Kaifuku Jutsushi no Yarinaoshi - Vol. 6 Ch. 25.1
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Messages
- 367
GUGAAAAA!!
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2019
- Messages
- 3,058
Wow can't believe the manga author/artist extended the sword hero's "arc" to this extend... Waiting months to see the next arc REALLY is infuriating!!! It really felt fast when I read the web novel... Anyway, wait the best at Princess Flare's little sister, Norn!!!!!!! OWO!!!!
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2018
- Messages
- 942
@Tamerlane "What do you have to do to Hitler (or any figure that embodies this level of "evil," if you would like) before people believe you've crossed the line?" Some people think going back in time to kill hitler as a baby is too much cause at the time of death he'd technicaly be innocent. I say if timetravel is a thing, everythings fucked at that point so why NOT go ahead with it, theres thousands of other "edits" thatl be made, whats one more.
But no really, time is a concept created by humans so it depends on the human to say when a thing is a thing. And i say if your evil in the future then its better for society to get rid of your evil somehow, the easiest way is just murder.
But no really, time is a concept created by humans so it depends on the human to say when a thing is a thing. And i say if your evil in the future then its better for society to get rid of your evil somehow, the easiest way is just murder.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 677
This manga is cathartic in multiple ways--the obvious ones, and in another, perhaps not-so-obvious that at least one person has explained prior: There are tons of manga series out there in which evildoers do not get what they deserve, usually because of the fetters of heroic morality/ethicality, or an insistence on promoting "good feelings". This goes to the point at which the transgressor is given the chance to engage in recidivism--if you can call it that, because, as this manga demonstrates well, people of that type can squeal for forgiveness and mercy but rarely are truly penitent and thus never intend to turn away from their misdeeds. They may not even receive a sufficient punishment for their misdeeds (i.e., not sufficient to sate the emotions of the one dealing the punishment, but instead enough to match the deeds, inclinations, and disposition of the offender), also paving the way for their recividism.
But here, Keyaruga does not give his victims a chance to prove how recidivistic they are--they at least get what they deserve, no chances to lie their way out of their comeuppance and thus continue their misdeeds, and does not care about the oft-exploited "humanity" that his victims accuse him of being bereft of. It's refeshing to see evildoers get what's coming to them rather than being the latest of the undeserving thousands saved by the "power of friendship".
But here, Keyaruga does not give his victims a chance to prove how recidivistic they are--they at least get what they deserve, no chances to lie their way out of their comeuppance and thus continue their misdeeds, and does not care about the oft-exploited "humanity" that his victims accuse him of being bereft of. It's refeshing to see evildoers get what's coming to them rather than being the latest of the undeserving thousands saved by the "power of friendship".
@Destinyfckr For example: https://m.dw.com/en/opinion-the-end-never-justifies-the-means/a-18632428
@Tamerlane
That's a lot of text...
@Tamerlane
That's a lot of text...
1) For some there may be some kind of an emotional resolution from seeing torture, not for everybody though (and I would argue not for the majority even). Then there's the obvious discrepancy with reality that I pointed out - if this has a cathartic effect in some of the audience, it is due to emotional stupidity and inability to predict their own emotional reactions, as noted in the study. It's basically reinforcing detrimental behavioural patterns for everybody. It's like teaching a person with PTSD to cut themselves and ruminate so the wound stays fresh and they cannot move on.
2)
3) There's no dilemma. Regardless of your intention your actions may have an unintended effect - it's just coincidence. If you were aiming for that effect however, you would achieve it to an entirely different degree. The side effect of the MC's "quest" is a product of the premise, not directly of his free will (he didn't choose to do this for that purpose). Hence the part in my previous comment that most people given his power/knowledge would achieve a lot more to that end effortlessly.
My battery's at 4% so I'll address the rest later.
2)
You probably missed what I clarified in my previous reply regarding this, I encourage you to reread it. His rationalization and overreaction are perfectly understandable, and at the same time extremely stupid. I do not like the MC not because of his lack of morality, I do not like him because of how stupid and weak he is. You also mentioned how he was conditioned into this, yet he has free will. The PTSD certainly explains aspects of his behaviour, doesn't make it any less stupid.
I disagree with this being "his own philosophy", it's nothing more than PTSD + the psychology of revenge. He can try to rationalize it all he likes, but at the end of the day it's just a simple case of weakness and psychological damage.
3) There's no dilemma. Regardless of your intention your actions may have an unintended effect - it's just coincidence. If you were aiming for that effect however, you would achieve it to an entirely different degree. The side effect of the MC's "quest" is a product of the premise, not directly of his free will (he didn't choose to do this for that purpose). Hence the part in my previous comment that most people given his power/knowledge would achieve a lot more to that end effortlessly.
My battery's at 4% so I'll address the rest later.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
To be fair, my hypothetical mentioned nothing about time-travel. Really, let's just say you have Hitler in front of you and its 1944 for the sake of argument, but all you really need to consider is "what do you have to do to someone who is really, really bad until you are no longer justified in your bad actions?" @Goretantath
To nip some arguments in the bud,
1) Catharsis is satisfaction that comes from a resolution. It isn't necessarily good or bad and is merely a story-telling device. For instance, Thanos snapping half the universe in Infinity War is cathartic for the audience, even if it's a "oh shit" moment. It's a story-telling device. Sure, Hamlet stabbing Claudius once with a poisoned rapier and once with an un-poisoned one before making him drink poisoned wine and calling him an "incestuous pig" is probably not mentally healthy, but it's a moment of emotional suspense within the audience during the plot of Hamlet.
It's not emotional stupidity or a lack of empathy. People can distinguish fiction from reality very effectively, and such moments where people feel justified in their actions in a story may be the peak of engagement for that medium, but does not necessarily say that such deeds are moral or even good if carried out in real life. Sure, these behaviors are unhealthy in real life, but that doesn't mean that it's a flaw with the work that a character is unhealthy or that the work is endorsing their behavior.
