In the 20th century, traditional tropes from the Edo period were adapted into the modern era through the popularization of Yakuza movies: ninkyo eiga portrayed characters that upheld chivalrous values that mirrored those constructed around samurai myth as romanticized militaristic propaganda. Revenge stories then would lose their direct connection with the hierarchical structure of Tokugawa government, replaced by the clandestine relationships within criminal organization, but would center more on the avenger as a multi-dimensional character trapped between personal feelings and duty. Later, jitsuroku eiga would flip the genre on its head, turning these Yakuza characters into cynical and individualistic counterparts to the chivalrous depictions in ninkyo eiga who survive a system rather than habitate it.
Thus, tropes born from literary tradition find their way into popular culture easily, we can see the romanticized narrative of samurai honor code embedded even into the fabric of shonen manga —without it necessarily reinforcing its fascist undertones of course, though it might overlap. The path of a warrior, a ninja, a duelist, all may descend from that literary tradition. Likewise, authors may also reconfigure those tropes to reflect the perspectives of their own times, as filmmakers did with the uncertainty and chaos of the postwar era through jitsuroku eiga.
Among stories of revenge in shonen manga, Bakura’s narrative shares common tropes with other revenge driven characters whose grudge isn't inspired by the harm done to a close family member or a superior owed loyalty, but to an entire community, which strips the character off their sense of self on a more existential level:
Kurapika from Hunter x Hunter is the only survivor of the Kurta clan massacre
Sasuke from Naruto is the last survivor of the Uchiha clan massacre
Scar from Fullmetal Alchemist is a survivor of the Ishval genocide
The point of these tragedies is no longer personal, but a collective one. And the original act of violence doesn’t simply occur as a result of a conflict, but it instead is carried out with a purpose: the instrumentalization of the victim’s body.
The eyes of the Kurta clan were sold in the black market
Members of the Uchiha clan have abilities which other characters can steal for themselves
The villagers of Kul Elna are used in the creation of the Millenium Items
The people of Ishval are sacrificed in the creation of the Philosopher’s Stone
These four examples touch on the theme of the body of as a commodity or raw material that more explicitly dehumanizes the targeted group to the reader, they become a product or a source of power that the aggressor exploits for self benefit.
Once the figurative dust was settled in Japan after the surrender in the war and the period of occupation, japanese people had to had been left to confront the colonial and genocidal history inherited from those previous decades. Having this in mind, I wonder if this pattern of revenge stories reflects in some way those anxieties.
Victims of Imperial Japan were forced into slave labour that helped to further the development of the nation, many cities were met with so much violence that went past the threshold of what can be expected from war merely for the enjoyment of the soldiers, and inhumane experiments were carried out in secret facilities whose final results were exchanged in a deal with the US.
I feel that most of these examples can be dismissed as reflections of historical events (given especially that in Hunter x Hunter the aggressor is a criminal organization and not an entity of the state, for example, more closely related to the jitsuroku genre) even though the underlying connection between genocide (an ethnically targeted massacre) and human instrumentalization is there, just explored in a less structural manner. And yet at the end of the list, FMA is unquestionably a story that faces these anxieties head-on. Hiromu Arakawa herself, the author, has explained she was inspired by her own experience as the descendant of colonial settlers in Hokkaido who displaced indigenous Ainu people. She has also mentioned the zionist colonial project of israel on Palestine.
Whether the author consciously has decided to explore these anxieties or not, I do feel that they’re worth looking at as part of the same narrative of colonial aggression (from the perspective of the aggressor).
Excluding Bakura, the groups these characters belong to are distinctly separated from the rest of the population, which reinforces the pattern of ethnically targeted violence. Eyes are often used in the medium as a mark of otherness —whether symbolic or physical— and we can appreciate this in the mentioned titles: Ishval people have natural red eyes, Uchiha abilities manifest in their eyes (iconically identified with the red sharingan), the Kurta clan possesses eyes that change into red when in anger.
