they should have full control over the process. Thom adds:
“I feel strongly that as long as punishment remains at the center of our thinking around accountability and justice, survivor-led processes are doomed to fall into the trap of individuals desperately trying to avoid accountability out of fear. Survivor-led, to me, means that survivors get to lead their own process of recovery, that survivors are given space to tell their stories and speak their needs (which criminal justice usually does not allow).
It does not mean that people who have been deeply wounded are suddenly handed full responsibility for a community dialogue and rehabilitation process. Survivor-led does not mean that the community gets to abdicate its responsibility for providing support, safety, expertise, and leadership in making healing happen.”
There are multiple paths in the accountability and healing process: the survivor, the one who caused harm, and the community. These paths may intersect at times, but Thom is arguing that none should exert control over the other’s path. Instead, listening, understanding, honoring boundaries, and opening onself up to changing present and future behaviors is what ‘survivor-led’ should mean.
Thom also makes it clear that the community itself needs to be involved to lay the groundwork to meet the needs of those within this process. Support by building safety, sharing expertise to help guide, and providing leadership to keep those involved accountable are all needed to assist in the healing process here.
Community support allows those involved to have someone with which to work through their emotions and thoughts. By working through emotions and thoughts, one can come to understand one’s own behaviors, emotions, actions, and through that find a path forward. This work means they are also holding themself accountable in the sense they are continuing to move forward on the path toward healing. Supportive friends, family, and community members can assist in helping those in this process stay on the healing path — that’s another type of accountability.
Supportive community is is what Painted Verso lacks. He does not allow anyone to truly be in community with him, and those that try are held at arm’s length with him manipulating events toward his own ends. Whether he ever allowed community to help him work through his trauma and pain relies on his own shared stories, of which seem suspect since what he says to one person doesn’t always align with what he says to another of the same event. The best we have is a journal entry from a prior expedition where he expresses his pain and hopes — hopes he doesn’t seem to have in Maelle’s time.
VERSO’S JOURNAL:
I miss you. I don’t have the right to miss you but I do. I wish I could talk to you. Tell you. Fuck. I don’t know what I would tell you. Just ask that you forgive me. Julie, forgive me. I’m not… I’m not a traitor. I’m not. I’m trying to save… I’m trying to save us all. But you’re right. I am a coward. I’m a fucking coward. You deserved to know why. But I couldn’t. I couldn’t face you properly. Not and still do what had to be done. Papa believes you are Clea’s creation, and even if you’re not, we can no longer trust you. But I think you just wanted answers.
Why? Why couldn’t you just let it go? Why did you convince them to abduct me? Interrogate me? No. I shouldn’t say that. You thought I was a traitor. You were doing what you thought was right, just like we are. I swear to you, I’m doing what’s right. I should have known when you started questioning things that you wouldn’t be fooled. But how could I even explain? You’d have thought I’d gone mad. Doppelgangers. Countless worlds. But Papa’s right. We can’t take the risk. Too much is at stake. Too much. It had to be done. It had to. Clea already took our sister. If we want to save our family, our world, our people, we can’t take any chances. And once we free Maman, she… she’ll bring you back. It won’t be forever. I promise. We deserve to live. All of us. We deserve to exist.
In this journal, Verso admits to his pain and how much he misses Julie, who seems to be a loved one. He justifies his actions, but also shows a willingness to understand why Julie did what she thought was right. He does his best to not internalize the hurtful words that Julie and her expedition likely threw at him — traitor for one. However, he makes a crucial mistake here by assuming Julie’s reactions to the actual truth. He doesn’t allow her to have agency, and instead took that from her by keeping her in the dark. This fueled distrust, especially as he acknowledges Julie had started to question things and notice what doesn’t make sense. Julie wanted answers, and Verso, here at least, acknowledges that she did deserve to know why things transpired the way they did.
He also asserts that they “deserve to exist.” Yet, in Maelle’s time, he seems to have changed his mind entirely as he spends far too much energy trying to convince Maelle to let the Canvas be erased. In his ending, he goes to great lengths to make sure the Canvas is erased. So he breaks all of his promises, and decides that no one deserves to exist in the Canvas. That they are not real and thus it is okay to erase populations.
