Mushoku Tensei: Valid Criticism

 

Mushoku Tensei has always been a show with morally debatable characters. In the second episode, we see a man disregard his parent's funeral to masturbate at home. In the fourth episode, we see a man cheat on his wife and impregnate his maid. And in the sixth episode, we see a man who molests a child thrice below his mental age.

There has almost never been an episode where I did not see arguments on the common themes of sexual objectification and chauvinism in the show. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many has been turned off by the perverted nature our protagonist Rudeus exudes. At best he would enact voyeurism or gawk at any female with a sliver of human skin. At worse, he would talk about grooming a child to be his perfect wife or commit sexual assault on a minor. These are all acts that are no doubt morally reprehensible in modern conventions. The common counterarguments then would be that the world of Mushoku Tensei is not modern. Taking place in the morally-archaic medieval era, it is historically accurate that men possess statuses surpassing women, leading to a world where objectifying them is a societal norm.

I understand both perspectives of the debate. But for today, I will not be discussing which side is right or wrong.  Instead, I want to discuss the nature in which we decide what is right or wrong to begin with. Under the frame of the recent father-son squabble as well, I want to consider some of the core themes of Mushoku Tensei and promote a more self-aware audience mindset.

Disclaimer: I would only be discussing the events up to the sixth episode of MT's second cour. However, I am also a novel reader and thus my perceptions would no doubt be influenced by future events even if I don't touch on them. Thus if you are someone who wants to enjoy MT in an anechoic chamber, then do feel free to skip this essay. On a different note, this piece would also be less analytical than my other pieces, considering the subject matter. So a lot of my points may be more subjective and rambly, rather than informative. Though I still do hope that I can bring forward a discussion that is equally valuable. With all that said, let's get on with the show!

Moral Criticism

Moral criticism in literature, is to judge the value of a work based on its moral lessons and ethical teaching. Literature that reflects the virtues of our era are praised, while literature that neglects, undermines or corrupts those same virtues are condemned.

The concept of 'moral criticism' in literature can be traced back to Plato's views on art. According to Plato, art is a replica of the real world and thus if it did not impart righteous morals, then it is harmful to the audience. Consider a comedy scene where a cowardly man decides to feint bravery. To the audience, we might laugh at the comedic display, but for Plato he would disregard the show under a moralistic lens. He would emphasize the need for actual bravery to be embodied, and that the cowardly man should instead be pitied. 

Drawing this back to Mushoku Tensei, these sort of moral criticism can be seen by scrolling through reddit discussions or reading through Mal reviews. You would stumble upon a few 1/10 scores that calls attention to the pedophilic attitudes that Rudeus inhibits. They would often focus their entire criticism based on the morality of the show -- Sexual assault, rape, slavery, adultery -- And they would disregard many of other qualities we often judge a show by; Namely art, sound, storyboarding etc. On some cases, they would acknowledge that MT is a beautiful show but they would still emphasize its mediocrity on the basis of how the show fails to punish (or portray in a serious light) the morally-reprehensible actions portrayed.

And I think that is extremely interesting to me -- How do we place such a strong emphasis on morality in the fiction that we watch?

To answer the 'how'; Consider the scene of Eris being pounced by Rudeus in episode 8. We are shown in gratuitous detail how he fondles her and attempts to take things further than she is comfortable with. His "punishment" for his actions then simply involved him being playfully beaten up, with no further repercussions and with the promise of consensual sex so long as he is "patient"; Or simply put, there was no punishment. For people who views a show under a lens of moral criticism, they would denote the blatant objectification of Eris and would talk about how the author is supportive of sexual assault. But what about those who did not see the scene as a problem and simply laughed at its comedic tone? Does this mean that those people possess similar morally-reprehensible tendencies?

I asked myself that question as someone on that spectrum. And to me, I think the answer lies in how much we are able to separate our ideals and beliefs from media. For people who laughed, it is not as though they possess higher tolerance towards pedophilic actions, but because they are able to separate their own intolerance from their entertainment. In my case, I instinctually rationalized the scene in my head, between one of comedy and one demanding gravity. Because the atmosphere is portrayed in a comedic light by the show-creators, I took that as them telling me, "hey this is all tongue-and-cheek", and decided to not worry. For others though, their stronger attachment to their beliefs may make it so that regardless of the show-creators' intention, they can't forgive the very notion of it. This may be easier to visualize if we consider comedy acts. Take for example, a comedian can say a joke that involves racial connotations. In that case, you can have it so that half of the audience laughs it off as a silly gag, and the other half considers it distasteful. To put simply, how much someone views a show under a moralistic lens depends on how much they can separate their own beliefs from those of the show. I must emphasize that this is a spectrum as well. There will always be a show that goes too far in its "comedy" that will put off even the hardiest of wills. There are no extreme ends where someone is always offended or never offended; Everyone lies somewhere in-between.

"Okay Caderu," you say. "But that's just fiddle-faddle that everyone knows. People will like a show if they don't give a shit and hate a show if they do. What's the big idea?"