Amestris and Ishval people in FMA
Kurta clan eyes in HxH
Uchiha sharingan in Naruto
The author of Hunter x Hunter has mentioned the Ohmu from Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, an early Hayao Miyazaki film, as inspiration for the eyes of the Kurta clan. In this movie, the Ohmu are feared creatures whose eyes turn red when they become hostile, specifically with humans who have no respect for their natural habitat, exploiting and destroying the forest they themselves unknowingly depend on for survival. Even though the main theme of the film is about environmentalism —the relationship between war and industrial pollution at its center— its narrative can also be interpreted under the lens of colonial aggression against indigenous populations (though, again, deeply viewed from the perspective of the aggressor).
Ohmu in Nausicaa
So even if the creative choice to mimic the Ohmu in Hunter x Hunter was only meant to be cosmetic, the coincidence feels almost like a subconscious association to the ethnically targeted violence underlying these works.
Notably, though, the villagers of Kul Elna have no distinct traits that separate them from the rest of the population, save for the generalization of their reputation as thieves.
Another stark contrast between Bakura and the other characters whose tragedies were politically motivated lies in the internal logic used (within the stories by the perpetrators) to justify the massacres.
In Naruto, the Uchiha clan had a history of political conflict with the village of Konoha, particularly the choice of hokage (head of state) and were planning a coup d'etat. Sasuke’s brother, who was acting as a double agent, is given the order to kill his own clan in order to prevent the coup (while allowed to spare his little brother’s life).
In Fullmetal Alchemist, the country of Amestris was already at war with Ishval and the violence was framed as retaliation (though this is intentional by the author). They were also very different in terms of culture and visibly othered by physical appearance —by this I don’t mean these are reasonable justifications for violence at all, but that this is the internal logic the aggressors in the story use to target the groups.
Despite the stories highlighting the injustice of the tragedies, they depict an internal justification for authority to respond to them as a threat —both the Uchiha and Ishval are political enemies. In Naruto the threat is legitimate; in FMA the threat is manufactured but possible enough to manufacture consent.
By contrast, Kul Elna did not belong to a foreign faction, was not rebellious, and the people were not ethnically different from the rest of the region. The threat that the pharaoh’s royal court was acting against was a foreign nation planning to steal their power, Kul Elna was just collateral damage that had nothing to do with the political conflict itself, collateral damage.
Between these three different approaches, Mr Takahashi seems to distance the narrative from real life comparisons of ethnically targeted violence by removing the layer of political justification through the prevention of a threat, but more on that in the next post.
Revenge tales were popular in kabuki plays and puppet shows since the medieval period in Japan, even becoming tools of military propaganda, until the US occupation after WWII, where they were banned alongside other material that could inspire rebellious sentiments among the population.
While the US feared that narratives about revenge could destabilize the order they were imposing on a recently defeated Japanese society —especially popular tales involving the political class and their employed samurai— the Japanese empire saw the value in their inherent implications of rigid obedience.
The military Tokugawa government distorted confucian principles of hierarchical respect in order to control its elite population, social class was almost treated like spiritual virtue and social mobility was forbidden —everyone had a place in society that demanded loyalty to superiors. The bushido (or the code of samurai) was particularly crafted to indoctrinate employed samurai into surrendering their will to the emperor through the military apparatus and the chain of command above them.
It’s not a coincidence then that the most enduring tale of revenge turned out to be that of the 47 ronin, known as the Ako incident, where a group of samurai avenge their lord’s death at the hands of another important lord and subsequently submit themselves to be punished with seppuku for their crime. Back in those times, elites could actually request permission to carry out revenge and it would be granted if it was deemed just, but the samurai in the Ako incident had acted clandestinally.
Yet their actions had paradoxically followed the same code of honor expected from them of loyalty for their fallen master. This story is based on real events, but there are no legitimate records on what actually motivated the ronin to get revenge, early dramatizations often emphasized romantic subplots rather than political or ethical motivations. Over countless retellings, reframings and embellishments, the angle of loyalty came to dominate the major narrative of the story, which served the interests of the military government.
