Claymore: Past Experiences, Present Motivations

Content Note: Sadism, Violence, Torture, Dismemberment

Claymore Recap: Clare has fled from the sadistic Ophelia and has split with Raki, but Ophelia is hot on her trail. 

Claymore, Episode 13: The Endless Gravestones, Part 2

If Ophelia is to be believed, her motivation isn't terribly different from Clare's and Priscilla's motivations: she says she can't rest until every last awakened being is destroyed. This doesn't, of course, explain why she tries so hard to urge her fellow Claymore into awakening. She did so when Miria was facing a difficult emotional moment, and she tried very hard to force Clare into awakening only a single episode ago. The writing seems to be suggesting that Ophelia receives an emotional and/or sexual thrill when she destroys awakened beings, but there's still quite a few ways to interpret her character as to why that is.

One of the things that fascinates me about Claymore (obviously, since I keep banging on about it) is that the in-world explanation for these warriors is to take the most traumatized children they can find, completely warp their biology, keep them in a training camp where they are rigorously abused as part of their combat training, prevent them from making friendships because of the rank striving and black-card job duties, and then sit back without any indication of how this could possibly go wrong. And yet we see plays on this trope all the time in SciFi / Fantasy settings with protagonists turning out beautifully.

So here we have Ophelia, victim of all this systematic abuse, now turned abuser. Why does she want to hunt awakened beings to the point that she's driven to encourage her own comrades to turn? Is it just that the more targets she has available to vanquish, the more opportunities she has to feel powerful? Is there something deeper there, in that for every Claymore who turns, she can feel more secure in her own strength of will since she doesn't turn? Is she so haunted by her own hypocrisy -- she protects humans as part of her job but murders them because of her blood-lust -- that she wants to see hypocrisy (in the form of awakening) in her comrades in order to assuage her guilt? I really can't say, but she's a fascinating combination of victim and victimizer.

Ophelia tracks Clare to a cliff, where Clare is able to barely hold her own with her yoma sensing skills. Unfortunately, even though Clare can sense the path of Ophelia's attack, she can't block it because of Ophelia's superior speed and technique. Clare charges Ophelia, but she loses her arm in the charge and is flung over the cliff. There's a moment where we really think Clare might have a chance at escape, but there Ophelia is again.

And now it's time for Claymore world-building! Among the Claymore, there are attackers and defenders. Attackers are good at inflicting wounds, but are less skilled at weathering wounds. Defenders lack offensive punch, but in addition to being able to take a lot of damage they can also sometimes grow back lost limbs. Lesson over!

Except, interestingly, it's not over. This little detail -- which very probably had to be hastily worked in after Deneve demonstrated Super Limb Regrowth powers a couple of episodes ago -- is tied back into that childhood trauma that every Claymore has experienced. The ones who are motivated by revenge or who deal with their trauma by fighting and conquering their opponents are the ones who become attackers. The ones who are motivated by their own survival or who want most to protect others are defenders.

What's fascinating here is that these are two equally valid approaches. It's not "attackers = bad, defenders = good" or something similarly black and white. It's not even really a revenge/survival question, because both approaches are ultimately about survival. The attackers try to survive by cutting down everything that poses a threat; the defenders try to survive by wearing down everything that poses a threat. The only real difference in this case is how the individual internalized their trauma.

Back to the episode, Ophelia destroys Clare's arm, rendering Clare permanently disabled. This is the pinnacle of hopelessness in the Ophelia arc: no matter what else happens here, Clare will never get her arm back. She's intensely wounded and seriously hurting, but still she stays in her fighting stance and refuses to give up. Ophelia wonders aloud, why is Clare trying to stay alive?

It's a worthwhile question. Clare has been fighting her whole life to stay alive. She's been through years and years of torture, first at the hands of her yoma abuser, then at the hands of Teresa, then in the moment when Priscilla killed Teresa, and then for years during her training as a Claymore. She's endured all this in some ways against Teresa's wishes, for Teresa wanted her to live a human life and Clare choose to live the life of a Claymore. Why is Clare fighting so hard? Is this her way of being close to Teresa, by walking her path and literally carrying her blood? Is this her way of avenging Teresa and herself, by being driven to destroy Priscilla? Or has her fighting spirit transitioned to a desire to keep her friends, the Partially Awakened and Raki, alive? I'm not sure that Clare even knows herself.

Back to the episode, a mysterious shrouded figure approaches and interrupts the fight. She claims that she was drawn by a familiar presence, but before she can explain, Ophelia attacks her for the interruption. The woman responds with disgust, saying, "Looks like things are different now. Claymores will turn their swords on anyone." She handily defeats Ophelia, pointing out that, "...numbers and symbols don't matter up here, I'm afraid." Clare wakes up bandaged and in her care. It turns out the mysterious figure is Ilena, the Claymore from Clare's past who led the hunt on Teresa.

