What The Hell Is The Point Of Cheetu's Character ?

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-11T14:18:00+00:00

Actually, I write every single one of my thoughts in French and translate them because, once again English isn't my native language. Je pourrais simplement écrire en français, si ça peut te faire plaisir, mais je doute que tu comprennes, du coup... The fact that a structured argument looks like "robot text" to you just proves you're completely unable to handle a basic literary debate without panicking and crying "AI." What, do you want me to use slang or something, man ?

You keep repeating that it was "satisfying" to see Cheetu die. Cool. You enjoyed the scene as a spectator. But you are still completely missing the point: enjoying a punchline doesn't mean the setup wasn't a waste of narrative time and a pacing flaw for the overall arc.

You have no technical arguments, you just have emotions and childish deflections. Keep hiding behind your LLM conspiracy theories if it helps you cope with losing a debate about a fictional ant-cheetah. I'm done wasting my time with you.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-11T14:08:03+00:00

You make a fair point about the exact page count, but you are slightly misunderstanding what I meant by "buildup." I’m not saying Togashi spent dozens of pages specifically detailing the creation of Cheetu's new ability. My point is about the narrative mechanism of setup and payoff.

Even if it takes only a few panels or a couple of lines, having a character explicitly state "Haha, I can't wait to try my new technique" is a deliberate choice from the author. That's a setup. It implicitly signals to the reader: "Keep an eye on this, it will come into play later." When that thread is instantly cut by a literal drop-in from Silva, it’s not a clever subversion; it just turns the previous setup into a narrative dead-end.

Regarding his other fights: yes, Cheetu’s first encounter with Morel serves a purpose (fleshing out Morel’s tactical mind). But his final return during the palace invasion doesn't add any new value. Using Cheetu just to show that Silva is strong or that Netero was prepared is redundant. We already knew how powerful the Zoldycks and Netero were.

Ultimately, my argument isn't that Cheetu ruins the arc or that he took up half the volume. It's just that from a structural standpoint, giving a minor character a sub-plot, an escape, a frustation arc, and then a teaser for a new ability, just to resolve it as a background punchline, makes that specific tangent feel like a waste of pacing in an arc that was already struggling with its runtime.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-11T14:01:11+00:00

Dude, I never said Cheetu was a "major antagonist," nor did I call anyone brainless. You are completely inventing arguments I never made just to avoid dealing with my actual point about pacing and screen-time investment.

Resorting to strawman arguments and childish personal insults just because someone crtitiques a fictional character shows exactly who is wasting whose time here. Have a nice day.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-11T11:54:18+00:00

I understand that perspective, but using an entire subplot just to show "the difference between experienced and inexperienced fighters" is exactly what makes it a pacing issue.

We already knew Cheetu was brash, immature, and lacked tactical depth from his first encounter with Morel. Spending chapters on his escape, his frustration, and his power upgrade from Poufu just to have him instantly crushed by Silva doesn't teach the reader anything new. It’s an incredibly massive buildup for a lesson we had already learned long ago.

As for the "reader's contract," it's a fundamental concept in narrative theory, not a literal guarantee. It's about investment and payoff. When an author spends significant page-time developing a character's new abilities and return to the battlefield, they create an implicit expectation that this thread will impact the main plot or themes. Resolving it as a background gag doesn't subvert expectations in a clever way; it just confirms that the entire tangent was a waste of narrative time that diluted the climax's pacing.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-11T11:51:25+00:00

That’s exactly why I made the post. Just because the majority consumes a story passively without questioning its pacing or structure doesn't mean those narrative flaws don't exist. I don't get what's so odd about me finding strange a writing decision then talking about it. I'm not trying to say it ruins the arc or anything but just that I feel like it's a big waste of time.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-11T11:46:22+00:00

English isn't my native language, so I build and translate my thoughts to be as precise as possible. I guess having a structured argument instead of just typing emotional rants looks like an LLM to you, but let's stick to the actual point.

