Hoshikawa Has Done Such An Incredible Job Of Portraying Dazai From Chuuya’s Perspective… Back Before

Deepest Darkest secret :3

I still watch those gacha reaction videos. Every time I join a new fandom my first instinct is to look at those gacha reaction vids. I love them sm guysss.

"At your big age?" Yes

"In 2024?" Y E S... YES YES YES YES.

I'm aliveeee | ✧ Online Store 🌼

Egghead arc goes CRAZY.

Looking for treasure at the Hattifatteners' island

bonney normally speaks very coarsely- she usually uses omae as her ‘you’ pronoun, which is uncommonly rude and aggressive for women and is normally only used by men. however, when she addresses luffy-as-nika for the first time directly, to say “i’ve been searching for you,” she switches over to anta for ‘you’, which is still informal but far less confrontational.

and then when luffy is just completely not getting it in the next line (“huh? we’ve been together this whole time!”) bonney instantly snaps back to using omae again for her subsequent lines. respect gained -> lost speedrun INSTANT

The Man-God: BSD’s Dostoyevsky and Demons’ Kirillov

So, I finally read Bungou Stray Dogs. And y’all, I freaking love this manga. It’s got themes of life, grief, death, trauma, and is chock-full of literary references and puns. 

Shocking no one, one of my favorite characters–the reason I started reading the story–is Dostoyevsky, since I’m… rather an admitted fangirl of Dostoyevsky’s novels. I’ve reread each of them at least twice and some (C&P) up to five times. Clearly BSD’s Dostoyevsky not the hopeful, faithful author, but he’s definitely a fascinating antagonist whose arc is digging into the themes of Dostoyevsky the writer’s novels–with a particular focus on the two novels that are my very favorite novels ever written, by anyone, in history: Crime and Punishment and Demons. 

But in truth, it draws more from Demons than from Crime and Punishment, right down to having BSD!Dostoyevsky directly quote it.

Demons is far, far less popular that Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, and even The Idiot, so I was really surprised to see how often it’s been referenced in BSD (The reason it’s less popular is honestly justified: the first 100 pages are paced… horribly, but the rest of the novel is so powerful that I can overlook that). It’s been translated under a variety of titles as well: The Possessed, The Devils, and the most recent is Demons so that’s what we’re going with in this meta.

Pssst–look at how often BSD!Dostoyesvky is associated with demons or devils:

Yet Demons has been popular with literary theorists (one well-known critic has described it as containing “the most harrowing scene in all of fiction,” an assessment I’d agree with–and this is the scene I’m going to discuss in detail) and existentialists like Camus (sorry Camus). Anyways, I have a soft spot for Demons because it contains my very favorite character in existence: Alexei Nilyich Kirillov, who is the character BSD!Dostoyesvky directly quotes.

@blackandwhitemusician did a great analysis of the similar philosophies BSD!Dostoyevsky shares with Crime and Punishment’s Raskolnikov, but I want to talk about how BSD!Dostoyevsky is also modeled after Kirillov’s philosophical ideas. This isn’t to say he embodies them, because Kirillov is decidedly not a villain unlike BSD!Dostoyevsky, but BSD!Dostoyevsky definitely draws heavily from Kirillov’s ideals.

Kirillov is a character who, like Raskolnikov, embodies the contradictions of human nature, but in a hyperbolic way. He’s noted to have a “calm but warm and kindly expression"and adores children, playing with them, and he even helps his friend Shatov’s wife give birth (he’s endearingly awkward and scared for the whole ordeal). He affirms that he is “fond of life” and yet he is determined, from the moment we meet him, to shoot himself as suicide because in doing so he will save himself and the world. 

Kirillov’s reasoning is complex and at the same time, spotty, and stems from a deep despair and disgust with human sin. Sound familiar?

Time is also a major motif with BSD! Dostoyevsky and with Kirilllov. He does not believe in time as more than an “idea.” He insists that “life exists, but death doesn’t at all… [I believe] in eternal life here. There are moments, you reach moments, and time suddenly stands still, and it will become eternal.”

(Clocks constantly appear in BS chapter 42, Dostoyevsky’s introduction, as well.)

Kirillov also draws from other philosophies such as Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am,” affirming that “man is unhappy because he doesn’t know he’s happy… If they knew that it was good for them, it would be good for them, but as long as they don’t know it’s good for them, it will be bad for them. That’s the whole idea, the whole of it… They’ll find out that they’re good and they’ll all become good, every one of them.”

In other words, reality is what Kirillov makes of it in his own mind, which is what BSD!Dostoyevsky hints his ability is (but it isn’t).

It’s still a belief BSD!Dostoyevsky holds: that his beliefs create reality.

