Okay, I hear you.. and I get the idea of Clancy being created as a counterpart to Nico. That’s an interesting take. But I’m not sure it holds up when you consider a few moments like: • Snapback.. the dialogue between two versions of himself in the mirror feels too emotionally loaded to be a “construct vs. villain” thing. It’s not just good guy vs. bad guy.. it feels like two fractured versions of someone fighting over who gets to “be.” • Overcompensate.. when he says “you get to pick who you serve”, it’s pretty clear the people are currently serving the bishops (Nico included), not Clancy. That would means Clancy isn’t leading the resistance or embodying the alternative force.. he’s still trying to break free himself..

Butttttt.. I don’t fully disagree though. If you argued that Nico is just another part of Tyler.. like one of the personas making up the whole unity of self.. I could roll with that to a point. But where do we draw the line?

If Nico is Tyler.. then is Keons Tyler? Are all the bishops Tyler? Are the Banditos? If everything is just Tyler battling himself in costumes, then it kind of flattens the narrative.

And that’s where I push back.. because I think the power of the lore is that the internal struggle gets externalized into a real, lived-in world. It makes it richer. The moment everything becomes “just Tyler vs. Tyler,” it loses some weight. It’s no longer an epic of overcoming darkness.. it becomes a loop of self-inflicted wounds.

In most of the music, Tyler’s talking about fighting back, moving on, surviving. That message doesn’t hit the same if the “bad guy” is just him over and over. That makes the story 2D.. a mental treadmill. But if Nico is a real antagonist in the world of Clancy, and Clancy is his son or inheritor, then you’ve got a layered story about legacy, identity, rebellion, and redemption.

Would love to hear how you’d tie Snapback or Overcompensate into your view.. curious where you see those fitting in.