In the case of MC, the work pretty much out-right vilifies him and shows what he does as being outright vile, even if its cause is understandable and we, the audience, can sympathize with him. We're not meant to look at what he's doing for his Vendetta as the best and most effective means of making the world a better place, but as the actions of a man who has fallen so low that he has no other choice.
A great comparison I think is with Arthur Fleck from Joker. We're meant to see things like him shooting
as a bad thing, but it's a moment of catharsis because of how the scene is framed and it creates a satisfying resolution to an arc. Fleck is also a man with severe mental health issues and who is not considered as being a moral or necessarily good force, but one with understandable motives and a logical through-line, even if it is mentally unhealthy, which Arthur most definitely is.
Your argument here focuses less on story-telling and characterization, but more on how a real-world therapist or psychologist believe that people SHOULD act, not how they necessarily DO. It doesn't matter what studies you cite because we're not debating facts here, but how a certain character internally operates and if it's consistent with what is established.
The issue I see here is that you're trying to enforce a standard that the work is not trying to apply, and that is irrelevant in perceiving how a story is told and how someone is characterized, and what that is meant to do for the story in question. It's immaterial to the universe we're discussing and is ultimately a Red Herring to whether a character is well-written or good.
2) I am not saying that you are not allowed to dislike the main character. I am merely pointing out that, from a narrative perspective, he is well-written and consistent. Subjectively, you may dislike him, but there is nothing objectively wrong about how he is characterized.
Additionally, you may find his actions stupid, but keep in mind what his goals are. They are not to free the nation or help the people, but to get his revenge. Sure, we are meant to find this to be undermining the issue at hand, (i.e. the corruption and genocidal actions of the heads of state) but, in regards to this specific individual, everything he does is so he can better obtain that goal.
He's not Luke Skywalker and the rebels taking on the Empire, or the various resistances fighting the Nazis in occupied territories in the Second World War, but, instead, essentially Kill Bill-ing his way through the people that wronged him for his own personal vendetta. It is not about anything greater or anything more than his own satisfaction, and he is consistent in that pursuit.
Additionally, you mistake how I say that "he was conditioned to act this way" with "he has not say in the situation." What I was saying was the he has been influenced by the others around him to think that this is the only means by which he can obtain his goals, that might makes right and that he must secure his desires by any means necessary because of it. In the sense that all he's known and seen is tyrants and people who abuse their power and strength to indiscriminately get what they want, it's no wonder he ended up as he did. (Arguably, he actually is a bit more moral in that he doesn't harm those who don't get in his way and tries to help defend innocent people if they're under attack by the people hurting him, as was seen when he paid for the damages to the rabbit lady's diner.) Sure, he does have free will, but that's irrelevant to the discussion being had when what I'm saying is that he's a product of his environment, which has shown him that the only way to get what he will need to survive is to fight for it.
Unrelated, but you keep saying that Keyaru is weak. Could you expand upon that? I feel like that you're not being specific enough and that you could expand upon what you mean. If you mean that he is weak in the sense that he is faulted, or is prone to errors in judgment and unhealthy reasoning, (As he is definitely not weak in terms of his abilities) then it's not flaw with the writing as that's fundamental to creating interesting characters. Every character has their foibles, and that's a necessary part to creating engaging conflicts, or else you get Mary Sues/Gary Stus.
Finally for this section, I will say he DOES have a philosophy, in the sense that everyone has a philosophy to some extent. In his case, it's simple Egoism, in that he puts his own desires and wants above everyone else's at any given time and that he holds his own will as to what is most important to him. Sure PTSD (although that isn't the only psychological disorder he has as he has shown signs of Sociopathy, Depression, etc.) and revenge are major factors in his motives, but they're not the only ones and there definitely are more moving parts at play here.
3)
No, there is a dilemma. That's pivotal to the work itself. Whether it was intended or not is irrelevant in that it still stands as a core moral and philosophical conflict.
Intended or not, by either the characters or the author, is the questions that arise that will be fundamental to your assessment of the main character.
How many bad things can you do to a bad person before you, yourself become just as immoral and twisted as they are? How bad do they have to be to cross that line? Is there a line that can even be crossed? Do the ends justify the means? Does doing the same thing that people did to you to the people who did it just? Does punishing someone for a crime that they have committed in the future justify your actions?
These questions won't have objectively right or wrong answers. Sure, people may generally answer one way or another to them, but there will always be a way to make it so they will have to change their answer or specify it in such away that it generates conflict. That's what is interesting about this setup is that the manga explores a character who has his own answers to these questions and sees how far the logic can go. You may try to handwave this away, but there's no real way you can deflect them because they're issues core to even the discussion we're having now.
To address the last point, we've already established that it isn't his goal to act altruistically. His main motivation is not that he wants to be the most efficient at getting revenge, or help the most people, but rather that he wants to savor each time he gets revenge and setup situations in which he can unleash the full, unadulterated and ironic effect he wants to induce the exact desired effect into his opponent to fit his own sense of karma and ironic justice. And, funnily enough, he is actually, slowly, making the world a better place without intending to. I see no issue with the vast majority of his actions in terms of characterization given what we know about him up until this point. Sure, you may find a more effortless route, but in terms of character, this is what Keyaru would do given his view of the world and what he knows in any given moment or situation. @criver
1) Catharsis is satisfaction that comes from a resolution. It isn't necessarily good or bad and is merely a story-telling device. For instance, Thanos snapping half the universe in Infinity War is cathartic for the audience, even if it's a "oh shit" moment. It's a story-telling device. Sure, Hamlet stabbing Claudius once with a poisoned rapier and once with an un-poisoned one before making him drink poisoned wine and calling him an "incestuous pig" is probably not mentally healthy, but it's a moment of emotional suspense within the audience during the plot of Hamlet.
