I just finished the anime and I wanted to discuss how the context of season 1 equates lesbian love to immorality, culminating in the failed uprising of the less “meritocratic” class.
Firstly, the equal rights agenda commoners at the academy petitioned for was debased as a ploy, the common people manipulated by another commoner of greater proximity to power and nobility, Lambard. It presents the working class as foolish. When the plot is resolved, the fury of the mob of commoners disappears on a whim, no noble is persecuted, and even the exile of Lambard and Lene are exalted as the magnanimity of the noble class. Furthermore, Lambard’s failure is framed by his inherent vulnerability to blackmail from even greater powers as an immoral commoner.
Lambard’s family is a milestone for progress. Their historic endeavors to pursue magical tools helped them become the most prominent, if not the only, commoner family attaining power in the kingdom. The faults of the rising star Lambard as one of very few commoners relevant in the story, all of which have great proximity to nobility, damns his great, powerful, and wealthy almost-noble family. This echoes classical gothic stories where the greatest faults of false nobles are persecuted to be offered as the sacrifice for the salvation of true blood sins.
Lene, his sister and lover, is another false noble as the elder sister Claire relies on and their incestuous relationship seems to be a plot device to highlight their immorality. Even despite their exile, Lene pledges that Claire will be her master forever, resolving hierarchal politics with surrender to the natural order. The “meritocracy” the kingdom pursues is not rewarded, only as weighty of a sentence of banishment for meritorious citizens. The merits of the family were not scored individually despite the very definition of meritocratic justice, and the immorality of two were enough to condemn the commoner family whole.
Lambard and Lene’s relationship is introduced in the context of Rae stating that homosexual love is not the only forbidden love, but so is incestuous love. This is equates homosexuality, incest, and the forbidden and paints lesbian love in a dangerous light. The story normalizes illegal and immoral acts by using lesbian love as a method of absolution, but ultimately ties homosexuality to immoral illegality. The incest of Lombard and Lene are equated to Rae’s feelings for Claire and the illegality of Manaria assaulting a commoner is tied to her homosexuality and her given absolution as a noble. By using homosexuality as the device for forgiveness of both these acts, the story ultimately ties lesbian love to them.
Lastly, Rae’s unrequited love and one-sided advances towards an unwilling Claire is taken lightly due to her gender. While the story takes an ‘all’s well that ends well’ approach and Rae’s feelings seem to be returned, her initial unwanted touches and glances when Claire is changing or in the bath is harassment and victimizes noble Claire. Claire acts out abusively but is forgiven due to their power dynamic. Manaria is the same, causing pain to Rae and a lesser strife to Claire, as she holds a higher station than both, but significantly more than Rae as shown by her greater talent and therefore “merit.” The power dynamics is meant to add layers of forbidden to their nuanced relationships, but much of it results into defining lesbian love through harassment, assault, and violence.
Therefore, much of this story expresses homosexuality in the context of an ancient time true to the story’s setting. However, the details were imagined by a modern mind from a repressed culture that obsesses over forbidden relationships, warping the morality of homosexuality. Lesbian love can be artistically portrayed in this dangerous light, but as one of the leading girl’s love works, with a cult following, and the face of the genre to a larger, less informed audience, is this really the depiction worth producing?
If anyone has any discussion responses or reflections and thoughts feel free to reply and lmk (=・ω・=)
I just finished the anime and I wanted to discuss how the context of season 1 equates lesbian love to immorality, culminating in the failed uprising of the less “meritocratic” class.
Firstly, the equal rights agenda commoners at the academy petitioned for was debased as a ploy, the common people manipulated by another commoner of greater proximity to power and nobility, Lambard. It presents the working class as foolish. When the plot is resolved, the fury of the mob of commoners disappears on a whim, no noble is persecuted, and even the exile of Lambard and Lene are exalted as the magnanimity of the noble class. Furthermore, Lambard’s failure is framed by his inherent vulnerability to blackmail from even greater powers as an immoral commoner.
Lambard’s family is a milestone for progress. Their historic endeavors to pursue magical tools helped them become the most prominent, if not the only, commoner family attaining power in the kingdom. The faults of the rising star Lambard as one of very few commoners relevant in the story, all of which have great proximity to nobility, damns his great, powerful, and wealthy almost-noble family. This echoes classical gothic stories where the greatest faults of false nobles are persecuted to be offered as the sacrifice for the salvation of true blood sins.
Lene, his sister and lover, is another false noble as the elder sister Claire relies on and their incestuous relationship seems to be a plot device to highlight their immorality. Even despite their exile, Lene pledges that Claire will be her master forever, resolving hierarchal politics with surrender to the natural order. The “meritocracy” the kingdom pursues is not rewarded, only as weighty of a sentence of banishment for meritorious citizens. The merits of the family were not scored individually despite the very definition of meritocratic justice, and the immorality of two were enough to condemn the commoner family whole.
Lambard and Lene’s relationship is introduced in the context of Rae stating that homosexual love is not the only forbidden love, but so is incestuous love. This is equates homosexuality, incest, and the forbidden and paints lesbian love in a dangerous light. The story normalizes illegal and immoral acts by using lesbian love as a method of absolution, but ultimately ties homosexuality to immoral illegality. The incest of Lombard and Lene are equated to Rae’s feelings for Claire and the illegality of Manaria assaulting a commoner is tied to her homosexuality and her given absolution as a noble. By using homosexuality as the device for forgiveness of both these acts, the story ultimately ties lesbian love to them.
Lastly, Rae’s unrequited love and one-sided advances towards an unwilling Claire is taken lightly due to her gender. While the story takes an ‘all’s well that ends well’ approach and Rae’s feelings seem to be returned, her initial unwanted touches and glances when Claire is changing or in the bath is harassment and victimizes noble Claire. Claire acts out abusively but is forgiven due to their power dynamic. Manaria is the same, causing pain to Rae and a lesser strife to Claire, as she holds a higher station than both, but significantly more than Rae as shown by her greater talent and therefore “merit.” The power dynamics is meant to add layers of forbidden to their nuanced relationships, but much of it results into defining lesbian love through harassment, assault, and violence.
Therefore, much of this story expresses homosexuality in the context of an ancient time true to the story’s setting. However, the details were imagined by a modern mind from a repressed culture that obsesses over forbidden relationships, warping the morality of homosexuality. Lesbian love can be artistically portrayed in this dangerous light, but as one of the leading girl’s love works, with a cult following, and the face of the genre to a larger, less informed audience, is this really the depiction worth producing?
If anyone has any discussion responses or reflections and thoughts feel free to reply and lmk (=・ω・=)