#naruto manga 679 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

leportraitducadavre · 3 years

Text

I posted 1,212 times in 2021

533 posts created (44%)

679 posts reblogged (56%)

For every post I created, I reblogged 1.3 posts.

I added 587 tags in 2021

#anti konoha - 108 posts

#anti shinobi system - 108 posts

#naruto - 70 posts

#anti naruto - 70 posts

#anti hinata - 44 posts

#anti naruto fandom - 44 posts

#anti naruto uzumaki - 38 posts

#personal - 35 posts

#sasuke - 35 posts

#ino yamanaka - 35 posts

Longest Tag: 130 characters

#kagami - shisui and itachi uchiha are actually pretty good examples of the character of ariel from the tempest in the naruto manga

My Top Posts in 2021

You're pitiful. Name one thing that you have done that Hinata hasn't.

Ugh... I hate when you guys ask questions so tough to answer!

Let's see what I can come up with:

What I have that Hinata hasn't:

Being an actual human-being and not a 2D character.

The respect of my peers who see me on eye-level and don't base that value over pitiness.

Men that are actually romantically interested in me.

What Hinata has that I don't:

Slaves.

161 notes • Posted 2021-07-15 15:10:48 GMT

Female empowerment in the Naruto fandom

This is probably one of the most difficult posts I have made to date yet, not because I’m shy when it comes to discussing these types of things, but because of the emotional and political baggage that this particular topic carries -independently of the Naruto fandom.

There’re so many things to point out in this particular subject that I’m not sure I will even get to cover every aspect of it -and yes, this is an invitation to either debate, or add any element that might be missing, but I will do my best as to convey, respectfully (so I encourage to whoever wants to, to do the same), as much as I can.

If I talk about female empowerment, and while Naruto manga does possess a varied (as varied as a shonen can be expected to have) range of females, there’re two characters that are often tied up with the concept: Haruno Sakura (mostly portrayed as the only feminist lead, whose flaws are explained by misogynist characterizations of the author), and Hyuga Hinata (depicted, particularly by the Sakura fandom, as the idealization of the female figure by the patriarchal vision).

Let’s see how these characters (and their fandoms) interact with the “Female empowerment” concept:

'Female empowerment' is exclusively used for women who excel in a usually male-dominated field

I know this particular point comes with a lot of baggage because to this day the possibility of women (particularly of color) to access/grow in historically masculine fields is almost nil, but still, the glorification of these spheres over those culturally considered feminine presents a problem: There is nothing wrong with giving credit to women who, having an environment against them, develop in a usually masculine space; but then those "masculine spheres" are presented as spaces intrinsically superior to the feminine ones.

There is no questioning about patriarchal norms, rather, certain women are given a superior status over others who fail to shine in those specific fields, or to those who decide to develop in a usually "feminine" environment because, for them, it’s only natural to be good in such spaces (so no recognition is necessary).

In this sense, Tsunade is a better example as far as canon goes: she gets the position of Hokage -the maximum authority of Konoha, after Jiraiya declines to be the leader, and manages to establish her presence as a capable political figure (Konoha’s politics, that is).

However, many fans of Sakura proclaim that she would be a far better option than many male characters who aspire to become Hokage (Naruto, Kiba, even Sasuke) for no really good reason other than because she’s a woman, and that would be -somehow- progressive (reform comes in the aspect of another female Hokage, rather than a political system change). And I get it, watching women acquire positions of power that are usually given to men is always great (the three previous Hokage were males, as were Tsunade's two subsequent successors), but other than her gender, what does Sakura bring to the table?

Female capacities, much like in the patriarchal sense, get solely tied to their gender -but, unlike in the oppressive-male vision where women’s competence is degraded, here her abilities are magnified with no actual logical reason. Sakura knows exactly nothing about how to rule a village, but she’s the female protagonist, hence, she somehow deserves the position.

(No. I do not endure Naruto’s candidacy to become Hokage for the same reasons I won’t endure Sakura’s: They are both equally inadequate to politically manage a village, Naruto only has a far better chance at becoming the leader because he’s physically more powerful than Sakura, but beyond that, they’re similar in their incapacity.)

Feminist role models are women with archetypical male traits.

- And those who possess archetypical female behaviors are less valuable, despite their accomplishments. -

Very tied to the previous point comes this one, which you might notice has been summarized in the title. In this regard, we have the two female characters previously mentioned as models of both ends of the spectrum: Sakura represents the tomboy archetype (people want it to be Tenten, but she doesn’t have enough panels to become a role model at all), while Hinata is the overly-childishly feminine figure.

(I shall clarify this again: this point and the previous one are intrinsically tied to one another, I only divided them to make a more detailed analysis, but we can’t separate the notion of female empowerment being tied to women who excel in culturally male dominated-fields, of the idea of women dressing with “male” features)

Sakura always presented characteristics usually associated with male characters: A strong and rebellious personality, usually aggressive to the point of being capable of physical aggression, and with techniques associated with male heroes, possessing enough female traits to make her desirable to the protagonist (that is, showing concern on how appealing she might be for the men around her, particularly Sasuke).

She becomes the feminist role model par excellence because she detaches herself from the exaggeratedly feminine role to break in into the one usually reserved for the masculine gender, but in using her as a feminist’s standard, we commit -at least- two crimes:

1- We deny the relevance (in the plot and in the feminist movement) of other women who decide not to behave in the culturally associated male-manner.