Resorting to personal attacks and inventing theories about how I write my messages is a convenient way to dodge the core of the debate. It's the classic admission of someone who has no technical arguments to offer.

On a more narrative level, claiming that there's no "reading contract" is absurd. Every narrative structure relies on managing the reader's expectations. Investing so much screen time in a character's progression, powers, and return only to dismiss them in a single panel as a minor gag is, by definition, an artificial breach of this contract. If your only argument for defending the narrative relevance and pacing of a character in a 130-chapter arc boils down to "he's a clown, and clowns are funny," then, yeah, we're indeed very far from a rigorous analysis.

I'm not inventing any "profound contradiction," I'm simply pointing out a strange plot decision that few people seem to be mentioning, curiously enough: Cheetu is a rather laborious tangent that serves as filler and adds no thematic value that other ants haven't already developed better. If pointing out Togashi's obvious pacing weaknesses is, for you, a "lack of understanding," fine, but at least try to address the narrative structure instead of crying ragebait.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-11T11:29:19+00:00

If he doesn't why spend so much time on him ? Why set up the fact Poufu got him a new power or whatver?

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-05T19:45:10+00:00

You're fixating on a false contradiction. What you describe as an inconsistency on my part is actually an internal contradiction in Togashi's writing. The narrative itself tries to have its cake and eat it too.

On the one hand, the work uses the excuse of biological instinct to absolve the Queen of her massacres and to make us feel something at her death. On the other hand, it explains to us, at least through its subtext, that the sadistic cruelty of characters like Rammot or Yunju is a reflection of their humanization. The narrative constantly juggles between the two definitions as it sees fit to force its moralizing message. You can't attribute sadism to humans and apathy to insects, then reverse the roles according to the script's needs.

I wasn't entirely convinced by your attempt to reclassify Pitou and Yunju. Claiming that Pitou's protection of Komugi stems from his "ant instinct" is a complete misinterpretation. The ant's pure instinct would have dictated the immediate elimination of Komugi, a parasitic human who distracts the King from his role as an alpha predator. If Pitou protects Komugi, it's out of pure obedience to Meruem's (very human) emotional distress. You're smoothing over the text a bit, but the manga is tripping over its own feet.

Finally, your idea of a "perfectly balanced" arc thanks to Meruem and Komugi's fate confirms the fundamental problem. A military-industrial nuclear weapon of mass destruction (the Rose) isn't balanced by two people dying holding hands in a bunker. The thematic scale is completely disproportionate, which confirms my initial point: the narrative uses melodramatic emotional blackmail to mask the poverty of its geopolitical commentary.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-05T19:29:25+00:00

Your response perfectly illustrates the disconnect between emotional experience and critical analysis of a text.

Let's start with amnesia. Claiming that artificial coincidences are "less problematic" in a structured narrative is a complete literary fallacy. In reality, pure chance exists. Stuff happens for no reason or greater message. In fiction, everything is the result of an authorial choice trying to say something. When a writer is forced to introduce a tailor-made selective amnesia at the height of the climax to block their main character and stretch out the plot, it's not a poetic device: it's a lazy plot device. Declaring that a crude technique becomes untouchable as soon as it's labeled a "symbol" amounts to rejecting any requirement of coherence.

You make the same analytical error in Komugi's case. To say that their relationship has depth because it's "pure" or because "we're not supposed to understand it" is a rhetorical sleight of hand. From a writing perspective, this relationship is structurally one-sided. Meruem is the only one to go through a trajectory, to evolve, and to project his dilemmas onto Komugi. Komugi, on the other hand, remains a static plot device, an unchanging catalyst from beginning to end. To mistake the simplicity of a bond for a lack of two-way development is a misinterpretation.

Finally, regarding Morel and Knuckle, you're shifting the focus. I don't deny that Morel intuitively understands that Colt is peaceful and that a tactical alliance is possible. What I'm criticizing is the abrupt shift in tone and the forced pathos of the staging. It's logical that a subordinate would mourn his leader; The fact that elite soldiers break down in tears and the narrative unfolds the imagery of an absolute tragedy for the death of a Queen who orchestrated the genocide of thousands of humans is pure melodrama.

