I Hope You Enjoy My Rambling LOL - Tumblr Posts

On Father and Yato

(Mostly about Father because y’all know how I roll.)

Been sitting on some thoughts about Father, Yato, and their relationship and respective childhoods for a long while now.

I didn’t draft this beforehand because I’m not really in the headspace for super structured meta at the moment but I wanted to share some Thoughts(TM) so please excuse the messiness. 🙏 First thoughts post of the year!

Date: 03/27/2022

Thoughts under the cut. ↓ 

Mandatory disclaimer: This post is not meant to “justify” nor “excuse” Father’s actions but explore the how and the why, blah blah blah, I’m sure everyone knows the drill by now. As Twitter user @/girlsgutsgiallo said, perhaps it's not about "agreeing” or “disagreeing” with a villain's actions but simply experiencing them for what they are, and what is beautiful about art is that we get to sympathize with and understand all kinds of people.

While thinking about Father’s childhood and having gone back to reread the Sakura arc, I realized that Father and Yato are intertwined by their roles as foils to each other more deeply than I previously thought.

Back in my early theorist days back in, like, 2016 - 2017, some of my early thoughts on the series included the notion that Father and Yato were, essentially, “two sides of the same coin” - that is, they were reflections of each other not only in their narrative roles as antagonist vs. protagonist but also as parent and child, and as people. One could have easily gone down the path of the other had they made different choices, but those radically different choices are ultimately what make them so radically different. This view has been put on the back burner since then, yet I am once again struck by his how similar yet dissimilar they are, both narratively and as people.

First of all: I definitely think that the monk was to Father as Sakura was to Yato - the first influential, formative caretaker/guardian figure outside of their family, and their familiar childhood world, and who fundamentally shaped their worldviews. In their role as makeshift guardians, they were complete opposites.

Sakura gave Yato stability, security, and taught him the beauty and value of life and the world around them, in stark contrast to how Father taught Yato to treat life beforehand.

But for Father, when he became dependent on the monk, the monk betrayed his trust and tried to kill him (no matter how “good” those intentions might have been, although one can argue about the morality of trying to commit double suicide with a child to “save” him). Compared to Sakura’s compassionate guidance, Father’s lesson from his would-be guardian was the complete opposite of Sakura’s to Yato: “life is cheap”, and is is a constant competition between living things - whoever is stronger will survive, and those who are weak will die. Even if he didn’t directly “teach” that to Baby Father, the truth remains that this was the takeaway Father had from the experience.

And who could blame him for thinking that way, honestly, given that he had to survive in a very hostile environment as a child?

Before anything else is said, I feel that the time period in which Father lived in must be contextualized:

When Satou began his story of the Mask-Maker, he stated that Father was an orphan who lived 1000 years ago, which would put us around 900~, or the middle of the Heian period. The majority of the population were poor rice farmers who were one or two failed harvests away from starvation - only an incredibly small percentage of people were nobility (like Sakura was) or lived in the capital of Heian-kyo.

Unfortunately, the tenth century is known to be the most poorly documented century in Japanese history. However - according to Heian Japan: Centers and Peripheries - based on records from the previous two centuries, it was likely that local or widespread famine was hitting the peasant population roughly every 3 years, sometimes more frequently. The courtiers in the capital, however, did not do much to document or remedy this.

“Written sources in the tenth century more often than not merely mention starvation, with little in the way of concrete policies to deal with the crises. In 908, provinces ‘declined,’ but the elite did nothing except pray and cancel ceremonies. Only the capital received any grain relief. Harvest failure was noted in 913, but courtiers’ only concern was how much tax product it would cost them. In 917, one of three widespread famines known for the tenth century struck: the court described numerous robber gangs but otherwise seemed most concerned for its own welfare. (One measure was to ensure that Retired Sovereign Yōzei have enough water to make wine!) Untoward weather conditions were common in the 920s, but again the court was restricted to worrying about collecting enough in grain taxes. The capital utilized its granaries when starvation struck in 931, but officials also called out the police to crack down on robbers.” (Page 312)

Such a society was an immensely hostile place, and especially so for a lone child - and it certainly is implied that Father was on his own after the cliff incident, when we see him with the items the monk left behind, his staff and a piece of fabric tied around his torso, probably used to carry small items.

Father recalled having to do everything he could to survive, even killing, stealing, and sleeping with monks (if you’ve read anything about chigo or nanshoku, the connotations of this are immensely uncomfortable) - that says quite a bit about the kind of environment he grew up in, as a child with no guardian and then an adult with no home. (I find it interesting that both he and Yato are characterized by a stubborn desire to survive no matter what it takes. Father traveling around and doing random odds and ends like repairing houses and bridges definitely reminds me of the delivery god work Yato does as well, just in a much earlier age.)

Bearing this in mind...

Father:

- Orphaned at a young age; relationship with parents unknown but home life must not have been too rough if Baby Father immediately trusted a stranger

- Home destroyed, remained a traveler for a while as far as we know

- Very likely had an unstable source of material means such as food and clothing, since he had to do “whatever it took to survive” and resorted to killing and stealing

- Immensely distrustful of people and their good intentions; regards humans as having an “ugly human nature” that manifests as karma ayakashi

Yato:

- Awful relationship with his parent; Father is physically and emotionally abusive, not to mention manipulative

- Has a home to go back to physically but does not want to due to Point #1

- Had an unstable source of material means such as good and clothing when away from Father but while in Father’s care, Yato notes that he knows that he’ll be taken care of physically (food, clothing, etc.)

- “That boy loved people.”

