Learning from Bea | Night in the Woods, Part 3
Bea is the latter half of the two relationships that Mae invests in as she retreats home from college. The two of them were friends prior to her leaving, but only to an extent. Their relationship was strained. By spending time with Bea, Mae is learning about two forms of ontology: relational and foundational ontology. The relational ontology refers to the meaning inherent in relationships. The foundational ontology could be understood as being a world view. It is the philosophy by which meaning is given to an object (such as meaning in life being derived from love or fame). Both of these ontologies lay a groundwork for Mae to potential restructure the world into a new and stable form.
Bea and Mae's Relationship
Overcoming the Past
In order for a new relationship between Mae and Bea to begin to form, Mae must first move past her outdated view of their relationship. This process is mostly undergone in the beginning of the game. After having gotten drunk and made a fool of herself at a party in the woods, Bea drives Mae home. In the process, Mae asks Bea (and this is paraphrased) “remember when I used to call you BeeBee and you called me MaeDay” (The Party, NitW). As was discussed in the first part, this is Mae expressing her view of the relationship between herself and Bea. She believes that the two of them are still as close of friends as they were when they were ten. However, Bea dashes any hopes of the relationship actually playing out as such when she responds, “Oh, you mean when we were like 10? No, I don’t” (The Party, NitW). With Bea’s denial of even as little as a memory of the relationship that Mae is trying to tap into, any potential to pick up where their relationship left off is dashed. Mae is forced to come to terms with the fact that her old understanding of their relationship is useless.
Mae then has to determine where their relationship stands. The relationship between Bea and Mae becomes aggressive. The majority of the aggression comes from Bea for two reasons. One is that Mae has abandoned college, an opportunity that Bea “would have killed for” (The Party, NitW). It is understandable how watching someone throw away your wildest dream would breed animosity. The problem is only compounded by the fact that Mae will not discuss why she left college. On the part of Bea, Mae’s actions were nothing but wanton disregard for the consequences of her actions. The other source is more subtle. Bea is actually jealous of Mae for her relative freedom. In response to Mae telling Bea, more or less, to quit her job, Bea response with “a lot of times people do things they do// because they can’t do anything else” (Diner at Bea’s, NitW). As is clear at the time, this is an expression of how Bea feels about her current situation. She feels trapped by a grieving father and her commitments to the family store. She also notes that Gregg is likely “off doing god knows what wacky [stuff] right now” (Diner at Bea’s, NitW) in a rather envious fashion. Mae and Gregg have a carefree life that Bea sees as an escape from her life of dinner and payroll. The aggression that Bea feels towards Mae acts as relational blockage, preventing their relationship from progressing until it is addressed.
Moving Forward
It may seem that an amiable relationship cannot exist between Mae and Bea, however this is far from the truth. Their relationship changes dramatically during the chapter “Proximity.” In this chapter, Mae and Bea go to a party where Mae ruins Bea’s chances of feeling like a normal teenager for a night. The first step in the relational change comes when Mae fails Bea. The specific failure in question is when Mae reveals to the party-goers that Bea is both not a college student and lives in Possum Springs. Mae reveals this information as an attempt to help Bea. The pieces of information that Mae reveals about Bea are all pieces of information that Bea was otherwise deceiving the students about. This is why Mae will later ask Bea how “This is normal” (Proximity, NitW). To act in a normal manner, for Mae, is to “be yourself.” In this manner, Mae is actually trying, perhaps inadvertently, to help Bea by not allowing her to live a lie. Her attempts backfire due to the fact that Bea is committed to the party in a manner that Mae was not able to discern prior to making the mistake.
Despite having caused Bea a significant amount of distress, Mae’s mistake is the first step in solidifying their relationship. By making such a serious mistake, Mae put Bea in a vulnerable state. She is vulnerable because of the disempowerment of not only being outed by Mae, but also having run from the difficulty of that situation. This is the only time that Bea is shown in a position of weakness relative to Mae in the entire game. Her vulnerability opens her to a reconsideration of her relationship with Mae. The first step in Bea’s reconsideration is forgiveness. The forgiveness that is necessary is not forgiveness for ruining the party. The force that has stopped their relationship from forming existed prior to that nights faux pas. The blockage in their relationship is Bea’s resentment for Mae dropping out of college. While this grievance had been aired earlier during the chapter The Party, it was hardly dealt with. Mae was in no state to be able to process that conversation. Now, however, Bea is able to bring her grievances to the forefront by presenting her resentment directly to Mae.
