#defendunderhanded

A while ago, I watched a Dungeon Meshi video essay, discussing characters, despite me being very behind on the series, because social media keeps spoiling Dungeon Meshi for me anyway. Like, I was seeing Chimera-Falin on my Dashboard and timelines before I even knew that would happen to her. But thankfully, my usual immunity to spoilers has kept up. Ever since Madoka Magica proved a different experience for me, when I reached later episodes that I had not been already spoiled on, I had been worried that I was no longer indifferent to spoilers. But Dungeon Meshi has been spoiled to me, fairly frequently, and I still enjoy it.

That video essayist ABSOLUTELY HATED Kabru. I prefer to like characters. I have dropped several good series because of one or 2 characters that just irritated my dislike. So I was worried that listening to that video essayist's seething hatred of Kabru, would influence my first impressions of him and maybe even lead to be dropping Dungeon Meshi.

But strangely, I still don't sense anything really bad from Kabru. And a big reason, I think, is the reaction of his party members. Even when Kabru is killing someone, his party members just turn around, act unphased, and let him kill people. That tells me that they trust his judgement. That likely, they know Kabru to not be a threat to them, even if Kabru is killing someone else. That tells me that Kabru likely isn't some random, dangerous killer, but someone who rationally chooses to be dangerous only to those who deserve it, like actual threats. And it also speaks to how Kabru probably treats his comrades well. To not act horrified, they would either have to fully trust Kabru or just be sociopaths themselves. But what are the chances of getting together a group of sociopaths? (Sociopaths are too anti-social and would be too busy backstabbing each other anyway, right?)

I've seen some reactors frightened at Kabru simply talking about the common vital points of humanoids. And I don't understand why someone planning ahead of time, to defend themselves or fight in a dungeon, full of monsters, rivals, and possible murderers, would be a bad thing. I would expect someone, going into such a dangerous situation, to be thinking ahead of time, how to kill opponents. But apparently, some people/reactors think that anyone who thinks ahead of time how to dispatch enemies, makes them bad. There's nothing wrong with being a little cold-blooded. It's needed sometimes. Like when you explore a dangerous dungeon. And how is his lack of understanding how his demeanor could be considered scary to others, any different from Laios's lack of understanding of how strange he is to others? And people have been praising, up and down, Laios's lack of understanding how odd he is. I don't see why suddenly Kabru is considered "crossing a line", especially given their situation/environment. Some people get scared and make overly broad assumptions, just because a character isn't afraid to kill or has thought about killing. But killing can be done kindly, or dispensed with rational decision-making, or even be discerned to allow some justified, petty cruelty. Just casting a broad blanket of decisions on a character's morality, for simply engaging with death, seems odd to me.

I mean, the ease with which Kabru kills, analyzes, and manipulates people, might seem cold. But aren't a lot of his actions the type of proactive smarts that lots of people wish characters would have, instead of making stupid mistakes? Whenever there's an "idiot plot", it usually causes complaints about characters not noticing things, not analyzing, not deducing clues/foreshadowings, and not being more careful. People complain about characters hesitating or holding back when fighting. So why would people hate Kabru for doing those very things?

Well, that video essayist did explain that he just had a real life bad experience with manipulative, two-faced people, so he was biased against any character that reminded him of those false friends he had in real life. Even so, there are ways people act, which I've long not understood why it was frowned upon. I remember when I was younger, my sister and I discussing not understanding the disdain against being "two-faced". Why is it bad to have different demeanors when interacting with people that you have different relationships with? Some mannerisms aren't appropriate with other people, as they are with others. My sister and I both agreed that you wouldn't act the same way with parents as you would with friends, and you wouldn't act the same way with acquaintances as you would with close friends, etc. So what's wrong with tailoring your mannerisms to be appropriate for different relationship situations? Since then, I've often wondered if the American ideals about being constantly forthright just clash with our Asian(-American) ideals about appropriate mannerisms. So I don't understand disparaging Kabru for "holding his cards close" and being careful with Laios---who is mostly a stranger to him at the beginning, except that they suspect Laios's group has probably robbed them twice. If anything, Kabru has more reason to be smart by not telling Laios his true thoughts and carefully sculpting a non-threatening act.

Anyway, I'm glad that I'm able to disagree with that video essayist, proving that my perception of Kabru has not been influenced by his bias.