This goes right back around to them being mirrors of one another that I mentioned in the beginning (you could also compare Father’s usually calm and collected demeanor with Yato’s emotional one and how Yato usually keeps his problems to himself while Father projects his baggage onto everyone else), but also... looking at the compare/contrast here, I think Father cares way more about Yato than most people think he does. And I think that, in some capacity, he thinks he’s doing right by Yato - even when that’s undercut by his anger and manipulation of Yato for his own ends.

First: providing for him materially. This seems to be be a common theme with Father and Yato. There’s the example above, and also...

Very obvious empty dishes in the background.

Father cooking for them.

And of course, the infamous line from the Father vs. Yato fight (sorry I know I’ve talked about this one like 3 times already, it’s just so important!!):

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that having a roof over your head and food on your table were very hard-won things for Father, which is why they’re specifically pointed out by him here - Father is providing for Yato what he himself didn’t have, things that hung in the precipice for him.

Tying into this notion of providing what he didn’t have to Yato, Father’s caution to Baby Yato during the Sakura arc - “don’t talk to strangers - feels quite significant in light of this new backstory context as well. That piece of advice is something that a young Father could certainly have benefited from, before he almost got thrown off a cliff by a seemingly well-meaning stranger.

Which brings me to the question: was what happened to Sakura in the Sakura arc really just purely out of malice and because she was in the way of his plans, or perhaps Father was also trying to protect Yato in his own way? (I mean, while she didn’t try to kill Baby Yato, Sakura did leave him entirely defenseless and in pain at night and if Father didn’t find him, he’d probably have been eaten by ayakashi.)

Not saying that Father setting Sakura up for death and having Yato kill her was driven purely by a desire to protect him, because the whole ordeal was unnecessarily cruel - and Father certainly knew Sakura was getting in the way - but the below scene always gave me pause.

“I told you not to talk to strangers (because)...”

Father’s lesson to Yato here was that “all people have this ugliness inside them, even if they are beautiful or noble on the outside, and this is why I want you to cull the herd (and, implicitly, this is why you can’t trust people, because they’re all the same on the inside).” Father’s inherent distrust of people’s good will is fully shining through here, and is even further reinforced during the conversation he has with Hiyori in this very chapter, right before this flashback.

“And I want you stop stop getting mixed up with my boy just because of your lukewarm emotions.”

He even chides Yato for “letting his guard down around this one", with a suspicious eye zoom.

And again, as early as Chapter 27:

“Her feelings won’t last. People change. [...] But we won’t betray you. We will always be by your side.”

And this bit from Chapter 91:

And the notion that Yato will “learn his lesson” when he loses someone dear to him isn’t a new one - Father echoes something similar in regards to Yukine as well:

And again with Hiyori:

Also, the interesting thing about Father’s latest confrontation with Hiyori is that he establishes the belief that he isn’t hurting Yato, but Hiyori (and probably others as well) are the ones hurting him instead.

He even vocalized that he’s been “protecting” Yato all of his life, and will continue to do so.

And it reminds me of something that he said to Bishamon back in the Heaven arc, in which he says that thanks to her, Yato has gotten some “funny ideas”, which he sees as something that should be corrected (”he’ll realize his mistake”):

As we’ve seen recently, Father does actually believe that gods (and maybe people in general) cannot save anyone - he mocks them for their inability to save their shinki when they’re struck by Chiki in Chapter 97. It does seem, at least to me, that Father is trying to impart these views onto Yato - that you shouldn’t try to save people because you can’t, you shouldn’t trust people because their feelings are fickle and they all have an inherent ugliness within them - and it’s not solely out of malice, but because Father actually does believe all of this.

The scene below where Father explains his views on shrines and prayers portrays this very well, in my opinion - Yato not having a shrine is one way for Father to make sure he’s isolated, yes, but I have no doubt that Father actually does believe everything he’s said here, and thus his belief that Yato doesn’t need one of those “things only fools pray to.” (This is a point for an entirely separate post altogether but Kugaha says in one chapter that he believes Yato is “different from the [other gods]” - considering Kugaha is probably parroting Father, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Father also believes Yato is different from other gods.)

Not to be like “abusive parents, though they horribly mistreat their children, can still ultimately care for them” but, yeah. I think Father cares for Yato in his own fucked up, selfish way - if this line isn’t convincing enough of this notion:

“Huh? Well, yeah, you’re a pain in the ass, but you’re still my son. That’s what I wished for, after all.”

Father knows that Yato sold him out to Amaterasu and yet he’s still keeping it up with the “why are you running away from me, Yaboku?”, when Mizuchi - who was always loyal to him - immediately got the boot after becoming a potential danger and when Father realized that she didn’t really hate Heaven. And yet, with Yato...

It feels very significant to me that Father - who has recently been revealed to be an orphan whose home was destroyed - places such a heavy emphasis on being this parental figure and “playing family” with a god whom he calls his son and his own shinki. And I know that the omakes aren’t canon per se, exactly, but they are always in-character - and every single omake featuring Father has always involved Yato, constantly playing on Father wanting to spend time with him, or scolding him as a parent would.

There’s a lot more that can be said about this but you can cram only so much within a post in 2 sittings and I’m all out of brain juice so I think that will be it for now.

I will leave this post off with perhaps my favorite page that Really Makes You Think, ever: Father seething with rage at the Covenant and his gaze seems to be directed straight at Yato, who’s writhing in pain on the ground because of Yukine’s distress in the Box. Interesting paneling choice there, Adachitoka, when Amaterasu is right there.

I apologize again for the messiness but I hope this was interesting, at least. 🙏