Reflections on the "Prologue Demo" of Metaphor: ReFantazio — Sleeping Beauty, Democracy, and the Face of the Devil
“The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavouring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind ; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not ; he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone… Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident… After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided : men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting : such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupifies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals…” – Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
“The emphasis on the great texts—which were great not only or even because they were old but because they contained hard-won lessons on how humans learn to be free, especially free from the tyranny of their insatiable desires—has been jettisoned in favor of what was once considered ‘servile education,’ an education concerned exclusively with money making and a life of work, and hence reserved for those who did not enjoy the title of ‘citizen.’ Today’s liberals condemn a regime that once separated freeman from serf, master from slave, citizen from servant, but even as we have ascended to the summit of moral superiority over our benighted forebears by proclaiming everyone free, we have almost exclusively adopted the educational form that was reserved for those who were deprived of freedom. And yet in the midst of our glorious freedom, we don’t think to ask why we no longer have the luxury of an education whose very name—liberal arts—indicates its fundamental support for the cultivation of the free person” — Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, “Chapter Five: Liberalism against Liberal Arts”
“The only forms of shared cultural ‘liturgy’ that remain are celebrations of the liberal state and the liberal market. National holidays have become occasions for shopping, and shopping holy days such as ‘Black Friday’ have become national holidays. These forms of abstract membership mark a populace delinked from particular affiliations and devotions, which are transferred to – in a video played as the 2012 Democratic National Convention – ‘the only thing we all belong to,’ the liberal state. This ambitious claim failed to note that the only thing we all belong to is the global market, an encompassing entity that contains all political organizations and their citizenry, now redefined as consumers. The liturgies of nation and market are closely woven together… simultaneously nationalist and consumerist celebrations of abstracted membership that reify individuated selves held together by depersonalized commitments. In the politically nationalist and economically globalist setting, these contentless liturgies often take the form of two minutes of obligatory patriotism in which a member of the armed services appears during pauses in a sporting event for reverential applause before everyone gets back to the serious business of distracted consumption. The show of superficial thanks for a military with which few have any direct connection leaves an afterglow that distracts from the harder question of whether the national military ultimately functions to secure the global market and so support the construction of abstracted, deracinated, and consumptive selves” – Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, “Chapter Three: Liberalism as Anti-Culture”
“Liberalism has failed – not because it fell short, but because it was true to itself. It has failed because it has succeeded. As liberalism has ‘become more fully itself,’ as its inner logic has become more evident and its self-contradictions manifest, it has generated pathologies that are at once deformations of its claims yet realizations of its liberal ideology. A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and, of course, expand liberty, in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom… Rather than seeing the accumulating catastrophe as evidence of our failure to live up to liberalism’s ideals, we need rather to see clearly that the ruins it has produced are the signs of its very success. To call for the cures of liberalism’s ills by applying more liberal measures is tantamount to throwing gas on a raging fire… Ironically, but perhaps not coincidentally, the political project of liberalism is shaping us into the creatures of its prehistorical fantasy, which in fact required the massive apparatus of the modern state, economy, education system, and science and technology to make us into: increasingly separate, autonomous, nonrelational selves replete with rights and defined by our liberty, but insecure, powerless, afraid, alone” – Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, “Introduction: The End of Liberalism”
“Democracy means… equality… but an equality which can be calculated, countable: you count the number of units, of voters, of voices, of citizens. On the other hand, you have to reconcile this demand for equality with the demand for singularity, with respect for the Other as singular, and that is an aporia. How can we, at the same time, take into account the equality of everyone, justice and equity, and nevertheless take into account and respect the heterogeneous singularity of everyone?” – Jacques Derrida, “Politics and Friendship: A Discussion with Jacques Derrida”
“Actually, the Wersgor domain was like nothing at home. Most wealthy, important persons dwelt on their vast estates with a retinue… They communicated on the far-speaker and visited in swift aircraft or spaceships. Then there were the other classes… such as warriors, merchants, and politicians. But no one was born to his place in life. Under the law, all were equal, all free to strive as best they might for money or position. Indeed, they had even abandoned the idea of families. Each Wersgor lacked a surname, being identified by a number instead in a central registry… Yet this realm, in theory a republic of freemen, was in practice a worse tyranny than mankind has known… The Wersgorix had no special affection for their birthplace; they acknowledged no immediate ties of kinship or duty. As a result, each individual had no one to stand between him and the all-powerful central government. In England, when King John grew overweening, he clashed both with ancient law and with vested local interests; so the barons curbed him and thereby wrote another word or two of liberty for all Englishmen. The Wersgor were a lickspittle race, unable to protest any arbitrary degree of a superior. ‘Promotion according to merit’ meant only ‘promotion according to one’s usefulness to the imperial ministers’” – Poul Anderson, The High Crusade
When that the general is not like the hive
To whom the foragers shall all repair,
What honey is expected? Degree being vizarded,
The unworthiest shows as fairly in the mask.