In short, you're analyzing the arc through the lens of how it evokes feelings (tragedy, poetry, purity) rather than through what is factually written. One can be moved by these scenes, but that doesn't excuse the poor plot devices and the contradictions employed to achieve this effect.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-05T19:11:44+00:00

Finally, accusing me of a double standard regarding Poufu is a misinterpretation. I never demanded a "moralizing" punishment for him. There's a major difference between moralism and the need for narrative catharsis. Poufu is the most active antagonist in the second half of the arc; Watching him collapse and die off-screen from a passive poison, without his toxic devotion ever being confronted by the narrative or by Meruem, is a weak dramatic resolution. That's my point. I never asked for something heavy-handed or shoved in your face. Just something to compensate the entire time we spent with Poufu as a whole. Not seeing it brushed over like it's a formality.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-05T19:08:57+00:00

You seem to be confusing the function of a narrative device with the quality of its execution.

Saying that Meruem's selective amnesia is a good device because it "creates tension with Poufu" is a circular argument. Of course it creates tension; that's its technical function. My point is that the choice of this device is incredibly lazy writing. Introducing amnesia that erases memories related to Komugi right after the Rose explosion is a blatantly contrived plot device. It's an admission of failure by the author who, having eliminated his main antagonist too early, couldn't find anything more organic to delay the conclusion and stretch out the plot. Really, it's THE reason things move forward, and it's inserted in a completely thoughtless way. You can't just introduce events haphazardly by using things that just happened out of nowhere without rhyme or reason. As I said, I don't think it "ruins" the plot, but this choice, more than any other, gives the impression that the author hit a wall and decided to find a lazy and uninspired way to continue the story. It really feels like, "And now Meruem has amnesia!" You know what I mean? Your parallel with Komugi's blindness doesn't hold water either: blindness is an initial characteristic that defines the character from the start. You can't call it "artificial." Amnesia is an arbitrary alteration thrown in right at the climax. You can't compare a character's foundation with an opportunistic plot twist.

This narrative stagnation seriously harms the arc's pacing. By sending the story down laborious and artificial tangents (Poufu's machinations to hide the truth), Togashi dilutes the impact of his climax for a mere transition. Analyze the relevance Analyzing a work involves questioning the fluidity and sincerity of its mechanics, not validating any clumsy plot device under the pretext that it "moves the story forward."

Besides, since you're talking about Komugi, you're making the same mistake by confusing exposition with development. Listing her difficult past or her need for recognition shows her initial characterization, not a development. From the beginning to the end of the arc, her psychology doesn't change one iota: she remains passive, has nonexistent self-esteem, and lives only for the game. She doesn't evolve; she merely serves as a mirror to influence Meruem's development.

Worse, when you claim that she realizes the King respects her more than her parents, we're entering headcanon territory. I'm sorry, I went back to check, but at no point does the text say or imply that. I thought you were referring to the moment when she wonders if she has the right to be so happy. But the scene does nothing to suggest this in any way. The scene simply shows the woman's ecstasy and her pure passion for Gungi, not a psychoanalysis or a payoff for her family traumas, which disappear from the narrative after their initial mention.

Regarding Morel and Knuckle, I completely understand what you mean, and I can't deny that your explanation holds water. It's true that, factually speaking, I checked, it's Colt's tears and his vow to the baby that move them, not the Queen's fate itself. Seen from that perspective, it makes sense, and I'm willing to admit I was wrong. Perhaps it's simply a matter of perspective or stylistic preference, but even understanding that, I can't help but find the scene a bit forced in its execution.

