#complex language

autism cure research, generally not coming from point of, those with it wanting to improve life this way. but more so—people around them believe it what they want it what they need it improve life, and, uncured autism seen as … difficult for people around them, expensive for government to provide services, take up resources in medical places, etc.

majority autistic people *in actually autistic community, who understand this topic, & can talk about their opinion* don’t want whole cure

there not-small-group of autistic people who cannot reliably tell you what they think about this, or in way that easily understood (can’t communicate, can’t understand, etc). they need be remembered in this conversation (& arguably centered… bc they gonna be more affected. see below)

having said that. there exist autistic people of all types who would want cure for own autism. out of those have seen myself, majority of them [high support needs / nonverbal or level 2/3 or diagnosed severe or significant symptoms of some sort] whose life extremely different from peers because of it (& like majority of their problem not caused by “society” & won’t disappear if society & capitalism not exist anymore). it how they feel about their own autism, n feel counterproductive in “educating” them about their own (clearly personal and upset) feeling about what they want do with own disorder, especially since they not funding cure research or whatever. but—

autism, developmental disability that start in childhood, famous for be the “be treated as can understand and make own decisions” and “have autonomy respected” and “not ever forced coerced do anything” and “not force abusive therapy to make them appear ‘normal’ ” disorder. (sarcasm) — don’t really believe we as society are at place where we would actually respect “only for people who want it. won’t force it on people who not want it”.

aka. if cure is post-natal, AKA happen after birth… they will directly or indirectly force cure on autistic people

force post-natal autism cure will disproportionately impact those who… higher support needs, diagnosed level 2/3, diagnosed moderate severe, diagnosed low functioning, diagnosed comorbid intellectual disability or global developmental delay, diagnosed comorbid genetic developmental disability, nonverbal… diagnosed children, in conservatorship, ward of state, in prison, generally not fully legally allowed have final say in decision making… visibly autistic, have/said to have severe behavioral issues, BIPOC especially Black people… (incomplete list)

which. not to say autistic people who not any of these won’t be affected at all. because will. but as a whole, people on that list as a collective group, will be more impacted, more coerced, more forced, even won’t be given choice, to take cure (maybe won’t even be told was given cure), over people not on that list as a whole.

am going emphasize that autism is developmental disorder that start in childhood & children get diagnosed with it & children legally not final say in make decision & children very easily talked into agreeing without full informed decision & those diagnosed as children more likely be [higher support needs / nonverbal / more significant symptoms] (EDIT: at time of diagnosis) because those most noticeable earliest + global developmental delay then catch up later on happens (to vastly simply it to a fault, quoting someone, “no shit they high support needs, they children.”)

can also see welfare slowly not covering uncured autistic people, insurance decrease / deny / make harder coverage for autism related services other than cure, schools & esp special education less support for autism, etc. general official resources for autism decreasing (which. not much to begin with even pre-cure), which again impact all autistic people but especially list above… oh and poor people. can also see stuck in limbo of “will not get support & welfare if uncured autistic, but no money to cure” because this shit will be expensive

when this much at stake (aka if there no resource for keep be autistic, n resources locked away only able get after cure), when big percentage of autistic people cannot reliably show informed consent in some way (cannot reliably communicate, cannot reliably show they understand, or literally not allowed have decision capacity legally, etc)… if an autistic person say yes they agree. actual willing yes? not coerced? not misled? not forced into it?

autism & autistic people (& by extension, care people they depend on) don’t have enough support to begin with. in this current reality without cure lol. can we focus on that too pour as much money in that too — let’s not talk autism’s inherent quality of life until you give all autistic people as much care as they need & for it be freely n easily available

don’t really think current science have enough tech & resource cure autism like this. autism is complex disorder with complex sources & hard to say if current what called “autism” based on behaviors & internal reported symptom not actually group of different disorders.

if cure pre-natal (e.g genetic identification & abortion. anti choice unkindly DNI) - see: down syndrome

however: finding genetic cause =/= cure. find genetic cause can easily lead to find cure research. but should be clear that they not equal to eachother, not automatic mean eachother.