Yes, I’m particularly speaking of Hinata, who sits at the exact opposite corner of Sakura, but I also include other female characters who are dragged for that very same reason: Ino and Mei, who sit in a comfortable middle (unlike Tenten, Anko, Tsunade, and Temari, who side with Sakura, Kishimoto made a point of doing female characters with strong personalities, it seems). Hinata becomes the enemy: an archetype we should destroy, the type of women we should not defend, who has no voice in the movement.

And while Hinata, particularly, does bring nothing to the discussion, Sakura -surprisingly- does it neither, this is because:

2- We do not question the patriarchal notion of power, rather, we model ourselves (the female characters that represent us) to meet those patriarchal standards, in order to be “rewarded” with some relevance.

And yes, this is absolutely tied to the first point of the post, women who usually excel in culturally male-dominated fields are shown to have also culturally associated male behaviors, that is no coincidence.

Sakura is often believed to be the strongest kunoichi, why exactly? Because she’s the female lead and has massive strength. That's why. Logically, there’s no reason to believe so, her power comes from healing, her strength, and Byakugou no Jutsu (which is a technique that allows her to heal fast, using no seals, but shortens her life span). A person with good speed and/or middle or long-range attacks and a decent chakra pool could be able to take her out -I’m not diminishing her capacities, but she’s particularly blown out of proportion-.

But why am I bringing this up? Sakura uses the type of techniques often portrayed by male heroes: massive strength, and that, for some reason, gives her an advantage in the fandom over other female characters who do not possess such technique.

Hulk, Captain America, Superman (although he does possess other powers, mainstream media loves to show him punching people), etc; all of them considered almost invincibles, share the same technique Sakura possesses: strength, a skill often used to portray male-physical (superior to women) power. We don’t need to go far to find similar examples: Valquiria (Thor Ragnarok) shares a similar tomboy personality and physical strength as Sakura -and she’s on the good side, so, female empowerment.

Physical strength (again, a technique usually associated with men), is then believed to be an almost-impossible-to-overpower technique; and many feminist like to think that the importance of Sakura having it is because she breaks the “only men can be physically strong” rule, but that is false: one, Tsunade is the one who came up with the technique, two, it works by enhancing your strength with chakra, so basically almost everyone can perform it if so they desire, and third, Sakura’s character does not question the patriarchal view in the importance of physical power (associated to men!). She cements it.

Female accomplishments mean nothing without the male's validation

If a woman accomplishes something and there isn’t a man to see it, does the woman really accomplish anything? For as long as I have been here, the female characters in Naruto are tied to the male character’s perspective. That is nothing but blatantly shown when it comes to Sakura and Hinata, whose fans use panels of Naruto (particularly) acknowledging Sakura (and Hinata) feats to either justify their ship, or the character’s growth.

Naruto recognized their capacities, therefore, their talent is a canon fact rather than a biased belief based on the affection Naruto has for them. I am not saying that both Sakura and Hinata’s accomplishments aren’t canon, but that the male’s validation of those accomplishments is far more important (for a large part of the fandom) than them having the actual skill.

Sasuke’s character is often attacked because he refuses to acknowledge Sakura’s skills, therefore, he doesn’t “deserve her”, despite the fact that his lack of recognition does not diminish the ability she has to perform. Even canonically Sakura states this, saddening at the thought that her efforts were “for nothing” (she doesn’t literally express this, but is not a reading difficult to make), because she lacks Sasuke’s expressed congratulations.

Women can’t do any wrong

The flaws that Kishimoto gave his female characters are either brushed aside or solely tied to the misogynistic beliefs of the author, excusing several toxic behaviors by labeling them as examples of “male authors not knowing how to write women”.

I will not deny that Kishimoto, as most male shonen authors, has sexist beliefs and those are reflected in his work, but if you choose to reduce Sakura and Hinata’s characterization as the result of a misogynist mindset, therefore, denying those of any relevance; then their accomplishments as ninjas should suffer the same fate.

Sakura is shown, for a large portion of the manga, as mean spirited: she often punches her male companions (those might be for comical purposes for the most part, but she punched Sai for the sole reason he bad-mouthed Sasuke, had Sai retaliated, he would have been reprimanded, Sakura wasn’t), speaks badly of her female comrades and often denigrates them in order to lift herself up. Her fandom purposefully brushes that behavior aside, excusing it with bad writing, but then my question is, aren’t female characters allowed to be mean?

As feminists, we preach for equal rights and treatment, but when Kishimoto presents us with a flawed female character that escapes the typical female protagonist prototype (the kind girl who follows the main character around), we can’t handle having a female lead that isn’t meant to be universally liked.

Sakura’s behavior (and even Hinata’s, don't think I forgot that she stalked Naruto and brought up Neji’s slave condition during their match) is either excused because she’s a girl or because of Kishimoto’s lack of writing skills. And both perspectives are unjust because Sakura is a decent written character meant to show a girl (and later on a woman), with deep unresolved self-esteem issues and frustrations.

Furthermore, excusing her behavior or diminishing the negative impact that it has on others is to be condescending of a woman’s capacity to cruelty, which is (behold!) a patriarchal belief.

Women are not intrinsically good, there’s a novel called Madame Bovary (that is considered one of the best feminist novels of all times) written by Gustave Flaubert (yes, a man), whose lead character is a woman who’s deeply frustrated with her life (spoiler):

She hates her husband, the church, her child, her gender (and what it implies in society) and seeks to have various affairs. She resents her life so much so, that she ends up committing suicide.

