Most readers disagree with my analysis, I am sure, though there has always been a minority of Yukiru shippers who have the same opinion as I do. There are others out there who think the “mother figure” twist seems odd, and that Kyoru has some signs of an abusive relationship. This is all I can see, no matter how I try.
Plot wise, Kyoru makes sense in order to break the curse so that everyone can live happily ever after, but Yukiru has more chemistry. If the author must go with Kyoru, though, then Yuchi would be more realistic as a temporary rebound rather than Yuki’s true love. Their relationship seems more platonic than Yukiru, though Yuki claims otherwise.
In any case, FB is the only manga that is still dear to my heart after making a profound impression on me as a child. Beneath the cutesy exterior is a story that handles heavy themes such as child abuse, loneliness, and unrequited love. Other manga lost their appeal when I grew up, even if they have better artwork, because they lack the depth that FB has.
FB reminds me of what is truly important in life…namely empathy, kindness, and love. These are God’s core values, though I must confess that I lose touch with them from time to time. FB also reminds me that relationships are more important than any other pursuit.
An analysis of the work of Thomas Hardy, a Victorian writer who is not considered modernist, may further reveal the differences between modern and traditional writing styles.
For example, Tess of the D’Urbervilles, while containing progressive feminist themes, is quite traditional in terms of style. While the story is progressive in the sense that Tess cannot be controlled by men’s expectations of who she should be, Hardy still objectifies the character as a pure woman, not much different from the typical Victorian ideal of women. Tess has no real flaws like Mrs. Dalloway.
To continue the comparison, Mrs. Dalloway has an average appearance, while Tess is spectacularly beautiful. Her every thought and action is virtuous, while Mrs. Dalloway harbors secret selfishness. Hardy’s depiction of Tess is so idealized that she seems like a work of art rather than a realistic, relatable character.
Another traditional aspect of Hardy’s work is that the narrator is not a character, but a nameless commentator reflecting on the story’s events. Therefore, the narrator remains static throughout the novel. Also, Tess of the D’Urbervilles, despite being a tragedy, does not have the same nihilistic tone as The Great Gatsby and Heart of Darkness. In Hardy’s work people are genuinely good, albeit flawed; there is a sense of optimism about human nature that is absent in modern novels.
Modernism did not arise all at once, but rather happened gradually, which is reflected in novels that blend modernist themes with traditional writing conventions. What modernist novels share in common is the sense of cynicism and disillusionment that characterize the era. Yet while modernist trends forever changed art and literature, to this day traditional values haven’t been entirely abolished.
Despite the strong influence of modernist thought, classical elements of fiction still persist as well, which can be seen in Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. Heart of Darkness is written in a direct, straightforward style, similar to Victorian writers such as Charles Dickens; the writing is not avant-garde like Mrs. Dalloway. However, there are some subtle indications of modernism in the text.
One modern aspect of Conrad’s writing is the “real time” style of some passages, such as, “Something big appeared in the air before the shutter, the rifle went overboard, and the man stepped back swiftly, looked at me over his shoulder in an extraordinary, profound, familiar manner, and fell upon my feet.” What’s especially modern here is the line describing “something big” rather than naming the “something.” This vague description raises suspense, making the reader feel directly involved in the action rather than simply being told a story.
The story is also told in first person perspective, a modern innovation that makes the narrator part of the story’s action instead of being a detached observer. The main character Marlow is modern because he is cynical and disillusioned. Unlike a traditional hero such as Odysseus, who undergoes a difficult journey and returns home with greater strength and optimism despite his struggles, Marlow’s journey reveals to him the heart of darkness within humanity — that people are essentially selfish and deranged, and this revelation haunts him.
Rather than faithfully believing in the values of his nation, Marlow reflects, “All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz.” The villain who represents humanity’s evil also represents the values of the main character’s country. This lack of patriotism that is portrayed as profound wisdom in Heart of Darkness would be considered a betrayal in the works of Shakespeare or Homer.
All of the characters in a story being selfish and evil is another modern invention in fiction, for example in the works of Stephen King and in the popular television show Dexter, in which the main character is a villain who is portrayed as sympathetic. Yet while selfishness in contemporary work is often meant to be interpreted as charming and sophisticated, Conrad regards the heart of darkness as horrifying and difficult to discuss, especially with women, who would not be able to handle such an unpleasant reality. Incidentally, Conrad’s treatment of women as weaker and less intelligent than men is another throwback to an earlier era.