It's not emotional stupidity or a lack of empathy. People can distinguish fiction from reality very effectively, and such moments where people feel justified in their actions in a story may be the peak of engagement for that medium, but does not necessarily say that such deeds are moral or even good if carried out in real life. Sure, these behaviors are unhealthy in real life, but that doesn't mean that it's a flaw with the work that a character is unhealthy or that the work is endorsing their behavior.
In the case of MC, the work pretty much out-right vilifies him and shows what he does as being outright vile, even if its cause is understandable and we, the audience, can sympathize with him. We're not meant to look at what he's doing for his Vendetta as the best and most effective means of making the world a better place, but as the actions of a man who has fallen so low that he has no other choice.
A great comparison I think is with Arthur Fleck from Joker. We're meant to see things like him shooting
Murray
Your argument here focuses less on story-telling and characterization, but more on how a real-world therapist or psychologist believe that people SHOULD act, not how they necessarily DO. It doesn't matter what studies you cite because we're not debating facts here, but how a certain character internally operates and if it's consistent with what is established.
The issue I see here is that you're trying to enforce a standard that the work is not trying to apply, and that is irrelevant in perceiving how a story is told and how someone is characterized, and what that is meant to do for the story in question. It's immaterial to the universe we're discussing and is ultimately a Red Herring to whether a character is well-written or good.
2) I am not saying that you are not allowed to dislike the main character. I am merely pointing out that, from a narrative perspective, he is well-written and consistent. Subjectively, you may dislike him, but there is nothing objectively wrong about how he is characterized.
Additionally, you may find his actions stupid, but keep in mind what his goals are. They are not to free the nation or help the people, but to get his revenge. Sure, we are meant to find this to be undermining the issue at hand, (i.e. the corruption and genocidal actions of the heads of state) but, in regards to this specific individual, everything he does is so he can better obtain that goal.
He's not Luke Skywalker and the rebels taking on the Empire, or the various resistances fighting the Nazis in occupied territories in the Second World War, but, instead, essentially Kill Bill-ing his way through the people that wronged him for his own personal vendetta. It is not about anything greater or anything more than his own satisfaction, and he is consistent in that pursuit.
Additionally, you mistake how I say that "he was conditioned to act this way" with "he has not say in the situation." What I was saying was the he has been influenced by the others around him to think that this is the only means by which he can obtain his goals, that might makes right and that he must secure his desires by any means necessary because of it. In the sense that all he's known and seen is tyrants and people who abuse their power and strength to indiscriminately get what they want, it's no wonder he ended up as he did. (Arguably, he actually is a bit more moral in that he doesn't harm those who don't get in his way and tries to help defend innocent people if they're under attack by the people hurting him, as was seen when he paid for the damages to the rabbit lady's diner.) Sure, he does have free will, but that's irrelevant to the discussion being had when what I'm saying is that he's a product of his environment, which has shown him that the only way to get what he will need to survive is to fight for it.
Unrelated, but you keep saying that Keyaru is weak. Could you expand upon that? I feel like that you're not being specific enough and that you could expand upon what you mean. If you mean that he is weak in the sense that he is faulted, or is prone to errors in judgment and unhealthy reasoning, (As he is definitely not weak in terms of his abilities) then it's not flaw with the writing as that's fundamental to creating interesting characters. Every character has their foibles, and that's a necessary part to creating engaging conflicts, or else you get Mary Sues/Gary Stus.
Finally for this section, I will say he DOES have a philosophy, in the sense that everyone has a philosophy to some extent. In his case, it's simple Egoism, in that he puts his own desires and wants above everyone else's at any given time and that he holds his own will as to what is most important to him. Sure PTSD (although that isn't the only psychological disorder he has as he has shown signs of Sociopathy, Depression, etc.) and revenge are major factors in his motives, but they're not the only ones and there definitely are more moving parts at play here.
3)
No, there is a dilemma. That's pivotal to the work itself. Whether it was intended or not is irrelevant in that it still stands as a core moral and philosophical conflict.
Intended or not, by either the characters or the author, is the questions that arise that will be fundamental to your assessment of the main character.
How many bad things can you do to a bad person before you, yourself become just as immoral and twisted as they are? How bad do they have to be to cross that line? Is there a line that can even be crossed? Do the ends justify the means? Does doing the same thing that people did to you to the people who did it just? Does punishing someone for a crime that they have committed in the future justify your actions?
These questions won't have objectively right or wrong answers. Sure, people may generally answer one way or another to them, but there will always be a way to make it so they will have to change their answer or specify it in such away that it generates conflict. That's what is interesting about this setup is that the manga explores a character who has his own answers to these questions and sees how far the logic can go. You may try to handwave this away, but there's no real way you can deflect them because they're issues core to even the discussion we're having now.
To address the last point, we've already established that it isn't his goal to act altruistically. His main motivation is not that he wants to be the most efficient at getting revenge, or help the most people, but rather that he wants to savor each time he gets revenge and setup situations in which he can unleash the full, unadulterated and ironic effect he wants to induce the exact desired effect into his opponent to fit his own sense of karma and ironic justice. And, funnily enough, he is actually, slowly, making the world a better place without intending to. I see no issue with the vast majority of his actions in terms of characterization given what we know about him up until this point. Sure, you may find a more effortless route, but in terms of character, this is what Keyaru would do given his view of the world and what he knows in any given moment or situation. @criver
@Tamerlane
1)
I didn't want to have to quote excerpts, but seeing as we are talking past each other, I think it will be helpful for clarifying some of my points.
2)
3)
I am not a fan of reinterpreting works to find deeper meaning where none was intended, nevertheless, I will try to address your points.
This is from the previous comment:
4)
I am not discussing morality, nor am I interested in discussing it.