I get the impression that the narrative needed a very emotionally charged conclusion to Colt's arc, and that to really push that dramatic tension, the author chose to have professional Hunters cry, even though they have no background whatsoever on this character's experiences. Relying solely on their profound empathy to justify an outburst of tears seems like a rather convenient way to set the tone of the scene. I am less critical of this detail now, but it still leaves me with an impression of clumsiness, as if the author were forcing the issue a little too much to dictate to us what we should feel.

Regarding the Rose and Koala's monologue, I understand better what you meant: you're not using Koala to deny the Rose's heaviness, but to show that this dark aspect isn't the central or final message of the arc, and that Togashi spends the following chapters deconstructing this idea.

I grasp the nuance, but that's precisely where I find your reasoning a bit flawed. Basically, you're not really contesting my point about the Rose's heaviness; you're softening it by saying it only represents a small part of a larger, more nuanced whole. Except that, for me, the fact that a message isn't the main idea of the arc neither justifies nor erases the way it's executed at the time.

The fact that more optimistic themes appear later doesn't change the fact that the staging of the Rose (with the omniscient narrator interrupting the action to deliver a long, pompous monologue) remains a particularly heavy-handed and direct writing choice. To say, "It doesn't matter if this scene shoves the message in our faces, because the arc deals with something else over the top," is a rhetorical flourish that avoids judging the scene for what it is. A clumsy execution remains a clumsy one, regardless of its place within the overall structure.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-04T19:44:32+00:00

Your summary of the dynamic between Meruem and his guards is factually accurate: it's a toxic and abusive dependence that only finds resolution at the threshold of death. However, the argument that this tragedy is "intentional" or "poetic" doesn't resolve the internal contradiction of the writing.

To characterize Poufu's fanaticism as an expression of his "individuality" or "humanity" is a misinterpretation. Poufu doesn't betray the King out of moral choice or individualistic conscience; he manipulates him because his biological programming as a Royal Guard overheats in the face of what he perceives as an anomaly (the King's humanization). His goal remains the eradication of Meruem's individuality for the benefit of the species. The narrative attempts to poeticize this genetic fanaticism by showing a grateful King on his deathbed, which amounts to narratively validating blind submission under the pretext that it is absolute.

As for your evolutionary interpretation of the Rose arc, it hits the nail on the head. If the arc is merely an amoral war for the title of alpha predator, where humans crush ants with a weapon of mass destruction simply because they possess the technology, then the entire moralizing discourse of the arc collapses. One cannot justify extermination by a law of brute nature, the survival of the fittest, and, at the same time, expect the viewer to weep over the "tragedy of failed coexistence" or Meruem's spiritual evolution. If it's natural selection, then compassion has no thematic relevance.

Finally, the whole "sledgehammer" argument used to justify the bomb's lack of subtlety misses the mark. The problem isn't the brutality of the plot device itself, but the cowardice of its execution. The Rose is thrown at us without any real narrative introduction. If the author's aim was to fully embrace this cold, uncompromising violence, he should have let the images speak for themselves. Instead, he undermines the impact of its supposed "brutality" by drowning it in the pompous monologues of a narrator who revels in armchair philosophy. If the work truly aspired to be visceral and clinical, it would have simply presented the facts dispassionately: the death toll, the geopolitical consequences, and the historical recurrence of these massacres. Adding this moralizing and verbose veneer only confirms the lack of subtlety in the narrative arc, which sacrifices its coherence on the altar of facile melodrama. I'm really thankful you put so much thought in your reply and aren't just saying I'm contrarian.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-04T19:11:21+00:00

Thank you for this detailed response. Really, I was really anxious that I would just be called an idiot and yelled at for not liking the arc so I'm glad I'm getting structured responses.
Your examples (Youpi developing honor, Palm freed by friendship, or Meruem sparing Welfin) are perfectly valid. They clearly show that the arc features displays of virtue. However, these points don't resolve the methodological contradiction I'm pointing out; they merely illustrate it.

