i really did wish they explored more of their equally dependent and toxic relationship. it seemed almost paradoxical in which the story chose to portray neither of the mc’s as either the perpetrator or the victim. because obviously both make very morally wrong decisions in the quest of their relationship.
on one hand there is an adult who is lonely and still baring the scares of his past that decides to find solace in a child (and id like to specify child because he it was very obvious to both us and the readers that he was very immature and confused)
and on the other hand we have a child who has clear sadistic urges and struggles to draw a line where he can express them without actually ending someone’s life.
i enjoy psychological stories because people are complex and morals are gray especially as a child and can continue to waiver when your not mentally well.
i feel like his sadistic urges were not portrayed as exactly sexual because his urges seem more to be a urge to possess someone completely rather than destroy them. but because he didn’t understand that he assumed it was the urge to kill.
here’s the thing, to me personally, there is a clear perpetrator and a clear victim. the adult himself was unstable and he chose to ignore that the child in front of him was also clearly unstable. and with the lack of actually chemistry it does nothing but enhance the idea of this relationship being more of a “baby chick” attachment or stockholm syndrome.
but that’s just my take. i feel that sadistic tendencies and that internal struggle to want to both possess and hurt while also not completely destroying can be explored with adult characters just fine, so i feel this is less about exploration and more so a romanticization of a clear issue. the “happy ending” only makes it more obvious that it is more do about romanticizing the issue.
i really did wish they explored more of their equally dependent and toxic relationship. it seemed almost paradoxical in which the story chose to portray neither of the mc’s as either the perpetrator or the victim. because obviously both make very morally wrong decisions in the quest of their relationship.
on one hand there is an adult who is lonely and still baring the scares of his past that decides to find solace in a child (and id like to specify child because he it was very obvious to both us and the readers that he was very immature and confused)
and on the other hand we have a child who has clear sadistic urges and struggles to draw a line where he can express them without actually ending someone’s life.
i enjoy psychological stories because people are complex and morals are gray especially as a child and can continue to waiver when your not mentally well.
i feel like his sadistic urges were not portrayed as exactly sexual because his urges seem more to be a urge to possess someone completely rather than destroy them. but because he didn’t understand that he assumed it was the urge to kill.
here’s the thing, to me personally, there is a clear perpetrator and a clear victim. the adult himself was unstable and he chose to ignore that the child in front of him was also clearly unstable.
and with the lack of actually chemistry it does nothing but enhance the idea of this relationship being more of a “baby chick” attachment or stockholm syndrome.
but that’s just my take. i feel that sadistic tendencies and that internal struggle to want to both possess and hurt while also not completely destroying can be explored with adult characters just fine, so i feel this is less about exploration and more so a romanticization of a clear issue. the “happy ending” only makes it more obvious that it is more do about romanticizing the issue.