Finally, Marlow’s reaction to witnessing the evil heart of Kurtz reflects a Victorian sensibility. A contemporary audience would hardly be shocked by the idea that people’s hearts are fundamentally selfish and greedy; this is considered a given. However, Conrad’s audience at the time of the book’s publication was deeply disturbed by this central theme.
Henry David Thoreau was the quintessential rugged individualist, yet he also had the mind of an ivory tower academic. He avoided hard work, yet wrote essays that influence American culture to this day; he inspired Martin Luther King and Gandhi to lead peaceful revolutions. Thoreau’s criticism of the government and his call to patriotic rebellion are as relevant today as ever, as the United States steadily creeps toward fascism.
Though his political essays are brilliant, Thoreau was a philosopher rather than a politician. As a student at Harvard, he excelled in his studies of Greek, Latin, German, and philosophy. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“He was well versed in classical Greek and Roman philosophy, ranging from the pre-Socratics through the Hellenistic schools, and was also an avid student of the ancient scriptures and wisdom literature of various Asian traditions. He was familiar with modern philosophy ranging from Descartes, Locke and the Cambridge Platonists through Emerson, Coleridge, and the German Idealists, all of whom were influential on Thoreau’s philosophy. He discussed his own scientific findings with leading naturalists of the day, and read the latest work of Humboldt and Darwin with interest and admiration.”
After he graduated, Thoreau met Ralph Waldo Emerson, a famous writer and transcendentalist. Emerson’s friendship influenced Thoreau’s philosophical beliefs, and therefore his writing. As a transcendentalist, Thoreau was more concerned with spiritual matters than practical ones. For that reason he was drawn to “pure” philosophy rather than “applied” politics.
Walden, an early environmentalist manifesto, is considered Thoreau’s masterpiece. Emerson owned secluded property in Massachusetts, where he allowed Thoreau to live according to his idealistic philosophy. This gave Thoreau plenty of time to reflect and write.
Thoreau valued independence, solitude, and simplicity, which he wrote about in Walden. He also appreciated the beauty of nature and believed humanity should treat the natural world with reverence long before environmentalism became trendy. He believed people lose vital aspects of themselves within social groups. As he wrote in Walden:
“I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time. To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating. I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude. We are for the most part lonely when we go abroad among men than when we stay in our chambers. A man thinking or working is always alone, let him be where he will….Society is commonly too cheap. We meet at very short intervals, not having had time to acquire any new value for each other.”
Thoreau’s individualism formed the basis of modern American culture. Even now, America is classified as an “individualist” nation while Asian, Hispanic, and most other cultures are “collective,” meaning the group is considered more important than the individual. The work of the transcendentalists initiated the concept of individualism.
Valuing the individual higher than the social group gives significant power to the average person. This “power of one” concept inspired great changes in American society, making us the freest nation in history. Walden proves that one person with a great idea can indeed change the world.
While Hero and Leander and The Faerie Queene share remarkable similarities, the way the authors handle the theme of love is their stark difference. Hero and Leander is an erotic poem that fully indulges in eros – the physical, romantic side of love. Marlowe describes the main characters in great detail, focusing on and exaggerating their beauty. The heroine Hero is described: “She ware no gloves, for neither sun nor wind / would burn or parch her hands, but to her mind / Or warm or cool them, for they took delight / To play upon those hands, they were so white.” Hero is so beautiful that even natural forces treat her with special care.
Her lover Leander is likewise as beautiful: “Fair Cynthia wished his arms might be her sphere; / Grief makes her pale, because she moves not there. / His body was as straight as Circe’s wand; / Jove might have sipped out nectar from his hand.” These indulgent descriptions of physical beauty give the poem an emphasis on erotic love.
In contrast, Spenser considers erotic love a powerful force that can be sinful, and holds Platonic love in higher regard. Though the heroine Una is beautiful, Spenser emphasizes her dignity more than her sex appeal. She is described as “A lovely Ladie rode him faire beside, / Upon a lowly Asse more white then snow, / Yet she much whiter, but the same did hide / Under a vele, that wimpled was full low.” Una’s beauty seems to be an expression of her inner qualities.
