Media literacy and how mental conditions are a real struggle, not a narrative device
Please don't leave comments like "I'm happy for you or sorry this happened". I've seen it happen, and it's pretty sad. You don't need to engage if you're not interested. Thank you.
TL,DR: The moon is on fire showed a mental condition as the reality of the story, and didn't treat it as a plot device, which is how it is represented in the majority of media.
Before getting into my yap, I want to say, yes, I know that the story relates to a different project by the author. I have not read that other story though, so I'm not going to express myself on that connection. Thus, I will be looking at the latest story for what it is on its own.
I would like to reflect on some reactions I saw, whether from the boys or a lot of people in the community, in regards as to how the story should have ended and what it should have been about.
I really loved this story. Part 1 to 3, all great and this was a wonderful concept and a really well executed portrayal of a bad episode of unmedicated psychosis.
It's a horrible thing how people's perception of schizophrenia has been informed by its awful portrayals in most media. This is reflected in a lot of people's complaint that the story should have ended with the protagonist ending up doing something atrocious, whether it's a political assassination or killing his parents. This is just depressing to me. People affected by conditions are not monsters and are often time not dangerous, if not to themselves.
Would it make for a "satisfying" ending? Why have a satisfying ending? In a story that is a very grounded portrayal of someone's delusions and how they spiral into this absurd conspiracy when not receiving the necessary care, there is no satisfying end. The horror of the story is the horror of a reality that is so foreign to most.
I think it's quite poetic how the story asserts its grounded identity by having this fantastical and absurd ending, ironically so far removed from the reader's perceived reality. The fact that the protagonist does not go on to commit any grand action is what makes it feel real. I think of part 3 as an epilogue to a story concluded in part 2. Part 3 doesn't need the reader to fully grasp it. It is functional, but not a literary progression. It was pretty depressing to see, but a very fascinating depiction of what this psychotic conspiratorial state looks for people.
Another point is how many people said the story should have been all set in a mental health facility, which just shows how people misunderstand how those work. In no way would the protagonist be allowed to get off meds in a facility. It shows the ignorance of how difficult it is to receive minimum care in a place like the US where healthcare is privatised. If the protagonist was able to receive the needed attention and help, there would be no Part 3.
Also, to have it said outright to you that the story was set in a clinic just cheapens it and is really boring. What's the point of having a story that requires no media literacy.
Literature doesn't always have a linear progression, as is the case in a lot of classics, and it should be something obvious to most readers.
I like to visualise the progression of parts 1 to 3 as the first two progressing as a line, a pretty straightforward setup for someone who's experiencing the early stages of psychosis. Part 2 concludes this narrative by establishing a point of no return, and part 3 is just an overinflated balloon that never bursts, that, again, is an expression of a mental state, not a description of reality as it would be perceived by neurotypical people, but a reality as experienced by the affected person.