Truth be told, the author did not write her to be liked, but to be an example of what happens to young girls who don’t align with society, and yet, Madame Bovary surpassed the initial role it had: she became a memoir of women’s frustrations, of women’s lengths to cruelty (it's -for what I can remember-, described how Madame Bovary takes pleasure in mistreating her husband, who she hates for his lack of ambition and pride) and how a woman tries to fight an oppressive system.

Madame Bovary, flawed and full of resentfulness that eats her from the inside out, fights against the patriarchal system in a much more impactful way than Sakura does -especially if we destroy the flaws that make her a unique protagonist.

The idea that women need to be always kind perpetuates the belief that, because of our well-spirited nature, we need protection -either physical or mental, and as consequence, our harmful actions shall receive no punishment.

We aren’t fighting against the patriarchal belief, but we are twisting it to our benefit.

If readers do not allow female characters to face the consequences of their own actions, choosing instead to blame another (male) character or the (male) author, then they are denying the female characters their agency: Sakura made the decision to punch Sai, manipulate Naruto’s feelings for her own benefit -whether she considered to be doing it for the greater good does not negate her ulterior motives, and poke fun at Tsunade's age. If we don’t hold her accountable for such actions, then we strip female characters of actual decision-making: therefore, it's not about women making their own choices (they aren't given free will) but forcing them to follow the path we want for them. It's still controlling the female characters to "protect" them.

In that sense, if women can’t be responsible for their decisions, then women can’t be put in positions of power (such as the Hokage’s seat), since those spaces demand whoever occupies them to be responsible for their actions. Hence, if Sakura can’t be held accountable, then she doesn’t deserve to be the leader.

In the same manner, if Hinata is not responsible for her words during the chünin exams or her chosen ignorance on the matter of her clan’s slavery (even after Neji blatantly exposes it for what it is), then she’s definitely not fit to be the clan leader.

And here I'll add: Being accountable for their decisions does not mean forcing them to change things. For instance, in Hinata's case, it means to take a position about whether she endorses or not clan slavery and stick with it, if she knows it's wrong, but still chooses to support it, she'll have to deal with the political and moral consequences. Instead, we're allowing her to exist in a void that spares her from any consequence and gives her no actual political relevance.

Why is Sakura or Hinata not allowed to be flawed? Is it because their characters revolve around men? I have news: not only female characters have that trait. Naruto’s obsession with Sasuke is as enormous as Sakura is (and there’re fans that found it as equally romantic as SS), Gaara’s whole character revolves around obtaining Naruto’s approval/friendship after the chünin exams. Pein never got over Yahiko’s death, as neither did Konan and so on. We are more trained and prepared to see those types of things when it comes to female characters, but Kishimoto distributed fixation traits in equal measures.

As for romantic developments, it’s often that this fandom puts the female characters as the sole victims of the romance dynamics presented in the ending: SS and NH are a testament to how the male characters were trapped in a relationship they never expressed they wanted to be a part of. Furthermore, Sai never canonically expressed during the manga to want to be both in a romantic relationship and with Ino specifically (she did, however, voice interest). So how come we mostly treat romantic interest as coffins for female characters, instead of a two-way street?

Sakura is a character marked by her obsession with a boy, her lack of confidence, jealousy, and frustrations, in that sense, she clashes against the typical notion of a female co-protagonist, who’s brought into the manga by Hinata’s characterization only to be mocked.

Sakura, much like Madame Bovary, carries inside the Narutoverse the idea of an active libido, she’s driven by her awakening sexual desire over Sasuke -and her distaste for Naruto; she goes against the innocent role that the public expects of her, which gives her more depth and feminist relevance than the version the fandom chooses to worship.

(And no, Sakura's character is not groundbreaking either, Kishimoto is not that good of a writer: she does share similarities with other female co-protagonist, like their harsh demeanor. But Sakura is consciously and purposefully mean, while other female characters tend to have 'cruel moments' more in regards to their unconscious abrasive nature).

Hinata however, by being presented as the feminine archetype, does not have actual relevance to the plot while at the same time (pretty literally), lacks a -significant- voice. She’s not even allowed her own defense, which is in exchange carried out by the male protagonist. Whether Kishimoto intended the metaphor or not, that does not change the fact that might be read as such.

Lastly, why are the females’ questionable behaviors reduced to “Kishimoto’s bad writing”, while male behaviors (like Naruto’s rude attitude or Sasuke’s arrogance) are attributed to their character’s personality? Shouldn’t they receive the same defense as their female companions?

“Potential” is often used as a word to replace the fandom’s unfulfilled wish.

The idea that female characters had the “potential” to be great yet Kishimoto undermined them in order to both uplift the male characters and to introduce romance is, at least, debatable. For instance, the idea that Sakura should have gotten over Sasuke not only has no claims in canon (at no point in the manga did Sakura stopped being infatuated with Sasuke, therefore, she getting over him had no actual potential to develop), but also ignores Sakura’s expressed wishes: she made the conscious decision to chase after him.

Both Sasuke and Naruto are people that surpass shinobi standards, even Hashirama and Madara are considered inferior as Asura and Indra reincarnations, so why is Sakura being inferior so hard to accept? Kakashi, another fan favorite, also pales considerably against them, why is Sakura or any female character robbed of their potential, but male characters aren’t?

In that sense, “potential” and women empowerment are less about female characters' expressed desires and more about them choosing the path/romantical partner that the fandom wishes for them to choose.

Kishimoto owes nothing to the fandom.

The last point and the most controversial one: Kishimoto owes nothing to the fandom. He’s a male author that started a manga in 1999, having been raised in Japan under a patriarchal system.