Red Cross Knight is attracted to Una physically, and he eventually marries her. However, at one point he abandons her during his journey because he is tricked by an illusion of her trying to seduce him. The Knight is so disturbed by the thought of defiling the pure, ethereal love he has for Una that he flees and ends up committing sexual sin with Duessa. Unlike Marlowe, Spenser does not treat sex as a fun and casual subject. He maintains the traditional Christian opinion that sex outside of marriage is sinful.
Hero and Leander is meant to be a fun, comical retelling of an old tale with a focus on physical love to make the story enthralling. There is no implication of premarital sex being sinful, though the characters suffer disappointment after realizing that their hasty affair does not create a lasting bond between them. In The Faerie Queene,eros is handled with a serious tone. Both poems deal with the theme of pain caused by love; Hero and Leander suffer greatly by being separated, and Red Cross Knight experiences guilt for his sin of lust. One poet treats love lightly, while the other treats it as the most serious subject in the world. Personally, I agree with the latter view.
Though Edmund Spenser’s The Faerie Queene and Christopher Marlowe’s Hero and Leander are quite similar in some ways, they have polar opposite themes. Both are long poems that tell fantastical stories about love, and both have rather abrupt endings. However, Marlowe’s depiction of love as an erotic physical drive is a stark contrast to Spenser’s ethereal, idealistic portrayal.
The Faerie Queene and Hero and Leander have similar narrative structures. Both could be classified as epic poems, since they are both long narratives about the adventures of fictional characters. The Faerie Queene in particular fits the description of a classic epic poem, since the plot involves a heroic knight traveling with his lady and fighting against evil forces. Hero and Leander is Marlowe’s retelling of a popular classical story about an affair between beautiful lovers. Marlowe’s poem is more erotic than Spenser’s, since the love affair is central to the plot, while The Faerie Queen’s plot is more adventure driven – though love is the main motivation of the protagonists.
Both poems also have abrupt, unresolved endings. Neither ends with a “happily ever after” conclusion, or indeed any sense of closure at all. In The Faerie Queene, Red Cross Knight and Una marry, but their story does not end there; the villain, who represents the Catholic Church and Red Cross Knight’s past sins, returns undefeated…implying that the Knight’s adventures are not over. Sins he thought he defeated may return. This creates a sense of anxiety in the reader, perhaps meant to imply that his or her own struggles against sin shall continue as well.
Hero and Leander has a different type of abrupt ending. Though the narrative seems to end in a logical place, those familiar with the original tale during Marlowe’s time knew there was more to the story. The poem ends with an enigmatic statement translated as “something is missing.”
No one knows whether Marlowe wrote those words or if someone added them after his death. Marlowe died at a young age, and he may have intended to add more to the poem. In any case, the abrupt ending left many readers unsatisfied. The poet Petowe was so disturbed by it that he wrote a continuation of Marlowe’s poem in order to finish the narrative according to the classic story. Campbell writes, “Hero and Leander is conventionally regarded as a fragmented poem.” However, she and others disagree….To this day, no one really knows whether Hero and Leander is a finished poem or not.
When a new technological invention becomes widely used, the world changes. The main purpose of technological progress is to make life easier. Cars transport us farther and faster than horses and buggies, and thanks to washing machines we no longer have to spend hours doing laundry (unless we put it off for several weeks, maybe). Invention improves certain aspects of our lives, but at a cost. The latest technology hasn’t necessarily granted us more leisure time and less stress; in many ways it has made life more fast paced and overwhelming.
We tend to think of technology as additive, simply providing us more options, but it is actually transformative. The changes brought about by new inventions can be positive or negative. Faster and easier isn’t always better; for instance, modern transportation created a new set of problems such as drunk driving, pollution, and a decline in people’s fitness due to lack of exercise. The invention of the automobile literally changed the landscape of the world. Paved roads are such a common sight that my little cousin thought God created them along with animals and people.
California in particular has been built with the automobile in mind. Buildings are sprawled miles apart from each other, so a car is required to reach everywhere one needs to go. Older places such as New York and London have condensed layouts because they were built before the invention of automobiles. That is why those places are more walkable than California.
Typical Californian Sprawl
In Contrast: New York City
Since new inventions radically change our lives, the environment, and the way we behave, we would be naive to think of technological progress as inherently good. There is sacrifice involved in exchange for the quick and easy. Are polluted skies worth the luxury of relatively cheap air travel? Are quality clothes worth spending more money on than fast fashion from Forever 21? Are we willing to give up our privacy for the thrill of receiving “likes” on social media? Our inventions reveal our values, and I hope we have enough wisdom to direct technology in such a way that we make true progress.