Why does he come to this conclusion? Partly due to the massive amount of death he witnesses over the decades, and also because he doesn’t have a community to hold him accountable. When one is isolated like Painted Verso, it is all too easy to fall into despair and a desire for annihilation. This is why those who are suicidal shouldn’t be left alone, but need supportive family and friends to help them heal and find new meaning in life.
In Maelle’s ending, Maelle will try to give Verso that opportunity when she offers him the choice of “if you could grow old, would you… find a reason to smile?”
She’s trying to break the cycle of violence by making sure Verso doesn’t have to live the immortal life he so abhors. So she offers solutions that doesn’t end in a genocide of peoples or Painted Verso’s death. Despite the harm Verso has done, Maelle seeks to humanize him and offer him a compromise. Her ending hints strongly that he accepts her alternate solution and seems to find some hope in it, as he does indeed grow old.
This humanization of the person causing harm is also critical to the healing process. The survivor of abuse doesn’t have to be the one to humanize the one causing harm, but those in the community ought to be able to step in for that.
In another essay in the Beyond Survival Anthology, there is an excerpt from the handbook, Ending Child Sexual Abuse:
“We see that abuse happens when one person believes, consciously or unconsciously, that their needs, wants, and preferences take precedence over others. People engaging in abusive behaviors are often numb to, or seemingly unable to feel, the impacts of their behaviors on others.
A process of accountability and transformation requires that the person who has been harmful:
- Stop doing the harm.
- Feels empathy and remorse for the pain and impact of their actions.
- Takes measures, like restitution or reparations, to address the harm caused.
- Takes measures to prevent future harm.
- Works to understand the root causes of their harmful behavior.
- Engages in the ongoing work of accountability, healing, and integration.
- Take action and organizes to support others to heal or to be part of changing community and social conditions that allow for CSA and other forms of violence.”
Here the list shows how difficult healing can be, and how scary it is to make the choice to heal. Yet, it’s crucial for ending the cycle of violence to not dehumanize anyone involved. Dehumanization continues the cycle of violence. As the handbook excerpt says:
“It is important to center the needs of those most directly impacted by the harm in a situation. We also hold that recognizing and attending to the humanity of those who harm is a central aspect of transforming our families, communities, and society. Seeing and dignifying the healing needs of people who abuse also runs counter to the idea that some people “out there” are “monsters” who are expendable or need to be “weeded out.” By standing for everyone’s need for healing, we challenge the dehumanizing logic that is central to systems of oppression, domination, and abuse. By standing for everyone’s need for healing, we maintain our commitment to a vision of true liberation.”
Part of this process means those who cause harm need to understand that not all consequences are “harm.” Consequences to their actions are often necessary and may not be a form of “harm.” For example, Lune calling out the harm of Verso’s lies is the consequence of his actions. She lost trust in him is another consequence. Him having to earn back that trust is yet another consequence. None of these consequences are “harms” done to Verso. It’s simply part of the accountability process.
Humanizing those involved are absolutely critical to ending the cycle of violence. When people are dehumanized, they are stripped of who they are, and this causes harm to all involved. If the cycle of violence is to be ended, then those involved must be humanized and their dignity honored.
This is incredibly difficult to do at times. As a survivor of abuse, I struggled greatly with wanting my abuser to feel the weight of my pain, but through therapy, I learned that truthfully I didn’t want my abuser to be harmed in return. I wanted the cycle of abuse to end. That revelation allowed me to move past the anger and make a conscious choice to heal.
This conscious choice to heal is required of those that cause harm as well. However, shame, guilt, and fear can often make that choice extremely difficult.
Both Verso and Maelle struggle with shame and guilt. Maelle’s guilt and shame lay in her internalizing the blame Aline and Clea lay at her feet. Except, the fire is not Maelle’s fault, but that of the Writers that cause it. Her guilt and shame originate from actions that are not her own.
However, for Verso, his guilt and shame do originate from his own actions, for he did kill members of his prior expeditions, he did lie to people, and he did manipulate people for his own ends. However, it’s crucial to separate shame from guilt. In Kai Cheng Thom’s essay, shame and guilt is defined:
“Shame and social stigma are powerful emotional forces that can prevent us from holding ourselves accountable for being abusive. We don’t want to admit to “being that person,” so we don’t admit to having been abusive at all.
