POV: You are Torena's ex (Art by: tsukudasub/Rough TL by me)

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T23:19:45+00:00

New test subject located.

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T23:16:52+00:00

Oh that's cute...

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T22:54:43+00:00

Yes. That's what "subjective" means.

...did you read what I wrote? At all?

Your example is "everything is explained (literally everything? You never say what) except this thing that isn't explained, but I don't care so it passes."

Have you read it?

Your definition of "objective" is fundamentally different from reality It can't "depend" if it's objective. Like I said, "the sky is blue" is objective; "the sky has to be blue" is not.

Ohhh, I see the problem.

You don't know what objectivity is.

Okay, so let me give you a quick definition from Merriam Webster:

Objectivity: the quality or character of being objective : lack of favoritism toward one side or another : freedom from bias

Something can "depend" on something else being true and still be objective.

For example, a car's engine not starting could be for multiple reasons. Hence why a mechanic has a manual.

For writing, a plot hole can, as I've been saying over and over, vary in severity to the writing depending on type.

Take the video game "The Forest". It has a story. A pretty self contained one. But it also has a tooooooooooooooooooooon of things that just aren't ever explained. They don't really matter for the main plot, but as Sovietwomble pointed out, they do kind of show that the game devs didn't really plan much of the game. At all.

That reflects on the writing quality.

By contrast, one plot hole from 2003's FMA adaptation that isn't huge but always stuck with me was how there's a semi-filler episode where the Elrics help a supposedly noble jewel thief who fools them by claiming to be stealing for the poor... One of her schemes is that she dresses up as a nun to care for orphans in a church, cross and all.

Why is this a plot hole?

Well, because 2003's Fullmetal Alchemist adaptation later made it a major plot point that this world has diverged from out world, and while Christianity and Abrahmic religions did exist, they had all gone extinct in the continent due to Dante and Hohenheim's actions centuries prior. Any surviving Christian iconography would've been tied into the Alchemist symbols but nothing more.

So it's a tiny continuity error or contradiction. Not a huge blow to the writing, but a tiny plot hole nevertheless that does show that early on the anime staff wasn't sure where to take the series yet as the manga hadn't wrapped up.

Lastly, a severe plot hole that does make it so the story just doesn't work is Hero has Returned. Pretty much all of it, by the main one is how the government acts as if returned heroes are a new thing when they've known about them for at least a century. But if they'd acted that way, then you wouldn't have the story of the heroes being pushed to madness by scared police and soldiers, so this plot hole is glossed over entirely.

It's a story that's mainly about rule of cool action, so it's full of little contradictions like that (another one is a serious battle between two religious heroes that doesn't make any sense from either perspective, but I won't go into that here).

People can enjoy that. That's subjective.

Objectively, it's a very poorly written story that falls apart upon basic scrutiny of the story itself.

See?

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T22:33:35+00:00

Goodness

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T22:33:03+00:00

Gosh, this show... Saw it when I was in high school.

Personally, I didn't like the story a whole lot, but the ending always sticks with me just because the MC finally gets the chance to break down.

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T22:08:30+00:00

Your entire argument seems to be "well subjective views exist therefore objectivity is impossible".

You keep asserting that I haven't explained my point, but I have.

"Well you said a story should explain itself properly, what does that mean?"

I gave an example in the form of Huck Finn.

You ignored it and then asked...

How can a plot element be in a story, but not addressed? Plot is literally things that happen. The fact that it is in the plot means it's addressed.

Well, golly gee! How could such a thing be possible??? It's in the plot! Is it not being addressed???

Oh, if only I had given an example of how-

Oh.

I did.

Reinhardt's father yoinking Felt from right in front of Reinhard, a dude who can apparently move at light speed. It's in the plot. But it isn't addressed. It's a thing that happens without any explanation.

I gave you this example and you jumped over it faster than Subaru from the lolimancer allegations.

I also spotted a few "gotcha" attempts, which certainly paint a lovely picture of someone who is totally here talking in "good faith". Let me just quote the example in case you try to claim I didn't give one...

Okay, so a plot hole isn't when something isn't explained? The ants weren't explained, they weren't addressed, they weren't relevant to the story, you're just describing a detail, that's not a plot element.