5)
My gut feeling is that you are imparting meaning and interpretations that were not intended. It's obviously true that a work should "still stand on its own", but there's also the point that I do not know the author, yet from his work I deduced that no such interpretation was intended. So it is in some sense his work standing on its own that led me to this conclusion. You may argue that this is wrong, and I would agree to disagree on this account, since I doubt more solid evidence can be presented beyond speculative such.
I didn't want to have to quote excerpts, but seeing as we are talking past each other, I think it will be helpful for clarifying some of my points.
I don't get why you always come back to the moral aspect when I mentioned several times that none of my points are really concerned with it (maybe I am not being explicit enough). That was not what I was discussing, nor do I want it to be, so let's just drop that part.
That would have been a good argument, had I been criticizing the MC for being badly written (which he somewhat is, as well as the fodder around him, but not for the reasons I have outlined). Scroll back through my comments, and you'll quickly remember that the whole time my point has been that there's no enigma as to why the MC acts the way he does (even if you believed there was - his behaviour is trivial from a psychological perspective). Ultimately, his actions stem from stupidity, weakness, and him being traumatised. It may be engaging and cathartic for people that do not understand why (truly - instead of what he's rationalizing) the MC does what he does. But if you understand that this is not really about "his philosophy and principles" but rather a product of PTSD + emotional stupidity + his perversions, it quickly becomes obvious why him torturing and killing his tormentors won't lead to a cathartic feeling in many readers (because it will not be a resolution from that point of view, but a further descent into madness). The MC never overcame his trauma and kept disconnecting his brain in favor of his primal instincts. To put it simply - I am not impressed, as there's nothing deep about his whole clowning around. The premise of a weak person being given tremendous power and abusing it, or a person driven mad by torture, has been beaten to death - only in manga can it be resurrected and considered "deep" and "philosophical".
2)
His goals are revenge fueled by PTSD and perversion. It's not deep, it's stupid, and it's weak. I don't need him to be a hero, nor do I care about his morality, I wanted him to not be an unoriginal weakling whose power went to his head.
But that's not what he is doing. He's actively working against his best interest. Is he reacting better than when he was a harmless pushover? Certainly. Did he lose control and fall back to his primal instincts? He did. Is it understandable why he lost control? Yes. Still doesn't change how stupid and weak that is.
He's mentally weak. He didn't have the mental fortitude and discipline to control himself and just fell back to his primal instincts. Note that this is and has been detrimental to both him and the ones around him. The worse part is that he doesn't even realize it as he keeps rationalizing. It's nothing amazing or impressive - everyone has the potential to be a weakling. He's one level above the pushover he used to be, unfortunately not because of self-improvement, but rather as a reaction to trauma. He gave up his free will in order to indulge in his primal instincts, however counterproductive those may be. He's no different than a glutton or a coward in the sense that he cannot control and go against his base instincts. It's weakness personified.
I don't think he's working under some philosophical ideas considering that his prime driver is PTSD-fueled revenge and everything else is secondary. He willingly gave up his rational thinking and regressed to more primitive emotional action-reaction coping mechanisms. There's not deep philosophy in this.
3)
I am not a fan of reinterpreting works to find deeper meaning where none was intended, nevertheless, I will try to address your points.
Only if you decide to informally define one or more of the quantifiers in your questions. The moment you formally define those, there is an objectively correct answer and no dilemma to be had.
This is from the previous comment:
4)
I am not discussing morality, nor am I interested in discussing it.
5)
My gut feeling is that you are imparting meaning and interpretations that were not intended. It's obviously true that a work should "still stand on its own", but there's also the point that I do not know the author, yet from his work I deduced that no such interpretation was intended. So it is in some sense his work standing on its own that led me to this conclusion. You may argue that this is wrong, and I would agree to disagree on this account, since I doubt more solid evidence can be presented beyond speculative such.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
1) The reason I always come back to morality is both because it's fundamental to the dilemma I'm positing and because part of your argument tends to rely on it. As much as we could disregard it as a concept, it's not something that is irrelevant to the themes of the manga as a whole, and it will have to come into play when discussing the text as it is.
2) Ah, but there's the catch, because we're not talking about MC's character being deep (though I think there are certainly nuances to his character that your argument oversimplifies) but rather the situation MC finds himself in and the questions that arise because of it. If you notice, the questions I asked are more about the MC's actions or the situation around the main character.
If you notice, there are actions that MC takes that, if he was purely fueled by perversion, an urge for revenge, and emotional instability, that he wouldn't take such as trying to minimize the damage to those who have not harmed him in the past and respecting the wishes of the women who surround him. It's not an earth-shattering or avant garde form of characterization, but it adds more depth to him than what you would expect from a pure hedonist.
As much as you claim that he is merely operating on pure stupidity and his own animistic instincts, you have yet to cite the text to support the idea that there isn't more going on with his character as I think the work is letting on, and I don't think that my argument has been really fully addressed as much as the opposite has been asserted followed by "you're reading too deeply into this," without citing evidence to support such a counter-point.
I vehemently reject this notion on the grounds that there's always the possibility to create a well-written setup from such a premise. Just because something has been done before and has been done often doesn't mean that there still isn't potential, especially from a character-writing and plot perspective. The only limits here is your own creativity, and there's certainly ways you can do these things and carry with them philosophical or thematic underpinnings. Tropes are tools, and just because something happens or some common motives are shared between characters in multiple works, it does necessitate that they are intrinsically bad or that they cannot be done well.
2) I'd actually argue that his weakness being that he may act against his own long-term interests to pursue his own emotional satisfaction is a good thing, because it gives him clear flaws that counteract the fact that his ability is so powerful. He's unstable and he's been psychologically scarred from his experiences, which give him a warped perspective on the world. There are many works where one critical flaw is what causes a character their own misfortune. For the Greeks, this was often hubris, with famous examples being Jason in the play Medea, Oedipus in Oedipus Rex, and Odysseus in the Odyssey. Whilst you may be disgusted by such a weakness, that is completely based on how you feel and is difficult to argue for or against because it only is based on what you feel from a given work. I think it only goes to strengthen writing, personally.
