Yeah that title sounds like a good article doesn’t it? Well the problem is that

A.Im not a literary critic

B. I have no clue where to even start with this

So casual discussion will have to do.

I should point out that the examples of this that I describe are from video games and anime, not because I don’t think that there are any books with these themes but simply because I haven’t read any books with these themes. I’m sure there’s some out there, so if you wanna recommend any feel free.

But anyway, I’ve been noticing this pattern as of late in some media of this idea of “let me die.” What I mean is that there is usually some bad guy, a god, a mad scientist, whomever, who has already or whos plan is to end death in some way.

On the one hand I find the quandry interesting. Firstly, of course, as a communist I believe in democracy, that democracy is a good thing, So it raises the question of whether It’s ok to play God and change the very nature of humanity by removing death without the consensus of humanity.

It also raises some metaphyscial nietzchein questions about suffering in the purpose of man without it, and other things I’m honestly too dumb to understand.

On the other hand i’m concerned for the ideological implications. Maybe I’m to familiar with the argument about rat utopias, but when I see games like Elden ring per se where the removal of dearh from humanity cosigned it to thousands of years of essentially torture, along with being vassals of an extraterrestrial god, or Evangelion, where the human instrumentality project intends to combine all human souls into one transcendental entity where all individuals exist as part of a greater whole, ostensibly to help humanity. (God this show was wierd), I feel like anyone can come to the very obvious conclusions about this. I don’t want to say that they’re making these stories as intentional allegory to communism. Because they’re not. But I can’t help but feel that there’s some Gramscian hegemony at play, where these “libertarian” or classical liberal beliefs are presented against a force that wants to improve people’s lives against the will of the people.

There’s also an honotable mention to pathologic and the bachelor from said game. I haven’t played it myself but from what I’ve heard, the bachelor’s overall goal is to end death. He comes to the setting with extreme hubris and believes that the townsfolk are too superstitious, resulting in him rejecting their ways. This leads further till the end of the game, where his plan to end the plague is to shell the town and destroy it. The reviewer I watched likened it as an allegory for the soviet union, since the game was made by Russian devs, but simultaneously I can’t say more since I haven’t played it.

Should the moral takeaway be that only through popular action can society and humanity be improved? Is it that “absolute power corrupts absolutely?” That the attempts to end death and improve humanity are vain and hubristic desires of Gods or those who want to play god? Or is it that suffering and death are inherent to the human condition, and that death is necessary for humans to be happy? None of these? All of these?

I don’t know. I dont want to throw these ideas in the dustbin, because I do like these stories and find them interesting, but as stated before, the obvious conclusions are…well, obvious. And also I’m bad at analyzing literature materially, and usually end up discussing in metaphysics so I’d like to discuss this idea with people who are better at that end of things.