At this point, the blockage in their relationship has been mitigated to the extent that they can progress forward. The full issue will not be resolved until (and if) Mae tells Bea why she actually left school, but their relationship is at least able to move from being defined by Bea’s resentment to being open for reinterpretation. Mae presents that their relationship is based upon proximity which, while that is true to an extent, does seem to underplay their connection. Each character needs the other to escape a crippling aspect of themselves. Mae is helping Bea to escape the monotony and dread of her trapped life. Bea tries to push Mae towards a more structure and sustainable existence. While those relationships are a bit beyond the scope of this argument, it is certainly the case that proximity is not the only factor in their relationship. Regardless, by finally removing the relational blockage, Bea and Mae are able to redefine their relationship on grounds that are neither rooted in the past nor resentment; thereby allowing a new relational ontology to form between the two of them.
Ontology of Duty
Bea presents Mae with a new foundational ontology that is based off of duty. Bea’s work life is starkly juxtaposed to Mae’s carefree life throughout the game. Whilst both of their lifestyles have pluses and minuses, a major deficiency of Mae’s is its lack of stability. Bea points this out quite bluntly when she says that Mae is always “running around messing with people and taking whatever you want// while the whole mall is falling apart around you” (Dinner at Bea’s, NitW). While this statement is strictly about Mae’s shoplifting in Fort Lucenne, it is also addressing Mae’s instability. Shoplifting actually ends up being an excellent example for Mae’s lifestyle. If one is to steal from a store they would do it out of an impulse to have the thing that they are stealing. They would then get the good and be content. However, the shoplifter also harms the business, thereby putting at risk the source of goods the shoplifter is interested in taking. Like the shoplifter, Mae threatens the stability of the systems that allow her to be impulsive, such as how leaving college put her home-life at risk. By presenting Mae’s instability in such a rough manner, Bea is not only pointing it out but also critiquing it. She is pushing Mae away from a world of shoplifting and into a system where Mae can respect the duty she has to sustain the systems that also sustain her.
Bea’s ontology of duty goes beyond her having duties to other entities. When Bea brings up the sketchy employee known as Creek, she says that he would not be fired not only because he’s a good worker, but also because “Creek’s got a family. And he needs the work” (Dinner at Bea’s, NitW). Bea is sympathetic to the duty that Creek has to provide for his family, regardless of his own misgivings. Thereby, Creek’s duties to others give him value in Bea’s ontology. Not only is value given, but it is enough value to overlook that Creek may be a serious threat to her.
Now keep in mind that those are simply the ideas that Bea is trying to express to Mae and not necessarily the ones that Mae adopts. The question of what Mae does with all of this information will be dealt with in the final part. It is only necessary to keep in mind that Bea’s ontology is a significant influence on Mea’s decisions surrounding the end of the game.
By interacting with Bea, Mae is given a new relational and foundational ontology. The relational ontology is accepted by Mae as the two of them are friends not only at the end of the game, but also throughout. The foundational ontology is more problematic. While Bea’s ontology certainly has the potential to give structure to Mae’s otherwise unstructured life, her own experiences within the ontology hint at its flaws. While we have focused mostly on what Bea has given to Mae, as that is the focus of this discussion, it cannot be understated that there is an exchange between them. Mae gives Bea a means of escaping the most soul crushing portions of her ontology by removing some of Bea’s order.
Works Cited
Infinite Fall, Night In the Woods. Finji, Feb 21 2017.
A note on citations: Lines in text are cited according to the in-game chapter they occur in, followed by "NitW" (standing for Night in the Woods) so that it is easier for the reader to find the dialogue. The "//" in quotes denotes different speech bubbles.
Comments
Post a Comment