Given that the hiatus is in full swing, I thought this would be a good time to revisit some early episodes of Star vs. the Forces of Evil in order to talk about some of the ideas I’ve noticed in them.

This post is the first of what will hopefully be a multiple-part series consisting mainly of shorter analysis posts. Since it’s a retrospective, I have decided to jocularly run with the theme of “double take” as a pun on taking a second, closer look at episodes which first escaped notice.

All of the Double Take analyses will be connected to the larger idea that certain early episodes form a “primer” of sorts – i.e., these episodes prepare the audience for more complex concepts coming later. This may seem like a radical hypothesis, but I hope that by the end of this first post you will be convinced there is some merit to the idea.

Why This Episode?

In this Double Take, I’ll talk about “Lobster Claws” and its surprisingly complicated psychological undertone. I think the episode is thematically important to the show – and not just because of what it says about the morality of monsters, though that certainly does play a role.

“Lobster Claws” may seem like a strange choice; from what I’ve seen, when people rank their favorite episodes, it often places at or near the bottom of the list, and – I must confess – when I first watched the series, I, too, ranked it near the bottom. Yet over time, on repeat viewings, I began to understand that, like so many others, there is more to this episode than meets the eye.

Monsters Are (Not) Evil

After Lobster Claws gets fired from Ludo’s army, Star and Marco argue over whether or not monsters are inherently evil. (My good friend Malthus1 would characterize this – not without reason – as an example of Hegelian dialectics.) Both Star and Marco spend the episode trying to demonstrate that they’re right.

It almost goes without saying, but the unambiguous surface lesson we’re meant to take away from “Lobster Claws” is that monsters are not wholly evil. Lobster Claws does, in fact, demonstrate a capacity for being good: more precisely, he shows guilt (and therefore the capacity for a conscience) when he realizes he has betrayed Star by taking the wand from her.

This revelation, of course, lays the groundwork for “Mewnipendance Day,” which further explores the idea that monsters might not be the villains they’ve been cast as – a concept which season two embraces with episodes like “On the Job,” “Is Mystery,” and “Raid the Cave.”

Yet, beyond the simple idea that monsters aren’t entirely evil, “Lobster Claws” poses some actually fairly complex psychological questions – one of which can be best summed up, I think, as: “How do we know what people really believe?”

While teaching him how to be good, Marco introduces Lobster Claws to the Golden Rule; this makes sense, as – particularly in the West – the Golden Rule is the simplest and most widespread principle instructing others in how to behave morally.

The funny thing, though, about “Lobster Claws” is that everyone in it ends up violating the principles they claim to believe.

Principle and Action: Star

Star states several times, in no uncertain terms, that monsters are evil – irredeemably so:

Star: Monsters are the bad guys.

Lobster Claws: I don’t have to be bad. In fact, I’ve always secretly wanted to be good.

Marco: Really? Well, maybe we can show you how.

Star: What?! That’s crazy! Monsters … are … evil! It’s just their nature.

Lobster Claws: Why is being good so hard?

Star: The problem is Marco is trying to make you something you’re not. You’re a vile, repulsive monster. Why fight it?

If Star believes that monsters are evil (and therefore cannot be trusted, a point that she brings up), why then does she trust Lobster Claws enough to negotiate with him? Indeed, why help him get his job back at all – won’t he just be one more monster she’ll have to fight later?

If Star truly believes monsters are evil, why is she genuinely surprised and hurt when Lobster Claws betrays her by stealing the wand for real? After all, isn’t that what monsters do?

I suggest that the reason Star behaves in these ways is because she doesn’t take the concept of evil seriously – not until Lobster Claws takes her wand, at which point, feeling the sting of betrayal and watching Lobster Claws and the wand undergo their horrible transformations, she is confronted with tangible evidence of just how actually dangerous evil can be.

Evil doesn’t just eat children, destroy cities, or punch cyclists. Evil – real Evil, with a capital “E” – is a terrible force that can transform beauty into malice, friendship into dread, and magic into darkness. I don’t think Star still fully realizes the scope of the struggle against Evil after “Lobster Claws,” but she certainly gets an inkling.