Another issue I find with your argument is that it proposes that MC is unoriginal, but I'd raise two points. The first is the old proverb, "nihil sub sole novum," or that there's nothing new under the sun. Everything is derivative of something else to some extent, and what matters more is the execution of those traits. For instance, the Hero's Journey is near-universal to most grand adventure stories and is applicable to the vast majority of stories, but that does not mean these stories are bad, but rather, that there are universalities within stories that drive them forward, and certain patterns found amongst stories. It is neither good nor bad.
My other point is that I think Keyaru is definitely distinguishable from other protagonists within his genre, not only from the standpoint of the grimdark nature of his actions, but because of the fact he does seem to follow his own moral code beyond animalistic instincts that seem somewhat fitting given his backstory and circumstances. (I.e. he is fine with committing any action no matter how cruel, but only if it harms him and those close to him. If you help him, or are even neutral to him and those around him, then he will not only just leave you alone, but actively try to assist you.) It's not much, but it's more than generic MC number 5943 of the isekai genre that was just your typical, dense protagonist that was your average teenage male living a boring high school life.
Also, everything is rooted in some philosophy because philosophy covers every topic imaginable, as it just describes any advanced form of thought or reasoning. Even hedonism is a philosophical outlook, and no matter how bare-bones or how simplistic something may seem, it will probably have some root in philosophy or have some branch of philosophy dedicated to it. Again, Keyaru is probably best described as some kind of Egoist, but that would be more speculative than I'm willing to go.
3) I'm curious what you mean by this, because even if you redefine or clarify things within those questions or try to apply them into very specific situations and scenarios, then you would still have something that I don't think you could call and objective answer in the sense that it's empirically correct or more right or wrong than another, as that comes done to principles, though this is getting in epistemological philosophy, which is a rabbit hole irrelevant to the conversation as a whole.
4+5) Well, what death of the author essentially says is to judge a work for as it is. What the author intended doesn't matter if your interpretation is rooted within the work itself and you can sustain your arguments with references from the text or events that happen within the text. This is not free license to say something ungrounded, such as "Minecraft is an allegory for child slavery in the third world," but rather asserts that an author's interpretation of the text does not have more merit than anyone else's interpretation of that text.
Whether a specific interpretation was intended or not is irrelevant, as if it was not intended and the author didn't want that to be a possible interpretation, they should have specified or amended it to be unambiguous. However, once a work is released, anything supplementary to that piece is irrelevant unless the piece makes reference to it in some way.
In other words, even if the author didn't mean to have all these philosophical questions about morality that I think the manga is commenting on raised, the fact that it does still persists despite the author not wanting to.
As long as my interpretation can stand on its own in reference to the work itself, then whether it aligns with the author's interpretation is not necessary.
2) Ah, but there's the catch, because we're not talking about MC's character being deep (though I think there are certainly nuances to his character that your argument oversimplifies) but rather the situation MC finds himself in and the questions that arise because of it. If you notice, the questions I asked are more about the MC's actions or the situation around the main character.
If you notice, there are actions that MC takes that, if he was purely fueled by perversion, an urge for revenge, and emotional instability, that he wouldn't take such as trying to minimize the damage to those who have not harmed him in the past and respecting the wishes of the women who surround him. It's not an earth-shattering or avant garde form of characterization, but it adds more depth to him than what you would expect from a pure hedonist.
As much as you claim that he is merely operating on pure stupidity and his own animistic instincts, you have yet to cite the text to support the idea that there isn't more going on with his character as I think the work is letting on, and I don't think that my argument has been really fully addressed as much as the opposite has been asserted followed by "you're reading too deeply into this," without citing evidence to support such a counter-point.
I vehemently reject this notion on the grounds that there's always the possibility to create a well-written setup from such a premise. Just because something has been done before and has been done often doesn't mean that there still isn't potential, especially from a character-writing and plot perspective. The only limits here is your own creativity, and there's certainly ways you can do these things and carry with them philosophical or thematic underpinnings. Tropes are tools, and just because something happens or some common motives are shared between characters in multiple works, it does necessitate that they are intrinsically bad or that they cannot be done well.
2) I'd actually argue that his weakness being that he may act against his own long-term interests to pursue his own emotional satisfaction is a good thing, because it gives him clear flaws that counteract the fact that his ability is so powerful. He's unstable and he's been psychologically scarred from his experiences, which give him a warped perspective on the world. There are many works where one critical flaw is what causes a character their own misfortune. For the Greeks, this was often hubris, with famous examples being Jason in the play Medea, Oedipus in Oedipus Rex, and Odysseus in the Odyssey. Whilst you may be disgusted by such a weakness, that is completely based on how you feel and is difficult to argue for or against because it only is based on what you feel from a given work. I think it only goes to strengthen writing, personally.
Another issue I find with your argument is that it proposes that MC is unoriginal, but I'd raise two points. The first is the old proverb, "nihil sub sole novum," or that there's nothing new under the sun. Everything is derivative of something else to some extent, and what matters more is the execution of those traits. For instance, the Hero's Journey is near-universal to most grand adventure stories and is applicable to the vast majority of stories, but that does not mean these stories are bad, but rather, that there are universalities within stories that drive them forward, and certain patterns found amongst stories. It is neither good nor bad.
My other point is that I think Keyaru is definitely distinguishable from other protagonists within his genre, not only from the standpoint of the grimdark nature of his actions, but because of the fact he does seem to follow his own moral code beyond animalistic instincts that seem somewhat fitting given his backstory and circumstances. (I.e. he is fine with committing any action no matter how cruel, but only if it harms him and those close to him. If you help him, or are even neutral to him and those around him, then he will not only just leave you alone, but actively try to assist you.) It's not much, but it's more than generic MC number 5943 of the isekai genre that was just your typical, dense protagonist that was your average teenage male living a boring high school life.