Well, I am glad you asked. See, the reason why I think this conversation is important for us to have is because of how much more insidious these expectations of ours are. Let us dial back the more black-and-white issue of pedophilia, into something tamer for visualization. Consider a similar controversial protagonist we had recently, Subaru from Re:zero.

Subaru received a lot of flag in the third arc of the first season for a lot of his selfish and "cringey" actions. His outburst with Emilia, his uninformed decisions, his need to act self-important, all contributed to a few being unable to tolerate Subaru's unheroic behavior. In such a case, the morality in question is no longer a universally depraved act, but a question of how to be considerate, smart and brave. For those who found it difficult to withstand Subaru, there can be many reasons; Maybe they were reminded of their own awkward times, or maybe they rather watch shows that possess capable protagonists. Regardless of the reason, they found it much more difficult to detach themselves -- Their emotions, expectations, and beliefs -- From the story Re:zero wanted to portray. 

Now this would not be the end of the world. In a perfectly idealized one, you should be able to ignore a show if its color palette was not to your aesthetic. But when true damage is done is when people misjudge a show. One scroll through some of the low-scores on Mal and you would often see criticism levied against Subaru for being "insufferable". For people who believed so, their own expectations of a more perfect protagonist came into play. However instead of just acknowledging it as a matter of taste, they rationalized those criticisms as why the show is bad or have bad writing. What they did not realize though is that the insufferable qualities of Subaru is a pivotal point of characterization for his growth. The entire theme of arc 3 was all about how to become a better human being, and that is not a story that can be told with an already righteous protagonist. The people who criticized the show on the terms of Subaru's character, misjudged the show and failed to consider what Re:zero was really about. 

Let's take a look at another more egregious example. With Subaru, we had the counterargument that it is fine to dislike a show because its protagonist was someone you could neither relate or tolerate. But for this example, we can have preconceived expectations of ideas completely devoid of personal attachment.

One of the biggest criticism levied against '86' this season, is that it fails to accurately portray Nazism or explain the rampant racism of its world. Critics would often contrast the republic of San Magnolia with Nazi Germany, and would argue that "the war was stupid and made no sense" as they scrutinized its political backdrop. But here's the thing: 86 was never about Nazi Germany nor even political. It has always been a character-driven story front and center. In season 1, episode 1-3 explores implicit guilt and implicit hatred between two parties that have no reason to hate each other other than their inherited race. Episode 3-7 explores bravery and how soldiers can find reason to fight despite all hopes being lost. Episode 8-11 explores the idea of humanism and how an individual can create change despite their circumstances. 86 establishes its premise around what children living in a racist society is like, however, racism was never its message but rather a mere fire-starter. It certainly confronts them everyday, but the message of the show was never to answer "how do we beat racism and overthrow the government". It was instead: "we have been dealt a shitty card in life, watch how we rise through it, bitches."

(Shameless plug to justify my views on 86: https://zxcaderu.blogspot.com/2021/06/86-where-paradise-resides.html)

If the show had wanted to be a reflection of Nazi Germany or some political series, then they would've focused on the political side of the Albas, with a greater focus on dictatorship, expansionism and revolution. What they would not do, is dedicate 11 episodes to a small squadron of child soldiers. So why then is there still so many people comparing apples and oranges, criticizing the show on ideas it was not even interested to explore? It is because they watched the first episode and thought to themselves, "hey, I have seen this in my history books before!" and then proceeded to scrutinize every aspect of it under unfair and unwarranted expectations. With the case of 86, these critics won't even get the leverage of "insufferable protagonist" as their counterargument; They straight-up just imposed their own expectations on the show, misjudged it, and failed to see what it was trying to accomplish.

At this point, I have diverged a little from moral criticism, but I hope the main point still comes clear. Everyone, including myself, are prone to having their own beliefs and expectations influence the shows that we watch. It is hence perfectly fine to dislike it based on personal taste. But what is truly egregious is not being aware of such, misjudging it, and levying wrong criticisms against it.

What Mushoku Tensei is about

Let us consider moral criticism against the backdrop of the family-son squabble between Rudeus and Paul. Thus far, this entire essay has been a meta-analysis, discussing the nature in which people view fiction. But for this portion, I want to bring things down a notch. I want to bring our focus back to Mushoku Tensei and to consider how it views its moral issues. 

The conflict between Paul and Rudeus in Milishion is incredibly complex. The moral debate is on the grounds of who is right or wrong, or who is more right than wrong. 

On "Rudeus is wrong" side of the argument; Rudeus fails to understand the struggle that Paul had gone through the past one-and-a-half years. He criticized Paul as a womanizer on unjustified grounds. He disrespected his father. He failed to consider the true scope of the teleportation calamity. He appeared to care more about Sylphie than his family members.

On "Paul is wrong" side of the argument; Paul fails to understand the struggle that Rudeus has gone through the past one-and-a-half years. He criticized Rudeus of simply gallivanting with his girlfriend on unjustified grounds. He attacked his own son. He failed to consider how Rudeus had a lack of information to piece together how Buena village could have been caught in the calamity. He expected too much from a child.