His views on female characters are, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, far more open-minded than many mangas published during the same period. Furthermore, during the time Naruto was being published, Kishimoto allowed the fandom to have a say in many aspects of his creation, thus affecting the final product.

Kishimoto literally gave the public an off the norm female co-protagonist, choosing to show a deeply flawed individual (who does not acknowledge her imperfections, but the plot does it for her), and yet the fandom still is dissatisfied with the result.

Sakura and Hinata are, by no means, my favorite characters at all, but the way he wrote them is a challenge of the norm in itself; I understand that he accomplished little when it comes to appealing female characters (personal beliefs aside), but he gave them enough ground to move on.

The fandom is more focused on having overpowered women (being chased by male characters rather than the other way around), than having morally complex ones, thus, having three-dimensional women is not the actual fandom’s desire, but having prototypical male characters’ traits in feminine designs.

By following that path, we don’t challenge the norm, the notion of power and its patriarchal established significance gets cemented, and our individuality as females is then forced to mutate to reach the masculine standards to get relevance as a reward.

173 notes • Posted 2021-04-16 19:35:04 GMT

On Itachi, his fandom, and moral standpoints

Once again I come back with a meta, unsurprisingly, of Naruto’s manga and, more specifically, about a character in particular, Uchiha Itachi, his fandom and what it entails and represents. My decision to make him the primary focus of this meta is just to bring light (open the door for more in depth debates) of a deeper, much more complicated problem that Itachi represents, but undoubtedly surpasses him and the Naruto manga as a whole.

Be warned, my take on Itachi’s fandom does not contemplate those fans who merely enjoy him but do not negate important parts of his character, if that’s your particular case, then be assured that I did not have you in my mind when writing this. This is about, let’s say, the hardcore fandom he possesses, that justifies (and to some extent, celebrates) his implications in the UCM and blindfold loyalty to Konoha and its system.

How can I even begin to introduce Itachi’s character? What he was supposed to be and what he surprisingly became? How to start to explain his fenomenon? Itachi was not supposed to be good, from his introduction he was a manipulative, dark character that tortured physically and mentally Sasuke and was a threat to Naruto’s (the protagonist) life. At no point during the first part of the manga were we able to see glimpses of a “good” Itachi that the narrative later on tried to establish, and yet, there were three (conected) factors of imperative importance to understand the raise of his character from the first part of the manga to the other.

The first one was, let’s call it, his intrinsecal persona's appeal (and everything it encompases).

Itachi’s not the first cryptic male character that gets favored by a large part of the fandom for that mere trait (look at any shönen or show and see how many characters whose sole trait is to be mysterious becomes the fandom’s favorite), added to the fact that he’s powerful enough to subdue men who’s status of geniuses are often highlighted in the manga (Orochimaru and Kakashi), and his... physical charm, you have a powerful combo to make readers incline more and more on his favor. Itachi had sparked their interest.

There are boxes to fill to attract the public interest to a character, and Itachi filled in all of them.

The Power-Mystery-Beauty triangle is not an unknown formula (Christian Gray, Edward Cullen, to name characters from mainstream, from other manga there is Light, now surprisingly, Dabi) and in every fiction work it has appeared, it worked to lure the (female) public towards it.

But is that enough? For some, yes, for most, Itachi represents something that they desired profoundly, and that’s entirely attached to Sasuke’s character.

Even back in the first part of the manga, Sasuke’s character was received mixedly, there were people who saw his personality as too abrasive (similar to Itachi’s but because Sasuke was supposed to be with the nice guys, this aspect of him clashed rather harshly with his position on the narrative) and considered him a mere emo who believed himself to be better than Naruto and Sakura (he was, but he also acknowledged this fact, which make some readers disapprove of him even more).

Itachi challenged that “so-called” superiority, additionally downgrading and humiliating him in a way readers felt he, to some extent, deserved. The dislike of part of the fandom of Sasuke’s character found a way of purchase inside the manga. Naruto wasn’t strong enough (and eventually cared too much) to subdue Sasuke, Sakura was too in awe with him to “stand up against him”, Kakashi saw his greatness and taught him powerful jutsus while paying zero attention to his other students. Until Itachi, no other character seemed to put Sasuke “in his place”, because even the villains of each arc seemed particularly obsessed with Sasuke and Sasuke only, elevating even more his importance and status and sidelining Naruto and (of course), Sakura, who were left with mere participations in what seemed a Sasuke-focused plot. Up at this point, Sasuke was far more important than the actual protagonist of the manga but Itachi, who was actually Sasuke’s goal, who was actually the person Sasuke aspired to surpass, abused him, manipulated him and -more importantly- seemed more focused on getting Naruto -hence, retribution: the only person Sasuke seemed to care about didn’t seem care about him at all.

Itachi’s coolness, strength and mature handsomeness (that Sasuke did not present until Shippuden, but Itachi was literally introduced with), plus the dislike of Sasuke’s character and the belief that he needed to be rectified, the reason of which will be brought up next, appealed the teenage fandom in a way strong enough to catapult him inside the popularity polls just right after his presentation.

The Self-inserts inside Itachi’s fandom

As I introduced, a large part of the fandom back in the first part already, and in Shippuden particularly, had a deep dislike of Sasuke’s character and wanted him to suffer -to be beaten, to be “owned”, Itachi’s character fulfilled that wish, which takes me to the second factor.