Some people might suggest that people who have been abusive ought to feel shame — after all, perpetuating abuse is wrong. I would argue, though, that this is where the difference between guilt and shame is key. Guilt is feeling bad about something you’ve done; shame is feeling bad about who you are. People who have been abusive should feel guilty for the specific acts of abuse they are responsible for. They should not feel shame about who they are because this means that abuse has become a part of their identity. It means they believe that they are fundamentally a bad person — in other words, “an abuser.”
But if you believe that you are an “abuser,” a bad person who hurts others, then you have already lost the struggle for change — because we cannot change who we are. If you believe that you are a fundamentally good person who has done hurtful or abusive things, then you open the possibility for change.”
When Thom says we “cannot change who we are,” this is in regard to our identities and personality. The “possibility for change” is in regard to our decisions, actions, and future decisions and actions. Those we can change, but we shouldn’t try to alter our personality and identity to be someone we are not. We should focus on how to make better decisions and to act in ways that are more healthy and holistic for us and those around us.
Verso, when he first introduces himself to Expedition 33, calls himself a liar. By doing so, he shows he internalized his actions as part of his identity. This makes it very difficult to hold oneself accountable and being open to the “possibility for change.” If he views lying as crucial to his identity, then why should he stop? It’s who he is, isn’t it? It’s a complete 180 from his journal entry where he refused to accept ‘traitor’ as being who he is.
But lying isn’t who he truly is. He’s, instead, taken a behavior and marked it as a personality trait. Truthfully, his personality isn’t a lying manipulator — we can see bits and pieces of who he is in the scenes where he plays a piano with Maelle, goes out of his way to help Sciel move past her fear of water, shares music with Lune, chats with Esquie, or hangs out with Monoco. He’s a bit silly, fun-loving, jokester, that wants to do the right thing but doesn’t know how. He’s trapped in a cycle of his own making, yet he’s unwilling to recognize his own cycle. Instead, he internalizes the lies as part of who he is, when it’s not — that’s his trauma speaking.
Until Verso can recognize his own cycle of violence and shame, he remains trapped in his cycle, unable to acknowledge his abuse and never able to progress toward healing. Even in his ending, when he fights Maelle to force her from the Canvas, his solution to his cycle is to annihilate himself and everyone in the Canvas. He refuses to see another way. Yet, until he recognizes that his harmful behaviors are not core to his personality, he won’t ever see how to stop his cycle of harm.
This is where Thom goes on to state that as much as those who cause harm shouldn’t “expect anyone to forgive you,” they should, however, forgive themselves:
“Being accountable is not about earning forgiveness. This is to say, it doesn’t matter how accountable you are — nobody has to forgive you for being abusive, least of all the person you have abused. In fact, using the process of “doing” accountability to manipulate or coerce someone into their forgiveness to you is an extension of the abuse dynamic. It center the abuser, not the survivor. One shouldn’t aim for forgiveness when holding oneself accountable. Rather self-accountability is about learning how we have harmed others, why we have harmed others, and how we can stop.
But… you do have to forgive yourself. Because you can’t stop hurting other people until you stop hurting yourself. When one is abusive, when one is hurting so much on the inside that it feels like the only way to make it stop is to hurt other people, it can be terrifying to face the hard truth of words like abuse and accountability. One might rather blame others, blame society, blame the people we love, instead of ourselves.
This is true, I think, of community as well as individuals. It is so much easier, so much simpler, to create hard lines between good and bad people, to create walls to shut the shadowy archetype of “the abuser” out instead of mirrors to look at the abuser within.
Perhaps this is why self-accountability tools like this list are so rare. It takes courage to be accountable. To decide to heal. But when we do decide, we discover incredible new possibilities. There is good and bad in everyone. Anyone can heal, given the right circumstances, and everyone can heal, given the same. You are capable of loving and being loved. Always. Always. Always.”
These are critical points for accountability. The process isn’t so we can “earn forgiveness” like it’s some sort of game achievement. Accountability is about learning, listening, seeking to understand why we did what we did, and finding solutions on how we can stop. Where we end the cycle of violence and instead move into a trajectory toward healing and choosing actions that cause the least harm and the most good.
