So can anyone explain why Oda would have her say this without saying its meant to be a red herring? Given that Oda knows fully well that his intended audience of 13 year olds would see this as her joining the crew.
On top of that, Shonen Jump is willing to officially promote this panel on a vol 101 poster that was approved by the editorial.
Okay.. I will explain you a concept I call "Subversion dialogue" don't search it on internet, it's a neologism I created to explain a storytelling trick with (strangely) no name yet. What I will do here is basically copy pasting my article.. This time, it's important that you really understand what it's all about, so for once, you will see an entire analysis. Let's begin:
Subversion dialogues
"Subversion dialogues" are storytelling tools that helps the author lead the reader's mindset where they wants them to be while preparing and helping the diligent readers with little hints, to predict what is really to come in the future. In short. You can see "Subversion dialogues" as diversion tool.
-----
- On chapter 216, Luffy says this:
"Vivi is coming!! Let's drop anchor and go look for her!! She's gotta be here!!"
This line from Luffy is giving us the expectation that Vivi is gonna join and that we just have to go search for her in order for this to happen. Sadly, we know (now) that Vivi will not join. In fact what Oda did here is trying to subvert our expectations. His goal was to surprise us. So he made Luffy give us some hope only to take them back later on.
- On this other example on chapter 837, Luffy is angry at Crackers while speaking about Sanji: : (To crakers:
"Don't insult Sanji!! Even if he's too happy to want to come back... he would NEVER speak to us like that")
With this line, Luffy is giving us the expectation that Sanji would never speak to Luffy with an insult even if Sanji is too happy to stay with Pudding. Sadly, we now know that Sanji will indeed speak to Luffy with an insult. For the simple reason that he is lost and this is the only way for him to make Luffy go away.
As you can see, those "moments" are the "I have a bad feeling about this" moments... The reason is simple : those are both "subversion dialogues". They are dialogue meant to divert us from the truth of the story in order to surprise us later.
Two type of subversion
There are two type of "subversion dialogue":
A "subversion dialogue" can come from a positive statement to arrive at a negative situation but a "subversion dialogue" can also come from a negative statement to arrive at a positive situation.
The two previous "subversion dialogues" (Luffy speaking about Vivi and Luffy speaking about Sanji) were positive statement meant to arrive at a nevative situation in other word those were :
Positive > to > negative subversion dialogues
Here are some example of the opposite: Negative >.to > Positive subversion dialogue
- Chapter 816: (Franky:
"If the samurai searching for Raizo should happen across the Mink, then surely disaster will result!!!!")
In this first example, Oda is leading us to believe the Mink will kill the samourai. So we are worried. But this is not what will happen, in fact the Samourai will get well welcomed. This is an example of a "subversion dialogue" coming from a negative statement to arrive at a positive situation.
- Chapter 880: (Nami to Luffy (about the candy tsunami: "
Hello? ... Sorry Luffy.. We might... not make it")
In this other example Nami (and Oda) are leading us to believe that there is no way out of this situation. They will all get crush by this tsunami wave and die. Of course now we know that this is not what happened. Jinbe used the ship to enter the green room.
Those type of "diversion dialogues" (Negative > to > positive) are mostly used in moments when there is a life or death situation. Those are the "oh sh*t!" moments. But they can be countered by the most careful readers. I will show you how.
-----
How to detect the subversion dialogue
There is a simple way to detect subversion dialogues. We must look at the premisse. If the premisse is corrupted, then this is most likely because the dialogue is subversif. To understand, let's look back at all of our examples:
- In the first one, Luffy says that Vivi is coming. But this premisse is corrupted by the fact that Vivi is a princess. She can't just go with pirates this easy, she has a duty. That's why Vivi can't come back to the crew.
- In the second example Luffy states that Sanji - even if happy about his situation- would never speaks to him that way. But this premisse is corrupted by a fact we already know in the story: Sanji is not happy at all, and he is taken hostage by his own family, he will have therefore no choice but to speak to Luffy in a bad way to make him go away.
- In the third example, we have the opposite : Franky and Cie told us that if the Samourai were found by the mink, they would be transformed into dead meat. But this premisse is corrupted also. Indeed, the Minks never told the crew that they hated the samourai. (Oda was sneaky enough to even make Kinemon and Kanjurou state that the mink would welcome them)
- In the last example, Nami is saying that there are done for. But there is one thing Nami doesn't know and that the best readers might have noticed: A wayve can be surfed on and Jinbe is a Helmsman and a fishman, there is surely no wayve too big for him.
As you can see, once a premisse is corrupted, it is most likely because of the presence of a subversion dialogue.
Of course, most of the subversion dialogues are not so easy to notice, that why authors can play with our minds so easily. Most often, they are noticable after the action. But sometime, it's possible. You will see why this is important in the following ...
---and the following ---
The demand
This is one of the most frequent arguments in favor of Yamato. The argument is as follow:
"Yamato asked Luffy to join, this is therefore a foreshadow to the recruitment of Yamato in the crew."
Well.. This is where things gets interesting. Because the fact is, that demand is not a foreshadow, in fact it's not even a demand at all.
- This argument ignores the fact that Yamato didn't asked Luffy, she affirmed that because Luffy was the brother of Ace, she would therefore have a place on the ship. But remember, Luffy don't like being push around and this is false logic.
Yamato's "you should be giving me a ride on your ship" is a false promise (for the fan) from a Positive > to > a Negative and a Negative > to > a positive (for the character of Yamato). (You guessed it, this is a form of
subversion dialogue)
The hint for the corruption of the promise is as follow: Yamato wants to go on the ship for the wrong reasons (not for Luffy but by simple "logic") and she doesn't ask, she
states.
Imagine any other character having the same statement ("you should be giving me a ride on your ship") it would be clear that this is a false promise.
This is why I think that by understanding what she really wants, Yamato will change her goal and might realise that there is no need for her to go. A good reader of One Piece will know that
all the Nakama will follow Luffy because of him first. That why here, The story hints us that Yamato is kinda lying to herself.
This "subversion dialogue" shows us two things:
- What Yamato said to Luffy won't happen, even if she becomes Nakama, that won't be for those reasons! So and even if it's still possible, the integration of Yamato to the crew is still unlikely.
- Oda is still playing with the "nakama" card and what better way to plan the surprise of the integration of a new crew member, that to make us believe another member will join.
-------
And here you have it. A clear and detailed explanation for this little dialogue.
The reason Oda made Yamato say is can be for two:
- Oda intend to make Yamato change her mind. That would put a twist on her story to make it more believable.
- Oda wanted to divert us from the character he really want to integrate into the crew
