just me over analyzing this

Ouuuuuuu, this was some really good writing in this chapter. I like that the author
made everyone in the crowd stand still and quiet, and their faces were completely blank and void of emotion. It removes their humanity and serves as a way to remove each person's individuality. When they cast their vote, they were not individuals but a single group, showcasing the village's belief in the importance of the collective over the individual. It spotlights conformity and the pressure to conform to the group, even when one's conscience is at odds with the tradition/rules. In this case, the group is ‘bound’ by a set of rules, where the punishment for breaking them is death (well, at least one of them is death, we will know more later), regardless of circumstances. As the reader, most can agree that the punishment of death (particularly the gruesome way of being beaten by a bat) for the crime of stealing is considered extreme (and in this particular case, it was a father trying to save his child). But what some don’t recognize is that the punishment was never meant to fit the crime; it's meant to instill fear and force obedience. They chose death by bat because it was a particularly gruesome death that would work well in deterring individuals from acting out of turn. What would most likely happen then is the collective would then make excuses and justify the punishment, like saying ‘it’s for the good of the group,’ ‘if we let them go, they could come back for revenge,’ ‘well, those are the rules.’ When realistically, most rules aren’t black and white and are often grey and up for interpretation. For example, murder is against the law, but if acting out in self-defence, an individual can qualify for less or even zero jail time. The author also does a great job of demonstrating conformity through the MC; when he stands there, frozen in shock and watches the event play out, his character art becomes simpler/less detailed, and his colours duller, which causes him to fade slightly into the background (he's becoming one with the group).

In contrast, the author's choice to maintain Guwon's character design and even enhance the level of detail as the scene unfolds reinforces that his presence as an individual is distinct from the group and that his role in the story carries significant weight. Guwon symbolizes tradition and authority ("We have to follow the rules"). As the leader/boss, his organization of the trial/event signifies the continuity of tradition despite its barbarity (even Guwon himself seems uncomfortable with it, but despite being the boss, he doesn't put a stop to it). After doing some googling (this could be wrong, so correct me if it is), I found out the Korean word "구원" (guwon) translates to redemption, salvation, or saving; this ironically contrasts with his role in the village as the executioner. The author then creates even more irony when we take into account Guwon's demeanour, he is a happy man organizing an event that leads to violence. Guwon's choice to accept the role as leader and executioner is also interesting as it shifts the collective's guilt and blame onto him (despite them all being complicit in the individual's execution, regardless of whether or not they swung the bat). The other villagers show their hypocrisy as they fear’ Guwon and avoid him, but not each other, despite all of them sharing equal parts responsibility for their fellow villagers' deaths.

Finally, these stories always bring up the question. While surviving a physical threat might seem like a success, losing your humanity in the process can be argued as a failure to truly ‘survive’ in a meaningful way. It raises the question about what constitutes survival, encompassing not just physical existence but also moral and psychological well-being