On the other hand, western stories of revenge, from Hamlet to Batman, are frequently tied to a model of restorative justice. The antagonist often embodies systemic corruption, and their defeat signals not only personal vindication but also the reestablishment of moral and social order. Every time we watch a revenge plot, we expect the (anti)hero to defeat the villain, and we expect the world to change after that —especially in narratives where the wronged victim belongs to a group that’s been historically oppressed.
Hence why the US occupation likely considered any narrative about revenge dangerous —and why Thief King Bakura’s case feels particularly inconclusive to us, almost like we’ve been robbed of our own right to assert justice.
But the difference is this:
In western stories about revenge the villain is usually the one who holds the power to enact violence, this individual isn’t just a part of the system, they embody the system itself. They are the evil that has wrecked the balance of justice and, therefore, taking down this individual allows for the system to be fixed. But in japanese literary tradition the antagonists are merely a part of the system, and even if the characters succeed in carrying out their revenge to its end, as in the case of the old tale of the 47 ronin,, the system still exerts its power —the character’s tragic end reinforces how immovable that system is.
A modern use of this revenge narrative in the context of the Tokugawa period is the 1962 movie Harakiri, directed by Masaki Kobayashi, where after completing his revenge the actions of the protagonist are reframed to fit the code of conduct demanded by the military system. It’s like his challenge to the status quo and exposition of samurai code as a facade never happened, all is covered by the elites that motivated his revenge in the first place.
Revenge tales that once were used to demonstrate the character's own virtue through the reinforcement of hierarchical obedience changed into a tool to expose duty as propaganda and structural manipulation in the postwar era. Unlike the idealistic narratives in western tradition that pretend to restore the balance of justice, the purpose of these japanese works is instead to challenge and expose the flaws and hypocresies of the system, even if only to the audience.
Mr Takahashi wrote Thief King Bakura to target more than just someone to retaliate against for the tragedy of his village —not Atem as an individual heir to the powers that dispatched the orders, but the entire royal system that justifies its actions through divine authority.
In western literary canon, we’d expect him to succeed in overthrowing the royalty, to restore justice. From the perspective of Japanese literary tradition, however, he was never going to succeed —his purpose was to challenge and expose.
The contradiction befalls then on Atem as the protagonist of this arc and his role as the head of the system that we as the audience are meant to identify as the moral guidance of the work, but more of that in later posts.
1. Gods don't seem to exist in the world building of ygo's ancient Egypt in the conventional sense. Siamun explains that there's a hierarchy of kas: regular spirits, demons and gods. They all are shocked that TKB owns a god ka.
2. Obelisk, Slifer and Ra are gods (some chapters were they are confronted in a duel are called god vs god plus other allusions), therefore they are kas. Siamun explains that only one king would be able to wield their power/call them, and that king turns out to be Atem. The three god cards are the key to unseal Atem's memories.
3. Horakhty is called the creator god, but she was never summoned in the original historical events, only in the rpg game against Yamiba. If Horakhty wasn't part of the original memories, would it have been possible for Atem to summon her in order to defeat Zorc? Like the whole god called into the world of memories that she wasn't part of?
4. If Atem had the ability to summon Horakhty why didn't he do it in the first place instead of sealing himself in the puzzle? The only difference between the original events and the rpg is his friends were there. It's possible they gave him the energy he needed to restore ba - assuming the ka theory, kas can't be summoned when the person lacks ba.
5. So, if Horakhty was Atem's own ka, something that's been part of him all along, then she safely existed in the memories as well.
6. Doesn't it feel a bit anti-climatic that even though Atem is the protagonist of this arc and the very most important king of his time, his ka is never revealed or even mentioned at all? When all the priests have kas?
7. Horakhty is the creator god and Atem bears an alternative spelling of the god Atum, famously known for giving birth to everything in existence. He's only able to summon Horakhty when he learns his true name.
For real, I've always wondered what was Atem's actual ka too.