You can’t explain this point in particular without adding the “self-insert” and “reader-insert” notions that often gets attached to Itachi (Sakura, Naruto and Hinata) fans,

“Self-insertion is a practice by authors of writing themselves into their own stories, either explicitly or in thinly-disguised form; in a fannish context this most often means fan writers writing themselves into their favorite source material so that they can interact with canon or its characters” (X)

Whilst

“Reader-Insert is a type of fanfiction, almost always written in 2nd person Point of View; the protagonist is always the reader, and is usually paired with one of the canon characters. "Reader-insert" typically has a hyphen hyphen, but is also known as Canon X Reader (sometimes CanonXReader).” (X)

In this particular case, many readers had succumbed to something slightly in between. The manga doesn’t belong to them, so the only one in position to literally self-insert is Kishimoto (canonically), so they are left with the option of attaching themselves personally to a pre-existed character with whom they feel somewhat represented. If not, then at least they attach emotionally to a character because it represents what they desire (this can be more observed in the shipping part of the fandom). Meaning, they use a canon established character that is not literally the reader, but who clearly represents them or represents what they want in their significant (romantical) other.

Sakura was the only female lead who had a crush on the cool guy, readers (particular female ones) didn’t need much to feel a connection with her (during the first part, Kishimoto didn’t even give them much to do so, but they still attached to her with the prospect of what she might become), while Naruto was the dead last, it appealed to those who also felt that they weren’t popular or were mistreated by their peers.

But what the self-inserts of Sakura or even Naruto had to do with the increasing love for Itachi?

To explain this in a way that can be understandable: Sakura fans who believed Sasuke disrespected her when not acknowledging her feelings or when downgrading her skills often turned their attention to the man of similar physique and strength to fulfill their fantasies of reciprocation -because canonically, Itachi had neither rejected, nor downgraded her character. In the same fashion, Naruto fans who believe Sasuke is egotistical by not caring for/acknowledging Naruto in the same manner he does (hence, not deserving him), tend to also indulge in the same type of behavior previously mentioned.

Later on, when the narrative introduces the idea that Itachi stands alongside Konoha (Naruto and Sakura), thus, against Sasuke (from an idealistic standpoint), this particular practice deepens, grows. They feel validated on their idea that Itachi will treat their favorite character (them) better, while at the same time punishing Sasuke for rejecting them.

There are not many cases of Itachi self-inserts, I’m not denying their existence however because he did fulfilled a wish many readers had (against Sasuke), but Itachi’s self-insert part of the fandom seems to be more in terms of female character fans that desire their favorite kunoichi to be loved/desired/respected? by a powerful, handsome, mysterious character.

Sasuke’s importance in the narrative (and character growth)

Sasuke escaping Konoha to get to Orochimaru, train, and become strong enough to defeat Itachi and avenge his clan won’t hold up for the four hundred or so chapters Naruto Shippuden lasts. After Itachi’s defeat at his hands, Sasuke had no reason not to return to Konoha, more importantly, he had no reason to fight Naruto as it was the intention and ultimate and most important clash in the manga since the introduction of their rivalry.

Sasuke’s growth as a character (that I spoke more detailed in this post) was tied to the introduction of a deeper, more important problem: Konoha’s involvement in the UCM. It wasn’t new in Naruto to present the dichotomy and harsh truths of the shinobi system (Hyuga clan, Haku, Jinchurikis), and the intervention of Konoha’s government in the massacre of the Uchiha clan provided the narrative with a reason to have both Sasuke and Naruto fighting in different sides of the battlefield, but also presented a deeper problem: Itachi couldn’t be bad.

He couldn’t stand in the “bad” side of the field because both, that would put Naruto (the hero) in the same morally bad position, and Itachi's fandom (which was massive), was eager for redemption, they demanded it, and Naruto is not a manga that doesn’t get influenced by what its purchasers want. In consequence, they needed to justify Itachi’s actions. We can talk about how abysmally bad they did it, we can talk about how much better this problem could have been sorted out, but that is not the core of this post.

Kishimoto loved Sasuke, I have said this before, despite the fandom wishes, he stood his ground when it came to Sasuke and his revolutionary position until the very end. Maintaining that ideal as just, put Naruto (hence, Itachi) in the wrong. But because the narrative needed Naruto to be good and in the right, he ended up justifying genocide by justifying Itachi.

Consequently, and with the appeal he earned with his introduction and the Sasuke-hate (self-inserts), Itachi became a favorite character amongst favorite characters despite being a plot holes with legs. Readers eagerly consumed whatever panel proved that Itachi was not the bad guy he was previously believed to be. (proved or at least didn’t show, Itachi still commited genocide, but we don’t get to see such attrocities so its easier to forget he slaughtered innocent people, children amongst them). Readers who liked him were desperate for the narrative’s validation.

Core of the issue

Which brings me to the core of the post and in retrospection, I have already presented it: moral standpoints. This is not new, I’m not introducing any new idea, and this is hardly something that happens solely in the Naruto’s (and most specifically Itachi’s) fandom. Liking or not a character is tied to so many subjective variables that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what makes a character desirable or despicable despite solid traits being commonly shared on particular troups. And yet, liking or not a character became a moral standpoint for which people judged each other on a personal level. It has happened since always, but the internet did nothing but make more accessible and public this type of clashes. Therefore, Redemption Arcs became the most precious gem inside fictional works and Naruto fell for it, and fell hard.

