Not much to say about this episode except that it’s pretty awesome and a bit more enlightening than its original counterpart. Again, assuming the deposition of someone who hasn’t seen Full Metal Alchemist before, I think it’s safe for me to say that he/she’s better off watching the remake. To be honest, I think I would’ve learned a lot more about the nature of alchemy by watching that scene where Ed gets transported to the Gate of Truth than with another episode from the previous series. That said, I really can’t discuss anything else about the plot since all seems to be well. The use of alchemy, on the other hand, is unfortunately lacking. So instead of doing a regular reactions post, I am going to focus instead of the inconsistencies that I’ve found on this episode regarding the use of alchemy.
We’ve all heard about the mundane Law of Equivalent Exchange, thanks to Alphonse’s incessant (though unintentional) statement over the course of the original FMA series, right after the OP sequence starts…
Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy’s First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world’s one, and only, truth.
So there you go; not that hard to understand really. Gain ice, lose water….gain fire, lose air…gain bread, lose wheat … ….gain something, lose something equal; simple as that. Apparently, this law seems to remain rock solid for most cases, until I got to the point where Ed reacted with skepticism upon hearing about the how some priest in Lior was able to transmute flowers out of thin air. But wait, I thought you can make something out of something else as long as they are of equal value, and with equal value meaning the same composition. Who’s to say that the composition of flowers is not present in the air? Am I missing something here..maybe some unmentioned law that says flowers and air aren’t equivalent? Whatever may the case may be, this just proves to me that the Law of Equivalent Exchange isn’t as rock solid as I’d thought it would be; not that I have a major problem or anything. It’s just I find it a bit annoying whenever there are inconsistencies to laws.
Such inconsistency is even more evident on the subject of human transmutation, the Elric brothers’ failed attempt to resurrect their mother, and the alchemical process which brought forth the notorious homunculi. In all of the aforementioned instances, the “First Law of Equivalent Exchange” (wow..first? does that mean there’s more than one?) seems to be rather violated, if not bent. In an ideal human transmutation, all of the ingredients the Elric brothers gathered would have been consumed, the brothers would have retained their limbs, and would have successfully resurrected their mother. Of course, we all know this wasn’t exactly what happened. Apparently, one mother is worth more than her physical composition and her spiritual composition represented by the drops of blood provided for by the brothers. To compensate for this non-equivalence, one brother lost his body while the other lost his limb, blah blah blah. Now what bothers me the most is how ‘The Truth’ or ‘God’ (or one of the many names it calls itself) exacted a toll on Ed’s leg as the cost for learning the alchemical truth. B-but I thought his leg was for the failed transmutation. In other words, is it…
Human Ingredients + Al’s Body + Ed’s Leg = Cost of Failure + Homunculus + Alchemical Truth?
or is it just…
Ed’s Leg = Alchemical Truth?
Another thing I’d like to go about is how it was only Ed who was able to see the Truth Gate, this enabling him to perform alchemy without a transmutation circle when both brothers did the same exact protocols.
Again, whatever the case is, it really doesn’t matter nor is it my main point. To put it simply, the fact that there are inconsistencies in Equivalent Exchange only brings me to two conclusions: (1) Either there are other laws at play…most likely the reason why they call it ‘The First Law,’ implying the existence of Second, Third or numerous other laws or, (2) Equivalent Exchange is an ideal law valid if and only if ideal conditions are met, something a non-ideal world such as the one set in FMA cannot achieve.
Loading ...