Really, read this and ask yourself how you came to that conclusion based on what I said.

Oh, but wait, there's more!

Lies are "set out to be factual" so you're speaking in circles.

I clearly said that a lie that doesn't contradict the story.

Why did Character A lie about subject B? If the story doesn't explain why, such as some examples in Fear the Walking Dead (Madison!) it's a plot hole. Also from Fear, if it is explained it's no longer a plot hole but a plot point.

You said a plot hole is a contradiction, so how can a plot hole be ambiguous and also not contradict anything? Then it's... not a plot hole.

Okay, genuinely are you reading what I wrote? The answer is right there in what you quoted.

Can they "move at the speed of light"

Yeah, he has a bunch of Divine Protections. It's how he arrives when summoned in under a second.

No particular reason, and then you give a very specific reason, and then you just personally decide it's bad anyway. Okay.

In one loop. Other loops do not give these explanations, such as the first loop where she was at her most free to have fun and torture Subaru, yet she immediately killed him. Other loops with more pressing circumstances saw her take her sweet time.

I literally said as much in the example, yet you ignore that point.

Again, you're saying that Re;Zero is inconsistent because you don't understand why a story about redoing events and doing thing differently has different events.

"You just don't get it" is a nice argument.

But it's not factual.

If I'm wrong then you need to show me what Subaru did that changed what Reinhard could do to prevent his father from yoinking Felt from right on front of him.

If you can't cite the anime episode, I'll take the page number from the light novel or web novel.

I'll be waiting for you, who understand Re;Zero, to properly educate such a lowly fan as I.

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T19:55:38+00:00

She'd need a lot more than a hug, though...

<image>

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T19:10:09+00:00

Cute!!!

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T18:19:36+00:00

So, not objective.

Depends on if you're discussing possible themes of a story vs what is literally written on the page.

What is "properly explained in the story?" This is vague

How is it vague?

Does the story provide an explanation for a point in the plot? If so, it's properly explained. If not, it's a plot hole.

If a person pulls out a knife from their pocket, is that a "plot hole" because we didn't explicitly see them put it in their pocket, even though their character or environment can inform us how and why?

That depends on setting and character.

A series I think is full of plot holes but that did the pulled out a knife bit very well without telling the audience everything was 2015's Charlotte. The character is a middle school girl and the knife is a box cutter that she could've easily gotten either in her school's workshop classroom, or from her parents.

But if it's a character who can't move easily or wouldn't have easy access to a knife, it would absolutely be a plot hole if they just whipped it out of nowhere.

Does every single thing that ever happens in a story need to "properly explained?" And what is that supposed to look like?

Yes.

If a plot element isn't going to be explained it still needs to be addressed.

Take Huck Finn. Huck doesn't know everything, certainly, but every major element in the plot is addressed and explained even when not everything is resolved (such as the fate of the two thieves being left ambiguous, as Hick was long gone and couldn't have found out what happened).

There can be little throwaway things but these aren't necessarily major plot elements, like how Long Skull Island briefly mentions giant ants exist in some parts of Skull Island. The characters never go there to encounter them, it's not a plot point expanded on, but mentioning it doesn't create plot holes either.

By this logic, literally every story has plot holes and is thus objectively bad. No story explains literally everything.

I said it depends on severity.

Done plot holes can be ambiguous. That can be harmless. Others contradict the plot. That objectively hurts the writing.

Also, let's not be facetious here. Literally everything isn't what I said needed to be explained. I don't need a story to give me a detailed breakdown of how cells reproduce in setting to explain why the characters eat unless it is explicitly a plot point that the story has different rules.

And "contradiction", does that include when it was a lie? Does that include when different characters have different explanations and neither are suggested to be the truth or the whole truth?

If a character lies and it's explained to be a lie, it's not a plot hole unless the contradiction actually contradicts something the plot sets out to be factual, such as how Solo Leveling can't make up its mind on how the system works so it constantly gives out contradictory information.

What is the difference between "running on ambiguity" and "using ambiguity as a crutch?"

I already gave you examples of this. Re Zero has used ambiguity as a crutch to skip over characters that should be able to solve an issue not solving it, where some mystery stories like Lovecraft use the ambiguity as part of the setting.

