Back to cnjones_'s Profile cnjones_'s Profile

Fate/Strange Fake funciona melhor do que eu esperava, inclusive nos pontos em que tropeça. A narrativa opera por compressão, então os episódios responsáveis pela progressão da trama concentram muita informação em pouco tempo. Os arcos do meio sofrem mais com isso. Curiosamente, os que abrem e encerram a temporada não sofrem desse problema, há mais cuidado com a cadência nesses momentos de transição do que no miolo da história propriamente dramático.

O elenco coral é uma aposta arriscada que, em boa parte, se sustenta. Flat, Ayaka e Sigma funcionam como eixos emocionais para que o espectador mantenha referência mesmo quando o foco migra entre núcleos. O ... risco de dispersão, comum em narrativas com tantos personagens simultâneos, é mitigado justamente porque esses três personagens possuem trajetórias internas coerentes. O arco do Lionheart é o caso mais interessante do ponto de vista da construção mítica que a franquia explora. A escolha de tratar o Rei Coração de Leão como um servo obcecado pelo imaginário arturiano cria um personagem constituído pela admiração a uma lenda que nunca pôde ser e capaz de abraçar as hipocrisias e contradições inevitáveis dessa posição.

Infelizmente, os antagonistas não alcançam o mesmo nível. Falta tempo dramático para que essas motivações se tornem algo além de informação com estética. Apesar dos designs suficientemente interessantes e das boas sequências de ação, o antagonismo é raso. As batalhas compensam com escala. A introdução de espíritos divinos e participantes fora do padrão da Guerra do Graal expande significativamente o teto de poder. Os confrontos têm amplitude destrutiva e a direção nos momentos de ação não decepciona; composição de quadro, efeitos visuais, trilhas e timing constroem sequências que sustentam bem a proposta épica da obra.

No geral, são treze episódios que entregam o que prometem. O cliffhanger final não soa em nada como uma interrupção arbitrária, visto que avança o diretamente arcos centrais da trama e dos personagens principais, um artifício muito bem utilizado.

This is literally Crime and Punishment.

Between Raskólnikov’s bloodstained axe and Light’s antiseptic notebook, something fundamental has changed in the way violence is exercised, justified, and, above all, experienced. There exists a disturbing genealogy that connects the nineteenth-century student from Saint Petersburg to the Tokyo teenager of the 2000s.

Both Raskólnikov and Light construct their identities on the premise that they are exceptions to the rule. Raskólnikov develops his theory of “extraordinary men,” individuals historically destined to transgress common morality when necessary, such as Napoleon or great lawmakers. He believes that the old pawnbroker represents a social parasite, and that her death would free resources for nobler ... ends. Light, in turn, receives the Death Note and quickly proclaims himself the “god of the new world,” tasked with purifying humanity by eliminating criminals. In both cases, violence is legitimized by an alleged intellectual and moral superiority.

Raskólnikov attempts to apply a utilitarian logic to a world still governed by guilt and transcendence, but he fails precisely because violence returns him to the human condition. He cannot inhabit the coldness he imagined for himself. Light, by contrast, operates in a post-internet universe, where this logic has already been partially absorbed into the cultural fabric. He does not fail to become what he intends to be; he simply reveals the emptiness of that ambition. Raskólnikov’s arrogance is tragic; Light’s is symptomatic.

Both share a superstitious belief that they were chosen by destiny. Raskólnikov interprets coincidences as divine signs when he overhears a conversation about the pawnbroker at the very moment he is thinking about her, discovers when she will be alone, or finds an abandoned axe minutes before the crime. Light questions Ryuk about why the notebook fell into his hands, to which the shinigami replies mockingly: “Don’t be so conceited. It just happened to fall here, and you picked it up, that’s all.” This need for supernatural justification reveals a shared fragility: neither of them can sustain the weight of violence through reason alone.

The most crucial difference between the two works lies in the materiality of violence. Raskólnikov must experience the crime with his entire body. He raises the axe, hears the impact of metal against skull, sees the blood spill, watches the body fall. When Lizaveta, the pawnbroker’s kind-hearted sister, appears unexpectedly, he kills her as well, in a pure act of desperation. His crime is, by definition, embodied. It passes through the senses, inhabits memory, haunts dreams. For this reason, guilt is inescapable.

Light, by contrast, kills in a mediated, distant, bureaucratic manner. He writes a name, and somewhere in the world, a person dies. Death becomes abstraction, statistic, procedure. This distance allows Light to repeat the act thousands of times without the psychological burden that destroyed Raskólnikov. There is a structural cowardice in this mediation, in the sense that Light is exempt from bearing the real weight of his actions.

This difference reflects the historical moment of each work. Death Note emerges at a time when the internet begins to shape subjectivities: anonymous forums, faceless profiles, violent discourse without immediate consequence. Symbolic violence becomes detached from emotional accountability. Light kills under a false identity (Kira), transforming his actions into a spectacle watched by the entire world. For Dostoevsky, there is no way to kill without being traversed by the act. For the culture of the 2000s, this traversal has become optional.