The heavens themselves, the planets and this centre
Observe degree, priority and place,
Insisture, course, proportion, season, form,
Office and custom, in all line of order;
And therefore is the glorious planet Sol
In noble eminence enthroned and sphered
Amidst the other; whose medicinable eye
Corrects the ill aspects of planets evil,
And posts, like the commandment of a king,
Sans cheque to good and bad: but when the planets
In evil mixture to disorder wander,
What plagues and what portents! what mutiny!
What raging of the sea! shaking of earth!
Commotion in the winds! frights, changes, horrors,
Divert and crack, rend and deracinate
The unity and married calm of states
Quite from their fixure! O, when degree is shaked,
Which is the ladder to all high designs,
Then enterprise is sick! How could communities,
Degrees in schools and brotherhoods in cities,
Peaceful commerce from dividable shores,
The primogenitive and due of birth,
Prerogative of age, crowns, sceptres, laurels,
But by degree, stand in authentic place?
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And, hark, what discord follows! each thing meets
In mere oppugnancy: the bounded waters
Should lift their bosoms higher than the shores
And make a sop of all this solid globe:
Strength should be lord of imbecility,
And the rude son should strike his father dead:
Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong,
Between whose endless jar justice resides,
Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
Then every thing includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself.
— William Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, Act 1, Scene 3
I wish to consider the “Prologue Demo” of Metaphor: ReFantazio from a philosophical angle, as it is clearly established by the game and by the media surrounding it that this is a work deeply concerned with political philosophy. I cite various authors and arguments concerning modern political philosophy in the interest of engaging thoughtfully with the political, philosophical, and psychological themes of Metaphor: ReFantazio. I have based these reflections and speculations upon my experience with the demo of the game. I have not scrutinized every trailer closely nor read every interview with the developers. Of course, any interpretations or opinions or conclusions offered here regarding the game are necessarily tentative at most, but this is the demo that Atlus has given us, and this post is my reaction to it. I have written this discussion of the demo that Atlus has presented to us not only to express my own initial reactions but to invite further critical discussion and speculation.
There will be spoilers for the “Prologue Demo,” of course, and I also shall discuss, albeit rather briefly, some elements of Shin Megami Tensei V: Vengeance, including some of its endings.
In the great twist of Metaphor: ReFantazio – Prologue Demo, at the funeral of Hythlodaeus V, the ghost of the king, through a powerful feat of magic, manifests as the landmass underneath the palace that has by the king’s magic been levitated above the city. The rocky face of the king is surreal and distinctly sinister. It is fiery and twisted, a demonic imitation of humanity. It also resembles depictions of “YHVH” in the Shin Megami Tensei series, who is typically depicted rather unsympathetically as a “lawful neutral” if not “lawful evil” tyrant. I also notice that in the key art featured at the head of this essay, the one featuring the crowd with the sword-wielding protagonist front and center, the King’s demonic form is arrayed along with Louis, the first “human” boss (in this game, “humans” are powerful and mysterious fiends whose appearances are based on the works of Hieronymous Bosch), and another demonic “human” entity, looming menacingly over the crowd of characters, suggesting that he is, in fact, a villain. In fact, when I first saw this key art, I joked that this game should have the subtitle, “Demidevimon and the Eye of Sauron,” and that which I associated with the Eye of Sauron was the eye of the king’s face.