Just by looking through reddit discussions, the need to label them "right or wrong" is a tendency that a few people have. And while not in direct reference, there are also opinions of whether Paul is acting like a good father, which inherently considers moral issues. While it is not till the extent of demeaning the show, the need to see morality in their actions is almost intrinsic in some opinions. However, I want to step away from all of those. I want to dismiss our desire for judgement and instead argue for the absence of it; To put simply, moral judgements does not matter in this fight.

This is in the vein of arguments for "unfortunate circumstances", whereby people justify it as just misunderstandings piling upon bad timing. In the same spirit, my point lies in the fact that making moral judgements does no one benefit. We can rationalize Paul to be a bad father, but that dismisses how much he cares for his family and fails to consider a simple and yet incredibly human fact; Human beings aren't always at their 100% percent. As creatures with difficulty in controlling our emotions, it is common for everyone to "have a bad day". For example, you woke up one morning having a slight headache. For the rest of the day, you were in the bad mood and accidently scold a friend. For the past few months of your life you had spent it locked in your room. When you friend finally reached out to you via text, you have near anxiety responding even though it would've been as easy as typing "hi". For the past few years you have had a cold relationship with your parents. In your mind, fixing it can be something as easy as saying "sorry", but for some reason you just don't have the courage to. For us, even if things can be fixed with saying a single word, we would still have the hardest time to -- Human beings are simply too instinctual, emotional and irrational. 

It is for this reason why in Rudeus' previous life he failed to apologize to his only friend. It is for this reason why Paul had such difficulty apologizing to Rudeus, and similarly for Rudeus to forgive Paul. What does it matter that we judge Paul as a bad father -- We can see that he clearly just had a bad day, with alcoholic influences and with a misunderstanding towards Rudeus' embellishments. This squabble should never be a testament towards Paul's character, it should simply just be a case of "this man needs a break". Similarly for Rudeus, we can consider his disrespect towards his father as a reflection of bad personality. However we can see that he was simply overly-emotional and was in no way state of mind to say logical things. The squabble then should never be a testament towards his character, but a simple case of "emotional people shouldn't be having a conversation". And in either case, making moral judgements about them misses the point of the conflict.

This squabble is all about how two people got off on the wrong foot, but despite that, this is how they can make up for it. It is for this reason why Rudeus' solution was not to try to explain his perspective or to have Paul explain his. The solution was a simple "it doesn't matter, let's forget everything that has happened, because none of it matters." Having a discussion on who is right or wrong will not fix the inherent issue that there are broken bonds. In fact many a times, we expect the person in the wrong to apologize first, but those moments are when nobody does and the relationship remains shattered. Therefore, regardless of who is to be blamed, Rudeus thought to himself: "let me be the one to initiate". That, I think, was the main message of the conflict. For us audience, it similarly doesn't matter. The need to justify the morality of the characters is secondary towards the main message of "courage and forgiveness". We should not preoccupy ourselves with ideas that the show isn't interested in exploring. Instead we should focus on what the show truly wants to say and accomplish.

In the overarching ideas of Mushoku Tensei, we can once again revisit the problematic traits of Rudeus. Am I implying that pedophilic tendencies are justifiable so long as the show has well intentions? No, of course not. By the writers tackling such a controversial theme, it is a given that it would invite the harshest moralistic lens. However what I am suggesting is that we do not constrict ourselves in it. We see so many criticism of Rudeus is a "pedophile who doesn't learn" which ignores the bigger complexities; Yes, Rudeus occasionally acts perverted, but he has come a pretty long way from masturbating to online girls to securing the safety of a girl he cares about. We see criticism of the writers "sexualizing the girls", but that ignores how MT locks us primarily in Rudeus' point of view so that him (and in extension the audience) cannot shy away from his past or his bad traits; Once again, you cannot write a story about growth and change with an already righteous protagonist.

Valid criticism of the show should, at the very least, understand their intentions. You give it the benefit of the doubt, try to understand what it is trying to offer and empathize with why others may like it. It is only after that can you form criticism that actually make sense. For example, you understand the intention of the scene of Rudeus molesting Eris but you question its execution. You think the show could have treated it with more gravity, and since the main point of the series is to have Rudeus grow as a person, then he should be punished. Good! That is a great point that I can understand and agree with. However, the criticisms that just states, "Rudeus is a pedophile, thus this is a bad show", are opinions that are simply difficult for me to understand.

Is it difficult to give shows the benefit of the doubt? Maybe. But I think it isn't impossible. The first step of which is pretty simple actually. When watching a show, you just need to be aware of how your own beliefs and expectations can influence your views on it. It is simply by having awareness do you start questioning the "how" and the "why" more. And it also by just having that awareness, do you stop yourself from making uninformed criticism.

This is why I think this conversation is important to have. This is what differentiates a passive and an active viewer -- Awareness.

Afterword

I hope this was a good read, despite it being a much more controversial topic. I do want to emphasize that while I do sound like I am coming off strong on people who criticize shows, I don't want the overall impression to be one of spreading hate. More often than not, I see defenders of the show simply jumping onto such criticism with "these people are stupid and should pay more attention", but such comments does neither side benefit other than fueling more misunderstandings. And like I said, everyone, including me, are prone to carrying unwarranted expectations, so these are all lessons I have to learn myself.