And what is the most good? How do we know what is good?
To understand what ‘good’ means, we need to briefly explore ethics and morality. This game, thankfully, has already given us that exploration already in the Lumierians — Gustave and Lune in particular. I won’t dig too deeply into this as I feel that Lord Khoury does a much better job in his video here (which I recommend as he lays out an excellent case for why Maelle’s ending is a morally good one). I will simply briefly highlight Gustave’s and Lune’s use of Utilitarianism.
Consequences and Utilitarianism
Gustave, at the start of the game points out how the Gommage seems almost gentle, how it makes Lumiere seem complacent, but it is no less violent. He defines the act of violence and injustice, and in his temporal reality, Lumiere identified the best route to liberation is through confrontation with the Paintress.
Throughout the Prologue and Act 1, we are shown how Gustave lives his morals and how he determines actions to be morally good. These deliberations rely on what is known as utilitarianism. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines this as:
“…utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one’s own good.”
Gustave’s moralism shows through the projects he describes — teaching his apprentices, Aquafarms, etc. — and in how he interacts with those around him. He understands quite well the consequences of possible actions, and chooses the ones that will do the most good.
For example, when Expedition 33 is separated, Gustave determines the right action is to seek Maelle. He evaluates the consequences of this, and although his emotions push for a specific end result, he still evaluates based on the known information at that time. As in, the note inscribed on the Indigo Tree, the lack of survivors at the Indigo Tree meeting point, and the knowledge of how difficult it is to survive alone.
GUSTAVE: It’s a lead, or only lead, whoever this is has Maelle. We have to go.
LUNE: No, not yet. Protocol is to regroup at rendevous point and wait three days. This message feels off. If it was an Expeditioner, they would have stayed here. Everyone knows the protocol.
GUSTAVE: Right, but they may have been in danger. Maybe this location has been compromised. Things change in the field.
LUNE: There’s a reason its protocol.
GUSTAVE: Protocol doesn’t cover every contingency. You know that.
LUNE: There’s a reason its Protocol. We designed it to yield the optimal result in the vast majority of situations.
GUSTAVE: Was our entire team dying part of that “optimal result?”
LUNE: …
GUSTAVE: Look, I’m going after Maelle. Protocol also states ‘never move solo.’ I’ll let you choose what protocol to break.Here we see how both Gustave and Lune lay out their reasoning for the preferred actions. Gustave focuses on the consequences and concludes going after Maelle will save the most lives based on their current information. Lune, who attempts to argue for the Protocol, finds herself faced with possible consequences that could either endanger Gustave — if he goes alone — or herself — if she stays and he goes — or the mission — if the team is split up.
Lune follows him because of the two protocols they are breaking — one results in a higher number of lives saved and better chance at surviving long enough to complete their mission. Thus, after evaluating what is known and the consequences of various actions, she determines the action that achieve the most good.
In survival, determining the consequences of actions that result in the most lives saved fits firmly in the utilitarianism worldview. Thus, in determining what actions are ‘good,’ it is crucial to seek to understand the consequences of that action for everyone — not just ourselves. This is where Verso falls short as his understanding of the consequences of his actions revolves around the impact on himself; he continues to assert his view, even when others protest and show the harm of it.
Part of that is because he doesn’t show a willingness to examine the situation fully with other people. He’s kept himself relatively isolated for decades, and sought to meet his needs on his own. Isolation can easily distort our thinking and lead us toward despair.
With the Lumierians, we see an alternate route. Gustave and Lune actively talk through the situation at the Indigo Tree. Gustave lays out his analysis and Lune does as well. Gustave, however, focuses on the lives he can actively save in that moment rather than the lives they do not know still live or not. Though this dialogue, the two examine consequences of their actions. Both go back and forth in acknowledging what the other is saying, and also responding to the concerns brought up. In the end, Gustave’s decision to go after Maelle is vindicated in his eyes, and he offers Lune a choice. Lune, in turn, honors the protocol that will save the most lives — staying with Gustave and saving someone that is likely still alive. Considering, they have no further data on anyone else surviving, going after Maelle ends up being justified as the ‘good’ decision through the consequences of their actions.