um. missing many things probably

TL;DR. don’t think right now society at place where… have widespread enough, nuanced enough, critical enough, & enough awareness/acceptance/understanding of ALL autism (and disability as a whole).

enough support for autistic people for autism-related needs & general needs (financial, food, etc).

world where autistic people who can make own decisions about self actual able make own decision about self, & world where autistic people who genuinely can’t (for now or ever) actually protected from harm

and honestly don’t think we have enough scientific and medical advancement/knowledge/ability

etc

to actually make sure this won’t go haywire

.

idk if anyone can follow this

autism issue is disability justice is cross-movement justice. autism issue depends on liberation of so many groups of people (like welfare reform, prison reform) 👍

Out of the three Black men in the Revenge, Oluwande is the only one who has a real name. He's also the only one who has a last name (Boodhari). That, paired with the fact that he seems utterly unused to experiencing racism (his shock at the french person's comment during the party) and the fact that he's the darkest-skinned one out of the three, makes me think that Oluwande probably came from a relatively safe Black community. Maybe a quilombo or maybe he's African and from a tribe that hadn't been torn to shreds before he was born. Either way, Oluwande comes from a place where he's fully human; he has a last name, he has a real name. He knows what it's like to live relatively unaware of how much white people hate him

(Which is then, of course, lost; and because he didn't grow up in that environment, and because he is so dark-skinned, he is the most vulnerable one now, and the one who, in the eyes of white people, needs to be put in his place the most. I want to make it very clear that I'm not trying to imply Oluwande is privileged here; but he is in a unique position as a person of color, especially in that time, and that comparison makes the violence the other two went through even more visible)

Compare that to Roach. Roach as a name is so utterly horrifying, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth every time I talk about him. Which I think is absolutely intentional. It's racism in its purest form, and you have to be uncomfortable about it. You can't talk about Roach without thinking, to some level, about the horrors of racism and colonization

And also... Roach doesn't have a last name

This, of course, tracks down historically - enslaved people were denied their last names. And having no last name while living in the Western world is having no history, no family, no origin. It's being denied community and family and culture and richness. Someone without a last name is alone in Western society. And someone named Roach and only Roach... Well, they're nothing. From the moment Roach was born, as a dark-skinned Black man who definitely came from a colonized environment, he was put in his place as less-than

And then you have Frenchie. Frenchie was named after the people who colonized his people, and that is fucking awful. Especially considering that Frenchie also doesn't have a last name. So no connection to his own history or culture; all that's left is the culture that hates him. Frenchie was born to be assimilated: forget your culture, forget your roots, spend your whole life trying to be like your colonizer

Except, of course, you'll never actually be accepted by them. He's not a Frenchman. He's Frenchie. It's derisive, it's scornful. Forget who you are, but don't forget that you're also not really one of us. Embrace us, but remember, we won't embrace you

(And if you've studied French colonial history - or read Black Skin, White Masks by Frantz Fanon - you know that the fact that he's named after France absolutely cannot be a coincidence. That was the modus operandi of French colonialism down to the bone. Give your colonized French status, force them to trade their culture for yours, assimilate them in such a way that they might actually believe they are indeed Frenchmen; but never see their lives as equal or them as real Frenchmen)

So, Frenchie's name is a tragedy and also leaves a horrible taste of colonialism, of culture denial, of assimilationism in my mouth. It reminds me of my own grandfather being taken away from his people and taking years to even find out the name of his tribe; it's horrible, and painful in a way that's hard to even put into words

At the same time, he's not Roach

Because Frenchie is also too light-skinned to be anything that isn't mixed, and so his name doubles - it's about colonialism and assimilationism, yes, but it's also being closer to being acceptable to white society. Frenchie can be a Frenchman, kinda; there is some space for him, if he forever accepts the abuse and violence that comes with not being white in that environment. Roach isn't even offered this choice; his skin is not light enough for him to be human in the colonizer's eyes. He could never be seen as even on the vicinity of French men. To them, he's just a roach