The Face of Hythlodaeus V in the Sky above the Capital
Artwork of YHVH from SMT IV: Apocalypse
Concept art for SMT IV: Apocalypse
This king declares a popularity contest – or “election” – that will decide the next ruler in accordance with the “will of the people.” When Grius, the old veteran loyal to the languishing prince, attempts to assassinate Louis, the arrogant murderer and would-be usurper who does not even hide the blood on his hands, the ghost of the king declares that he will not suffer violation of the will of people, and in the name of this “will of the people” allows Grius to be sacrificed to this perverse democratic election. Whether or not the king is fully in control of the spell – the king’s avatar proclaims that his soul may remain in the world for a limited time, which suggests to me that the king himself is involved in overseeing this election – it is really irrelevant to the basic fact that the king is an accessory to murder. Furthermore, Louis is known by those loyal to the king as one of those responsible for the cursing of the prince, but he is popular with militarists who admire his brutal efficiency, his prodigious tactical genius, and his sorcery (as Hitler was popular among desperate Germans during his rise to power in Germany). Thus, in setting up this election, the king has facilitated Louis’s attempt to seize the throne for himself, as it should be obvious that he is one of the most likely candidates to win a popular vote. The oddness of this plan is remarked upon, so perhaps there is indeed some subtle plot to undermine Louis for the sake of the king’s lineage, but even if that is the case, Grius’s murder is still in part the king’s fault, and had Grius succeeded, the prince presumably would have been freed from his curse and thus able to claim the throne as his father’s rightful heir. There is a mystery here, but even if there is some incredibly convoluted logic to the king’s actions -- and unless they involve resurrecting Grius and making amends to his daughter for the grief she has suffered, Hythlodaeus V is still, I insist, responsible for facilitating the murder of Grius and the empowerment of Louis – at the very least, this strange stratagem highlights the danger of democracy. Power obtained through sheer numbers is really tyranny without authority (and the tyrannical numbers game of modern liberalism is actually a major reason for the general stagnation of the AAA games industry). Will the protagonist, over the course of Metaphor’s story and in saving the prince realize a true freedom that transcends the contradictory nihilistic numbers games of utilitarian liberalism?
Louis is clearly a Luciferian figure with strong Napoleonic overtones, not to mention a rather obvious Hitler analogue. His physical appearance recalls depictions of Lucifer (and Helel) throughout the Megaten franchise, and in fact Lucifer has used the pseudonym “Louis Cyphre” in earlier games of the Megaten franchise. Lucifer, as the Lord of Chaos, is affiliated in SMT with the Circle of Gaia, a cult of Chaos, and in Metaphor, Louis’s surname is “Guiaburn.” Lucifer is always aligned with chaos, while YHVH or “the God of Law” is aligned with law, so they typically represent polar opposite political alignments, though each game may add its own characteristic nuances. Perhaps the protagonist, whose canonical name is apparently Will, in pursuing the salvation of his beloved prince may realize a more humanistic cosmic order, represented by the human figure of the prince.
