When Attack on Titan concluded in April 2023 with the final chapter of Hajime Isayama’s manga — followed by the release of the final season’s climactic episodes — it didn’t just end a story. It detonated one of the most polarizing finales in modern anime history. Fans who had spent over a decade following Eren Yeager’s journey from vengeful boy to genocidal warmonger were left reeling. Was the ending coherent? Earned? Satisfying? Or did it betray everything the series stood for?
The conclusion of Attack on Titan is not simply about plot resolution. It’s about ideology, trauma, cycles of violence, and the limits of empathy. To understand whether the ending saved or ruined the series’ legacy, we must dissect its narrative choices, philosophical underpinnings, and emotional payoff.
The Final Arc: What Actually Happened?
The final arc of Attack on Titan centers on Eren’s Rumbling — a cataclysmic event in which he unleashes 80% of the world’s population as mindless Titans to march across the globe, erasing all non-Eldian life. This act, framed as both a preemptive strike and an expression of absolute freedom, sets him against his former friends: Mikasa, Armin, and the rest of the Survey Corps.
The climax unfolds not on a battlefield of nations, but within the Paths — a metaphysical space where time and memory converge. Here, Armin confronts Eren in a dialogue that reveals the core of his motivation: fear. Not of war, but of losing control, of being unable to protect those he loves. Eren admits he could have stopped the Rumbling at any moment — but chose not to, because he believed no other path would secure true freedom for Eldians.
In the end, Mikasa kills Eren, severing his head to stop the Founding Titan’s power. The Rumbling halts after devastating much of the world. Peace eventually emerges through diplomacy, led by Armin and others who negotiate with foreign powers. Eren is neither fully vilified nor glorified. He becomes a necessary monster — a tragic figure whose love was twisted by fate and ideology.
Narrative Payoff vs. Emotional Whiplash
One of the most debated aspects of the ending is its pacing. The final 20 chapters cover years of geopolitical aftermath in just a few pages. Characters like Jean, Connie, and Historia receive minimal closure. Meanwhile, Eren’s internal monologue — once so visceral — becomes cryptic, delivered through abstract visions in the Paths.
Yet, this compression serves a purpose. Isayama isn’t writing a war epic’s epilogue; he’s illustrating how history flattens complexity. Generations later, Eren is remembered not as a person, but as a symbol — sometimes a villain, sometimes a liberator. That ambiguity is intentional. The manga doesn’t offer catharsis; it offers reflection.
Consider Historia’s arc. She gives birth to a child whose paternity is never confirmed — possibly Eren’s, possibly not. In raising her daughter in peace, she embodies continuity beyond conflict. Her quiet resilience contrasts Eren’s destructive certainty. This isn’t anticlimactic — it’s thematic counterpoint.
“Eren didn’t want freedom for the world. He wanted freedom from the pain of caring.” — Armin Arlert, Chapter 137
Philosophical Core: Can Freedom Exist Without Destruction?
Attack on Titan has always been a deconstruction of nationalism, revenge, and moral absolutism. From the first reveal that Titans are humans, the series insists: there are no pure villains. Only people acting according to their trauma and beliefs.
The ending doubles down on this. Eren isn’t redeemed. He isn’t forgiven. But he is understood. His final conversation with Armin reveals a boy trapped by his own foresight — seeing every possible future, yet feeling powerless to change the outcome unless he became the ultimate threat.
This echoes real-world extremist ideologies, where individuals justify atrocities as “necessary evils.” Isayama doesn’t excuse Eren — he humanizes him. And that’s what unsettles many readers. We’re asked not to cheer his defeat, but to mourn the tragedy of someone who loved too fiercely and thought too narrowly.
| Character | Motivation | Ending Fate |
|---|---|---|
| Eren Yeager | Secure freedom for Eldians at any cost | Killed by Mikasa; remembered ambiguously |
| Mikasa Ackerman | Protect Eren, even when he becomes a monster | Lives in peace; visits Eren’s tree annually |
| Armin Arlert | Understand enemies to prevent endless war | Becomes a diplomat; negotiates post-Rumbling peace |
| Reiner Braun | Atone for past sins | Survives; implied to live in guilt and service |
| Zeke Yeager | End the Eldian bloodline through sterilization | Defeated; dies in the Paths |
Fan Reactions: Polarization and Misinterpretation
The backlash was immediate. Social media exploded with accusations: “The ending ruined the series,” “Eren became a strawman,” “Isayama lost his way.” Yet, equally passionate defenses emerged: “It’s a masterpiece of tragedy,” “You don’t get it — it’s about breaking cycles,” “This was the only honest ending.”