It's a good balance, I think, of tackling the privilege of light skin versus the horrible lack of belonging and the fact that said privilege is born out of violence that's carved on your skin into the bone. A commentary made even better by the presence of Oluwande, reminding us that the best thing to be is neither Roach nor Frenchie - the best thing to be is Oluwande Boodhari, a full person, with a real name, with a family and history and a sense of belonging; and who's not used to being treated as lesser than. And in that, OFMD also reminds us to have solidarity, and to not aim for crumbs of acceptance, but for the whole thing

(In this setting, Oluwande feels almost like a fantasy. Being whole, being unused to violence, having history and pride as a person of color. Which again, is not to say he's privileged, because as the darkest-skinned one he's the biggest target. But there's something... Just amazing about seeing this man be so whole despite that)

Unless I make it clear that I don't like something and that a post is negative, you can always assume that my posts are neutral to positive. I mean what I say unless stated otherwise. I'll make it clear when I'm sarcastic or joking. Tone tags like /nf (no force), etc. confuse me because usually it wouldn't even have occurred to me that someone could have felt forced by it. I take things literally and mean things literally. If I don't, I'll make that clear ☝🏼

FAQ:

Frequently Asked Questions (medical and personal)

I don't understand AAC users, please help

Autism levels, support needs, severity, and terminology:

What's the difference between nonverbal and nonspeaking?

"Master-master post" about autism and terminology

Archive:

Words for when you suddenly can't speak anymore (based on suggestions; list is closed now)

What is receptive language disorder?

Why people still talk about "severity" in autism (double link)

Nonverbal/nonspeaking masterpost

Communication with autistics who are nonverbal "from birth"

Functional communication doesn't mean that you are able to self advocate

Support Needs and Support Levels masterpost

What trying to reclaim the R slur when you don't have ID implies (the reblog)

The disability stall discourse

I use "severe" as a self-descriptor because that's what I was diagnosed with and therefore that's what people always refer to me as. I use it to indicate that my symptoms are different from most autistics on Tumblr and that I probably can't relate to most "extremely relatable autism posts" on here. I would never(!) force a label on someone, it's solely for myself.

You'll find my tag system and other things under the cut:

And then Ram uses the holy thread to capture him

The levels of betrayal happening there. The levels of everything really. Like

Removing the holy thread did bring him misfortune. Not even in a metaphorical way, but in quite a literal way. If he hadn't given his holy thread to Raju, Raju would have had nothing to hold Bheem down with. The reason he failed, the reason he ended up arrested and tortured, the reason all of that shit happened, was literally that he took off the holy thread.

The obvious part. Bheem uses the holy thread to save Ram, and then Ram uses it to trap him. The fact that he gave it to Ram at all was a sign of his devotion, of his love, and then Ram took it and twisted it into pain. It's not just that Ram is turning on Bheem; Ram is weaponizing Bheem's love for him ("love" doesn't necessarily mean romantic love here btw, look at it the way you wanna look at it). He isn't just forsaking their bond, he's using it against Bheem.

In many ways, Bheem giving Ram his holy thread is a representation of his trust in him. The thread, deep down, represents his true self. It is through it that Ram learns who Bheem really is, even before Bheem tells it to him. And the holy thread is, by its own definition, a symbol of their faith. When he puts it around Ram's neck, he is quite literally placing his faith on him. Bheem giving Ram the thread is Bheem confessing who he truly is to Ram, it is him saying that he trusts Ram completely, intrinsecally. And then Ram snaps the thread, which is quite literally breaking his trust, and uses it to hold Bheem back. To keep him from fulfilling this purpose, that he entrusted Ram to know.