Artwork of Louis Cyphre from Shin Megami Tensei
Another respect in which this scenario problematizes democracy is the depiction of the Kingdom of Euchronia. It is formally called, somewhat ironically, the United Kingdom of Euchronia, but its tribes and citizens are far from united. Indeed, the worldbuilding so far tends to set up a cartoonish caricature of an ill-informed pseudo-medieval-ish fantasy. The different tribes distrust each other, some of them aggressively oppressed, but we see little history or culture to locate them in their place and time in this “fantasy” world. There is a “Church,” which is perhaps the most cartoonish and ahistorical aspect of this pseudo-medieval fantasy, but as is typically the fashion in JRPG representations of pseudo-medieval ecclesiastical organizations, it is pretty much entirely a political and social institution and not a theological or mystical one. In short, what little we have seen of the United Kingdom of Euchronia is a rather shallow and mostly cultureless people arbitrarily divided by superficial tribal differences in a rather ham-fisted and naïve political allegory, and it is the support of these people -- who are generally shallow, divisive, bigoted, and vicious -- that is the “will of the people” declared by Hythlodaeus to be inviolable determinant of the new ruler. This problem actually may be subdivided into two problems: 1) People, treated as numerical units, are not fully respected as people, and when represented in such vague, mechanistic terms, become inevitably dehumanized, without the ground of culture in which to take root and flourish, so such a population will only constitute a shallow or hollow “will of the people;” 2) More concretely, the people of Euchronia as they have been presented to us are generally terrible with little sense of moral philosophy or basic decency, and while most of them are not at all on the level of the treacherous fascist Louis or the vulgar Klenger, they are not presented as the sort of people who would make for good guardians of civic virtue or liberty or culture (and one cannot claim “historical realism” to defend them, because this is not a realistic scenario in any respect – it is an allegorical fantasy in which minor characters so far are generally two-dimensional reminders that the world around us is miserable, arbitrarily divided, and unjust). Though I would be very interested in seeing representative characters depicted as complex individuals, so far, the general populace and the state of the country have been painted in rather bleak and cynical terms.
There is a third point that problematizes democracy, this one pertaining to a specific conversation in which the protagonist is asked about the utopia described in his novel. One of the responses is “A world with only one tribe.” Another response is “A world with no magic,” and this point is elsewhere elaborated to mean: “In such a world, there is no need for sorcery. A megapolis is built through learning and labour.” I cannot help but think of Protestant fundamentalist censorship of anything vaguely “magical,” including Harry Potter and even The Lord of the Rings. The East German communists also prescribed a program of social realism for what little literary production they permitted under their tyranny, so that even Brecht encountered problems with the censors for his more experimental work. On the one hand, this utopian novel could be a simplistically utopian vision for our own world, supposedly describing the ultimate aim of international liberal democracy, this sparkling mechanical city of freedom and equality, a utopianism so simplistic it immediately invites suspicion and criticism. On the other hand, the response “A world with only one tribe” in particular suggests an alternative, dystopian interpretation, which is often the truth underlying shallow utopian rhetoric – a world of enforced unity where there is only one tribe because any who become too divergent are eliminated.
It is also worth noting that Thomas More’s Utopia, which features slavery as one of its charms, by the way, takes its title from ambiguous Greek roots, so that it could mean either “happy place” (eutopos) or “no place” (outopos). More’s Utopia is obviously a key influence on the game: King Hythlodaeus V is named after the character Raphael Hythloday (or Hythlodaeus, whose surname means something like “speaker of nonsense”), who narrates the account of Utopia in Thomas More’s book (and Charles V was the Holy Roman Emperor at the time of the book’s publication), the mysterious scholar in the mysterious library called Akademeia is named More, and utopian political philosophy is discussed explicitly.
I want to see this game challenge naïve assumptions regarding democracy and engage intelligently and honestly with these problematics that it has set up, which are one side of the problems of modern liberal democracy explored by the quotes I cited at the head of this critical reflection, as well as the other side, the dangers of implementing such a universal democratic state, which, as both rational reflection and empirical investigation of modern history inform us, tends to erode the individuality and culture of a people (in other words, these two sides to which I refer are the costs of establishing such a democratic state on the one hand and the consequences of establishing such a state on the other). In short, the face of Hythlodaeus V as manifested through his postmortem spell is the face of the devil, which wields democracy as a tool to enslave a people with empty promises of freedom, and the hostility of such a system to the authentic individual is foreshadowed graphically and bloodily in the murder of Grius as the first sacrifice to the spirit of democracy.