Kirillov muses, in conversation with his friend Stavrogin (bold is Kirillov):

“He who teaches that all are good will end the world.”

“He who taught it was crucified.”

“He will come, and his name will be the man-god.”

“The god-man?”

“The man-god. That’s the difference.”

In BSD, anything written in The Book becomes truth, and Dostoyevsky plans to use it to rid the world of the sins of ability-users. Similarly, Kirillov plans to use his decision to set people free, and Pyotr plans to use Kirillov’s mental instability and philosophical suicide to erase consequences for his own sins. And as Kirillov also believes this will make moments heaven, Dostoyevsky expresses (using religious language) that this will make a heavenly reality as well:

As Demons goes on, we find out that Pyotr Stepanovich had struck a deal with Kirillov. Since Kirillov really tries to believe that everyone and everything is good, when Pyotr asks him to kill himself and write a note specifying something Pyotr won’t specify until the time comes, to help Pyotr, Kirillov agrees. Pyotr notes that he doesn’t tell Kirillov what he plans—to have Kirillov take the blame for the murder of their mutual friend Shatov, which Pyotr commits—because he thinks that if Kirillov knows in advance, “Kirillov could not be relied upon.”

The irony, of course, is that by seeking to prove the ultimate will in the universe is of the individual, that the individual is his/her own god, Kirillov becomes an unwitting tool in Pyotr Stepanovich’s terrible plots. He contributes to the unjust death of someone he cares deeply for by taking the blame. And Kirillov did not want this at all. When Pyotr comes to collect, he realizes what he’s done (bold is Kirillov_:

“He is dead!” cried Kirillov, jumping up from the sofa.

“He died at seven o’clock this evening, or rather, at seven o’clock yesterday evening, and now it’s one o’clock.”

“You have killed him!”

…

“You are a strange man, though, Kirillov; you knew yourself that the stupid fellow was bound to end like this. What was there to foresee in that? I made that as plain as possible over and over again. Shatov was meaning to betray us; I was watching him, and it could not be left like that. And you too had instructions to watch him; you told me so yourself three weeks ago.…”

…

“I won’t write that I killed Shatov … and I won’t write anything now. You won’t have a document!”

Pyotr refuses to leave until Kirillov is dead, and Kirillov explains that “I won’t put it off; I want to kill myself now: all are scoundrels.” The exact opposite of what he expressed before about things being good.

“He’s guessed the truth at last! Can you, Kirillov, with your sense, have failed to see till now that all men are alike, that there are none better or worse, only some are stupider, than others, and that if all are scoundrels (which is nonsense, though) there oughtn’t to be any people that are not?”

And then we see what motivates Kirillov is a desperate need to have a reason to match his desire to live. It’s literally one of the main themes of Bungo Stray Dogs (bold is Kirillov):

 “If you stopped yourself, you become God; that’s it, isn’t it?”

“Yes, I become God.”

…

“Let it be comfort. God is necessary and so must exist… But I know He doesn’t and can’t… Surely you must understand that a man with two such ideas can’t go on living?”

And of course, this is BSD!’s Dostoyevsky in what I am betting is a direct quote from Demons as translated into Japanese: If god does not exist, then I am god.

His man-god belief, like Dostoyevsky’s in BSD, are explained thusly (bold is Kirillov):

“I’ve always been surprised at every one’s going on living,” said Kirillov, not hearing his remark.

…

“Hold your tongue; you won’t understand anything. If there is no God, then I am God.”

“There, I could never understand that point of yours: why are you God?”

“If God exists, all is His will and from His will I cannot escape. If not, it’s all my will and I am bound to show self-will.”

“Self-will? But why are you bound?”

“Because all will has become mine. Can it be that no one in the whole planet, after making an end of God and believing in his own will, will dare to express his self-will on the most vital point? It’s like a beggar inheriting a fortune and being afraid of it and not daring to approach the bag of gold, thinking himself too weak to own it. I want to manifest my self-will. I may be the only one, but I’ll do it.”

That’s a direct quote.

BSD!Dostoyevsky manipulates human will to lead people into committing suicide, and is killing them to create a new world without the sins of ability-users:

Kirillov says this right before he finally writes the false confession to Stavrogin’s murder and kills himself:

“Man has done nothing but invent God so as to go on living, and not kill himself; that’s the whole of universal history up till now. I am the first one in the whole history of mankind who would not invent God. Let them know it once for all…

“I am awfully unhappy, for I’m awfully afraid. Terror is the curse of man.… But I will assert my will, I am bound to believe that I don’t believe. I will begin and will make an end of it and open the door, and will save. That’s the only thing that will save mankind and will re-create the next generation physically; for with his present physical nature man can’t get on without his former God, I believe. For three years I’ve been seeking for the attribute of my godhead and I’ve found it; the attribute of my godhead is self-will! That’s all I can do to prove in the highest point my independence and my new terrible freedom. For it is very terrible. I am killing myself to prove my independence and my new terrible freedom.”