And on top of it being literally breaking his trust, it is also literally showing Bheem that he misplaced it. He put his faith on Ram, and the fact that it was with him was what led to Bheem's downfall, because again, if Raju didn't have the holy thread, he wouldn't have been able to stop Bheem

(So we're circling back to the first point. In both the religious and the symbolic sense, taking off the holy thread, trusting Ram, was the cause of his misfortune)

The fact that taking off the holy thread specifically brings misfortune means that, by taking it off, Bheem was, once again in a literal sense, making himself vulnerable for Ram. He was not only losing a layer of protection, he was putting a target on his back (attracting misfortune). So, again, the holy thread materializes the vulnerability that we already know Bheem is showing by telling him his secret. It brings all the symbolic, intanginble parts of their bond and the subsequent betrayal, and turns them literal, physical

I'm sorry to even put that thought into the world but. Once snapped, the thread looks like a whip, and Ram wields it like a whip when he uses it to capture Bheem

In short, the holy thread is a physical manifestation of everything that is happening in that part of the movie. It kicks off this particular segment of the story (Ram learns who Bheem is) and it is intrinsecally linked with everything that follows that reveal. Up to and including its foreshadowing of what will bring its end: the whip, which will lead to Ram deciding to help Bheem again

Like every adaptation is also inherently a thesis on the source material since the question "how can we express this in a different medium" cannot be answered without knowing what the original material is supposed to express in the first place. Or at least what it should express depending on how much they change it, but Death Note The Musical is a very faithful adaptation and follows the original almost step by step except for the fact that it ends sooner, has songs, and cuts a few parts off to fit the limited time, so I'm gonna go with the first one

And their thesis is that Death Note is about love. Specifically, all-consuming love, in its ugliest and in its most beautiful. It's not about genius deductions or the lawlight pissing contest or even about the most obvious moral and political discussion on criminality and punishment (thank god, because Death Note doesn't do that right at all). It's about a web of profound, deep, all-consuming loves. Misa's love for Light. Rem's love for Misa. Light and L's weird love for each other (which is pretty much canon in the musical, see: tennis duet). Love at its most unhealthy, selfish, and self-denying (lawlight) versus at its most selfless, beautiful, and fulfilling (remisa)

The driving force of the entire plot is love - except for Ryuk, who is driven simply by boredom, and is always shown obviously out of place in literally every scene. Light and L deny it, and love in a selfish way - they want to consume each other, become one, annihilate the other. Misa and Rem love selflessly - they want to make their loved one happy. And that is the ultimate difference between them, that defines their trajectories and their end

In a canon where the protagonist calls himself a god, the one to have the heavy religious imagery place unto them is Misa. Specifically, Misa after sacrificing everything for love, Misa after singing that the value of a life is defined by how much you love, that life is fleeting but love is what stays. Misa is ascended in that moment, so much so that a real goddess worships her at her feet, happily choosing to give her own life for Misa. And that proves Misa right, because in that moment, love does kill death - metaphorically and literally

(Meanwhile, the protagonist who sings about sacrifice dies pointlessly and sadly, after killing his own love. And he does so, again, literally and metaphorically. Literally because he killed the one he was in love with, metaphorically because he chose violence and greed and abandoned and deceived the ones he loved the most - Sayu and Soichiro - before it all. So when I say love, I'm not talking only about romantic love, even though I know that's the form of love Misa is singing about)

And that makes Death Note a proper tragedy and at the same time not at all like one, because Rem is happy, and so is Misa, despite having nothing left. It is L and Light, who wanted everything, who die unhappy and empty. So it's also about greed, but that greed is also shown through the way they love - consuming in the worst way, meaning taking the other and annihilating them into you, consuming them, taking them for yourself. It's an interesting take in how love as deep as Rem's for Misa and Misa's for Light can be ugly and twisted, and not at all romantic

Think about it. Frenchie obviously cares about fashion; although his clothes are tattered all the way to hell, there is clearly an attempt to make something nice. Everyone else is just wearing practical clothes; Frenchie is the only one with an accessory (the scarf). He's also the only one save for Roach who wears something colorful (the scarf is bright yellow, the jacket is blue; and considering that dye was very expensive at the time, he would have had to go out of his way to get that. It might be even why they're so tattered; those might be the only colorful clothes he owns, and the fact that he keeps wearing them proves how attached to them he is). The scarf is styled in a loose way, but also slightly resembling a cravat