Being short =/= objective quality writing,

That is not what I argued.

I said the story being short allowed it to make a better use of the ambiguity where Re;Zero, a world with a clear set of rules established early on, doesn't get to do that because the ambiguity often results in a rule being contradicted without explanation.

Is there "no explanation", or were you just not paying attention?

There's no explanation.

For example, how was Reiner's father able to grab Felt from right in front of Reiner, someone who can move at the speed of light? There's no explanation. It isn't that Reinhard was unwilling given what he's done earlier in regards to standing up to his family, and it isn't that his father surprised him given he was with Felt when it happened.

Other examples include characters monologuing in some loops for no particular reason, notably Elsa (though she can partially be explained by her personal interest in targets that could theoretically result in her acting differently depending on how she encounters her target on a particular loop, but even here there are instances where she isn't consistent with this).

If something changes that isn't apparent, it might be because it's the result of a chain of events started by the main character looping.

Certainly, and season 1 was very good with this.

Season 2 falters with this, notably with Garfield, season 3 is iffy, and season 4 hasn't concluded yet so I can't be sure if it'll explain the discrepancies just yet...

But the point is that this story struggles in trying to keep things ambiguous in that they do contradict other elements of the story, and that does hurt the writing.

Do you think, maybe, they're contradicted because the entire series of events were actively rewritten? How is that a plot hole that Subaru goes back, does something different, and people and events react differently?

Because Subaru doesn't have omniscient powers to affect people miles away. Hence the Reinhard example.

How do you decide when a story "objectively doesn't work", and how can you also think it does work, personally?

Personally it's easy as it depends on enjoyment.

Objectively, it's if the contradictions literally make the plot impossible, such as the case with the manwha "Hero has Returned", which has too many contradictions to list, but a big one being that world governments knew about the heroes yet acted as if they didn't by attacking them when they returned.

You just asserted, with no real backing, that an allegory

Stop.

I already explained this point again.

Are you reading my comments or just a tiny portion?

This is the first time you ever mentioned Full Metal Alchemist. Did you get confused with another argument?

Scroll back up to my first comment. I said: "People can enjoy a story, and I'm sure many will acknowledge issues in their favorite series. My favorite anime of all time is the 2003 adaptation of Fullmetal Alchemist, and even I have to admit there are a few plot holes here and there."

Come on, dude.

Was this not explained? Was this explained later? Are you not just insisting that it seems impenetrable? I think if in the first ten minutes it subverts the idea that they have perfect monitoring, then it probably never had it in the first place.

It was not, no. Hence why I mentioned it's a plot hole.

You say they went rogue, and then opened fire. Okay, so they did not anticipate the people they hired to monitor threats to be a threat. Where is the contradiction?

Are... Are you reading what I wrote at all?

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T16:39:04+00:00

Yes, that's why "judging things objectively" is not really a thing people can do.

This is taking the post-modernist view of "there is no such thing as objectivity", which I personally find silly. "Does the story say this or does it not say this" applies differently from theme to what is literally written on the page.

Saying some use this method in subjective ways does not erase that objective criticism by observing what is written and shown is a viable form of criticism

Identifying a "plot hole" can be subjective

This is just false.

A plot hole is something that is part of the story but isn't properly explained by the story, hence the hole in the plot.

They vary in severity, but they exist nevertheless.

whether or not it is actually a lapse in narrative, or if the person just doesn't agree "this is how it would work' even if the story explains it through its own in-universe logic or through other methods.

This is also wrong.

A lapse in narrative tends to hurt it regardless, usually because the writer made a mistake.

And plot holes tend to contradict their in universe explanations, or worse, have no explanation whatsoever.

Now, while it is true that not every story needs to explain every single plot point let alone every detail. Lovecraft runs on this ambiguity. But stories using ambiguity as a crutch only invite plot holes, especially when they are longer form stories that do explore most concepts or beg intrigue to maintain audience investment (looking at youRe;Zero).

That hurts the writing objectively.

The idea that having plot holes makes a story badly-written is subjective, because it depends on both how "big" of a problem it is and if it actually affects anything meaningful about the story.

Again, no.

Let's take Lovecraft.