Also, everything is rooted in some philosophy because philosophy covers every topic imaginable, as it just describes any advanced form of thought or reasoning. Even hedonism is a philosophical outlook, and no matter how bare-bones or how simplistic something may seem, it will probably have some root in philosophy or have some branch of philosophy dedicated to it. Again, Keyaru is probably best described as some kind of Egoist, but that would be more speculative than I'm willing to go.
3) I'm curious what you mean by this, because even if you redefine or clarify things within those questions or try to apply them into very specific situations and scenarios, then you would still have something that I don't think you could call and objective answer in the sense that it's empirically correct or more right or wrong than another, as that comes done to principles, though this is getting in epistemological philosophy, which is a rabbit hole irrelevant to the conversation as a whole.
4+5) Well, what death of the author essentially says is to judge a work for as it is. What the author intended doesn't matter if your interpretation is rooted within the work itself and you can sustain your arguments with references from the text or events that happen within the text. This is not free license to say something ungrounded, such as "Minecraft is an allegory for child slavery in the third world," but rather asserts that an author's interpretation of the text does not have more merit than anyone else's interpretation of that text.
Whether a specific interpretation was intended or not is irrelevant, as if it was not intended and the author didn't want that to be a possible interpretation, they should have specified or amended it to be unambiguous. However, once a work is released, anything supplementary to that piece is irrelevant unless the piece makes reference to it in some way.
In other words, even if the author didn't mean to have all these philosophical questions about morality that I think the manga is commenting on raised, the fact that it does still persists despite the author not wanting to.
As long as my interpretation can stand on its own in reference to the work itself, then whether it aligns with the author's interpretation is not necessary.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2019
- Messages
- 108
Jesus, I did not expect to read wall text serious discussions regarding this chapter.
Anyway, @Tamerlane's arguments are quite in line with some of the more in-depth stuff the book series, surprisingly enough, introduced within the main character's monologue, which are unfortunately lacking A LOT within this adaptation (which also escalates the revenge sexual imagery for fanservice sake, making it the inferior product overall imo).
The books text-wise barely have much focus on the sex scenes and more on the twisted and damaged psychological aspect of the protagonist (some stupid full page drawings here and there, but nothing like the chapters worth of porn in here) , and from the very start he wonders about his moral choices that were just spoken about in here to Blade, in much more detail, and even considers dropping it all together in case things don't go like they went before, albeit taking many precautions in case they did.
My suggestion is for anyone who likes this manga to give the books a shot, as they are much better. I wouldn't personally recommend the fantranslation tho, but as it is the only english source available, try cutting some slack for the text quality in the first volumes.
Anyway, @Tamerlane's arguments are quite in line with some of the more in-depth stuff the book series, surprisingly enough, introduced within the main character's monologue, which are unfortunately lacking A LOT within this adaptation (which also escalates the revenge sexual imagery for fanservice sake, making it the inferior product overall imo).
The books text-wise barely have much focus on the sex scenes and more on the twisted and damaged psychological aspect of the protagonist (some stupid full page drawings here and there, but nothing like the chapters worth of porn in here) , and from the very start he wonders about his moral choices that were just spoken about in here to Blade, in much more detail, and even considers dropping it all together in case things don't go like they went before, albeit taking many precautions in case they did.
My suggestion is for anyone who likes this manga to give the books a shot, as they are much better. I wouldn't personally recommend the fantranslation tho, but as it is the only english source available, try cutting some slack for the text quality in the first volumes.
@Tamerlane
1)
2)
3) As long as you can formalize the meaning of the loosely defined terms and quantify them exactly you can rely on formal logic. The moment you define what you consider bad/good formally, your dilemma disappears. Even if you cannot define that formally yourself, one may formalize it by example provided enough data about what you consider bad/good.
4+5)
Please quote the relevant part.
2)
The burden of proof is not on me to disprove that there's supposedly more going on. On the other hand, all the points I mentioned are explicit in the text - his trauma, his revenge, the torture, the perversion. My point still is that the MC's main motivation is revenge which has a trivial psychological explanation. Feel free to dismantle it.
You can write unimaginative and cliche stories with great style (by no means am I implying this work has great writing) - won't make them anymore compelling. Also, comically villainized antagonists are not a positive indicator of good writing.
I am not arguing that the writing is bad because "I am disgusted" with the MC (the writing is bad for other reasons). I am arguing that the claimed depth of the MC's motives and actions is simply not there. His actions and motives can be explained in an uncomplicated manner by psychology.
Just to be sure, this is not a distinguishing trait in revenge power trip stories, it's actually the default.
Certainly, he's not hurting people that do not get in his way (btw a notable flaw is that there are no innocent people that get in his way) - because he has no reason to. Note that this is also not a originality point - it's the opposite.
Keyaru is best described as a mentally weak fictional character with PTSD that falls back to his primal instincts in order to enact revenge while indulging in his perversions. You do not need speculation to verify that the above is true. You can qualify him as an egoist, I do not mind - he's a stupid and self-destructive one though. Note, however, that revenge as a self-detrimental community regulating behaviour is the opposite of egotistical, regardless of whether our MC realizes it. He got cheated out by his primitive monkey brain believing that he's doing it for himself, when the actual effects work against him (and evolutionary were meant to benefit societies - not the individual enacting the revenge) - the only egoistical thing was him indulging in his perversions under the pretext of revenge.
3) As long as you can formalize the meaning of the loosely defined terms and quantify them exactly you can rely on formal logic. The moment you define what you consider bad/good formally, your dilemma disappears. Even if you cannot define that formally yourself, one may formalize it by example provided enough data about what you consider bad/good.