It's far from a high fashion look; it's obvious that Frenchie can't afford it, both in the economic sense (his clothes are the most tattered ones by far) and the lifestyle sense (he's a manual laborer, he can't be wearing high fashion clothes, or anything that is too impractical really). Nevertheless, the fact that he cares enough to try despite it being so inaccessible to him says a lot about just how much it means to him

His appreciation for fancy clothes is very much confirmed when they raid the fancy ship and Frenchie immediately goes to check their wardrobe, gets himself a very nice and fancy outfit, and then walks into Stede's library with the biggest grin we've seen on him so far, says, "good evening, my fine sirs" and gives a little bow as he holds a party invitation

And the thing is, he wants to go, because if he didn't, he wouldn't have given it directly to Stede, the single person in the ship who's likely to say yes (and the fact that he doesn't is character development, too). He could've thrown it out and Stede would literally never know. And even if he did know, the show makes it very clear that the crew doesn't respect Stede enough to do stuff they don't want to do, especially in the first half. Frenchie himself proceeds to run a whole con behind Stede's back that same episode, so I think it's safe to say that he doesn't give Stede the invitation out of a sense of duty to his captain. And even if he did, Stede never invited him and most of the crew didn't go, so it's obvious that it was his own choice to attend

With all of that in mind, I think it becomes clear that Frenchie likes the fashion, the pleasantness, the fine aspects of the high life that he has never had access to. And he enjoys the fantasy of getting to live it, even if for a day

And it'd be so easy for him to then become the person who turns on his peers in order to get his shot at fitting in the high life. It could even be good commentary about colorism and assimilationism, seeing as Frenchie is the lightest-skinned Black man on the ship, and historically lighter-skinned Black people had been the ones who were allowed to "serve" within the white spaces and the house. I won't get into this in depth because I'm not qualified to, but many people have talked about this before, and this dynamic would obviously be important if they went for this kind of narrative

Besides, there is a lot of commentary that can be done about oppressed in-fighting. Particularly when it comes to people who are allowed some degree of closeness to the power ranks and then turn against the people who are not, in order to get approval and feel like they belong with those in power. This is a subject that OFMD actually touches a lot on, especially through Stede

(I won't get into details cuz I have a bigger meta on this planned, but think Stede in episode 1 making all the Black men on his ship pretend to be servants and go through awful amounts of racism in order to impress his childhood bully that he hates. Why does he care about impressing that guy? Because Stede is still attached to his privilege and power, and as such, he's willing to throw others under the bus so he can still hold on to it)

(Mandatory "don't get me wrong, I like Stede" comment. I think that his arc is about letting go of precisely this in order to fully embrace the poor, queer poc as his people instead of the gentry. And that is exactly what makes him interesting to me! But this commentary about the intersection of privilege and oppression, and how it can make people turn on other oppressed people, is absolutely being made)

Back to Frenchie, it'd make sense if he was the kind of character who has issues with the fact that he does not have access to things that he values, and who just wants a shot at feeling like he's fancy and could get the finer things that he's been denied. And who, as a result, turns against his peers. And I don't even think that it'd be a bad thing to show. But OFMD does us one better: it makes Frenchie (and Olu and Roach) unabashedly supportive of his darker-skinned Black peers, and perfectly aware of the ugliness of the upper crust; and not only unwilling to participate in it, but actually disinterested in doing so, because fancy clothes aren't worth it. ["not only unwilling to participate in it, but actually disinterested, because fancy clothes aren't worth it" in italics]

This is even shown in the very same scene where Frenchie shows up with his fancy clothes; although he is enjoying the fantasy of being a fine, respected, well-dressed man, he also refers to the party as "for hoity-toity people". The derision he feels is clear, and although there is a way to interpret this as simply Frenchie pointing out that that's not him, his behavior at the party confirms that he does not actually want to be a part of "this lot" in their ugliness