I would be very interested in a story that subverts the blind devotion to the numerical democracy of a glorified popularity contest that resolves in the protagonist exploiting the contest to return power to the rightful prince, who takes on the symbolic role of truth incarnate, for he is the rightful heir, the suffering child, and also the protagonist’s friend, not to mention an angelic and Christological figure, so that truth, justice, and virtue are asserted above the heartless Machiavellian schemes of both the fascistic Louis and the absolute democracy of the national popularity contest. The prince is also associated with an image of a beating heart, so he is seen to be the true heart of the kingdom. I am also reminded of Genesis 3:15, in which God declares, addressing the treacherous serpent: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.” Louis and his allies are the serpent and its ilk, while the Prince is the figure of the heir of Adam and Eve. In Christian theology, this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, who, though he is crucified, defeats the serpent and reclaims life for himself. The return of the Prince would therefore be an image of the Resurrection and signify the ultimate defeat of the Satanic serpent. It would mean the return of true “religion,” the way of goodness, truth, and beauty, whereas the historical “Church” of Euchronia is like the Pharisees as understood in Christian tradition – corrupt stewards of truth, more interested in political opportunism, vanity, and material wealth than in their own religion. Christ repeatedly warns against such hypocrites and opportunists, who only pretend to righteousness. Denethor in The Lord of the Rings is another image of the corrupt steward of the Faithful who places politics and hubris before truth, justice, and virtue.
I expect that the narrative of this game at least on one level will prove to be a surreal reinvention of the classic fairy tale “Sleeping Beauty.” The dark thorns that represent the curse imprisoning the prince recall the thorns conjured by the evil fairy (named Maleficent in Disney’s version of the tale – and as Disney’s rendition is by far the most widely known and immediately artistically relevant to the anime style of this game, it would not surprise me for that to be the most useful version for reference) to prevent the prince from reuniting with his beloved and awakening her with the kiss of true love. The protagonist in Metaphor may be seen as the prince who is trying to penetrate the barrier of thorns to rescue his beloved from the curse of the evil one, and Louis is described as an “archmage,” which makes him something like a fairy. The relationship between the protagonist and the prince appears to be Platonic, since they were friends as children, but, especially considering their androgynous appearances and the absence of a dating system as one finds in modern Persona games or the Trails series, the narrative may explore the parallels and ambiguities in the relationship of Platonic and romantic love. It is not implausible that the protagonist may indeed revivify the prince with a kiss, though I do not consider that a particularly likely scenario, especially if the kiss is meant to be distinctly romantic, though a Platonic kiss is also possible and at least would signal more directly through physical action the Sleeping Beauty parallel. Locating the true meaning of freedom in the loving friendship shared by the protagonist and the prince, not just in a naïve and simplistic sense of “the power of friendship” but a symbolic exploration of how true freedom of the individual is realized through a life of friendship and related virtues, would be a clever and beautiful resolution, especially as “freedom” is etymologically related to “friend.” It is worth noting here that the game’s tagline is “Awaken.” This also could tie into gnostic themes explored (alongside similar, parallel, or related Buddhist themes) by many games in the Megaten franchise. Could the cursed and slumbering prince symbolize Sophia, the spark of divine wisdom that resides in all human beings and that has fallen from the realm of the Pleroma into the realm of suffering and mutability?
The cursed prince slumbers as the days pass
I must say, I think that a story in which the hero must win an election for the sake of a loved one is far more interesting than winning an election for the sake of an abstract political ideology, abstract ideological nation, or abstract political party.
