@thegoatrider Do you avoid criticizing stuff because you expected it to be bad? For one thing I was hoping it would never happen.
@minecraftjennys
Why does death, as a plot device, need to be the ultimate consequence? Why should it have the same impact throughout the story?
Death does not need to be "the ultimate consequence", as long as you do not kill your characters. It may sound tautological, but death is the consequence of dying -
it's not about what it needs to be, it's about what it is. It is very simple - if the author does not want dead characters - they should not kill them. Killing a character, making the reader believe that they are dead for good, and then introducing new rules to the game is a cheap trick for artificial drama and artificial perceived depth. There are better ways to do this without having to change the rules (or introduce new rules) and ruining a perfectly good story. Needless to say, this is not about its impact throughout the story - the impact is a by-product of the above.
At this point every human character to grow close to Fushi has died. Its predictable at this point. Would you not argue that such a simple pattern of friendship = death in Fushi's entourage has cheapened it already?
Because the author did that. Is it cheap? Sure. That, however, does not mean that you will rectify it through another cheap trick.
You do not fix previous mistakes by stacking more on top.
Is death really that impactful if its predictable? At that point what does reviving them change?
It changes a lot, specifically how the story reads. From this point on, it is to be expected that
the author can do whatever they want concerning life and death - which is a pretty important theme in the manga. Furthermore,
it makes previous events seem cheap and inconsequential in hindsight.
If death is reversible, then its a given that death is no longer the ultimate tragic plot device available for the author to use to twist the reader's emotions.
This is not about death being the ultimate tragic plot device - in general
death shouldn't be only this in any work with a pretense for depth and ambitions to tackle more serious problems - particularly in such a story where death is a major theme. Unfortunately, with the revival fiasco
the author reduced it to this - a cheap plot device for tragedy and drama.
As I've said before, it doesn't mean Gugu that got brought back that his death should be considered inconsequential.
It's objectively inconsequential, it's irrelevant what one believes it should be considered as.
The great thing about fiction is that it doesn't need to parallel life 1:1.
I definitely agree. However consistency and causality should not be taken lightly either, as otherwise you end up with inconsistent and mediocre works.
Character's coming back isn't so much as just "fair" as its almost a verbatim follow through of the hero's journey. It's the "second threshold" so to speak, the point of Ordeal, Death and Rebirth.
I disagree, it seems like you took death and rebirth too literally. It's important to note that we're not talking about the hero's rebirth, we're talking about the author reviving characters that he already got an emotional payoff from by killing. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Otherwise you go into garbage isekai land - where everything is possible as long as it fulfills the wishes of the lowest common denominator - regardless of whether it is consistent, and regardless of the effects on the quality of the story.
You also say the author sacrificed the notion of death in order to avoid further tragedy, but unless you have the manuscript to the next chapters I'd say thats quite presumptive.
"Further tragedy" was mostly in the sense of the tragedy our MC would have gotten hit with, if there was no balancing factor (the ghosts + revival) to give him hope to continue on. Though
I do not doubt that such a cheap trick could be reused in the future to avoid tragedy.
Whose to say this is permanent?
Nobody. But the doubt is already there. You will know, that the author can always weasel out of a situation that they have cornered themselves in, with such a bs development.
So far its possible to guess that spirits with enough will power can stay behind, but what of those that don't?
If he actually revived everyone, killed off the knockers, and ended it with everyone lived happily ever after - effectively destroying all the themes that were built up - I would have dropped it on the spot and given it a <5 score. Destroying what you have built over a hundred chapters is simply insulting to the intelligence of your readers.
You could say that leaving the characters dead, with the knowledge they get to enjoy this perfect afterlife is just as cheap as reviving them in flesh. Except you can't because the people left behind still suffer.
I am ok with that. However, it is not ok when you start reviving dead characters,
whose deaths you have used in a meaningful manner already, in order to avoid tragedy.
The death of all these characters drove the story forward in some way shape or form.
That's the point - the story was built on the premise that the characters died - their death was used to achieve various goals. And then... the author decided to undo all of that work.
Reviving them after the fact doesn't suddenly revert the different paths Fushi took on his journey as a consequence of the people he's met.
It does not. And the point never was that it changes what paths Fushi took. What
it changes is the meaning and value of their deaths, the understanding and theme of death throughout the story, and the seriousness in which various problems were tackled.
While the story has used character deaths for emotional impact in the past, it does not necessarily mean the author needs to continually rely on this device indefinitely.
This is a problem I already addressed in one of the points above -
death should not be just a cheap tool for "emotional impact", at least not in a story that clearly has a pretense for something more.
I personally don't understand is why you think its an important element to this story for characters to permanently stay dead.
For the same reason one wants consistency and causality to hold in stories - otherwise you end up with bs isekai level writing.
Its been obvious since chapter 11 that a character's "death" is far from the end, so why does the idea of these characters regaining a physical body suddenly make their death inconsequential?
Because death had meaning and certain implications before the author decided to throw those in the garbage.
Based on this definition, death in this series has never really been much of a death really.
The death of the characters was perceived as actual death at least by Fushi - and to some extent by readers.
