- Aug 23, 2023
- 1,864
- 9,237
This is an interesting discussion, but I don't feel the same way about it as it relates to LiL.Right now i'm still on page 2216 due to circumstances, but some might have realised because of likes for a week old post.
I've already seen enough posts where i'd like to add but might not, because i'll have forgotten by reaching 2239 while writing this.
What i do want to write about is something that became way more apparent with the last update, and that is how we perceive certain characters after a certain update. And this time it was Sekai, and i saw that other people already mentioned it.
Together with Lil, i want to break this down into three sections, because i also want to mention other media that fit into that topic.
Hopefully i can make those as short as possible.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
So, where do i want to get with these?
In short i think Sel wants to get his audience to think about morals and ethics about certain, yet obvious topics.
Is a villain still a villain if they get a sad background that explains their wrongdoings, because they lived through the same or similar experience?
What bugs me though is the 4th wall breaking, and a lingerering felling of Sel trying to shove his audience opinions into whatever direction.
Osako was never really a villain and neither was Otoha, for all that I dislike her. Osako was just an adult behaving as, well, her age - she's a young adult amd clearly hasn't found herself, as most her age haven't. She was dick to Akira but that was hardly done out of malice, and more that she was a dumbass.
Nodoka was a villain and it certainly makes her a sort of extreme reverse Makoto in retrospect. She's trying to save everyone and honestly, if I was in her shoes I would care less about people's feelings as well. Let's care about that after they're free. However, Nodoka's situation is so unique in its fiction that it's hard to compare to real life in any way.
The real actual villain of the story would be Sekai, if anything, and the easiest to apply your pov, however, all Kyoto did was reveal a possible real Sekai for which we had no context so far. I don't feel like it's trying to justify her actions so much as presenting the reader with the realisation that real life is complex.
NAO (the xeonon) had said previously that both Akira and Sekai loved eachother for real. However twisted that might have been to others, it was real for them. Is that so far from Maya and Akira's relationship that most of us came to love? yes. Yes, it is. But both relationships have similarities, and I think what's Selebus is trying to portray here is that more often than not things can be uncomfortably complicated.
An avatar of corruption that toys with her underage prey and calls that love is certainly easier to stomach (as a villain) than a miserable girl tormented by voices, abused since childhood, that goes on to be abused by her husband, and finally finds solace in providing her version of "pure" love to a child, giving Akira what perhaps she wished someone would have given unto her, and truly wishing and willing to start over by his side.
That's just one possible reading. And I think that if there is one thing Selebus has been hammering on since the start was that things are complicated. Isn't that the whole point of Akira as a character in the first place? Therefore all characters should eventually be shown as complicated. Does that complication redeem them? I think, if anything, Selebus has been strongly positioned on the camp of "no, it does not". After all, he's constantly calling Akira out on it.