Ilena left the Organization after her fight with Teresa and Priscilla. She moved to the mountains and lived in hiding, suppressing her yoma aura to the point where she is undetectable by the other Claymore. What's interesting to me is why Ilena left when she did. She's still one of the strongest Claymore currently in existence, even with the loss of her arm. We're not clear on the Organization's approach to failure, but Ilena's mission did succeed in the sense that Teresa was killed, even if it did have the downside of causing Priscilla's awakening. Still, given how often Claymore seem to awaken around here, I kind of think Ilena could have regrouped back at the Organization without fear of punishment or retribution.

She seems to have left for a more complex reason, one rooted in guilt and shame. I wonder if she feels guilty for the responsibility she bears in Teresa's death. It's possible that she feels guilty for her role in Priscilla's awakening. And it even seems like she feels a pang of guilt for the nameless little girl who was traumatized by Teresa's death and Priscilla's menacing: Clare. Lacking any real recourse within the Organization for repentance and atonement, Ilena seems to have left the Organization in a search of a life of contemplation. Her escape is probably the only way a Claymore can leave, outside of dying in battle or awakening.

Clare isn't the only one who has been traumatized by Priscilla, though. Back where we left Ophelia, the wounded Claymore is coming to grips with her pain, fear, and anger at having been so handily defeated. The memories of her childhood trauma -- the death of her brother -- haunt her, and it's revealed that her brother was killed by a one-horned yoma: Priscilla. Ophelia releases a burst of yoma power...

...and then we hear the same languid voice that we heard after Priscilla's awakening.

8 comments:

Anthony Rosa said...

...and I somehow missed the fact that it was Priscilla who killed Ophelia's brother. Geez, that seems like kind of an important detail. >_>;

Anyway, very good stuff as always, Ana. Good to see your thoughts on the series. When it comes to Ophelia, the thought comes to me that, while she's been as horrifically abused as the rest of the Claymores, while she's suffered the same trauma that most of them have suffered, the fact that the others have not turned out quite so sadistic and unstable as her suggest that it's something in her own personality, not the abuse, that made her like this.

As they say, most abusers were abused themselves... but most abuse victims do not BECOME abusers! The same seems true here. Sure, Ophelia's broken. Sure, she's traumatized. Sure, she's reacted to her situation in an incredibly sadistic way. But that seems almost like something alongside her evil. An evil, sadistic person can have traumatic experiences and serious problems just as much as a good person, but it doesn't have to be the cause of the evil. Now, if the context were different, if Ophelia was evil, and was the only one to experience these things, then it would more easily imply that the abuse made her evil. But again, because the others aren't that way? It just shows how messed up and unusual Ophelia is even by their (rather severely raised) standards.

Ana Mardoll said...

...and I somehow missed the fact that it was Priscilla who killed Ophelia's brother. Geez, that seems like kind of an important detail. >_>;

If it makes you feel any better, I missed it the first time through, too. There's a LOT going on in the episode, after all. :)

Bificommander said...

I didn't remember either, but it's been a while since I saw the series. I liked the plotpoint about grabbing the arm. I did notice it and the explanation was pretty cool.

I can't remember, but do we see any non-Claymored elves in the series? It's pretty clear that's what Ophellia is supposed to be, and the non-Claymores look like you standard fantasy world peasants, so elves aren't out of place too much, but it deserves some mention.

Sorry if this post ends up looking badly formatted, Disquss seems to be messing with me.

Vulpis Contra said...

the fact that the others have not turned out quite so sadistic and unstable as her suggest that it's something in her own personality, not the abuse, that made her like this.

I'm not sure I agree. Just because people break all kinds of different ways in response to abuse/trauma doesn't necessarily mean that the ones who become abusers are necessarily inherently evil, as I think you're postulating here. (Whether or not any human being can be 'inherently evil' being a whole different kettle of worms. ;) ) Ophelia reacted to her abuse by turning to her own personal Dark Side, and for all we know at this point that was a choice that she made, but it could have just as easily been the case that the Organization guided her that way. Or, hell, it could have just been Shit That Happened At Random, and it could have just as easily been Clare who turned out to be a monster with a human face.

I'm not saying she's not evil, or that the things she does are excusable. Just that It's Probably More Complicated Than That.

Ana Mardoll said...

I can't remember, but do we see any non-Claymored elves in the series? It's pretty clear that's what Ophellia is supposed to be, and the non-Claymores look like you standard fantasy world peasants, so elves aren't out of place too much, but it deserves some mention.

I don't think we do, which raises the question of what Ilena/Ophelia are -- elves or Claymore-humans with pointy ears.

