General & Others Anybody else Confused about themes in Big Mom’s flashback?

#1
Point is, its kinda weird to be this cruel to a child Character for Oda and when i read this i almost thought there was definetely a twist and Oda wouldnt actually have a child eat her family. Btw, I dont mean Oda hasnt had bad things happen to kids, Nami exists. I mean its usually not the Child’s actual fault that bad things are happening to them the way it was Linlin’s fault. Even when you go to stories like Chopper and Hiruluk, Hiruluk himself chooses to get poisoned and absolves Chopper of the poisoning to remove the blame from Chopper and also to prove his own Quack Doctoring is legit. In the end, this isnt common to have children in the story be literally at fault for the evil of the world because it kinda seemed like Oda usually gave Children a special place in his story.

This was kinda the whole message in Fishman Island with Otohime and Hody with how evil just molds children into growing up bad without the Children’s direct involvement in the evil itself.

This general understanding of Oda’s philosophy around children is what led me to agree with one of the only criticisms I’ve seen with the character of Doflamingo. The criticism of Oda making it that Doffy was “born evil”. This statement still stands out as so bizzare when Rosinante implied that Doffy was simply “born evil” and the circumstances of his life had little to do with his outcome. This statement is especially jarring considering it directly contradicts Doffy’s own philosophy that he spouted in Marineford in his famous speech about the circumstances people are born and raised in being the determinant of their moral values.

This speech is great and very insightful but then comes off as hypocritical when Rosinante simply implies Doffy is a born psychopath and his circumstances dont actually explain shit. This would be fine since some people are in fact born psychopths BUT the problem comes in when this is used with Doflamingo of all people and used in One piece, the story that seemed to give children the benefit of a doubt in such matters.

And so we find ourselves back in the muddled theme regarding children in One Piece. Maybe its muddled intentionally by Oda, I dont know. But when i read the Big mom flashback, my immediate thought was that it seemed weirdly cruel for Oda. I honestly thought for like a year that it would be revealed that Big mom didnt in fact eat her family but the anime adaptation made it even less ambiguous and i gave up.

I still enjoy the flashback in that sense that its creepy as hell but everytime i think about the themes around it, it just falls apart and gets confusing for me.
 
#2
I think for big mom it's less about her being evil and more about her being sick mentally. Big Mom lives in her own fantasy world and sees herself as a good guy which can be seen in her dream. Her dream is not innately evil but she so Fucked up mentally thanks to the adults in her childhood manipulating her. Which makes me curious of how big Mom was in her younger adult years because maybe her mind deteriorated more in her old age.

The problem with Rosinante's perspective is it is bias which it should be considering his experience with Doffy. From an outside perspective it seems like the two responded differently to the same events and neither could understand each other because of how different they each had become.
 

Uncle Van

Monké Don't Do Taxes
#3
It ain't really that cruel. Oda's philosophy is that we're all products of our environment steeming from childhood. Difference is that characters like the SHs had good people in their lives being a positive influence while villains did not. Both Franky and BM got abandoned, but Franky turned out OK thanks to Tom and Iceburg.

Speaking of BM, she has no idea she ate her foster family. She believes they all abandoned her which is why she can't stand when people leave her and tries to kill them when they try, children or not..
 
F

Formerly Seth

#7
Point is, its kinda weird to be this cruel to a child Character for Oda and when i read this i almost thought there was definetely a twist and Oda wouldnt actually have a child eat her family. Btw, I dont mean Oda hasnt had bad things happen to kids, Nami exists. I mean its usually not the Child’s actual fault that bad things are happening to them the way it was Linlin’s fault. Even when you go to stories like Chopper and Hiruluk, Hiruluk himself chooses to get poisoned and absolves Chopper of the poisoning to remove the blame from Chopper and also to prove his own Quack Doctoring is legit. In the end, this isnt common to have children in the story be literally at fault for the evil of the world because it kinda seemed like Oda usually gave Children a special place in his story.

This was kinda the whole message in Fishman Island with Otohime and Hody with how evil just molds children into growing up bad without the Children’s direct involvement in the evil itself.

This general understanding of Oda’s philosophy around children is what led me to agree with one of the only criticisms I’ve seen with the character of Doflamingo. The criticism of Oda making it that Doffy was “born evil”. This statement still stands out as so bizzare when Rosinante implied that Doffy was simply “born evil” and the circumstances of his life had little to do with his outcome. This statement is especially jarring considering it directly contradicts Doffy’s own philosophy that he spouted in Marineford in his famous speech about the circumstances people are born and raised in being the determinant of their moral values.

This speech is great and very insightful but then comes off as hypocritical when Rosinante simply implies Doffy is a born psychopath and his circumstances dont actually explain shit. This would be fine since some people are in fact born psychopths BUT the problem comes in when this is used with Doflamingo of all people and used in One piece, the story that seemed to give children the benefit of a doubt in such matters.

And so we find ourselves back in the muddled theme regarding children in One Piece. Maybe its muddled intentionally by Oda, I dont know. But when i read the Big mom flashback, my immediate thought was that it seemed weirdly cruel for Oda. I honestly thought for like a year that it would be revealed that Big mom didnt in fact eat her family but the anime adaptation made it even less ambiguous and i gave up.

I still enjoy the flashback in that sense that its creepy as hell but everytime i think about the themes around it, it just falls apart and gets confusing for me.
Big Mom's character is really plain and simple.

She is a woman with good intentions that are executed by her the wrong way.
 
Top