Part of the divide stems from expectations. Many viewers tuned in for a shonen battle spectacle — they got a psychological tragedy. Others expected Eren to be stopped by force; instead, he was stopped by love — Mikasa’s choice to kill him wasn’t vengeance, but mercy.
A mini case study illustrates this:
Dana’s Experience: From Anger to Acceptance
Dana, a longtime fan since 2014, watched the final episode live. “I threw my phone. I couldn’t believe Eren wasn’t going to apologize, that Armin forgave him, that Mikasa still loved him after millions died.” She avoided the fandom for months. But after rereading the final chapters slowly — focusing on the dialogue in the Paths — her perspective shifted. “I realized Eren wasn’t asking for forgiveness. He was asking to be seen. And Armin saw him. That’s what mattered.” Today, Dana runs a podcast analyzing the series’ philosophy. “The ending didn’t ruin Attack on Titan. It completed it.”
Did It Save or Ruin the Legacy?
To claim the ending “ruined” Attack on Titan assumes the series was meant to be a heroic triumph. But from the beginning, it was a tragedy — one about how systems of oppression corrupt even the most well-intentioned hearts.
The strength of the finale lies in its refusal to simplify. It doesn’t offer a clean victory. No last-minute redemption. No magical solution. Instead, it shows peace emerging not from one grand act, but from countless small efforts: negotiations, education, personal accountability. Armin doesn’t become a warrior king — he becomes a teacher, a speaker, a bridge.
And Eren? He becomes a cautionary tale. Not erased, not worshipped — remembered. Much like real historical figures who committed atrocities in the name of liberation (e.g., Robespierre, Che Guevara), his legacy is contested. That discomfort is the point.
“The best endings don’t answer every question. They make you live with the questions.” — Dr. Lena Matsuda, Cultural Critic & Author of *Narrative Trauma in Modern Anime*
Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding the Ending
- Re-read Chapters 136–139: Focus on dialogue in the Paths, especially Eren’s admission that he “wanted to see a different future.”
- Trace Eren’s foreshadowing: Go back to Season 1 — Episode 4, where young Eren says, “If we kill all the Titans, will we be free?” The answer, tragically, is no.
- Analyze Mikasa’s role: Her killing Eren isn’t betrayal — it’s the ultimate act of love. She frees him from his self-destructive path.
- Study the children’s scene: The final panels show kids playing near Eren’s tree. One asks, “Was he a hero or a villain?” Another replies, “Does it matter?” This encapsulates the theme: history simplifies, but truth is complex.
- Separate emotional response from narrative coherence: Disliking Eren’s actions doesn’t mean the story failed. The discomfort may be the intended effect.
FAQ
Why didn’t Eren talk to Mikasa in the Paths?
Eren avoided Mikasa because he knew she would try to stop him — not out of duty, but out of love. Their bond was his greatest vulnerability. By cutting her out of his final vision, he protected her from emotional manipulation — and himself from hesitation.
Was the Rumbling truly unstoppable?
No. As revealed in the Paths, Eren could have halted it anytime. But he believed that without demonstrating absolute threat, the outside world would never negotiate peace. He gambled that destruction would force long-term survival.
What does the tree symbolize at the end?
The tree grows from the spot where Eren’s head fell — a natural monument to his life. It represents memory, growth, and the persistence of nature over ideology. Like Yggdrasil in Norse myth, it connects worlds: past and present, human and Titan, love and loss.
Checklist: Evaluating the Ending Fairly
- ✅ Have I considered the series’ consistent themes of cyclical violence?
- ✅ Did I separate my emotional reaction from narrative analysis?
- ✅ Have I revisited earlier foreshadowing (e.g., Zeke’s euthanasia plan, Eren’s nightmares)?
- ✅ Did I acknowledge Armin and Mikasa’s agency in stopping Eren — not through hate, but through love and understanding?
- ✅ Am I holding the ending to realistic standards, or expecting a conventional shonen resolution?
Conclusion: A Flawed Masterpiece, But a Masterpiece Nonetheless
The ending of Attack on Titan doesn’t provide comfort. It refuses to let us off the hook with a tidy moral. It challenges us to sit with contradiction: that someone can be both monstrous and loving, that peace can emerge from horror, that freedom might require sacrifice — but not the kind Eren imagined.
Did it ruin the legacy? For some, yes — especially those who wanted a clear hero’s journey. But for others, it elevated the series into rarefied territory: a mainstream anime that dared to end not with victory, but with ambiguity. With grief. With hope — fragile, hard-won, and unromanticized.
Legacy isn’t determined by popularity alone. It’s shaped by impact, courage, and the willingness to provoke thought. By those measures, Attack on Titan’s ending didn’t tarnish its reputation — it cemented it.
浙公网安备
33010002000092号
浙B2-20120091-4
Comments
No comments yet. Why don't you start the discussion?