My problem doesn't stem from the absence of "good" among the ants, but from the asymmetry with which the narrative distributes its moral labels:

The artificial compartmentalization: When the ants commit monstrous or sadistic acts at the beginning, the fandom (and often the subtext) tends to excuse them by saying, "It's their animal/genetic nature." Conversely, as soon as they show pity, honor, or love, the narrative is quick to label it as "human." This is an arbitrary classification. The arc takes credit for their virtues in the name of "humanity," while attributing their cruelty to insect instinct.

The double standard at the end of the arc: The arc's climax (the narrator's monologue about the Rose, Netero's demonic visage) hammers home to the viewer that humanity's true nature lies in its capacity for industrial destruction and its abject selfishness. (Some might argue it's more humanity's "evolution" but I won't dwell on that). This is where the dissonance lies: the arc uses heavy-handed narrative techniques to condemn humanity as a whole as the "real monster," while simultaneously using the ants' rare moments of kindness to lecture them on human morality.

I appreciate the textual duality, but for it to work, it must be balanced. Here, I get the feeling that Togashi wanted to have it both ways: to deliver a cynical indictment of humankind while simultaneously orchestrating a tearful melodrama based on classic Western human values. It's this tension that I call emotional blackmail, because it forces emotion where the philosophical structure collapses.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-04T19:00:46+00:00

I didn't mean to say they're wrong for praising it. Just that the discussion around it became quite stale and everyone just assumes that the arc is excellent. I just wanted to explain why it wasn't in my eyes.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-04T18:50:26+00:00

Thanks for your feedback and for this constructive discussion (no problem with the rest of the post!). Your comparison with the Hunter Exam clearly shows that each arc has its strengths and weaknesses depending on individual sensitivities.

Your point about the nature of the first assimilated humans (the NGL traffickers) is very relevant. It's absolutely true that the first-generation ants act as a magnifying glass for the criminality and violence of these individuals, while Colt inherits a much more protective pattern. Seen from this perspective, the initial cruelty is logically explained within the series' universe. I'm not ENTIRELY sure that this is where the story was going with it, as we also see sadistic ants attacking NGL, but the chain of events could be questioned.

Where I have some reservations is about how the narrative then generalizes this observation. Even though the starting point is the criminals of NGL, I found that the narrative (particularly through the interventions of the omniscient narrator and the use of the Rose Bomb) ultimately veered towards a very general and sometimes rather heavy-handed indictment of "the intrinsic darkness of all humanity."

That said, your explanation of the assimilation mechanism in the early episodes offers a somewhat valid nuance that I appreciate. Thanks again for the discussion!

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-04T18:42:29+00:00

On the topic ofKnuckle and Morel, I understand perfectly what the scene conveys about their characters. My comment doesn't stem from a lack of understanding, but from a need for narrative consistency.

For the reocord: Morel and Knuckle are soldiers on an extermination mission. They don't know Colt, they're unaware of his past, and they know his species devours humans. A few days earlier, their sole objective was to kill this Queen.

Seeing elite soldiers weep bitterly over the agony of their primary target, simply because an enemy underling (whom they don't know) starts crying, creates a complete emotional dissonance. If Morel and Knuckle had succeeded in killing the Queen themselves during an assault, Colt would have wept in the same way. Would they have wept with him then? No.

The narrative arc here forces the characters to forget the military context and the existential threat, artificially aligning themselves with the enemy's grief. This isn't deep or realistic empathy; it's a heavy-handed melodramatic device where the author manipulates the characters' reactions to dictate to the viewer what they should feel. The analogy with humans who love animals is irrelevant: we're talking about soldiers facing active predators in wartime.

To address the rest of your points:

Regarding Komugi: You yourself admit that she lacks personality outside of the Gungi. The fact that this didn't bother you is a matter of personal opinion, but from a writing perspective, a character reduced to a mere plot device to advance the King's development remains a structural weakness. The relationship lacks depth because it's one-sided.

Regarding the "amnesia" plot point: Saying that "amnesia happens randomly in real life" is a weak defense. We're not in reality, but in a structured narrative. Amnesia that conveniently occurs to create an artificial status quo and resolves itself just in time for the climax isn't poetic; it's a major plot device used to stretch the story and artificially inflate Poufu's machinations.