It’s almost mandatory to have the narrative’s validation in order to enjoy a character freely and Naruto provided it to Itachi’s fandom. His actions were justified by the manga and the most important (and beloved) characters stood by his side, even those who were victims of him forgave his actions because there was someone (with less appeal and more morally questionable actions under his belt) to blame further. Having the narrative’s moral validation is more important than actually being in the right.

Itachi was manipulated by the Will of Fire who he learned from Hiruzen who was passed to him by Tobirama who created it because he was raised during the Warring States Period, so his apprehension to the Uchiha was justified. It’s a train of justifications that ultimately holds no one responsible for the genocide of an entire clan/race which then becomes something bound to happen. So to save face, they use an escape goat: Danzo and the Curse of Hatred. They put the blame of the massacre to a single character and the actual victims because, well, they were genetically prone to disaster and killing them was the only way to ensure (temporary) peace.

Liking a character doesn’t automatically mean condoning its actions but because that subjective appeal became more and more the reflection of the reader’s ideals (for some reason I’m not here to trace), those two actions merged, which translated consequently into demanding the narrative’s validation of our tastes. There’s no denial of the pleasing sensation that comes with having the plot’s endorsement for liking a complex/morally gray or even dark character, but that approval turned to be the most important/valuable requirement, which, in turn, made readers justificate (supported by the narrative) despicable actions, such as genocide.

Let’s go back to the second bullet point, self- inserts, as to discern more in depth their reasons to look for a justification on Itachi’s character: Itachi (an Uchiha that was not affected by the Curse, as his peers were) who the narrative proclaims wanted his brother’s safety and happiness above all things, stands morally with Konoha (hence, the readers’ favorite character). Therefore, justifying his actions is justifying Sakura and Naruto’s actions against Sasuke (manipulation is alright because Itachi did it, trying to kill Sasuke because he didn’t want to bend to their will is alright because Itachi did it), it gives them reasons to believe that they are on the right side of the battlefield, it gives them moral superiority. They’re in the right, they are good people, Sasuke was too deep in his hatred to either see it or correspond their feelings and that’s why he needs to be saved, and who more appropriate to do so than the two characters that were mocked by him during the first part of the manga? Even in the end, Itachi still gives them the retribution they still feel deserve and that Sasuke -still- didn’t give.

176 notes • Posted 2021-01-25 22:36:24 GMT

How Sasuke and Obito surpassed their role in the manga

My proclamations of how Sasuke is the best-written character of the show and how Obito comes in second place for his characterization are not freshly introduced things in this blog, so the idea of Sasuke overgrowing his initial role in the manga should not be new to those followers who are used to my beliefs.

Sasuke was introduced to be Naruto’s goal and rival, the representation of everything Naruto was not but tried to be, his wall to climb and surpass. Sasuke was introduced to be the representation of individuality while Naruto supported himself in a communal view, in doing so, their ideologies clashed.

Naruto followed the Will of Fire, which consists of a learned, supreme ideology that was about enduring the hardships of the shinobi system (but together!) that up until then proved to be successful in producing peacetime lapses. Whilst Sasuke was under the Curse of Hatred, a genetically inherited ideology (which affected only Uchiha) that was about caring more for people than the system itself; which pushed Sasuke to look for a structural change in the system that segregated, and ultimately killed his clan.

However, it appears that the Curse of Hatred that forces Uchiha to be genetically predisposed to revolution does not inherently affect all of the Uchiha, since Kagami, Shisui and Itachi were Will of Fire extremists, so the gene might skip a few babies or can be tamed. Or… does this mean that the so-called “curse of hatred” that Tobirama introduced is nothing but the genuine interest of an oppressed group to change an oppressive system that has not evolved since the Warring States Era? The narrative continues to try to push down this idea, forcing the concept that, no, the Uchiha are genetically bad, which creates a paradox.

Sasuke’s chosen path is often shown in a negative light when highlighting Sasuke’s “loneliness” (because bad guys are always alone!), completely ignoring the reason for such solitude. A Will of Fire extremist, his own brother, both killed his entire family and manipulated him to believe that he should not and could not surround himself with people he cared for, because those bonds will ultimately weaken his resolve to seek justice and the achievement of power he needed in order to defeat him. And even then, Sasuke did form a group with people with similar backgrounds as his, and whilst he did attack Karin, it was less to do with his genetic disposition to be bad, and more to do with a mental breakdown in the face of one of the responsible for Itachi’s sacrifice and the Uchiha clan’s massacre.

Naruto, far away from giving him emotional support as he needed, acknowledges Sasuke’s tragedy but refuses to bring those responsible to justice. Characters that the narrative states over and over again want only Sasuke’s happiness, alienate him until he’s ready not to compromise, but to bend to their will. Sasuke is an emotionally compromised man and was manipulated by his peers to return and pledge loyalty to a village that had betrayed him since before his birth. Let’s think for a moment, what would have happened if Naruto told Sasuke “let’s not fight, I’ll help you put the elders on trial so something like the UCM won’t happen again,” instead of screaming at him for solid 698 chapters while attacking him with his Rasengan?

Everything that the narrative tried to introduce found its clash on Sasuke’s character and what he represented. The notion that he depicted individuality became paradoxical when his goal was to equalize both sides of the scale to fix power imbalance and force the villages to focus on him, fear him, and unite. Naruto’s goal (reach peace through dialogue with the other Kages to set aside their differences and unite) did not contemplate smaller villages and did absolutely nothing against power imbalance. Adding to this, it also leaves aside internal village issues that could lead to another situation like the UCM= A minority group that seeks change in the political structure of its village in order to counteract the oppression they’re under could mean a significant change in the bureaucratic relationship of the village with other nations, which might represent a danger high enough for those in power to believe that massacring them is the right course of action. In short: Naruto only presents a solution about villages’ relationship with each other, not about the structural internal system that allows villages to use and discriminate against minorities inside them.

