More is not better. Retelling the story was unnecessary - I can read just fine. I tried my best to extract what I see as your main points relevant to my comment from all of this.
-My point was that the story setup a lot of things well in a relatively few dialogue boxes and in such a way that it flowed well and wasn't too exposition-based. It wasn't ham-fisted and one point lead naturally into another, which is my point in regards to comic composition and the principles of good story-telling both from an artistic level and a visually based medium perspective. We learn a lot about the characters, their situations and how they view the world in a short amount of time
a smartphone, which basically is a necessity these days.
-You can SURVIVE without a smartphone but as technology advances, we're more dependent on things like internet access. It's no longer a luxury, as many things like school systems are integrating such technology into life. It's implied he doesn't even have internet access considering how he "pleasures himself" to a magazine instead of a computer. Speaking as someone who didn't own a smartphone until last year, my junior year of High School, society is very dependent on your ability to access the internet, communicate, and stay in touch with various people that is required just to be up-to-date on your assignments and info. This is in the middle of Indiana so imagine a society like Japan in making do without a Smartphone. It's interdependence because of how much everyone else is relying on it.
I am not sure where you're going with this. There are 5 year olds that masturbate, what about it? As in what point are you trying to make with this?
-The point was that whilst he has not seen what goes on during sex and is not aware of the actual process, he has reached a point in growing into adulthood where he is lusting after people. He doesn't know the nitty-gritty of sex but is still at the age where he begins to "awaken." It also establishes that he most likely hasn't seen hardcore pornography which explains is lack of knowledge on it.
How does the latter part follow from the former? He's using a softcore porn magazine to jerk off, I have trouble following your conclusion that he's supposedly not educated about sex.
-The latter half here is a typo, as I meant to say "or why he seems a little bit dense," but my point is that he has a very surface level understanding of the situation rather than one in which someone who is more educated and mature like your or me may think up.
This is where I disagree. In Japan they have sex ed from 10-11 years. By all means he would know what sex is, not to mention you usually know what sex is way before you have sex ed classes. So I guess that "argument" simply fails on basic reasoning grounds.
-Just because you have Sex Ed, doesn't mean you have the complex understanding of what it is. Kids at 11-12 probably only vaguely know how sex works and someone who doesn't have enough people skills like Miura is demonstrated not to half probably is even less informed on the subject. Just because you're technically taught it doesn't mean you actually understand it. Considering how people here are taking cram school, and its implied that most of the kids at this school aren't the sharpest, it's still plausible that your average 5th-6th grader won't have a complete understanding of sex, especially if they haven't seen it, and when you remove certain social learning aspects from the equation, you're even more unlikely to know what it is on a level beyond what is basic
How is this relevant? I never questioned the fact that he is socially inept - I questioned your conclusion that this somehow motivated him paying a homeless girl to grope her.
-Miura being socially inept means that he doesn't know the complexities and nuances of basic human interaction. If you have limited experience with interacting with people, a lot of unspoken things and aspects of body language will be lost to you. Say someone like you or me may understand the implication of seeing a homeless girl take money off the street or understand that your mother claiming she's going to work only for you to find out she never showed up is suspect or implies something deeper. but that's because we're aware of the unspoken cues we've learned from media, interacting with people, and knowing how they act. Miura has been so isolated that its unlikely he would be able to know the full implications of it, as he doesn't know people well enough.
Also worth noting is that you probably learned a lot about what sex is during your formative years from your friends more so than you did from school, as the first few years of sex ed is very limited whereas your friends would make dirty jokes or would teach you off-color stuff that they wouldn't or couldn't teach you at school. If you remove that aspect, you probably would be less informed than the normal person at that age.
Yeah, no. I don't know if you realize it but you are picking an interpretation outside of the source material to try and push your point based on extra details YOU came up with (as opposed to the author). That's not how it works. You have no reason to believe this outside your desire to defend the MC. So let's keep it at that.
-No, this is not me inserting my own interpretation in lieu of textual evidence. From how he acts and what he does in chapter 1, he very much doesn't understand fully what a prostitute is. He does not act like he wants sex from her. He does not act like he wants her solely to satisfy his own desires. The girl says this herself when she says that he acts like no middle school boy she's ever met, which we can deduce all the Middle School boys she's met have tried to solicit her for sex. Every time we see the two interact, sex is always brought up by the JK and never by Miura. He always refuses each time she asks him if he came for sex, and he vehemently denies it. I think he's a confused kid that isn't entirely sure what he's doing but is just going through the motions with it because he hasn't thought it through
Let's put it that way - what do you go to prostitutes for? He knows what he is doing, as his actions confirm later on.
