Reviews Manga / Liar Game

I have to admit, everything in this review it true . . . up through chapter 28 or so (of 103 so far), likely as far as the reviewer has read. Afterwards, Nao becomes more intelligent and less gullible over time, to the extent that she manages to outwith the current Big Bad at one point. Akiyama's characterization is improving, and Fukunaga . . . well, let's just say something in the review's description of him told me that chapter 28 is about as far as it applies.

Also, how can you complain about the characters being dreadful hams while saying that Death Note is better about this? Need I remind you about a certain potato chip?

I agree that Fukunaga is by far the most interesting character in the series. However, as the series progresses, both Akiyama and Nao (ESPECIALLY Nao) get decent amounts of Character Development.

Storywise, I feel that Liar Game's pacing far outshines Death Note - well, at the very least, the second part of Death Note, anyway. The story is tight and suspenseful, every round of the game is tight and self-contained, like puzzle pieces fitting perfectly into each other, whereas Death Note's plots are much more convoluted, complex, rambling, and sometimes, a bit loose. Though not as high as Death Note, the stakes for this story are still high enough to be interesting, and more importantly, it adds to the realism of the piece. In the end, Death Note is a fantasy-based story, and so the application of logic to it ultimately comes off as a bit contrived - not that it's bad, just that the rules of the "game" are arbitrarily decided by the way the fantasy-verse is crafted. In comparison, the Liar Game itself may have arbitrary rules, but the rules of logic and psychology that are applied to it are all based in reality, and have their basis in real human psychology, which makes the whole thing more believable for me. I like how Liar Game tears away everyone's masks and shows us the ugly, festering side of human nature. Death Note may be superior in terms of characterization and emotional impact (which, I may add, is partly due to the "dreadful" hamming of a certain character with a God complex), but Liar Game is more grounded in reality and human psychology.

Both series have their good and bad points, and I feel that we can't just label one series as superior or inferior. Both series are far too complex for simplistic comparisons like that.

In reply to INU Hs comments: I had read up to 103 by the time I made the review. I agree that the series does make a turn for the better around the late 20 mark, not just in terms of character development but also the puzzles themselves. Up until the first "comeback round", I found the solution to a lot of the puzzles fairly obvious. From the start of the comeback round, I was intrigued. Round 3 however got so complicated, I completely lost the plot. This wasn't helped by the flat villain: he wears a Mao suit, pets furry white animals, and he wants to take over the World. I don't think the series improved enough for me to take back what I said.

In regards to the hamming - Yes, Death Note is notorious for having its share, but it doesn't become distracting or overbearing. In Liar Game, every single antagonistic character will boast and cheer at the top of the voice when they think they'll win, making it painfully obvious what is going to happen to them next. Plus they have huge mouths. I mean, really big. Bigger than in One Piece for christsakes.

So it's good that it gets more complicated, but then it gets too complicated for you?

Also, you complain about Liar Game's characterisation, and you liked Death Note?

Over-complicated isn't much of a problem - it just means that I am unlikely to solve the puzzles before the "geniuses" do, which is a good thing.

Death Note has interesting characterisation. Take Yagami Light. He is the protagonist, yet also the villain (or is he?). We clearly see that he has ultimately trying to make the world a better place, but he is willing to do terrible things to reach such a goal. He exudes a calm, confident, brooding facade, yet in reality he is very childish and spiteful. He is good with women, yet he is dismissive of them to the point of misogyny. He is serious, but there is plenty of comic relief between him and the other characters. Whilst Light can be seen as the villain of his own story, a genuine question is raised as to whether or not he is doing the right thing. The consiquence is that many readers find themselves actually accepting his rationale. Light is a good character because he encompasses all of these contradicting elements. These contradictions create a three dimensional lead.

Funny, I adored Round 3 because of the complexity. I personally found it very enjoyable.

"a genuine question is raised as to whether or not he is doing the right thing"

This is part of what gets in my ear about Death Note. People are posed the question of if a blatantly socially stunted, smugly superior adolescent having the power of life and death wielded through information that's filtered through television, choosing to kill off people he sees as bad (including someone whose moral misdeed is to hoot at girls), as being an ambiguous moral situation. I do not find this to be ambiguous. If this is your idea of ambiguity, of raising questions about 'is it right to murder people because you can,' then yes, I imagine Death Note might seem nuanced and morally interesting.

Well, he killed the biker because he was just testing out what he naturally thought was a harmless joke. He only put that biker in the book because he overheard his name.

What Light is doing is trying to bring about a cohesive world, free of war and criminals. He believes this can be acheived by instilling fear, through murdering aggressive criminals. Whilst Light is egotistical and spiteful enough to kill perfectly innocent people for merely getting in his way, the manga and anime at least do the justice of pointing out that crime rates had dropped and wars had ceased as a direct result of his actions. This causes a number of characters in the manga to question whether or not they should try to stop Light, seeing as how his plan is working and that the end might justify the means.