Because when him and Olu (the darkest-skinned man on the show, and I don't think that's a coincidence) go to the party, Frenchie is the one who's in control of the situation from beginning to end. Olu is a bad liar (doesn't know what to answer when asked who he is), clearly unfamiliar with the workings of the upper crust (shocked by racist comments, which is really not something any Black man of his skin tone who's been around gentry for one second would be surprised by), and anxious about the whole situation (when called out by Abshir, immediately reveals their whole scam and offers to leave, going as far as saying "we can swim"). Frenchie, on the other hand, is calm, collected, knows how to lie, and is familiar with how the upper crust works. The show makes it very clear that he can play them like a fiddle, and it's not even a challenge to him

So Frenchie is in control of the lie, and it would have been so easy for him to throw Olu under the bus and make himself the center of attention so he could get to be the "fine sir" he clearly thinks would be nice to be for a moment. Instead, he makes Olu the prince and himself his viceroy; it is Olu who gets to have his hand kissed (and how beautiful it is to see those racist white people, who paint their faces even whiter, kissing a dark skinned Black man's hand), and, when things get overwhelming for Olu, he steps in and takes control of the situation. This last part is shown during the racist comment situation - Olu is shocked and Frenchie steps in, saying "what a lovely thing to say" and giving Olu a pointed look to indicate to him that this is the safe way to play it (and Olu trusts him immediately). It is also shown in the way the whole con is made and how Frenchie even brings it up, doing all the talking and making it so Olu has to make minimal effort. This is also survival, of course; if Olu fucks it up, Frenchie is toast too. And while I believe that Frenchie is more practical than Olu is (especially because I think that Olu is, to some extent, kinda naive, or at least new enough to the Western world that he doesn't quite get how important certain things are for survival), that's all the more reason why Frenchie could have made himself the Prince and drawn all the attention. The fact that he didn't is proof of his unwillingness to throw Olu under the bus, and the bond between them as two Black men among rich white people

So Olu is the center of attention, he's the prince, he's the one who gets all these racist whites begging him to take their money (which I can only imagine was a very amazing sight for Frenchie, especially considering his grin as he watched how the party ended). And then, at the end, he lets Olu decide what to do with the money that, by any reasonable account, Frenchie earned

When they are leaving, he asks Olu "so, what did you do with our earnings?". He obviously let him decide whatever he wanted. It was mostly Frenchie's hard work, and it would be perfectly reasonable for him to decide, or at least for it to be a joint decision, but he leaves it to Olu. And then the most beautiful part of all, of course: Olu gives it to Abshir and the other servants so they can leave. They both give up their hard-earned fancy goods and money for someone who they deem needs it more, someone who they see as equals and part of their community as Black men. And it's beautiful and one of my favorite Olu moments that helped him be solidified as my favorite OFMD character, because I'm just a sucker for selfless people who value community above all else. But everything about the selflessness and sense of community that Olu shows then is first shown in Frenchie

I've said before that the Black (and overall poc) solidarity is one of my favorite things in this show, and it just really gains particularly wonderful undertones in Frenchie's whole behavior throughout this episode. Because as much as he might like nice clothes and the fantasy of being fancy, he loves his people way more, and he knows where he would be accepted and where he wouldn't. It's beautiful to see and such a great thing about his character and the overall way this show handles racial issues, privilege, and belonging

So I decided to look up what the right eye might symbolize and I think I have an answer. Bear in mind I'm neither Japanese nor a Zen Buddhist, so my analysis isn't very deep, but I thought it was interesting. Also, Fujimoto has made other references to Zen Buddhism in other works, so I'm pretty sure this is a feasible reference for him to make

[manga spoilers ahead]

The right eye thing is likely a reference to the Daruma dolls, a common Japanese tradition in which temples sell this guy:

[ID: A red, small, round doll with golden details and a white face, in which there are two eyes without irises/pupils. End ID]

The person who buys it is supposed to set a goal for themself. Upon setting the goal, they paint the iris of the left eye. Then, upon attaining the goal, they paint the iris of the right eye. It must be in that order, because the left eye symbolizes the beginning of all things (a), and the right one, the end of all things (un). The day before the New Year's, people take their dolls back to the temple to be burned, then get new ones for the new year ahead

So: right eye. The end of all things. And also, the granting of a wish.