(Indeed, one of the Ilena pictures in the manga has very rounded ears. I suspect the ears were pointed later to distinguish her from the other Claymore -- there's only so many ways to draw women when they have identical hair color, identical eye color, and they're all young and 'ageless' looking.)

Many of the yoma have pointed ears. It's possible that pointy-ears can be a side-effect of the "adding yoma blood" portion of the Claymore-making process.

Or maybe there are elves and we just don't ever see them.

Anthony Rosa said...

"(Whether or not any human being can be 'inherently evil' being a whole different kettle of worms. ;) "

Considering that the entire idea of evil is a human construct in the first place... I'd say yes, especially because humans are the only thing that CAN be inherently evil. Well, that and the things humans make up. (I've worked for corporations that are probably evil! Yay.)

"Ophelia reacted to her abuse by turning to her own personal Dark Side, and for all we know at this point that was a choice that she made, but it could have just as easily been the case that the Organization guided her that way. Or, hell, it could have just been Shit That Happened At Random, and it could have just as easily been Clare who turned out to be a monster with a human face."

Sure, it could have been a conscious decision by the Organization to make her this way. But there's no evidence of that from the text. The only evidence we have is that her personal trauma is not worse than the trauma of other characters we've seen/will see, and that other Claymores react to her as though she is an aberration even amongst their ranks. (Look at Ilena's reaction. Look at Miria's. Look at Claire's shock at her activities. I wish we had more to go on than just three, but three is enough.) It could be "random", as you said, and I agree Clare could have easily become the same sort of thing. Especially without Raki! But even so, it seems that at a certain point, even "random things that happen" do not overwrite personal responsibility for your own actions. (Not in the sense Ana mentioned in the last Claymore post... I mean "you just tried to kill person x for the lulz. There's no excusing that" sort of way.)

I agree that it's complicated. Especially since evil characters can do good things, and good characters can do bad things. But I think it's pretty same to say... that if any character is evil, then Ophelia is definitely evil. And evil in a way her compatriots are not. Maybe she wouldn't have gone evil if she'd lived a normal life? Sure, there's nothing guaranteeing a person goes bad. But she did, in a way the others did not. Whether she made that choice, or it was something less conscious... she's still the aberration, just as much as she's evidence that the Organization's methods are cruel, dangerous and evil themselves.

Vulpis Contra said...

I'd say yes, especially because humans are the only thing that CAN be inherently evil.

I'm skeptical of 'CAN be' automatically being followed by 'someone MUST be',* but frankly people have been going round and round on this very issue for Time Immemorial, and I don't feel like rehashing old territory. ;P (Though I will agree with you on corporations! *shudder*)

In practical terms, yeah, Ophelia is Pure Evil. She might still be capable of empathy, but it's buried so deep as to make no difference, and expecting anything to 'turn her good' is a mistake. But Ophelia is a fictional character, so I wouldn't extrapolate anything about real human beings from that.

Also, I don't mean to suggest that the stuff Ophelia does is any way excusable. She may not have entirely had a choice as to who she is now, but she did choose to kill and torture. The Organization didn't force her to do that.

*(The only exception I can think of is sociopaths. They really are incapable of empathy, which might be as close to 'evil' as anything outside of corporations. ;P But that's a disability AFAIK, so does that count? A QUESTION FOR THE AGES.)

Anthony Rosa said...

I'm not even sure if I'd call sociopathy a disability in the traditional sense. I mean... from what I've read, it's less a mental illness than a specific trait. In any case, I'm rather leery to describe traits that are different-from-the-norm as a disability, since that seems to me to trivialize disabilities. One can be different -even very different!- from the "norm" and still not have an illness or a disability. Furthermore, not all sociopaths automatically do bad/terrible things, from what I hear. In fact, many sociopaths turn out to be quite successful!

...in evil corporations. But that's another matter. (Suppose you have an evil person. And suppose you have a corporation. But I repeat myself.) In any case, this is a matter where I'm not sure. Feel free to throw a counterargument my way, because this is legitimate hesitation to go with that conclusion, not a pre-set certainty!

As for your other statement. Well, sure, just because we invent a concept doesn't mean someone HAS to follow it. But it seems to me that evil doesn't have to mean "every action they take is evil" or "they lack empathy." A truly evil person can still do good things, be great friends, love animals and sacrifice their lives for the sake of their loved ones. Of course, if that same person worked at a Nazi concentration camp... well, there comes a point where single actions define the entire person. Just as a beautifully wrought piece of computer code can be made unworkable by a single incorrect backslash, or a complex math equation can be ruined by switching the 2 and the 7 in step three.

But yeah. In practical terms, we agree on Ophelia. Especially since she's a fictional character designed to fit the archetypes we call evil! That really does settle it, huh?

Post a Comment