-No, his actions do not confirm what he knows what he is doing. He never has sex with her nor does he ever do anything sexual. If you look at all their interactions, the JK is leading HIM on, not the other way around. Also I want you to point to where in the story it demonstrates fully well the implications and complex understanding of what a prostitute is. I doubt he knows what it is more than a surface-level understanding and he probably doesn't know much about it. Understand that he's just a kid, and not just a kid, but a kid who is not very well educated or particularly knowledgeable about people and social cues. I seriously doubt he would be able to understand the full implications of prostitution and the ethics of it not just at this age but at this time in his life.
Also you fundamentally missed the subtext of their interactions. MC doesn't have any friends, nor anyone close. Everyone, even his mother, is distant and cold towards him. He's an outcast, a pariah and a scapegoat. What else can he turn to? What else can he try to do? So he turns to the outcasts and pariahs of society. Why would he go to prostitute with money? Does he even fully understand what a prostitute is beside a person you take money to in exchange for something intimate? I don't think it's fair to his character to simply look at an action devoid of the context around the action and pass judgement on it, especially in this case where we know MC doesn't understand people.
-
I do not see this as sweet - I see this as pathetic and unethical. And his later actions go onto confirm this mind you. He basically sees her as a vending machine of what he perceives as affection (including the sexual connotations). He doesn't really care about her as a person as is obvious - in his eyes she's just that weird homeless girl under the bridge that sells her affection to him for chump change. This is wrong and pathetic on several levels.]
-Are you sure about that? He brings her food in the second chapter and he does a lot that would imply otherwise
For instance, this scene implies he's going to check in on her and make sure she's okay. The way it's shot gives the impression that her interptation of events is in the wrong and that MC is genuinely concerned about her
When MC says something like "I'm making sure to save up to buy you again," in context it reads, "I'm saving up so you don't have to live under the bridge anymore," more than "I want to fuck you." He's just young and lacks the ability to grasp the connotations of what he is saying because he lacks people experience. For instance, when he rides on his bike which breaks and he drops the cake, which he is implied to want to give to her, he does seem thankful that she's there at the end. These are not the actions of someone who does not care.
In context, it's sweet as its framed as someone who is innocent and ignorant of the true ways of the world trying to help in anyway he can but is unable to due to circumstance.
The reasons are clear - he's pathetic and his moral compass is off. To makes matters worse he's not trying to do anything to improve his situation. Pretty much an unlikeable character.
-Okay, you got on me about bringing up subjective points but this seems to me like a glasshouse. Both something being pathetic and something being immoral are subjective claims, but to a larger point, what DO you expect him TO do? He's not of the age where he can work and everyone has already shunted him to the side. He can't make friends because no one wants to associate with him and his own mother is barely even raising him. You talk about his moral compass being off, but we don't know if he was even taught to have own because every person around him baring Takashi treats him like garbage and refuses to associate with him. Strangers talk about how horrible his mother is in his presence, people give him dirty looks in the street, and other kids harass him. If you were a kid and no one taught you how to behave, you probably would have a warped sense of the world as well. This also ignores that you can have a morally questionable main character or a complex main character that does awful things. Mersault from Camus's
The Stranger is an apathetic man who stops caring about the world and kills a man for seemingly no reason but we still root for him, or how a myriad of classic characters are terrible and we're forced to sympathize with them through their struggles. See a
Clockwork Orange for an example of that.
Additionally, he IS trying to improve his situation, but he keeps being shot down. He tries to connect to Takashi but he fears being rejected like he is by everyone else. When she tries to talk to him, her friend shuts her down and when they met in this chapter, he runs off because he's scared of what she might think if she founds out he's rumming for loose change. He also is paying the prostitute to have someone to talk to or interact with more than anything, which is something, and probably is the only thing he CAN do as he has no control over anything else. He's too young to be employed, he's too socially inept to properly articulate or communicate his feelings and even if he could, no one would listen. To say he's not doing anything to improve his circumstances is a fundamental misunderstanding of his circumstances and is like telling a depressed person to stop being sad or a homeless person to just buy a house. It's not that simple.