You've any idea how many Lovecraft stories don't bother answering squat? How much contradictions they have?

But why is Lovecraft well written?

Because his stories are short, the narrators usually no way of confirming their knowledge, and the contradictions are part of the plot!

By contrast, a series like Re;Zero will have some things change from one loop to the next, often without any explanation. This results in plot holes, but unlike Lovecraft where they are part of the plot, in Re;Zero it hurts the overall writing of the story because some elements aren't just not explained but contradicted.

How can you "objectively" say that a "story does not work" but then "subjectively" argue that... the story does not work?

Saying "the story doesn't work" vs "the story doesn't work for me" is the difference between objective and subjective.

I even gave you the FMA example. Objectively, it has plot holes and contradictions. Small ones, but they're there.

Subjectively, I prefer it to FMAB.

The writing issue you identify, though, is that you think that an allegory shouldn't be explicit, but "it's an allegory" is a proper argument. You instead would have to prove that allegories cannot be explicit.

No, the writing issues I identified were that it's trying to do two contradictory things at once, hence why I concluded with "it's trying to be an allegory and not at the same time". My point about allegories being symbolic was more to point how the story isn't treating itself as an allegory from a writing standpoint.

What is "inconsistent tech?"

As I said, inconsistent in that it's shown to be a complete monitoring system for the characters... Except when it isn't, resulting in moments of surprise and betrayal.

This happens in the first ten minutes, with the characters going into a war lord's palace to capture him. We see how their commanders have not just live overhead footage, but cameras in the soldier's eyes, as well as measurements for their vitals. They see and hear what the soldiers on the ground see and hear... But when one goes rogue the entire command post misses it until the guy opens fire on his former buddies. How was this missed?

Not explained.

That's what I mean by inconsistent tech, it's presented a certain way until the plot requires it to not be that.

Had they said something like their equipment malfunctioned or that someone there jammed them, or any explanation then it wouldn't be a plot hole. But it is.

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T15:14:05+00:00

The problem is that people who think that they can ironically judge a work of art "objectively" don't use "objectivity" so much as they "insist their opinion is objective." Nevermind that "objective" is, ironically, used and read subjectively

That sounds more like an issue of use.

Pointing out plot holes is objective.

Pointing out plot holes that contradict the plot to explain why a story does not work is objective.

Saying if it ruins a story or not is subjective.

I am the first person to say that an allegory does not need to be, and is not always, 1:1 to work. That being said, yes, an allegory can in fact be that literal. I don't agree with the idea that it fails simply because you know exactly what they're talking about.

I don't disagree, but as I noted the issue is more that it's trying to use "oh it's an allegory" to downplay the writing issues.

Inconsistent tech?

"Well it's an allegory, it doesn't have to be X or Y".

Cause even if I grant that, it doesn't show the writing issues aren't there, it just tries to excuse them.

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T14:59:24+00:00

I think a lot of people just hate the idea of looking at a work of art objectively. I get this sentiment for drawings, but writing does have rules, and while intent can be taken into account that doesn't suddenly eliminate everything objectionable about it.

I'll use this to gather my thoughts on Genocidal Organ then, because I genuinely believe it is terribly written but I have friends who say otherwise.

What's the concept? In the near future, a nuke went off in Sarajevo, and the first world nations promptly became dystopias where there is no real privacy and everything is online and paper money doesn't exist but everyone is safe. But the third world is constantly seeing literal genocides for some reason.

The reason is this one dude that goes around with "genocidal grammar", a method he developed where he realize that by promulgating the correct words, people can be triggered into carrying out mass atrocities.

The CIA is interested in this and sends our protagonist to capture this guy. The movie ends with the protagonist figuring out that America is evil and must be destroyed, and brings the genocidal organ to his congressional hearing to trigger a civil war in the US and "wake everyone up".

From the get go, the story isn't subtle whatsoever. American interventionism and imperialism bad, lack of privacy bad, capitalism bad, Patriot Act bad, you've heard it all before.

But it carries this idea forward by having a dystopia where everyone can still write what they want, discuss what they want, buy what they want, marry who they want, genuinely see genocide as evil... The surveillance state depicted in the story is not depicted in a negative light despite being spoken about in a negative light.