A concrete party of interesting, personable characters is far more fun than a political party
Shin Megami Tensei V conducted a thought-provoking exploration of the problem of the downfall of American liberalism in its Canon of Creation (explicated so helpfully by u/Seraph_99 in his series of posts entitled “A Thematic Analysis of SMT V,” which can be found here). At one point in the story of the Canon of Creation, at the Bethel summit, the Hindu god Vasuki expresses the opinion that “this world of flaws and contradictions… is long overdue for a renovation.” It is all too easy, and rather cliché, not to mention inartistic, to demonize the distant past in order to set up a cheerleading corps for the modern world, and SMT V tackles the more interesting question of exploring the archetypal structures and philosophical problems underlying the modern world order. Since Metaphor clearly has established that it is deeply concerned with political philosophy, I hope that it engages seriously and deeply with these authentically philosophical questions. The image of utopia that is presented to use through the protagonist’s “fantasy novel,” which was given to him by the prince, sounds a lot like a whitewashed Tokyo, though one can understand how to the denizens of a pseudo-medieval fantasy world, a city of soaring towers wrought of glass and metal may call to mind a magnificent, elvish creation of shining precious metals and sparkling crystal, rather than the dull, dispiriting mechanical cities of the modern world. Indeed, I cannot help but find a bitter irony in the resemblance of the novel’s depiction of utopia to the aesthetic of our modern world, which is a reflection of the decadent, contradictory, flawed liberalism of our times (as explicated for example by Deneen in Why Liberalism Failed and as SMT V explores allegorically). The Canon of Vengeance proposes the possibility of working towards a utopian society, which sounds like what Metaphor is exploring, but such a vague and simplistic notion of utopia left much to be desired for an ending, and even so, it acknowledged the necessity of divine guidance and power for such a utopia to be realized. Metaphor has set up a situation that could explore with nuance, on a far deeper level than the superficial political allegories that have been thrust in our faces so far, neither naively nor cynically, the problems and dangers of pursuing such a simplistic utopian political philosophy.
Great art is by nature escapist, and fantasy takes this essential escapism for its imaginative foundation. Great art by nature refuses to submit the heart of its mysteries to the nihilistic numbers games of utilitarian liberalism. Great art stands forth authentically through its own imaginative power as a temple of creative thought. In the words of Roberto Calasso from Literature and the Gods, it possesses “a supreme gnoseological quality” and thereby it reveals or sets forth a vibrant “sort of second reality that opens out beyond the cracks of that other reality where everyone has agreed on the conventions that make the world machine go round” with its own poetic or metaphorical “natural metaphysics, irrepressible, based not on a chain of concepts but rather on irregular entities – scraps of images, assonance, rhythms, gestures, forms of whatever kind.” Calasso also tells us that “many travelers have reported that literature is that passport most readily accepted in that terra incognita where – so one hears tell – all the mythologies now pass a largely indolent life in a no-man’s-land haunted by gods and vagrant simulacra…”
Tolkien argues in his essay “On Fairy Stories” that fantasy aspires to “Enchantment,” which “produces a Secondary World into which both the designer and spectator can enter, to the satisfaction of their senses while they are inside; but in its purity it is artistic in desire and purpose.” The “elvish craft” of Enchantment reveals through its arts fantastic worlds into which one can escape for purposes of “recovery,” for restoration and nourishment and enlightenment of the soul beyond the confines of the mundane world. This is a vision of true freedom, beyond calculation, realizing the transcendence of the subjective individual.
I enjoyed the demo overall, and I am excited for the full release. My biggest complaint is that the world building seems weak so far (I don’t need to be reminded of this world’s “realistic” sociological problems in every other conversation), but this is something that may improve substantially over the course of the game with exposure to more well-developed characters and more interesting locations. The main story intrigues me for multiple reasons, I like the protagonist, I like the party members that we have met so far (especially Strohl, who reminds me of both Akihiko Sanada and Yosuke Hanamura, though I might find his reflections on the true nature of nobility even more interesting if, rather than the game “allowing” a noble to be represented in the party only as a disenfranchised noble, he also reminded me more of Jusis in Trails of Cold Steel, who represents the nobility in all its aspects while thinking for himself, such that I am inclined to say that, now that I think on it, just going by the first few hours of their respective games, Jusis comes out slightly ahead in terms of nuanced character development, but this is a minor point in context so far), the gameplay is awesome, the music is quite excellent, and the visual direction is fantastically outstanding.