4+5)
That was the point I disagreed with, in case it was unclear. As mentioned - I do not know the author, so any conclusion about the intended interpretation was deduced from the work.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
That's fair. I don't know how well-adapted the manga is from the book, and there a parts I know they added that I don't like. I hope that the anime is an adaptation of that more than this. @danpmss
1)
Well, for starters, you keep relying on this study, and implying that because Keyaru seeking revenge is a futile effort, which morally condemns him outright.
Additionally, your diction, itself, carries with it a tone of moral disdain and disgust for him, with words such as "weak," "perverted," "stupid," etc.
Also, your earlier comments were much more inclined towards moral condemnation, saying that he "achieves nothing and but introducing more pain and suffering."
You even argued earlier why an eye-for-an-eye is morally a bad system and why it is not functional, and why Keyaru trying to get revenge therefore only causes harm
Whilst I may or may not agree with you in some of these matters is irrelevant, because only focusing on word choice and tone, it is clear you are condemning him on some moral basis , even though you reject it now. I'd even go as far as to say that you've backpedalled a little bit to do so.
2) I'm not shifting the burden of proof, as I have acknowledged that I need to cite parts of the text to support my interpretation.
Scenes I have referred to include chapter 20.1 when he agrees to pay for the damages in the shop, and chapter 9.2 where he respects the wishes of Setsuna, as well as I have cited overall trends and specific events within the text to support such an analysis of it.
I am doing my part and not telling you to disprove my point before I have proven it, rather I am saying that you need to support yourself as well, and that it feels like your argument lacks that dimension.
As for cliches, I think you missed the point here. I was saying tropes are tools that can be used in a myriad of different and more interesting ways, and that you can produce extremely good works playing off of them and using them to your benefit, even if it's as a meta-joke or as satire of said tropes. My contention with your point was that you rejected the idea that anything interesting could be used with a premise that was overly done, but I feel that is a disservice, especially as there is still plenty you can do with even a seemingly overdone premise. It's the specifics in the execution that's important, and how well you manage to distinguish yourself and draw upon your ideas.
Skipping some points down, as I feel if I try to clash with some of them it will just retread old ground, I think that you could argue that innocent people have gotten in his way before. Kureha has impeded his travel, and, even though he spares her life, he does make a solid attempt at killing her and/or sexually assaulting her before planning to implant her with his memories. (See, chapter 11)
Her story also implies there are those working for the kingdom that may actually be people who believe that they're doing the right thing for their country, or knights and soldiers that wouldn't condone the heinous actions of their superiors, but they never get the opportunity to learn about this because they come into conflict with Keyaru before they can find out. Such is warfare, but it's almost guaranteed that most of the peons and knights are unaware of the corruption within the kingdom at the moment.
Onto the main point of that section, however, there is the contention that he not harming those that don't get in his way because he has no reason not to, and that it doesn't prove that he's not being animalistic, weak, or stupid, which I contend is not true, as if he was pure beast, he wouldn't care who he hurts and would just be indiscriminately hurting anyone as he desired. He doesn't do that because he has set targets he wishes to get revenge on, and he'll only hurt those that prevent him from defeating those targets.
3) The issue here is something, you, yourself, admitted. It's what YOU consider good or bad, which is not objective, but rather what any given individual thinks is an operational system.
But you said you didn't want to discuss morality, so I'll drop the point here
4+5) And my point was that any deduction about intention is overall irrelevant, so we're kinda back to square one.
I think we've reached an impasse, here, so I think we better call it, lest we keep running around in circles. I already tried to cutout points that were digressions or irrelevant to the core topic, and, by the points I see that you've chosen to address, I think its fair to assume that we generally agree on most of the important stuff at this point to some extent, or at least we've argued it to death enough that we're both sick of discussing it. @criver
"The simple truth is - revenge doesn't lead to catharsis, it just opens old wounds, and substitutes a rational response for a primal instinctive and emotional one.
See: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/06/revenge for more details"
See: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/06/revenge for more details"
Additionally, your diction, itself, carries with it a tone of moral disdain and disgust for him, with words such as "weak," "perverted," "stupid," etc.
Also, your earlier comments were much more inclined towards moral condemnation, saying that he "achieves nothing and but introducing more pain and suffering."
You even argued earlier why an eye-for-an-eye is morally a bad system and why it is not functional, and why Keyaru trying to get revenge therefore only causes harm
Whilst I may or may not agree with you in some of these matters is irrelevant, because only focusing on word choice and tone, it is clear you are condemning him on some moral basis , even though you reject it now. I'd even go as far as to say that you've backpedalled a little bit to do so.
2) I'm not shifting the burden of proof, as I have acknowledged that I need to cite parts of the text to support my interpretation.
Scenes I have referred to include chapter 20.1 when he agrees to pay for the damages in the shop, and chapter 9.2 where he respects the wishes of Setsuna, as well as I have cited overall trends and specific events within the text to support such an analysis of it.
I am doing my part and not telling you to disprove my point before I have proven it, rather I am saying that you need to support yourself as well, and that it feels like your argument lacks that dimension.
As for cliches, I think you missed the point here. I was saying tropes are tools that can be used in a myriad of different and more interesting ways, and that you can produce extremely good works playing off of them and using them to your benefit, even if it's as a meta-joke or as satire of said tropes. My contention with your point was that you rejected the idea that anything interesting could be used with a premise that was overly done, but I feel that is a disservice, especially as there is still plenty you can do with even a seemingly overdone premise. It's the specifics in the execution that's important, and how well you manage to distinguish yourself and draw upon your ideas.