The question put to the reader is that if they had the power to make a perfect world at the expense of the lives of "evil people", would they go ahead with it? It is also suggested that what Light is doing is not especially different from what a lawful society already does: persecuting/punishing criminals to protect society.

I do agree. The problem I have with this is that: How does one person determine who deserves to die and who doesn't? The news isn't exactly known for their truth-telling. What if he kills off a criminal who is actually innocent? A so-called perfect world is only what Light believes is a perfect world. (To take an extreme example, Hitler's perfect world did not include the Jews.) There is really a very fine line between Light and a dictator.

Some of the criminals he punished did not warrant a death sentence. But between that and a low crime rate and no wars, I can see how this could be justified as, overall, moral.

It isn't a fine line at all. Light is a dictator, and his personal justifications are similar to those used by most dictators. The trick is that because he is the protagonist (rather than the major antagonist), the otherwise-obvious cons of his master plan get obscured.

I am forced to wonder, at the risk of dragging this further off-topic, exactly how many unjust murders one must commit before one's morality is considered suspect.

As far as Light is concerned, he thinks he never committed an unjust murder. He believes that every person he kills serves towards his ultimate objective; a "Breaking eggs to make omlettes" mentality. Light actually blames his opponents for forcing him to go down such an avenue.

Absolutely. Rapists tend to do the same thing. Why exactly does this make Light morally interesting?

Because rapists don't have a fraction of the power Light has and don't often come close to actually ending crime and war.

I could recommend a few books to you with morally interesting rapist protagonists, if you like.

I like to compare situations like this to wars. Innocent people on both sides will invariably get killed in a war, but the people starting the war justify it anyway because the war will ultimately serve a higher moral purpose, such as stopping acts of genocide/terrorism. So if Light was INDEED God, and had absolute knowledge of who committed what crime and who was innocent and not, then his actions might be justifiable.

The problem is, Light is not God. I see the problem with Light's actions as epistemology-based issues more than anything else. How can a single person determine what's wrong and what's right and who deserves to die? How can he be sure that the people he kills aren't innocent? How does he determine what crime deserves the death penalty, and what crimes don't? How about lesser crimes that don't warrant the death penalty? Does he let those go unpunished?

If the overall effect is a lower crime rate globally, though, that muddies the waters. Is the death of a certain ratio of innocent people made up for by a generally safer world? Were the killing of innocents in Vietnam justifiable because if the US had won the war, it would have been a safer world?

Regarding this topic/opinion, I completely agree with Yuen's comment. The two can¡¯t just be compared whether one is inferior to the other or not. Sure, they're both manga and deals psychology, but it would be similar as comparing "apples to oranges". Not to mention when choosing which to favor (in maninahat's case it¡¯s Death Note) this mostly comes down to one's taste and preference.

Maninahat critizes Liar Game because of its very simple and flat characterization, right? Well, I think despite of it, the characterization's done really well. Like you said of Death Note, the characterization is very ambiguous indeed, being black&gray morality or grey&gray morality case. This makes the series seem very complex and deep (and it is, of course), but it is just not because of this which makes it so, but because that's just what the author WANTS TO TALK ABOUT. It is the central theme of Death Note which questions the readers what Raito (and others) is doing is right or wrong, even for ¡°justice¡±.

However, Liar Game doesn't deal with that, it focuses on entirely something else, which is "trust". Yeah, it DOES deal with good/evil morality like Death Note, but this deals with what happens to the goodness and evilness in humans when they are conflicted in such situation like the Liar Game tournament, where people have to decieve each other in order to save themselves.

So I believe it is necessary (and more interesting) that it features a character who is the embodiment of "goodness"(Nao, the girl) and another who is the embodiment of the exact opposite, "evilness"(Yokoya, the mao lol), aka the outright good vs evil trope. Those characteristics are indeed "flat", but it incorporates to the story's theme very well. In my opinion, bothe series are great!

Oh, and I want to say a bit about Akiyama and Yokoya.

As for Akiyama, the "brain", he doesn't seem to have much character because well... you gotta admit, of COURSE Raito stands out with his God complex lol. But taking that part out, I think it's because that's how Akiyama is suppose to be like; not to stand out too much (he's often quiet and keeps to himself except when he explains). He isn't meant to be full of spunk like Fukunaga (because that's his/her personality) and most certainly isn't suppose to be "absolutely pure" like Nao (being an ex-con and all). Maybe that's why he doesn't seem to stand out too much... except when he has to be an awesome swindler, that is.

As for the antagonist, I think Yokoya's excellent because he's the foil to the protagonist's ideal, all the while being an awfully threatening enemy with his intellect and the ability to dominate. Since that's practically what he is, you may think he's "flat" therefore boring. But in my opinion it in fact gives him an unearthly feeling that we can't sympathesize therefore frightening. Like he's a being who can't be talked over or convinced, someone who WILL bring you down, like a Devil incarnate or something.

Stop saying Raito!