For Denji it seems pretty clear-cut. Upon having his wish granted (a chance to live a normal life, by getting rid of the Yakuza and his debt) he gains his right eye. This is also the end of an era for him, as he leaves the Yakuza for the Bureau. At the same time, in that moment, he also meets what will bring the end of everything to him: Makima

But then there's Himeno and Aki, who go the opposite route: they both give up their right eye. Which in this context, might mean then precisely giving up the fulfillment of their wish. Himeno doesn't get to leave the Bureau and have a better life, and Aki doesn't get to kill the Gun Devil, to stop any further deaths, or to protect Denji and Power. In fact, they get quite the opposite (especially Aki)

This makes the contract that they made with the Ghost and Future Devils (respectively) even more fucked up. It's more than just an eye for a hand or an unwanted vision in exchange for wanted visions; it's granting them their wishes in exchange for what matters most to them, unbeknownst to them

(Worth noting that it was mentioned before that the Future Devil only makes absolutely horrible contracts. So that tracks a lot more than simply "allowing him to see Aki's demise through his eyes")

But also, if the right eye is the end of all things, then by giving up their right eyes they are also giving these devils their end itself. Which is also concretized: Himeno gets consumed by the Ghost Devil, and Aki's end is metaphorically consumed (as entertainment) by the Future Devil. Moreover, considering that Aki's death was a self-fulfilling prophecy given by the Future Devil itself, I think it's fair to say that his destiny was crafted by the Future Devil, and therefore, Aki did literally put his end in its hands

So. Yeah. Fucked up

TLDR: The right eye means the end of everything and the granting of a wish. Denji got these things, but Aki and Himeno gave them away

oh yeah it's absolutely buck shit wild lmao wildly recommend it but obviously i'm biased. If you ask for my opinion tho I think it's better to at least start with the manga rather than the anime, for a few reasons:

1- I think with the anime all their deductions happen too fast and you have no time to absorb the information, so it's harder to follow and to get into the plot. In the manga due to the nature of reading you can follow things at your own pace and make sure you actually understood all the information before continuing. Not that you need to think too deply to understand it or anything it's just that in the anime it is frequently an avalanche of information without pause. Death Note is VERY convoluted and dialogue/monologue heavy so it really makes a difference to be able to follow what's happening at your own pace

2- The manga treats itself less seriously than the anime, which paradoxically makes it easier to take seriously imo. Like the anime takes itself SO absurdly seriously that it cut off almost all comical moments and generally relief, so it just starts to get a little silly and overdramatic when all these characters are doing is overthinking everything they say 100% of the time. In the manga we get to see them being sillier too so it's easier to see them as people and actually feel like it matters when they are doing that whole crap (although it's still funny but again I don't think it was the creator's intention for it to NOT be ykwim?)

3- Although the anime is a very faithful adaptation, there's some stuff that just works better in the manga, particularly in the third arc. I don't really fault the anime for this cuz I think this was likely because they had a limited amount of episodes to fit everything in and again Death Note is VERY ["very" in caps] plot heavy, so they had to cut down some stuff to make it shorter. Nothing crazy and there are basically no additions but some things have been simplified or some details that I think really made the plots interesting were left out

The only downside to the manga as opposed to the anime is that there is no dramatic standing in the rain + foot wiping scene. This is literally the only thing in the anime that wasn't in the manga and they just made up, which in itself is also completely wild

But yeah I'd recommend starting with the manga if you wanna give Death Note another chance lol