Skipping some points down, as I feel if I try to clash with some of them it will just retread old ground, I think that you could argue that innocent people have gotten in his way before. Kureha has impeded his travel, and, even though he spares her life, he does make a solid attempt at killing her and/or sexually assaulting her before planning to implant her with his memories. (See, chapter 11)
Her story also implies there are those working for the kingdom that may actually be people who believe that they're doing the right thing for their country, or knights and soldiers that wouldn't condone the heinous actions of their superiors, but they never get the opportunity to learn about this because they come into conflict with Keyaru before they can find out. Such is warfare, but it's almost guaranteed that most of the peons and knights are unaware of the corruption within the kingdom at the moment.
Onto the main point of that section, however, there is the contention that he not harming those that don't get in his way because he has no reason not to, and that it doesn't prove that he's not being animalistic, weak, or stupid, which I contend is not true, as if he was pure beast, he wouldn't care who he hurts and would just be indiscriminately hurting anyone as he desired. He doesn't do that because he has set targets he wishes to get revenge on, and he'll only hurt those that prevent him from defeating those targets.
3) The issue here is something, you, yourself, admitted. It's what YOU consider good or bad, which is not objective, but rather what any given individual thinks is an operational system.
But you said you didn't want to discuss morality, so I'll drop the point here
4+5) And my point was that any deduction about intention is overall irrelevant, so we're kinda back to square one.
I think we've reached an impasse, here, so I think we better call it, lest we keep running around in circles. I already tried to cutout points that were digressions or irrelevant to the core topic, and, by the points I see that you've chosen to address, I think its fair to assume that we generally agree on most of the important stuff at this point to some extent, or at least we've argued it to death enough that we're both sick of discussing it. @criver
@Tamerlane
1)
Now I begin to understand why you believe I am concerned with the moral aspects of the manga. Before I explain why this is not the case I'll emphasize once again that I am unconcerned and uninterested in those. To me the answer is clear - the MC is clearly at odds with conventional morality standards, but that doesn't really bother me, nor am I interested in discussing it. To address your points:
The study makes no moral implications whatsoever. It's just an observation of the mechanisms of human psychology, and the evolutionary role of revenge.
My diction describes correctly what he is. I could have used synonyms, but then it wouldn't have been as exact. I can assure you there are no moral implications attached.
2)
3)
4+5)
Now I begin to understand why you believe I am concerned with the moral aspects of the manga. Before I explain why this is not the case I'll emphasize once again that I am unconcerned and uninterested in those. To me the answer is clear - the MC is clearly at odds with conventional morality standards, but that doesn't really bother me, nor am I interested in discussing it. To address your points:
The study makes no moral implications whatsoever. It's just an observation of the mechanisms of human psychology, and the evolutionary role of revenge.
My diction describes correctly what he is. I could have used synonyms, but then it wouldn't have been as exact. I can assure you there are no moral implications attached.
That's a fact, and while you can discuss the moral implications of it, I already explained I am unconcerned with those. To be sure, the MC is morally condemnable, I am just not interested in making this an argument for my point - because it is unnecessary. He is emotionally stupid, perverted, and mentally weak regardless of the morality of his actions.
I didn't say that. I said that it is barbaric, which it is. It's stupid, detrimental, and unnecessary for all parties involved. You can attach all sorts of moral, ethical, utilitarian or other interpretations - I make it explicit that I do not (and I do not want to digress into it). Keyaru's revenge causes unnecessary harm to himself and others regardless of the morality of his actions.
I don't know whether you realize it but that's a pretty obvious strawman. You are free to interpret my words as you like in the presence of ambiguity, but when I have stated multiple times what the intended meaning is, and you still insist on your "word choice and tone" presumption, there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.
2)
How does this disagree with my point?
Which part of my point do you believe has lacking support?
Then you misunderstood why I mentioned it. I agree that you can make something out of an overused premise, albeit this is the exception and not the rule. But this is simply not the case here - there's no distinguishing aspect here, and it is in fact worse (both in terms of writing and originality) than other works tackling the same problem (for example something that most people would have read - The Count of Monte Cristo). You keep emphasizing the execution, but it is comparatively lackluster, lest you want to argue that one dimensional villains are a sign of great execution.
You've got your answer. The author (unfortunately) has not (and most likely won't) put the MC in a clearly unambiguous situation where he is clearly the villain, even if it will make for a more interesting read. The reason is the target audience: the reader needs to be able to identify with the MC for the power trip to work, hence some "justification" is required, however flimsy. Fewer people would pay to read a work where the MC unapologetically goes around and brainwashes, rapes, tortures, and kills people just for his enjoyment.
Which are all conveniently not characterised nearly enough or villainized. The intent is clear.
Which is again a strawman. I never argued that every aspect of his character is reduced to the impulse for his revenge (even if there are few traits that are not a function of it), which stems from PTSD, stupidity, and his primal instincts. The perversion for instance is not a product of his revenge. Similarly his reluctance to kill/torture innocent people is consistent with the fact that he is not a psychopath.
3)
Not me specifically - any person/group of people for which you can formalize a non-contradictory definition. The requirement is a formal definition through which you can work in a formal logic framework. You can even circumvent the problem of contradiction by introducing penalizers but I digress.
4+5)
I do believe that the last 2 comments clarified many misunderstandings and thus it's actually progressing.
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2018
- Messages
- 170
I really think he should have raped her first before setting the cannibals on her. She's technically a virgin, and being a man hater, it would be very satisfying to deflower her, I suppose.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
- Messages
- 2,313
Not sure why people are bothering with Tamerlane. lol Isn't he one of those kronix clones?
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2018
- Messages
- 745
He's repeating himself! But at least it fits like a glove here with this bitch
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2018
- Messages
- 745
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2018
- Messages
- 801
@Wildfire_desu
So you think involuntary cannibalism is an appropriate response... okay.
Like I said, I enjoy revenge, but only when it's equivalent and done by someone who is just. I don't enjoy watching the MC become the people he hated.
So you think involuntary cannibalism is an appropriate response... okay.
Like I said, I enjoy revenge, but only when it's equivalent and done by someone who is just. I don't enjoy watching the MC become the people he hated.