If the protagonists represent justified violence, the investigators function as their critical mirrors. Porfiry Petrovich and L share similar methods, but operate under distinct philosophical assumptions. Porfiry acts according to moral psychology. He believes that guilt is inevitable, that the criminal will be betrayed by his own conscience. His conversations with Raskólnikov function as existential traps, where every word probes the suspect’s soul. Porfiry does not need material evidence because he trusts the internal fracture that crime necessarily produces.

L, on the other hand, operates within what might be called a post-moral framework. For him, the intellectual game matters more than redemption. When he provokes Light in a televised broadcast to the Kanto region, he is not appealing to the killer’s conscience, but to his narcissism. L understands that Kira cannot resist the challenge, that he will respond precisely because he cannot tolerate being underestimated. There is no expectation of moral conversion in this confrontation, only the pleasure of the hunt.

Machiavellian thought permeates both works, but serves different functions. In Crime and Punishment, the idea that the ends justify the means still encounters resistance. Raskólnikov attempts to inhabit this logic, but his body and psyche rebel against it. Dostoevsky’s novel exposes the collapse of a subject who tries to apply instrumental rationality, only to discover that he cannot be the Napoleon he imagined.

In Death Note, Machiavelli has ceased to be a Renaissance political philosopher and has become an informal language of efficiency. Light does not face the same psychological resistance because he inhabits a universe in which Machiavellianism has been normalized. Efficiency has surpassed empathy as a criterion of moral evaluation. This does not mean that Death Note endorses this worldview, despite its moments of spectacle. The work exposes the emptiness of this ideology by showing Light’s degradation into a spiral of paranoia and megalomania. But unlike Dostoevsky, who offers the possibility of redemption through suffering and love (embodied in Sonia), Death Note abandons this metaphysical anguish. Light dies alone, betrayed by his own pride, without any moment of recognition or inner transformation.

Both works demonstrate how moral justifications, however elaborate, collapse in the face of the reality of violence. The moment Rodion kills Lizaveta, his entire theory of extraordinary men is revealed as empty rationalization. Light, in turn, begins by eliminating criminals, but quickly expands his criteria to include “all who oppose Kira.” He kills FBI agent Raye Penber and then his wife, Naomi Misora. Light incorporates each new death into a broader narrative: “All who obstruct justice must be destroyed.” For Raskólnikov, Lizaveta’s murder is a wound that never heals. For Light, each new death is merely another datum in the calculus of efficiency.

Curiously, both Raskólnikov and Light are destroyed not by guilt or by the law, but by an almost pathological need to confront their investigators. This compulsion reveals that, for both of them, violence was never truly about justice or utility. It was about the ego, about proving their exceptional status. Hubris is, in both cases, the true cause of their downfall.

Between the axe and the notebook, between embodied guilt and mediated death, between Saint Petersburg and Tokyo, what changes is not only the technology of violence, but the very affective structure that sustains or contests it. Dostoevsky still believed in the possibility of redemption through suffering. Death Note offers no such hope, but perhaps it does not need to: by exposing with clinical precision the degeneration of Light Yagami, it reveals the fragility of a Machiavellianism that, stripped of any human consideration, can lead only to emptiness. The notebook that promised absolute power delivers only solitude and death. And in this, paradoxically, lies its moral force: not in preaching guilt, but in demonstrating that efficiency without empathy produces no gods, only functional monsters who die alone.

When we look at the mosaic of modern narratives, certain archetypes seem to resist new interpretations, whether due to the wear of countless prior representations or the challenge of extracting fresh meaning from themes so thoroughly explored. Sōsō no Frieren, however, breaks through this barrier with sensitivity, establishing itself as a profound meditation on time, failure, and acceptance.

The anime’s technical excellence is evident; nevertheless, it is the layers of its narrative that elevate Frieren to a singular level. In a media landscape saturated with character-driven dramas, the work does more than tell a story: it invites the viewer into a journey of introspection through its ... protagonist. An elf who, freed from the temporal constraints that shape human experience, offers new perspectives on fulfillment, learning, and personal value. Yet the concept most fully developed within the anime is that of failure. In the eyes of her immortal peers, Frieren possesses all the traits required to be considered a failure, and it is precisely her relationship with this idea of “failing” that amplifies the anime’s emotional sensitivity.

At first, we are led to believe she exists solely within the realm of indifference. But her acceptance does not arise from resignation or apathy. It emerges from a personal understanding of the nature of experience and of the choices that shape, in a subjective and nontransferable way, what a life with purpose truly means. This dynamic resonates powerfully with the human condition, especially in a world where we are constantly judged by our career paths, relationships, and beliefs. Frieren offers a courageous perspective on failure, not as complacency, but as liberation. The lightness of her personality and philosophy does not stem from the denial of her shortcomings, but from a profound peace with who she has chosen to be.

The anime skillfully translates the expectations we carry: the frustration of unmet goals, the difficulty of fully understanding those around us, the weight of unrealized dreams. We learn that there is wisdom in recognizing that not everything we value necessarily strengthens us, and that not everything that strengthens us must carry deep meaning. We can acknowledge our defeats without being defined by them. The freedom born of this self-acceptance, portrayed with delicacy throughout the narrative, invites us to reconsider our own relationship with personal fulfillment, offering a luminous perspective on the burdens we choose to carry and those we can, at last, set aside. Through the immortal elf, we paradoxically find a mirror for our own mortality and for the choices we make within the limited time we are given.