He's only able to summon Horakhty when he learns his true name.
If I remember correctly, it was explained that Atem was able to summon Horakhty only thanks to the friendship bonds Atem forged with Yuugi and co - something he didn't have back then with the priests.
When all the priests have kas.
Wait, those were their actual kas? I thought all the priests's kas aren't their own, but kas essentially stolen from previous criminals. I mean, The Egypt arc begins with a criminal being judged before the Court, with his ka sealed into a stone, which is seemingly not the first time this happens. Idk. Anyway, I love the idea of the gods being Atem's kas!
mahad's is the magus (though this isn't its full form) and priestess isis has emanation spiria
when mahad releases his magic (that he was using to contain the power of the millenium ring) in his solo battle against tkb we can see the magus at full strength
im not sure about the wording here, but akhenaden's might be gadius. tkb might be commenting on his choice of stone slab ka or acknowledging it as his personal ka, who knows
this one that looks like curse of dragon card might be karim's, he fuses it with seto's duos and explains they both put their ba in the scales, but it's unclear whether it has to be their own ka
1. Gods don't seem to exist in the world building of ygo's ancient Egypt in the conventional sense. Siamun explains that there's a hierarchy of kas: regular spirits, demons and gods. They all are shocked that TKB owns a god ka.
2. Obelisk, Slifer and Ra are gods (some chapters were they are confronted in a duel are called god vs god plus other allusions), therefore they are kas. Siamun explains that only one king would be able to wield their power/call them, and that king turns out to be Atem. The three god cards are the key to unseal Atem's memories.
3. Horakhty is called the creator god, but she was never summoned in the original historical events, only in the rpg game against Yamiba. If Horakhty wasn't part of the original memories, would it have been possible for Atem to summon her in order to defeat Zorc? Like the whole god called into the world of memories that she wasn't part of?
4. If Atem had the ability to summon Horakhty why didn't he do it in the first place instead of sealing himself in the puzzle? The only difference between the original events and the rpg is his friends were there. It's possible they gave him the energy he needed to restore ba - assuming the ka theory, kas can't be summoned when the person lacks ba.
5. So, if Horakhty was Atem's own ka, something that's been part of him all along, then she safely existed in the memories as well.
6. Doesn't it feel a bit anti-climatic that even though Atem is the protagonist of this arc and the very most important king of his time, his ka is never revealed or even mentioned at all? When all the priests have kas?
7. Horakhty is the creator god and Atem bears an alternative spelling of the god Atum, famously known for giving birth to everything in existence. He's only able to summon Horakhty when he learns his true name.
Kaiba having a fondness for kids and wanting to see them have fun and share in the things he’s built is a great character detail that fits him very well but as w many characters like that it’s like wow that’s so interesting, how’s your own inner child doing. Yeah how’s he doing. Bc it kinda sounds like you keep him locked up in a trauma cage and most of his enrichment comes from letting him play card games through the bars. Can think of one thing of Gozaburo’s you failed to destroy bud and it’s in your brain unfortunately! You became your own persecutor while you weren’t looking!! Whoops!! “Nobody will EVER put me in a cage again,” said the guy actively locking himself in his cage. Love that for him
Dark magician and bewd (in front of the gay tablet)
Blue eyes ultimate dragon and magician of black chaos (who make dragon master magia)
Destined rivals
Fiend's sanctuary (card Kaiba gives to yamiyu before the duel against yamima)
Deep eyes white dragon (embodiment of kaiba's grief in dsod)
Obelisk (the soldier god card owned by Kaiba who uses dragon deck) and slifer (dragon god card owned by yamiyu who uses soldier/knight deck)
The dragon hunting swordsman (the dragon what? Exactlyyyy)
Symbol of what? Exactlyyyyy
I'm missing the dragon masters, that anniversary token where they're together and strength in unity but those are hard to find at a reasonable price 😔 and black luster soldier is somewhere lost in the mail
areudirty
jbbartram-illu
kianamaiart
