Why is the MC almost always betrayed for the lulz?

[Sleeper]

@Question2 @AAA1 After reading some of the replies, I realize that I forgot an incredibly key sentence that made my entire post seem kinda misguided, so let me just add this--not to change any minds or anything, but hopefully just to add some context.

My ultimate point was supposed to be this: "The reason the MC is always betrayed for frivolous reasons is because, once you pin down why you can't give a legitimate reason for the MC to be betrayed (which was my whole post about how the MC can't be assigned any blame that can't be handwaved away later), you're only left with silly or frivolous reasons."

The One Piece example was a completely justified betrayal...but it was also an example where the MC is forgiven for their "wrongdoings" that led to the betrayal in the first place, because their wrongdoings were serving the greater good--which illustrated my point about the whole "MC can only be wrong if it can be justified after the fact" trope.

So that was my point: the reason someone always betrays the MC for a silly or pointless reason is because they can't betray the MC for a legitimate reason, or it risks painting the MC in a poor light and making the audience empathize with the betrayer, whose defeat is already a foregone conclusion, and no one likes to see the entity they're rooting for lose.

That said, I've seen some other good points raised in this thread, so I'm not here to change minds--just add context to my ramble last night. Again, thank you for your time.

 

[BmustG]

Cause its low tier trash, but an effective low tier trash, simple as that, easy way to make character hated ( other ways like turning them into rapists,sadists, slave owners etc) ,most readers love getting the justice boners, this way reader knows that it will come some day in the future.

 

[Seraph_best_girl]

Because it's an easy way to get you invested or keep your attention. In manga/manhua there tends to be two types of betrayl stories those that do it in the beginning to get you to read it, those are usually based off of webnovels. The other is those who do it in the middle when they want to create drama so you dont get bored of it. Think of your top 10 favorite story driven TV shows and there is probably a betrayl storyline somewhere in there. Hell even Harry Potter and Star Wars two of the most popular pieces of media of all time are based off of them. It works and will always work despite how tired people claim they are of seeing it.

 

[BzzBzz]

But for some reason most translator groups boycott seinen series and will only translate the badly written ones where the MC gets op powers and a harem, gets betrayed for the lulz, etc, etc.

Translating seinen is much harder in many cases. Shounen usually written in much simpler language because 'shounen'.

 

[AAA1]

@LowSanity i don't mention BL, and you can use search function on browser on that quotes. Cool down, man

 

[LowSanity]

@AAA1
I'm not angry or anything, it's just the way i speak. Some ppl would call me rude.
Yes, i do know how to search stuff using browser functions.

 

[AAA1]

@LowSanity i was the one who was wrong. Sorry

 

[Question2]

How am I supposed to get invested in a story when I am too busy facepalming and laughing at the author? When the betrayal is for some ridiculous reason, it makes the reader not take the story seriously.

It works if its supposed to be a comedy manga, but no, its always some edgy revenge fantasy.

Then theres the sub genre where the MC gets kicked out of the hero's party for the lulz...its always for the lulz...sometimes the story doesnt even have anything to do with the hero's party afterwards, so why bother including the hero's party in the first place? Just have the MC retire on his own or something...

 

[panzerkampfwagyu]

So that they can write an edgy murderhobo thundercunt while pretending he is the good guy and have all the waifus flock around him.
Simple as that.

 

[Elroy79]

People do self-insert in stories and some do so in harems. Not all of them have the loser character that avoids women like the plague. There are a few in manga, manhwa, and manhua that welcome the reality that multiple women (or men in reverse harems) are chasing after them and happy to share them. However, yes, the age-old trope in manga, manhwa, and manhua is the MC who runs from the opposite sex, especially if it's a male. (I don't read that many female MC stories). With this, it is the everyman character type who is usually placed in these stories and how that character is defined as an everyman, of course, will depend on the culture the author is from as well as many other things influencing the author. So you'll see the bland, ultra nice guy character, etc. in these harem genres because they're supposed to be the everyman character with no stand-out qualities, or supposedly so until you read further. Also, see this a lot in isekais and its the same formula. The author will tell you the MC is average across the board but then will induce various philosophies in the character throughout the story while painting on the standard template of the usual super-nice-guy, goodie two shoes (not hating on this), etc.

I don't self-insert, I just enjoy the stories for what they are until something unique comes along. And unique isn't always better either. Sometimes they turn out to be try-too-hards to be unique.