Sasuke’s solution might seem individualistic because he intrinsically is focusing the solution on himself, while Naruto presents a solution where all the Kages work together. But Sasuke’s goal is not about him individually or the five nations, in particular, is about society, is about minorities, is about communities. Is about destroying the old system and force the shinobi world to built itself anew without bijuus who put particular nations on top of others.

Sasuke was supposed to be the redeemable antagonist saved by Naruto, he was not supposed to become the face of the oppressed, he was not supposed to present the narrative with so many counterarguments. He excelled, surpassed, overgrew his role and importance in the plot, he was not supposed to question Naruto’s hero status, he was not supposed to throw light on Konoha’s (and shinobi villages in general) corrupt and prejudiced pillars.

It was a Shonen manga but Sasuke shattered the simplicity of a plot aimed at teenagers. He presented a problem because there were readers who questioned his antagonist/villainous status, so the narrative had to remind fans that the manga was about Naruto and his (correct) views.

Hence, Uchiha were genetically bad, Tobirama had scientific evidence (that was never shown, but he was a scientist so it should be enough to appease detractors) to back it up. His dislike for the Uchiha clan was justified, his politics to segregate them were a mere precaution to prevent another “Madara” from rising, Madara, who left the village by himself because every Uchiha in Konoha rejected him. The isolation Tobirama claimed to be a safety measure was what ultimately turned the Uchiha against Konoha and Tobirama’s views, he helped no one, he brought Konoha its own “demise”, and yet, the narrative tries to justify and save the Nidaime. Some fans even fell for it.

Tobirama’s political views and ideals are for a different post altogether but it does not come as a surprise that I believe them to be complete nonsense. There are plenty of lengthy posts about how his principles were ruled by his own bias and the point escapes completely the main objective of this particular post. Regardless, I can’t talk about Sasuke and what he represents without making a connection between the Uchiha’s segregation by Konoha’s elders and Kages, their attempt to coup, the UCM, and Tobirama’s policies.

The manga constantly explained and reminded people why they should stand by Naruto, but as time passes, Naruto and the Will of Fire are more and more questioned, while Sasuke and the Curse of Hatred get more supporters. As time passes, Sasuke fandom still exists, still is relevant, and the more relevant equal rights movements become, the more Sasuke fandom grows.

I’m not here to say that Sasuke’s characterization was perfect, I’m not saying everything he did was correct, I’m stating that he surpassed what he was supposed to be because he represents a still present and relevant problem that exceeds a shonen manga and jumps into reality. Segregated and minority groups are more willing to see Sasuke’s perspective of the issue because it resounds on them.

Obito was, while not Sasuke, not much different in the sense that he surpassed what he was supposed to be and represent. A flat, simple (common) way of reading him is to merely label him as a simp who started a war because his crush died, some other (more extremist) fans because his feelings were not reciprocated. For them, his goal is vengeance against Konoha, Minato, and Kakashi, nothing more and nothing less. But Obito begs to differ, more than once telling characters that he cares not for revenge, that he cares not for who lives or who dies, this world (the real world) will exist no more once his plan is through, he will create a genjutsu world were all the Uchiha (who he killed alongside Itachi for his plan, not because a personal grudge) are alive, where Rin (and even Kakashi) live happy, where there’s long everlasting peace.

His character is flowy, there’s no other word as good as this to describe him. He’s duality, he’s change, flow: Tobi who is Madara who is Obito. Part of the Uchiha clan, then beyond, the Ten-Tails Jinchuriki. One of his Sharingan is on one side of the battle while the other fights alongside Kakashi, reading Obito flatly is a disrespect to Kishimoto’s marvelous work.

His plan was not to simply avenge Rin, or even revive her -he could have done that with the Edo-Tensei technique, but he did not, and people who claim him to be a simp often forget this detail: when he looked for Kabuto’s assistance, he never asked to revive the girl he was in love with-. He understood that Konoha had used her, manipulated her to put it above her own life, he understood that they were seen as tools and that there was a system that, while in place, would never allow ever-lasting peace to exist.

The system was subjected to people’s desires, Obito was not foreign to what people’s ambitions entailed or meant to others (Rin and Jinchurikis were an example, but also was the UCM and Tobirama’s policies that lead to it), so he wanted a complete change, and because he couldn’t trust people, he wanted to force his will through a genjutsu. Kisame was the only member of Akatsuki who understood and believed in Obito’s views (and he did so while believing he was Madara, Obito was that dual. He told Kisame the truth while everything about him was a lie!), that’s why he sacrificed himself before Konoha could get information through him. He did not do it for Itachi, he did it for Obito/Madara.

And while I’m on it, let’s talk a little bit about MadaTobi (not in the sense of the ship, but Obito’s representation of Madara). Obito chooses to perform Madara not as he actually was -there’s not enough evidence to support Madara was exactly as Obito performed him-, but as people (Konoha) thought he was. He lied to Itachi and told him he would help him kill the clan because he hated them for turning against him, and that was possible for him to pretend because Konoha had fed that conception of him to its citizens.

Madara’s name instilled respect and fear and Obito, knowing this, chose to run with it and encourage that perception to manipulate people into doing his will. Loyalty and control are two notions of great importance tied to Obito’s character, his time on Akatsuki and the weight he put on Pein’s betrayal is a great example of the first one while his allowance of Kakashi to pierce through his heart to become the Ten-Tails’ Jinchuriki to be the one commanding the Tsukuyomi, of the second one.