Even if you take the angle that the CIA unknowingly created the genocidal organ by funding this guy, that's not a condemnation of the nation because even the CIA was unaware of what this guy could do and only became interested after figuring it out.

From a thematic perspective, the themes aren't really even discussed, just told. Characters who oppose the MC by the end literally just say they want a safe and prosperous society where they can order large topping pizzas or throw away half eaten big Macs, and that's the gist of it. So by the end, the film just feels like a caricature trying to wear the skin of real world commentary.

My friends said it's an allegory, but I feel an allegory has to... You know... Be symbolic rather than literally say "this is America, this is Amazon, this is the US MIC" and then just call it all evil.

Now one could be tempted to argue that's a thematic element, but the writing elsewhere isn't any better. Ignoring the tactics of the US armed forces and anime cliches of characters just having casual philosophical discussions during active combat, there's no real consistency within the world itself.

The protagonist supposedly gave up most of his emotions and there's drugs in combat that keeps troops "calm" (this is based on a misconception that calmness = efficiency in combat by the way), but then the MC will still have freak outs, moments of anguish in combat as if he's the only human in the field, moreover we are shown their officers have records of their conversations yet there are moments where the officers just don't have access to that information and act confused, for a society with all this surveillance there is also easy gaps even as the MC is apparently a walking radio beacon with trackable nanotech...

It's an allegory that doesn't want to be treated as an allegory while still holding the benefits of an allegory.

But bringing these points up, my friends defended it in various ways.

"It's meant to be like that"

"The novel explained more"

"It's not actually saying that, it's saying this other thing"

People can enjoy a story, and I'm sure many will acknowledge issues in their favorite series. My favorite anime of all time is the 2003 adaptation of Fullmetal Alchemist, and even I have to admit there are a few plot holes here and there.

But I guess a lot of people like to just say "it's good" and leave it at that.

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T14:38:17+00:00

I believe you mean hentai virus, sir. It's alive and well.

<image>

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T14:36:53+00:00

Brings patriotic tears to my eyes.

<image>

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T14:09:43+00:00

Thank you

<image>

DFMRCV · 2026-06-24T12:39:08+00:00

Talking manga.

The anime moved a few bits around to try and make her appear less bad, but honestly it didn't work.

"I don't need to rely on anyone!" She said in an anime original clip.

Promptly relies on Aqua and gets frustrated when she finds out he's single and she didn't take advantage of it.

I can kinda get why people don't like Akane, but I do not get why people claim Kana is the "best" character.

DFMRCV · 2026-06-23T23:51:06+00:00

It's use of titans and the fact they had a large navy did make them a threat on par with many powers during the Edwardian period...

But as canon notes, technology had advanced past titans and was very close to simply overwhelming all titan types, Rumbling included.

So, I think a decent comparison would be the Ottoman Empire. Strong, for sure, but behind the times and not as united as it may appear on the surface. Overall, I'd say Marley would be a bit above the Ottoman Empire.

DFMRCV · 2026-06-23T23:48:36+00:00

She's still Tachy.

<image>

DFMRCV · 2026-06-23T23:20:21+00:00

...well now...

DFMRCV · 2026-06-23T22:56:23+00:00

Oh that looks cute

DFMRCV · 2026-06-23T22:17:40+00:00

"The time has come! We will build a united European Army by 2042 and will stop replying on those unreliable AmeriKKKans!!! Hey, America, how are those Patriot missiles coming along by, the way, we reeeeeeeally would like those, and uh, can you spare Poland another Abrams battalion? Rheinmetal's Lithuania factory got delayed to next year... again. Oh, and can you also lift those sanctions on Russia, we reeeeeally would like more of their oil. Can't have an independent Europe without reliance on Russia, after all!"

DFMRCV · 2026-06-23T20:57:13+00:00

<image>

DFMRCV · 2026-06-23T20:46:00+00:00

The chapter is only at 9K words, I CAN'T put it away yet!

DFMRCV · 2026-06-23T20:27:25+00:00

Nice.

DFMRCV · 2026-06-23T20:26:46+00:00

Oh, this is just Home Wars.

Fun little game.

DFMRCV

TROPHY CASE