Neko

I like Rise from the Ashes. I love Ema as a character; I enjoy the narrative focus on a deep rot of corruption and control; the gameplay is fun (even if I couldn’t play it on the train, because I would have looked ridiculous blowing on my DS). It has quite a bit to say about Phoenix, too, in a much more overt way than a lot of other cases.

And I wanted to start with that, and what specifically I like, because I’m not writing this to pick apart something I’m mad about. Rather, this is about what the retcons in 1-5 mean – what was changed, and why.

Retcon is a colloquialism of retroactive continuity, changing established facts or events within a narrative through a later work. Sometimes, this is intentional; other times, it’s carelessness (or, more charitably, forgetfulness).

There are a few areas I’d characterise as retcons or at least tensions with canon, such as the differences in how 1-5 portrays capital punishment briefly discussed here, but this is already the longest of all my meta writings. And as a case that was intended to explain Edgeworth’s disappearance, how it handles his character is the area I want to explore.

I already, to some degree, object to the perceived need for this. I think that 1-4 is a pretty clear-cut explanation in itself – a character whose life has been built around a front of strength, having his most vulnerable self dissected in public. Fierce, defensive independence, saved by someone who he saw as caring far too much. The fact that this case would make something in Edgeworth crack is in many ways inevitable as soon as he says:

I didn't want you to see me. Not like this.

The betrayal of Manfred von Karma sits on top of this; the person Edgeworth let shape him, wanted to shape himself into, committed the act that tormented him. Edgeworth’s character is frequently one who is running. From his past, from those “unnecessary feelings” of unease and uncertainty, from the idea that he might be doing something wrong now. And 1-4 forces him to stand still.

This isn’t a retcon, though, not exactly. I enjoyed that the gaps were left behind, for these conclusions to be drawn, but that doesn’t mean it’s a contradiction to fill them in.

What I would argue is a contradiction is the key reason provided: that Edgeworth was horrified by the corruption exposed, because he hadn’t known it was there.

We’re introduced to Edgeworth by way of rumours – “back-alley deals and forged evidence”, as Phoenix puts it in 1-2. It’s then made even more explicit what Phoenix’s opinion of these rumours is:

(That's quite a claim coming from someone who forges evidence...) [1-4]

Of course, these are just rumours, and the corruption of the office handing him the evidence we’re presented in 1-5 could explain that. So Phoenix provides a correct assessment, but pointed at the wrong person; Edgeworth is an unwilling, unknowing vessel for this power struggle. But beyond this explicit statement by Phoenix, there are a few other reasons I have issues with that perspective.

Perhaps the most important, and the reason I frame this as a retcon rather than a difference of opinion, is what the game has already told us. Picking up the same quotes I used in the death penalty essay I linked previously:

"Innocent"…? How can we know that? The guilty will always lie, to avoid being found out. There's no way to tell who is guilty and who is innocent! All that I can hope to do is get every defendant declared "guilty"! So I make that my policy. [1-2]

It's possible some of the suspects were indeed innocent. However, it is impossible for us to accurately determine that in every case. All von Karma does is his job, to find the suspect guilty, perfectly. [1-4]

Edgeworth is not, at this point in his life, motivated by truth. These are the words of someone who is shying around the fact that he and Manfred von Karma (MvK) may have caused innocent people to be jailed, because there’s no way to tell. It’s impossible for us to accurately determine.

Edgeworth’s repeated use of this idea is fascinating, because it’s clearly a thought-terminating cliche he’s come to depend upon to assuage his guilt. This is how he can make himself ignore what people are saying about him – how he can keep running. Would these justifications be needed by someone who is confident that all he presents is above-board?

There’s also the extrapolations we can make one step removed from Edgeworth: the von Karma family. MvK taught Edgeworth “what it really means to ‘prosecute’” [1-4]. Edgeworth knows from the beginning that MvK won’t give him a fair trial; we see MvK coaching witnesses, lying to the court.

While, yes, this is partially to obscure his involvement, we also know that this is how he’s always behaved in court. The one instance of receiving pushback on this is what created the hate that led to all these layers of revenge. And Edgeworth didn’t know this when he said MvK would do “anything” to get a guilty verdict [1-4]; he knew the man who had trained him.

Franziska supports this as well, by being the only other person we see who was trained by MvK. We see her “back-alley deals and forged evidence”, her construction of a perfect trial. She may be striving even more directly than Edgeworth to emulate her father – the pressure of the von Karma name more suffocating to the one who carries it – but they were taught together. That was her “little brother” [2-3].

(In case anyone is coming to this essay fresh: 1-5 was only introduced as a bonus case from the DS release onwards. So while it may seem counter-intuitive to discuss it with context of the later games, it wasn’t actually released until after they were.)

Another step removed from the explicit text of the games is what we know of Edgeworth’s personality. The lack of trust in others, cynicism to a fault. These traits that led him to justify his actions by saying he can never really know someone’s innocence, rather than trying to convince himself that he only prosecuted guilty people, are the same that led him to assume Phoenix appeared in 1-4 to mock him.

So why would he cast all this aside to unconditionally trust the prosecutors’ office? With all the rumours around him, he never faltered, never thought about what was being handed to him? Denial is powerful, and denial is a key part of Edgeworth’s character – but would he let himself get into a position where that denial would push him into blind credulity?

I don’t think there’s a way to conclusively answer those questions. As ever, I want to be clear when what I’m giving is conjecture. But everything I’ve outlined above is why my personal answer to those questions is that I’m not sure he would.

That begs the question, why would this side of Edgeworth be changed? Again, I’m stating an opinion, but the most obvious answer to me is that it softens the worst parts of him. Edgeworth has harmed people. That’s a weighty thing for a fan-favourite character to have done. Especially when you want them to become good.

The easiest way for someone to meet that standard is to absolve them. Not to unpick all the complexities behind what happened, but for them to have not done it, or for it to at least be someone else’s fault in a very clear-cut way. I see 1-5’s editing of Edgeworth’s character as a faltering, a phenomenon we see time and again in media that isn’t equipped to, or doesn’t want to, address the depth of the flaws it’s given to key characters. Moral complexity that’s worried someone might decide they’re a bad person; an audience assumed unwilling to grapple with what’s been presented to them.

I agree with the premise of 1-5 that the prosecutors’ office and police department are corrupt. Aside from my real-world politics impacting how I interact with media, I think there had to be deep corruption for Edgeworth to have continued on like this. Rumours so loud that they’re in the newspaper, how Phoenix sees his name for the first time in years – turning a blind eye to that is inherently corrupt, no matter if Edgeworth’s superiors were actively aiding this behaviour or not.

I don’t think Edgeworth’s denial would lead him into unquestioningly trusting someone, because his denial is about trusting people. Never trust somebody’s innocence, that a person may want to help you without an ulterior motive, because denying that is the surest way to stay free from harm.

Strike first, or someone else will. Edgeworth is a character who made a choice to take that to its extremes.