Yet Kirillov is inventing god: himself. He signs the paper and then does kill himself, but it’s not without the last terrible, terrifying realization that he does not want to die. He wants to live. And he fights Pyotr, biting his finger nearly off, before committing suicide. But Kirillov, as wrong and tragic as his philosophy is, is the one who recognizes the theme of Demons.

“Stavrogin, too, is consumed by an idea,” Kirillov said gloomily, pacing up and down the room.

The point of the entire tragedy in Demons is basically if you are consumed by an idea, it will turn you into a devil. Kirillov is, along with Shatov, perhaps the most likeable main character in Demons (others are far more horrifying as their various political, religious, and philosophical ideas take them over). And so is Dostoyevsky in BSD: consumed by his ideas, convinced his will is all that matters.

It won’t end well.

Hanako's boundary

I saw in some places people saying that they are curious about what Hanako's boundary would be like, but she has already appeared in the manga and anime, see, when Nene is sucked into the mirror she ends up in a bathroom too, with water on the floor and many shadows of "hands" on the walls, like those that frequently appear near Tsukasa in the playroom. The air also feels thick and gloomy. When Mitsuba takes Yashiro out, we see the number 7 above the door, indicating that that was Hanako's boundary.

If you're curious, she appears in chapter 30 and 31 of the manga.

In the anime

In the case of the anime, the door doesn't have a number, I don't know exactly why, but maybe it's to not make it obvious and maintain the mystery.

Sleepover part 1

Tumblr

Sleepover part 2

Shanks' Savior Complex

A few months ago, I posted a joke tweet about Shanks’ savior complex and Buggy’s inferiority complex. While Buggy’s feelings of inadequacy are pretty obvious in the source material, Shanks is constantly evading serious analysis because of how little he appears in the manga and how nebulous those few appearances are. So, naturally, I was met with a lot of confusion. (What do you mean by ‘savior complex?’ Why Shanks specifically?) I thought I’d address all that now in one comprehensive, all-inclusive post.

Before I dive in, please note just a few things:

A SAVIOR COMPLEX is a pattern of unconscious behaviors. It is associated most often with self-sacrificial people – those who help others even at the cost of their own personal well-being, mental or physical.

Within the field of psychology, ‘complexes’ are just constructs. My goal is not to diagnose. Rather, this post is a conceptual analysis using the idea of a “savior complex” to better explore Shanks as a character.

Now that all that’s out of the way, let me begin!

For a character who is so significant in the grand scheme, Shanks is remarkably absent for the better part of One Piece. Really. He is so nonexistent, actually, that the first chapter of the manga is probably the most we’ve ever seen from him uninterrupted. This is for good reason, though; Shanks is the catalyst for Luffy’s entire journey. He owes a lot to Shanks: his devil fruit, his life, and even his dream, to an extent. Luffy learned a lot about being a captain from Shanks, and much of his advice – like picking and choosing your battles, for example – Luffy puts to good use later down the line.

So, considering his role as Luffy’s mentor, it’s fitting that Shanks’ character is defined by RESPONSIBILITY. He’s goofy, sure, but don’t let that devil-may-care attitude fool you – Shanks is a knowledgeable pirate, grounded by the weight he carries. His dialogue and actions throughout the first chapter reflect this. When Luffy demands to be taken out to sea, Shanks refuses, claiming he is too young. While the rest of his crew wax poetic about the freedom and joy of being a pirate, Shanks is the one bringing them back down to reality, telling them not to fill Luffy’s head with “crazy ideas.”

Those who know him best seem to agree. “The captain’s just doing what’s best for everyone,” Beckman states. “The safety of the entire crew and ship rests on his shoulders.”

Although Shanks is realistic, he is not a pessimist, and he certainly still values dreams. Let’s not forget: Shanks entrusted Luffy with Roger’s hat. Not only that, he asks Luffy to give it back when Luffy has become a great pirate – not if. Of course Shanks has hope for the future and the new generation. He's just also experienced enough to know the dangers and horrors of the current world, and curbs his own expectations as a result. Yet again, Beckman reinforces this when he talks to Luffy.

The future needs a strong foundation. Anything is possible, including what Luffy wants to achieve, but there are necessary sacrifices to make dreams a reality.

I believe Shanks sees himself as one of those necessary sacrifices.