As far as revenge porn goes, it fits a niche. People seem to like that for some reason and usually, the betrayal is just what you called it, the silly reason to tell the story. Often times I see these characters as ones already hiding mental instability and the author just used the betrayal to mask it. But yes, I can't get past the super ridiculous ones with the super ridiculous insanely evil characters. That one about the healer comes to mind where everyone who was supposed to be a good guy was just over the top evil villains to the point that now they'll sacrifice innocent citizens just to get at the MC just so the author can make the MC look sympathetic. There's another recent one like that too that I dropped because the author tried to write it so that all the people in the world were guilty of betraying the MC when it was only the princess, her entourage and the leadership. No, but MC blames the whole world.

I respect Shield Hero and Arifureta because they kept their revenge focused on who it was supposed to be focused on. Shield Hero didn't go over the top, it was just a faction and then even within that it was just a few people who were over the top. There were people who were against those who were against Naufomi. Albeit, I didn't read anything in the novel past where the manga and/or anime is now although I tried. I spoiled it all for myself reading wikis.

Still, I think stories like this are a necessary countermeasure to the good-two-shoes, nice-guy, I've been abducted by aliens, but it's what I always wanted so I'll just believe everything they tell me type of isekais. Even if they're revenge porn. When you think about it, these characters are dumped in a crisis situation and suddenly they just go along with everything their captors tell them just because it's a pretty princess, king, or representatives for a kingdom that tells them they're on the good side. I think characters that deconstruct that are worth telling. For instance, I appreciated how Wortenia Senki started off but the manga updates so slow, I lost interest. Again, like Shield Hero, I tried to read the novel a few times but couldn't get through it. I think it has something to do with the way J-Novels are written, maybe that's just me.

Anyways, those are my thoughts.

 

[Nick_Asano]

More brainpower in the writers' room, for one. As for me, I'm sick of blameless MC's. I'd prefer a character who's done bad things trying to be good, or an MC who thinks that the ends outweighs the means over a guiltless goody two shoes any day.

 

[Tamerlane]

This is gonna sound weird to anyone who's read or is reading this manga, but that is actually why I like the protagonist of Kaifuku Jutsushi No Yarinaoshi in that he raises an interesting philosophical question of how far you can go in your revenge before you've crossed a moral line.

On one hand, he doesn't do anything that wasn't done to him or attempted on him and he only does it to people who not only deserve it, as they are directly responsible for doing the things he does to others and when he does it, it actually makes the world a better place. But, those actions still involves copious amounts of rape, murder, torture, mind control, psychological and physiological distress and two-faced lying and dishonesty. Name a war crime and he's probably been on the receiving end of it and he's probably committed it.

Granted, the people did have a reason for being so abusive towards him in that he is a healer, but in order to heal people he has to go through all the pain they experienced in their wound, and so they kept him in a drug-addicted state full of psychological manipulation and abuse in order to condition him to follow their orders without hesitation. (It still doesn't excuse the sexual abuse/rape and the physical abuse, but details.) He's just doing it back at them for the satisfaction, but there's still some dark irony in that, despite his impure motives, he's actually done more good as he's exposed the corruption within the kingdom and has liberated people from genocidal overlords.

I know most people are reading it probably for the smut or to see how fucked up it gets, but I can't help but to see it as an exploration of morality and what is someone's limit in their justification for revenge and vengeance. He only hurts people who have hurt him or those he cares about, regardless of their moral code, but he also undeniably has changed the world for the better. Do the ends justify the means? What do you have to do to Hitler or Satan before what you're doing is too far? It's a difficult question and I can't help but to think about it whenever I read it, which is why I see myself trucking through it.

@Nick_Asano @Question2

 

[Nick_Asano]

@Tamerlane I'll have to check it out. Though reading the first chapter it looks more like DeadTube than anything. I'm not sure if anyone here has read Eragon but the antagonist of the series (Galbatorix) is the sort of man who does what he believes to be right in the long run, but will mercilessly stomp out anyone who tests him or gets in his way. At first he just seems like a bad guy, but in later books you realize just how complicated it really is, and you're torn between both the protagonist's and the antagonist's two ideologies. That's the kind of character I want to read about.

 

[Question2]

@Tamerlane : The thing is in Kaifuku, there is no morale line, the MC doesnt agonize over his decision to rape a girl he ran into or anything. Everything is setup so that the MC has a perfect excuse to go on a rape, torture and murder spree. Everyone he does it to is conveniently evil, complete with ridiculous facial expressions and going "mwahahaha" as they kick puppies.