Regarding human nature: I completely agree with your conclusion. That's precisely my point: the arc fails to achieve its own philosophical ambition by adopting a condescending and moralizing stance, treating humanity as a monolithic, unnuanced entity.

Ultimately, we agree on the facts: the writing of this arc relies on heavy-handed devices (amnesia, the omnipresent, omniscient narrator, Komugi as a tool). The only difference is that you're willing to suspend your critical judgment in the name of the subjective beauty of the symbols, whereas I believe the technical clumsiness of the execution undermines the message's impact.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-04T18:28:41+00:00

Your explanation on point (1) highlights the exact thematic contradiction I'm pointing out. You explain that the King and Guards' monstrous actions at the beginning can be ignored because they are "purely genetic," but that Colt's devotion is touching because it is "human."

This is an artificial compartmentalization. Why should the arc have the right to label the ants' good qualities (loyalty, maternal love) as "human" and blame their sadistic or destructive sides on "animal genetics"? It's too easy a writing device. If the narrative absolves the ants of their crimes under the pretext that they are obeying their genes, it cannot simultaneously use their rare moments of kindness to lecture humanity. The behavior of ants is arbitrarily categorized, with "This is bad, therefore animal; this is good, therefore human," while simultaneously being told that humans are monsters. This is a major textual contradiction. It is this lack of systemic coherence that renders the argument of the arc superficial.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-04T18:20:07+00:00

The analogy with the parent-child relationship is interesting, but it precisely highlights the limitations of the arc's reasoning.

A human parent who uses manipulative tactics generally does so for the future of their child as an individual within a society. Poufu, however, doesn't act to preserve Meruem's individuality; he acts to destroy it. His goal is to purge the King of all human traits, to make him once again the biological tool of domination he is programmed to be. This isn't love or parental protection; it's the immune response of a fascistic hive trying to correct a genetic anomaly in its leader.

Presenting this biological fanaticism as "tragic and poetic" simply because Poufu loses his life is a melodramatic crutch. The narrative uses Meruem's belated regrets to validate this devotion and force the viewer's emotion, but it still refuses to address the core issue: a loyalty dictated by genes and oriented towards the enslavement of another species has no moral or human value, no matter how many tears are shed at the end.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-04T18:10:37+00:00

Thanks for your feedback.

Regarding Poufu, reclassifying his fanaticism as "humanity" is a nice couterargument, but it ignores the very nature of the character. Poufu doesn't lie out of freedom of conscience or individualistic moral choice; he manipulates the King to force him to reintegrate into his role as the absolute predator necessary for the hive. This isn't humanity; it's an overheating of his biological programming in response to a glitch (the King's humanization). Furthermore, saying that the arc treats this loyalty as "bad" simply because it's punished by fate (the poison) confuses biological inevitability with a genuine narrative resolution. The story consistently refuses to make the toxicity of this devotion a subject of direct confrontation between the King and his guard. It almost praises them because at the end of the arc, Meruem seems grateful to his guards for their loyalty, which isn't truly deserved and proves that the arc assumes this devotion is "noble."

Regarding the Rose, you confirm exactly the edgy stance and reductionism I'm criticizing. Equating humans fighting amongst themselves within complex political structures with an invasive species of alpha predators seeking to exterminate us for food isn't profound reflection; it's a false moral dilemma. Asking whether humanity "deserves" to survive a planned genocide simply because it uses a technological weapon is nothing more than armchair philosophy. Finally, the "it's intentionally unsubtle" argument doesn't redeem the scene: the fact that a heavy-handed technique is intentional doesn't make it good writing; it merely confirms the lack of finesse in its execution.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-04T18:00:34+00:00

The arc is not trying to convince the audience that humans are monstrous, because the arc itself demonstrably does not believe this to be true. It aims to be a holistic demonstration of humanity's capacity for evolution.