We see this same sort of analysis play out a few times in Act 1 with how the group analyzes the situation, examines consequences, and come to a decision. Gustave and Lune lead the charge here, and their example provides a litmus test for Maelle to use in trying to determine what decisions are ‘good.’
For another example, Gustave and Lune’s intense fight before they find Maelle:
GUSTAVE: I am not letting Maelle die out here. I’m taking her home.
LUNE: What? No, no, no, we have a mission —
GUSTAVE: Oh, fuck the mission! Fuck the mission, Lune. What are we gonna do? Tell me. What are we gonna do? We’re gonna take down the Paintress, just the three of us? My — my gun and your sparks?
LUNE: I didn’t take you for a coward.
GUSTAVE: I’m not a coward.
LUNE: You swore the oath. “When one falls, we continue.”
GUSTAVE: Yes, I know.
LUNE: When one falls. WHEN one falls. Not if. When. We knew not all of us would make it. But “We Continue.” As long even one of us stands, our fight is not over.
GUSTAVE: But I’m not afraid to fight, it’s just Maelle, she’s —
LUNE: Maelle swore the same oath!
GUSTAVE: I know that!
LUNE: She choose her life! Come on, we always said that the future of Lumiere was more important than any —
GUSTAVE: individual life, yes.
LUNE: Do you still believe that?Here Lune reminds Gustave of the consequences of swearing their oath. Consequences all of them knew before they swore the oath. She also makes it clear that Maelle also swore this oath, knowing the risks, and that she choose that. Lune is reminding Gustave of Maelle’s agency. Through this conversation, she’s challenging him on the consequences of what will happen if he takes Maelle back: he’d break his oath, he’d leave Lune here to continue alone, he’d violate Maelle’s agency, and he would put the future of Lumiere at risk.
This conversation pushes Gustave toward the ‘good’ decision, which is to honor Maelle’s agency. Something he will confirm in a later conversation after they are reunited with Maelle and have found Sciel with the Gestrals:
GUSTAVE: Maybe you should stay…
MAELLE: What?
GUSTAVE: It’s safer in the village.
MAELLE: And miss the change to meet Esquie? No way.
GUSTAVE: Maelle…
MAELLE: I’m okay. We stick together.This conversation proved Lune to be correct. The consequences Lune had laid out as her reasoning on the ‘good choice,’ made it clear that Maelle had chosen this life. Gustave here confirms it with Maelle herself, and he then honors that choice.
Thus, Gustave and Lune provide excellent examples of the use of utilitarianism for determining the morally ‘good’ choice, as well as how to handle conflict. They also show how the Canvas Lumierians honor the agency of others.
It’s through our dialogue with those around us that we come to understand possible consequences and how they may impact others. That dialog then allows us to generate ideas that cause the least harm to all involved and saves the most lives (or in less dire situations, helps the most people feel heard, understood, and agency honored). This can be difficult to do, and in times of danger, we often act on instinct because there isn’t enough time to deliberate on consequences.
However, after the danger is over, we must be willing to analyze what happened and take accountability for our actions. We must not take on the responsibility of other people’s actions, only take on our own. We need to listen to others, and they in turn listen to us. We need to be open to change behaviors if we cause harm, which we see Lune, Gustave, Maelle, and Sciel do on their journey. That’s part of holding one another accountable and choosing healing.
Maelle having the support of her Canvas family is critical to her own journey toward healing. The scene where Maelle has a waking nightmare in Act 1 after the Gestral Village, we see Gustave, Sciel, and Lune gather around her to comfort her. They bring down her panic, and stay at her side until she’s calm. This level of care is not shown by the Dessendre family toward Maelle. Thus, Maelle finds her strongest support system within the Canvas, away from an environment of abuse and neglect. This chosen family helps hold her accountable and supports her as she makes decisions to end the cycle of violence. To choose to heal.
Verso struggles to understand this lesson the entirety of the game. The only clue we are given that he may finally learn it is in Maelle’s ending, when Maelle offers a different solution to his desire to cease his immortal life. He still lives in her ending, but he’s grown old. His fingers find it harder to play the piano — hence the dissonance at first before he plays. Perhaps in this ending he learns how to be accountable and chooses healing. The game seems to imply it, but the game also leaves it open-ended.