Oda may not have envisioned Shanks losing an arm in the original draft of the story, but this decision sets a precedent going forward, for both Shanks as a character and the series at large. Sacrifice is at the core of One Piece’s identity; previously, I’ve discussed its emotional significance as an act of love. But sacrifice also serves as the foundation for the new generation. Corazón’s sacrifice, for example, enabled Law to outlive him and change the future. Toki and Oden’s sacrifices enabled their children and the Nine Red Scabbards to change the future. Queen Otohime, Fisher Tiger, Shimotsuki Yasuie… although these characters died without ever seeing the future they hoped for, their sacrifices are the foundation upon which their successors enact change.

And who do we also see facilitating the changing world, ensuring the “new age” succeeds?

Shanks.

Whenever Shanks reappears in the manga, it is usually on the precipice of a dangerous conflict, or at exactly the perfect moment to intervene in said conflict. Take Shanks visiting Whitebeard, for example; here, he attempts to navigate the growing tension between Ace and Blackbeard, which eventually results in the war at Marineford. Although he fails at convincing Whitebeard to stop Ace’s revenge quest, it’s clear that Shanks has a vested interest in balancing the current forces at play, including marines and pirates.

At Marineford, not only does Shanks intervene to stop the war, but he saves Koby, a member of the new generation who will undoubtedly change the future on the marines' side of things. His words also reflect my point about sacrifice as a foundation for change. As he stops Akainu, he praises Koby for putting his life on the line: “The seconds of courage you bet your life on creating, for good or bad, have just now greatly changed the fate of the world!”

This aspect of his character remains consistent in Film Red, too. Even though he has grown to love Uta as a daughter, Shanks still encourages her to stay behind because her singing brings happiness to a world where "peace and equality don't exist." Afterwards, when Uta causes the massacre on Elegia, Shanks shoulders all the blame, effectively hiding the truth to protect her. He sacrifices his own connection with his daughter for what he believes is the greater good. Note that Shanks’ own personal feelings on that decision are never explored or discussed; obviously, Shanks loved his daughter, and it's safe to assume he didn't want to leave her. But he set aside his own happiness and made the hard choice anyway. (Sound familiar? The "savior complex" alarm bells should be ringing in your head.)

Even as an emperor, Shanks sacrifices his own strength, influence, and reputation. His fleet is “notoriously weak.” The pirates within it even admit that they never would have survived this long without Shanks protecting them. This fleet is another responsibility weighing Shanks down, and yet he takes on that burden anyway for their sake. 

We don’t have the full context behind Shanks’ decision at Loguetown either, but it’s likely that his refusal to go Laughtale right away ties back to responsibility, too. We know whatever Roger said to Shanks the day their crew disbanded rendered him to tears. (Did Roger’s answer to his question change his mind?) We also know he regards Luffy as Roger’s successor, and claims Luffy acts just like he did as a kid. (Shanks "crowning" Luffy with Roger's hat also parallels Shanks' moment with Roger visually, placing them in similar roles.)

Given this, it’s possible that Shanks believed he could take on Roger’s legacy, but later realized he would not be the one to change the world. Roger might have even tasked him with finding the “true” successor, who will “turn the world upside down.” (Shanks’ fixation with the “new age” would also make sense in that case.) This is all speculation, but I thought I’d throw it out there anyway, because if this were true, Shanks would have sacrificed his own dream for the sake of the world. (Very fitting!)

But how does Shanks feel about his role in the bigger picture? The short answer: we don’t know, and I think that’s purposeful. Oda consistently draws Shanks looking wistful and resigned when it comes to his choices; although he has severed relationships and damaged his body, not once has he expressed resentment, anger, or sorrow. In fact, he's usually smiling.

Shanks also has his own monologue where he discusses the act of crying.

If you apply his advice to his own character journey, it raises a lot of questions. Does Shanks view his current sacrificial actions as “overcoming” his own tears from back then? Is that why we so rarely see him cry now? Considering how reserved Shanks is in expressing negative emotions, I think it’s possible. His emotional restraint could also be seen as “saving face” for the sake of others – something I’ve discussed before. That is my own interpretation, though, so take it with a grain of salt. 

Speculation aside, Shanks has shown time and time again that he prioritizes the future over his own life. His dedication to/fixation with the "new age," his role as a mentor, how he believes in putting his life on the line and "overcoming" negative emotions... these indicate a pattern of behaviors seen in those with savior complexes. Even if it's at the cost of his own mental/physical well-being, Shanks plans to facilitate the world as Luffy changes it.

Is the "new age" his dream, or did he sacrifice his real dream for the sake of the new age? Does that dream even matter to him, anymore? The reasoning for Shanks' motives is still unknown, but the answer must lie in whatever mysterious question he asked Roger – otherwise, why hide the context for his massive turnabout at Loguetown? Once the curtain is drawn back on that moment, I think we will begin to see Shanks in a new light.