When his entire village was taken hostage and killed by the bad guys, MC didnt agonize over it or anything, his reaction was "oh well" and that scene was quickly skipped. In a proper story, the MC would agonize over whether he made the right decisions, whether he should have forseen that his village would get taken hostage, whether he could have done anything to prevent it, etc...but in a badly written story, its just "who cares lol back to writing my revenge fantasy of how i would take revenge on my bullies".

 

[Tamerlane]

To be fair, that's because MC got any empathy left inside of him stomped out early on, as the drug altered his mind and broke him down after years of abuse. Also consider that he is technically in late childhood and early adolescence, so what he's still impressible with the events that's going on around him, and more psychological vulnerable and influenced. Couple this with the war, and the countless crimes and attempts at genocide he saw, and it would make sense why he would seem on some level to be psychopathic or at the very least unsympathetic. What little hope was left was killed when he fucked up and let his doppelganger run loose.

Therefore, the moral conundrum is not in the mind of Keyaru, who is a broken man psychologically with a wrapped view of the world, but rather is meant for the audience. We're not meant to view Keyaru as a self-insert or as a relatable, down-to-earth protagonist, just as we wouldn't see Oedipus as one, but rather as a broken shell of a human whose motives are clear and whose has already internally justified his own beliefs. The work itself just raises these questions and it's up to the readers to judge the morality for themselves, and it would be out of character for Keyaru to question himself constantly, though there are times he does have second thoughts.

Also consider that the only reason he does it to those people is BECAUSE they're evil. He won't harm those that don't hurt him or get in his way. It's not convenient, as it's literally the driving force behind him acting. Individuals that didn't wrong him initially but got in the way such as with Norn, but because they get in the way of his pursuit of revenge, he does end up having to pursue them because he believes that it serves a greater purpose.

There's other interesting implications and little details that give me the impression that the story is so much deeper than a simple revenge fantasy, such as that both Flare/Freya and Norn/Ellen have their minds wiped, and when they do, they become paragons of virtue and they basically flip from sadistic to compassionate, implying that this is their natural state, and that the corruption and politicking of the kingdom has corroded their minds and personalities into cold, unfeeling monsters. Or there's the irony and hypocrisy that Blade hates crossdressers, yet dresses like a man to lure in unsuspecting women.

Really, although the story gets a lot of hate, I think there's a lot here of merit and that there's more moving gears than it would initially imply. @Question2

 

[Question2]

@Tamerlane : You are reading way too much into one guy's highschool revenge fantasy. Its like pointing at a blank canvas and saying "Look at how this shows the emptiness of the artist's soul!".

 

[Tamerlane]

No, I have textual references for my arguments. I am citing events and characters, and who that characterization develops interesting ideas from it.

Naturally, analysis of art and interpretation of works is to some extent subjective. (Not to say there isn't objective criticisms of art such as focusing on internal logic, consistency, errors of logic or reasoning, etc.) However, I will say that by rooting my interpretation in the text itself, and focusing my analysis within said text, I think I can say my reading of it isn't reading too deeply into it. You're entitled to disagree with me, but your argument doesn't contradict mine or lessen its strengthens. It's potentially just a case of two different views of a piece; yours being more casual and mine being more in-depth and focusing on what the story is trying to develop. Death of the author also may play into this, but I don't know what he/she has said in regards to his/her work.

There are parts of the story that I am critical of and I think are faulty. I think Keyaru raping the assassin when he didn't in the Light Novel and the inserted fight scene between him and Blade is a bit ridiculous and adds a gap in logic of why she still decided to pick him up. But fundamentally this does not contradict how I think the greater work is as a whole and where the most interesting parts of the story lie.

I suppose the summary of this is that I think that what you've said is your view, but it doesn't contradict mine nor does it engage it or address it in any meaningful way. If you think the story is shallow and surface level, go ahead and present your argument. I'm not one to illegitimatize your perception. But my argument does pull references from the story and how it's characterization and interesting elements could further and facilitate interesting discussions, whilst having narrative elements that do not contradict how these discussion would be had.

TL;DR- We're just viewing the work differently is all, but neither of us is right or wrong. In general, it's fine to interpret the meaning differently as long as you're staying in the confines of the story itself and not just spouting nonsense.
@Question2