In Verso’s ending, Verso doesn’t choose healing but instead chooses to take the agency from everyone involved — Maelle, the faded boy, the different Canvas peoples — and fades into annihilation. Maelle, then, returns to life as Alicia Dessendre, who is disabled and essentially institutionalized in her family’s manor. She has no support system, and her mother still looks at her with disdain. Clea still offers no support, only goes off to do her one-person war. In the ending, Renoir doesn’t even look at Alicia — only at Aline. Alicia stands isolated, and tries to smile, tries to see anything good in this, but instead, she hallucinates the family she’s lost. As they gommage away, I noticed how her shoulders droop and she holds Esquie tighter. A sign that her hope evaporates with them? Again, the game leaves it open-ended.
When still in an abusive environment, healing is out of reach, even if one chooses it, because the circumstances causing the trauma is ongoing. One must exit the abusive environment, but to do so often requires support of others to assist in finding a safer place to be. If there is no one there to provide the necessary support to heal, then it is incredibly difficult to actively heal.
Thus, healing from grief and from abuse both require breaking cycles, but to break those cycles, we need the necessarily family/friends and/or community support. It is not truly possible to do this when we are isolated, because isolation itself is a form of harm that can easily lead us into despair, as we saw with Painted Verso.
Breaking the cycle of violence can only happen when we have built up a community of people who love us for who we are. Then and only then, will we have the support to choose to heal, to hold ourselves accountable, to actively listen to others, and when needed alter our behaviors toward more healthy patterns.
This is not an easy process, and it will require hard work from all involved. Yet the payoff is a healthier existence and a chance to thrive rather than just survive.
#abuse #accountability #Characters #clairObscurExpedition33 #disability #GameAnalysis #gameNarrative #healing #healingJourney #justice #mentalHealth #narrativeAnalysis #responsibility #transformativeJustice #writing
-
While some people are #ockham listed best i can manage is #TheConversation. Strange to write an article on an #Antarctic expedition that was a decade ago - but we only managed to retrieve the full data set 3 years ago when a later expedition managed to get to the instruments and we discovered more data had been collected after the satellite link had broken.
-
We ❤️ great people building apps that empower other folks to use our tools! The new open‑source #Magento module – from @jesperingels and the team at Bluebird Day – lets you integrate our real user monitoring into your Magento project in minutes – no coding required!
Discover the benefits of gathering real user data, plus how to get started: https://www.speedcurve.com/blog/real-user-monitoring-magento/
-
The only ones who truly benefit from the #WarMachine are #Corporations! And this is further proof! My uncle was in the US Army and when he was discharged, he could fix just about anything electro-mechanical! But nooooo... We can't have folks fixing stuff themselves -- just buy new ones and waste #taxpayer money!
Congress Quietly Kills Military “#RightToRepair,” Allowing #Corporations to Cash In on *Fixing* Broken Products
Both chambers included Pentagon budget provisions for a right to repair, but they died after defense industry meetings on Capitol Hill.
by Matt Sledge, December 9 2025
"The idea of a 'right to repair' — a requirement that companies facilitate consumers’ #repairs, #maintenance, and modification of products — is extremely popular, even winning broad, bipartisan support in Congress. That could not, however, save it from the #MilitaryIndustrial complex.
"#Lobbyists succeeded in killing part of the National Defense Authorization Act [#NDAA] that would have given service members the right to fix their equipment in the field without having to worry about military suppliers’ intellectual property.
"The decision to kill the popular proposal was made public Sunday after a closed-door conference of top congressional officials, including defense committee chairs, along with Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.
"Those meetings were secret, but consumer advocates say they have a pretty good idea of what happened.
" 'It’s pretty clear that defense contractors opposed the right-to-repair provisions, and they pressed hard to have them stripped out of the final bill,' said Isaac Bowers, the federal legislative director at #USPIRG. 'All we can say is that #DefenseContractors have a lot of influence on Capitol Hill.'
"The idea had drawn bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, which each passed their own versions of the proposal.
"Under one version, co-sponsored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mt., defense companies would have been required to supply the information needed for repairs — such as technical data, maintenance manuals, engineering drawings, and lists of replacement parts — as a condition of Pentagon contracts.