-
No. I do not expect a boy in his circumstances to act this way. Poor middle school students do not pay homeless (underaged) prostitutes en masse in reality.
Do you expect lonely and disenfranchised people to act out of desperation? Do you expect kids living in poverty that are unable to work and have improper and irresponsible parents to make poor judgment calls? Keep in mind again, he never has sex with her and he's more looking for an outlet of any kind that he can connect to people with. He is not doing anything inherently wrong as he's literally giving her the equivalent of pennies (all he can muster) in exchange for small things that aren't sexual in nature, like her time or being patted on the head. She's the one that takes his wallet. He doesn't give her the money. She's the one who assumes he's there for sexual favors. He has never indicated as much. Look at their interactions, she's the first to assume he's there for her "services" 100% of the time and he never is the one to start down that road. It's more reasonably inferred he wants to talk with her and the only way he knows he will get her to talk is with money than to say he just wants sex.
-
That night, we see his mother drinking beer, implying she's an alcoholic
That's jumping to conclusions.
I'll admit that it is a tiny bit, but if your family is poor and your mother is drinking on a weekday night, it implies its more habitual than anything, as if she can barely afford an eraser, why would she buy beer instead of something cheaper? It's a subtle indication, and I made sure to say "implies" as we don't know for certain but instead that it's a reasonable inference based on what information we have. It's another piece of the puzzle to show what relationship these two have more than anything.
-
I would rather you address the points I had made initially rather than detract in retelling the story (that is not an analysis btw). Also do avoid making conclusions by making jumps in logic as the ones pointed out in this comment. As it is, it seems like you are trying to prove statement X, and to that end you are willing to sacrifice logic steps (jumping to conclusions), add your own details to the story (which the author has not included), or outright make wrong conclusions (the sex ed thing). I think it is fair to say that you were fairly biased in your response, considering all of these issues. Please avoid that in your next response.
Thanks for the constructive criticism but I want to point out I don't think I said anything too out of line. I reiterated the plot because I needed to in order for my analysis to make sense. Just exploring the interactions between Miura and his mother alone technically is an analysis in and of itself, and I did try my best to lay out my logic both her and in the above statements. It's important to note that I'm going over plot again and again because I need you to know what happens for me to properly tell it in a coherent way. I'm not drawing a conclusion first but I am actively trying to present the evidence as it appears to me and as what I think the author intended to communicate. This may differ from your interpretation but we need to understand the basics first before we can get to that point.
Very complex relationship indeed. I give money to the homeless girl, she gives me "affection". As I said - she's reduced to the level of a vending machine for him.
-I think this an oversimplification. There is a lot more going on in terms of subtext, such as how she's always jumping to the assumption that he wants sex first before he ever actually says anything. In all likelihood, he's just a confused kid that doesn't know what he wants, but he does seem to genuinely care about her more than simply as an "affection vending machine." That's why he goes to check on her at the start of chapter 2 despite not having very much money with him, or why he's searching out money constantly. If it wasn't for her, he could just find another prostitute he could sleep with if that was what really was his goal, but I don't think that's quite it. It's hard to say for certain as we're only three chapters in, but there's a lot more going on with these two than the surface-level view I think you're taking
This is not appeal to silence - he had the option to avoid such a situation, he willingly decided not to. What evidence do you need here? He paid for a service, and didn't decline it. And if you're not convinced, then you will probably be next chapter, when he comes for more, which should make this pretty clear. It honestly feels like you're trying to find loopholes to justify the MC's behavior, no matter how ridiculous those are. I suggest applying Occam's razor to all of your arguments before you decide to write them down, you may notice that a fair amount of them would fail.
1. Occam's Razor refers to the principle that the answer based in the most evidence is most likely correct. I've been trying to source said claims whereas I can only see you asserting them as fact.
2. This is an appeal to silence as an appeal to silence fallacy refers to someone's non-response as a confirmation of something. Him not denying or saying anything doesn't prove that he is complicit in trying to solicit her for sex. Again, I don't think that's what the author is going at here as it seems to me that both by framing and by how we see his facial expressions of sadness and shock when she assumes he wants sex or his reaction of remorse and guilt whenever she berates him, it implies he's just a kid over his head more than he is actively making the choice that an adult might make of wanting to pursue sex with full understanding of what they're getting themselves into. You're judging him as an adult that has clarity of mind and full understanding of his actions, which I don't think is quite the right interpretation based on what we see.