Obito escaped what he should have been, he was supposed to be an antagonist who represented what Naruto could have become if he kept following his hatred (?) instead of a more peaceful way out. Obito was everything Naruto was: an outcast who saw a prodigy and made him his rival and had a crush on the girl on his team (this is not about Sakura/Rin parallels, but Obito and Naruto). But Obito left behind those parts of him that attached him to his initial role. He outgrew the idea of simply being what Naruto “could” have become, his Tsukuyomi was not fuelled by hatred or resentment as the narrative seems to push to some extent (and some fans ate up) in order to make him a parallel to dark-naruto. It evolved by the growth of his ideals and a pronounced disappointment in people’s actions and true intentions. He trusted no one but himself, Kisame was the only person he regarded as “close” in Akatsuki, and that was because he was loyal to him and his plan, he was the only one who knew the truth about Tsukuyomi, and yet he did not trust him enough to tell him his true name.

And even then, I keep thinking about where the Curse of Hatred is inside Obito, he was more than willing to go back to Konoha and leave Madara until he saw Rin die at the hands of Kakashi. Up to this point, every Uchiha that looked for a structural change seems to have been triggered by a huge loss at the hands of a Will of Fire extremist.

Madara abandoned Konoha because he knew Tobirama’s bias will be his clan downfall, Obito looked to control the world through Tsukuyomi because of Rin’s sacrifice at the hands of Kakashi (whether Rin was kidnapped thanks to Madara’s plan does not erase the fact that she sacrificed herself to “save” her village), the Uchiha clan wanted to coup because the discrimination it suffered at the hands of the government and Sasuke sought revolution because Itachi massacred his clan by both orders and his own ideals. Every single one of the Uchiha’s actions can be linked to the Will of Fire since its conception, without Will of Fire, there will be no Curse of Hatred because the second one can’t exist without the first one.

But, while the Curse of Hatred, which encompasses the responses of the Uchiha against Tobirama’s policies is looked down upon, the Will of Fire, that provoked such actions, is celebrated.

We can say that Obito committed alongside Itachi the UCM and that’s a more than valid reason to dislike him, but his resolution to doing so was because whatever happened in the real world could be deleted in the Tsukuyomi. His duality and flowness (yes, I’m definitely keeping that word), forced the narrative to keep up with his actions and come up with a counterargument that many times was full of plot holes, it forced the reader to -not condone him, but to understand where did he come from.

Like Sasuke, there’s so much duality in fans’ perception of him because he makes us uncomfortable, it forced the reader to face reality: Konoha is in the wrong, the narrative wants to save us from the headache by trying to present the Uchiha as the genetically bad ones, but it fails miserably when it gives them reasons to rebel over and over again.

Obito does not deserve redemption (Sasuke doesn’t need one, period), his involvement in the UCM and the killing of hundreds of people to achieve his goal are despicable actions and he should be accountable for them. His final sacrifice to save Naruto, Sasuke, Kakashi, and the whole world from Madara and later on Kaguya doesn’t erase his crimes. Sasuke, on the other hand, never killed anyone but Danzo, Deidara (this is up for debate because he did kill himself to defeat him, so it wasn’t exactly by his hand), Itachi and I believe a samurai in the Land of Iron while trying to get to the Kage Meeting.

Kishimoto was careful to not present him as a bloodthirsty man during Shippuden, so why is the narrative later on so intently focused into picture him as genetically predisposed to chaos? Because he was shaking the foundations that sustained Naruto’s status as a hero, how can the protagonist be the saver of a village that committed genocide? That will make him an accomplice of such atrocity! So they were forced to introduce the idea of the Uchiha being in the wrong, but Sasuke still presented counterarguments to that statement, Kishimoto couldn’t erase his creation.

You can tell the way Kishimoto enjoys and loves to write both Sasuke and Obito because every time you think the narrative has succeeded to take down their beliefs or ideals, they come back full force until they are compelled to be defeated by Naruto. And that’s why they surpassed their initial role.

197 notes • Posted 2021-01-23 00:22:41 GMT

I don’t mind mentor who have past failures and mistakes, but Jiraiya’s failures are pretty unforgivable in my opinion. Add to fact they where ulimately caused by his highly selfish nature.

Let’s start a list:

He abandoned three orphans (for which he decided to be responsible for) after he taught them what he considered “enough” for them to survive.

Abandoned his newborn godson to chase Orochimaru -because he still had that imbecile hero complex-.

Threatened Tsunade and forced her to go back to the village.

Failed to tell Naruto who his parents were even after three years living together (Naruto already was in danger because he was being haunted by Akatsuki, and he was already protecting him, why wouldn’t he tell Naruto who was his father and mother? What’s the reasoning behind it? Naruto couldn’t be in more danger than he already was by knowing his identity!).

Assured two different children that they were the future heroes of the world because a frog-prophecy told him he will teach the World Savior, forcing then his narrative into two different people that acted by that premise.

I’ll reiterate: He abandoned the two children he was sure were the future world saviors.

Didn’t die painfully enough.

Feel free to add.

237 notes • Posted 2021-03-04 14:00:35 GMT

Get your Tumblr 2021 Year in Review →

#my 2021 tumblr year in review #your tumblr year in review #can't believe my number one post is a shitty list I did about Jiraiya

9 notes · View notes