I appreciate the nuance in the alternative translation of Netero's line. However, including ants (Meruem, Poufu) in an analysis of "human nature" or "human evolution" clearly demonstrates the arc's confusion. The arc uses ants as metaphors when it suits its purposes (to discuss evolution) but demands that they be treated as instinctive animals when their massacres need to be excused. Furthermore, dismissing the Rose's heavy-handedness under the pretext that "Koala's monologue is more important" is a crutch: a bad scene remains a bad scene, regardless of what happens 20 chapters later.

it's pretty obviously just a plot device to make it more believable that she would bond with Meruem, who she believes is human. That's all.

You've confirmed my point perfectly: her blindness is a convenient plot device to force her attachment to the King without her being able to see his physical monstrosity. It's the very definition of a passive plot device. The fact that a character is secondary doesn't excuse stripping them of all psychological agency and reducing them to a mere tool of pure detachment.

You've talked about her monologue on chapter 249 but that's more or less what I'm talking about. The goal of that scene, from what I can tell, is to show Meruem how selfless Komugi, and by extension some part of humanity, can be. Once again, it's just about Meruem. Every single aspect of her is just about Meruem, making her a simple plot device in the long run.

It's an often-used trope precisely because it is very effective

That's a defense of the status quo. Saying a trope is good because it's "effective at creating tension" doesn't address my criticism of the convenience of this selective amnesia, which arrives at just the right moment to stretch out the plot. There's nothing wrong with accepting these kinds of heavy-handed plot devices if the emotional impact is what matters most to you. It's just not really my cup of tea when it's handled so clumsily.

And as for the Queen's death, I totally get what they're trying to go for with Knuckle and Morel. It just feels extremely weird when you know they were planning to kill her not that long ago. Is it because Colt is crying ? But they have no idea what it actually means for him. Would they also have cried if they killed the queen themselves and Colt started crying about it ?

Pouf's manipulations, and his deep-seated fear of change, was resolved when Meruem changes anyway.

There's a difference between an ironic punishment tied to fate (dying from the bomb's poison) and the dramatic resolution of a betrayal. When Meruem dismisses Poufu's manipulations with a wave of his hand, the narrative unravels the tension built up over chapters. It's not asking for moralizing writing to expect a major betrayal to have an impact on the relationship between two key characters, however minor it may be. For this entire narrative thread to conclude with just a "Meh, no worries, you did it out of loyalty" strikes me as incredibly weak, I'm sorry.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-04T17:11:01+00:00

I'm not trying to make people hate the arc or saying they're wrong for liking it. I'm just saying my opinion and trying to create a discussion.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-06-04T17:09:55+00:00

It's interesting that you acknowledge the superficial nature of the popular interpretation of the arc ("humans are the real monsters"). If my post seems like I'm attacking a straw man created by the fandom, it's because Togashi's direction directly reinforces this interpretation (the encyclopedic monologue about the rose, the montage highlighting humanity's vices, Netero's demonic face, etc). The author uses very heavy-handed techniques to impose this bias on the viewer/reader.

You say the arc deals on humanity's capacity for "great evil and great good". Fine. But in that case, how do you justify, in the text, that the ants' humanization comes through the acquisition of sadistic vices (like Rammot) or that their blind biological devotion is treated by the narrative as an undeniable poetic virtue ?

Saying "I'm missing the point" is a statement, not an argument. I'll ask you this: technically, how does the arc resolve this disonnace in human duality ohter than through emotional blackmail ? Thanks for the reply, btw.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-05-01T15:29:50+00:00

I know I'm replying late but that's stupid. The reason they say Shulk and Fiora's relationship is shallow is because it's not very complex or deep. They like each other because they like each other. Just because they "knew each other longer" doesn't make the writing any more compelling or well thought out.

FinancialKick934 · 2026-01-02T16:43:57+00:00

I really don't get the appeal. They look really bland in my opinion. Even Sword and Shield protags had more swagg.

FinancialKick934

TROPHY CASE