Principle and Action: Lobster Claws and Ludo

Lobster Claws, on the other hand – without any prompting from Star or Marco – brings up the fact that he’s always secretly wanted to be good, after which Star and Marco take turns playing the metaphorical devil and angel on his shoulder; Star tries to convince Lobster Claws to just give in to evil, and Marco tries to convince Lobster Claws that he can be good.

For all his faults, Lobster Claws apparently makes a genuine attempt to be good, but in the end – with Star’s encouragement, funnily enough – he gives up on being good, as it’s too difficult for him. His actions undermine his earlier statement that he’s always secretly wanted to be good.

Yet it isn’t until Lobster Claws performs his most evil act – stealing the wand from Star and betraying her trust – that we see any proof at all that he actually can be good. In this manner, he violates his principles twice:

He lets Star persuade him that he’s evil after earlier saying that he’s always wanted to be good.

He reveals his good nature despite having earlier agreed with Star that he is, in fact, “a vile, repulsive monster.”

Ludo, of course, is as unprincipled as ever. Despite having fired Lobster Claws for losing the wand in the first place, Ludo takes him back – even though he loses the wand a second time – simply because Ludo wants to be close to someone who has briefly touched the wand.

Principles and Action: Marco

Marco is the most intriguing case – and his reversal is, I think, the one the show wants us to pay the closest attention to. (That’s why it happens in slow motion.) Throughout the episode, Marco constantly shows sympathy for Lobster Claws and attempts to teach him how to be good. Yet, in the end, how does Marco treat him?

Marco resorts to violence, treating Lobster Claws like a bad guy and kicking him in the face in order to get the wand back. Marco has reversed roles with Star, who, instead of fighting with Lobster Claws, is trying to reason with him.

It’s telling that Lobster Claws punches Marco in the face at the end of the episode. In fact, that scene is yet another ironic reversal – this time of the Golden Rule: Lobster Claws is indeed doing to Marco what Marco did to him.

Star: Huh. Marco, you were right. There was some good in him after all.

Marco: (strained) Not much.

The Moral of the Story

So, what, exactly, are the lessons that “Lobster Claws” is trying to covey – beyond simply that “monsters are not wholly evil”? I think there are several, and, as I mentioned earlier, they are surprisingly complex given how facile the episode appears to be:

Sometimes people claim to believe things that they don’t really believe.

People betray their real beliefs through their actions.

Violence is an easily-accessible tool in dealing with evil – but not the best one.

Star and Marco appear to have well-defined principles but, by the end of the episode, both of them have violated their principles, coming to a different conclusion than they started with. This motif gets touched on several times throughout season two, particularly in episodes like “Starsitting” and “Game of Flags,” gradually growing more complex.

The idea culminates with the season two finale in which Moon teaches Star that sometimes one needs to lie in order to keep the peace ("Face the Music”). Star appears to take this lesson to heart, lying to Marco about her real feelings (“Starcrushed”) – though, ultimately, she’s unable to maintain the lie. I expect these concepts to be revisited in season three with even more complexity.

The last takeaway – the presence of violence as part of the repertoire of tools in dealing with evil – is that Marco fails to uphold his own moral codes. In a moment of weakness, he resorts to using violence against Lobster Claws. This is incredibly thematically important to Star vs. the Forces of Evil.

As I’ve written about previously in my post on violence, Toffee is inured to violence; violence alone, therefore, will not be capable of stopping him. “Lobster Claws” very subtly introduces this theme by showing what happens when someone uses violence to solve their problem: it becomes reciprocal. Lobster Claws returns Marco’s violence at the end of the episode.

Given all the hints of the Mewman-monster war from the show and from the guidebook, if “retributive violence eventually escalates to the point of destroying everything we know and love” isn’t going to be a theme we see come up in season three, then I would be quite surprised indeed.

I hope I’ve convinced you that, in a small way, and despite being a lesser-liked episode, “Lobster Claws” subtly paves the way for broader, more complex concepts, thus acting as a primer for the audience in grasping those concepts. The episode foreshadows not only the fact that monsters are not wholly evil but that people (and monsters) are psychologically complex individuals, often weak and confused, who often fail to live up to even their own standards – let alone the standards of others.

If you enjoyed this analysis, let me know, and especially let me know if there’s a particular older episode you would like to see featured on Double Take. I’m not sure how long this series will run, but I do have a few more ideas in mind.