"The idea was that no service member would ever be left waiting on a contractor to fly in from Norway to repair a simple part — which once happened — or, in another real-life scenario, told by the manufacturer to buy a new CT scanner in a combat zone because one malfunctioned.
"Instead of worrying about voiding a warranty, military personnel in the field could use a 3D printer or elbow grease to fix a part.
" 'The military is a can-do operation,' Bowers said. 'Service members can and should be able to repair their own equipment, and this will save costs if they can do it upfront and on time and on their schedule.' "
Read more:
https://theintercept.com/2025/12/09/congress-military-ndaa-right-to-repair/Archived version:
https://archive.ph/54Nro#EndlessWar #Corporatocracy #CorporateColonialism #USInvasions #USPol #ContractorProfiteering #LockheedMartin #Boeing #NationalDefenseAuthorizationAct
-
Gathering data from lots of different sources, providing it to the model then processing the output through post processing steps? That sounds like an asynchronous workflow, USE TRACING ~ @cartermp lauding the benefits of tracing for deploying and iterating AI applications #monitorama #monitorama24 #observability
-
OpenWeb-Notizen: XAuth, OExchange, Firefox Sync, RDFa
Chris Messina erklärt XAuth
Inhalt von Vimeo anzeigen
XAuth ist eine Art Cross-Domain Cookie mit dem man Versucht die Flut an Share, Like und Login Icons auf ein Minimum zu reduzieren.Hier klicken, um den Inhalt von Vimeo anzuzeigen.
Erfahre mehr in der Datenschutzerklärung von Vimeo.Inhalt von Vimeo immer anzeigen
„XAuth – an introduction“ direkt öffnen» XAuth – an introduction
» Offizielle XAuth SeiteOExchange einfach erklärt
Inhalt von YouTube anzeigen
OExchange ist ein offenes Protokoll um eine beliebige URL mit einem beliebigen Service im Web zu teilen. Die Demo zeigt die Funktionsweise von OExchange und welche Vorteile sich in Kombination mit z.B. XAuth ergeben.Hier klicken, um den Inhalt von YouTube anzuzeigen.
Erfahre mehr in der Datenschutzerklärung von YouTube.Inhalt von YouTube immer anzeigen
„OExchange Overview Video“ direkt öffnen» OExchange in action
» Offizielle OExchange SeiteFirefox Sync
Mozilla benennt das Labs-Projekt Weave Sync in Firefox Sync um und kündigt an, den Sync-Mechanismus in eine der nächsten Firefox Versionen fest zu integrieren. Im Zuge meiner Recherche bin ich außerdem noch auf einen Wiki-Artikel gestoßen, der erklärt wie man den Firefox Sync zukünftig auch mit OpenID oder OAuth koppeln könnte:The user must have a way of proving to a third-party service that they really are who they claim, and for the Mozilla service to provide information back to the third-party service that access has been granted. The OpenID and OAuth protocols provide what we need here, and the OpenID/OAuth hybrid flow has been described.
Once this is done, the third party service will be able to establish a relationship with the Weave Sync service for a user, without the user disclosing his or her password.
» Stay in Sync With Your Firefox
» Firefox Sync Graduates from Mozilla Labs
» Secure Data SharingRDFa 1.1 – Alles neu, alles anders
Dank HTML5 (ohne X) wurde RDFa noch einmal grundlegend überdacht. In der Version 1.1 werden die RDF-Vocabularies beispielsweise nicht mehr über Namespaces definiert. Früher:<a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" rel="cc:license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/">a>.Code-Sprache: HTML, XML (xml)Jetzt:
<a prefix="cc: http://creativecommons.org/ns#" rel="cc:license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/">a>.Code-Sprache: HTML, XML (xml)Grund der Änderung: HTML kennt im Gegensatz zu XHTML keine Namespaces und RDFa soll sowohl in HTML5 als auch in XHTML5 integriert werden.
RDFa checker
Toby Inkster hat einen sehr umfangreichen RDFa checker veröffentlicht:It checks your web page for RDFa and displays any data found there. It also compares your data against the published recommendations from major consumers/users of RDFa data, to see how well your data matches their requirements.
#Firefox #NASCARProblem #OAuth #OExchange #OpenID #RDFa #sync #Video #XAuth