Being able to see what the author wants to express is actually not consistent with my three views, probably because I think the truth of the world is not like this (just like reading a professional book, this kind of inconsistency of the three views is too common haha).
I think that the true nature of human beings is nature, and all the views of good and evil are social, such as the praised loyalty, patriotism, killing the enemy; the abandoned murder, greed, etc., I think the essence of everything is without attributes There is no good or evil, all views of good and evil are imposed by society.
Therefore, I don't agree with the view that human beings lose love when they have wisdom. People all praise love, but love, like other rejected and inferior natures, is nothing but human nature. It recognizes one nature and denies other natures. I do not agree with this view.
But this point of view, well, when I read it, did I feel the point of view of the group of philosophers who wanted to improve the value of human beings when they read Western classical philosophy?
And, this is really a very good and artistic work, very wonderful! The layers of content are very rich, and it is a real pleasure to watch this kind of work. The last time I saw something similar was "Nausicaa". But this is really a bit bloody, the last time I saw this kind of undisguised is Game of Thrones.
—————————————————————
In fact, I think most people's objections are because they don't understand what artistry is. First, they confuse art with reality, and second, they confuse artistry with works that are illogical and messy. The difference is actually quite obvious. Art can often stay away from reality without logic, but the reason and motive for this kind of separation from reality without logic must be linked to the main idea, and it follows the author's will and is the author's thinking. The crystallization of the author entrusts a certain long-cherished wish of the author. And those messy works are probably similar to some kind of shredding devils, hidden mines in the crotch and so on. The core is whether there is a strong enough ideological core.
For example, a lot of people say that the protagonist is with the enemy, and it is illogical to be played by the enemy... I thought it was okay when I watched it at the time. Let's interpret it in three ways. 1. There is a two-way interaction process between people. For example, why do those who hear others being scammed by phone feel stupid, because the loophole is too big, and it will not happen to them at all, and when they actually encounter them, they are inexplicably caught Lied, and Asherat was a master at manipulating people's hearts. 2 The personalities and differences between people are very large, but everyone always uses the most popular set of templates to interpret them. 3 However, on the other hand, this can also be regarded as an artistic manifestation of deviation from "reality".
Another example is that a lot of people say that Asherat was whitewashed... In fact, they didn't feel the whitewashing. It was actually quite obvious from the beginning. Since they noticed the "unreasonableness" of the protagonist and the enemy being together, it should also be Notice the unreasonableness of Asherat (to be honest, I saw these unreasonables earlier, and when the reversal was revealed later, it was so cool), the author did not want to come out one by one, but from the It was laid out from the very beginning. For example, why did Asherat break his promise to kill his father, and he was willing to keep his promise and let others go, for example, why did Asherat not kill the protagonist, for example, why did Asherath have so many subordinates, but every time he let him go The protagonist goes to run errands and so on.
View more about Vinland Saga reviews