Shigure x Akito. This is one of my favorite pairings in FB. Shigure’s love for Akito explains his motivation, which drives the plot forward. With his easygoing nature, he is able to handle Akito’s difficult behavior better than anyone else. Like Kyo, Akito needs to learn how to control her temper. Unlike Tohru, Shigure is assertive enough to keep Akito in her place, which is why I think Kyo would be better suited with someone like Arisa…but I griped enough about Kyoru in another post.
Many people dislike Akito because…well, frankly, she’s a crazy bitch…but I have sympathy for her. Her anger is caused by fear of abandonment, which her parents (especially Ren, another crazy bitch) instilled in Akito as a child. As a result she is deeply hurt, and needs love like everyone else. Shigure and Akito are both a bit twisted, while the rest of the FB cast is quite innocent, so they’re perfect for each other.
Hatori x Mayu. This is my favorite FB couple, despite their lack of drama…or maybe because of their lack of drama? For some reason I didn’t quite like Hatori x Kana, and their breakup gives depth to Hatori’s character, adding a realistic element to the story. Almost everyone in FB stays with their first love forever and ever, but not all romances last in real life. When Mayu finally had the chance to be with her secret crush, I felt so happy for her.
Kureno x Arisa. This one strikes me as unrealistic and a bit…random? Arisa sees a resemblance to Tohru in Kureno, and apparently that’s why she likes him so much. If not for that, Kureno doesn’t seem like he would be Arisa’s type. Isn’t she a bit immature compared to him? Would they really get along? They seem like a repeat of Katsuya x Kyoko, and though I appreciate that theme, I find this couple unconvincing.
Shishou x Hana. These two make even less sense than Arisa x Kureno…yet I really like this pairing…or maybe I just like the idea of them being together. Hana might be the type to like an older gentleman…and maybe Shishou has odd taste? Though I imagine he’d feel at least a little guilty about dating a girl barely out of high school. Well, even if this couple is mostly meant for comic relief and shouldn’t be thought about too deeply, I like them together.
Though I’ve tried to have an open mind about Yuki x Machi…well, first let me clarify that Yuki is my favorite character in Fruits Basket – meaning I really like him, because I like almost every character in FB. Machi, though, is just…meh. She’s okay…but I thought Yuki could do better.
Their relationship doesn’t strike me as one that would last. What would they talk about? When I first read the manga, I thought Yuki was trying to find a replacement of Tohru in Machi after he recognized Tohru’s feelings for Kyo. Tohru and Machi have a similar appearance, though Machi has none of Tohru’s warmth or charm.
This interpretation would add another layer of tragedy to Yuki’s character, which may not be as satisfying as seeing him find true love. But I think it would be more realistic than Yuki thinking of Tohru as a mother figure. That seems odd to me, like an excuse to make way for Kyoru without disappointing the Yukiru crowd. However, Yuki’s relationship with Machi feels less genuine than his interactions with Tohru.
Does this look platonic to you?
Throughout the manga, Yuki shows every indication of attraction to Tohru. When he notices romance developing between her and Kyo, Yuki’s feelings seem to me as if they take on the bittersweet flavor of unrequited love. At first I thought his spiel about looking for a mother in Tohru was a rationalization to help him deal with the pain of her choosing Kyo. Like Aesop’s fox with the sour grapes: “Oh, I only thought of her as a mother anyway.” Sorry, I am not convinced.
In that same conversation with Kakeru, Yuki says something along the lines that dating Tohru would be lonely, because he wants a give and take relationship with someone “on his level.” But the problem is Machi is not on his level. She and Yuki remind me of a somewhat typical high school couple, based on puppy love rather than genuine friendship. And if I’m supposed to believe Yuki is emotionally and intellectually mature enough to realize he has an Oedipus complex of sorts, I can’t also believe that he would be satisfied in his relatively shallow relationship with Machi. (She knows nothing about his traumatic past or the curse.) Besides, why should Yuki suddenly become “lonely” if his friendship with Tohru transformed into romantic love? The best romantic couples start off as friends, imo.
To the contrary, Yuki x Machi epitomizes loneliness. The only reason I can imagine Yuki having any interest in Machi (besides her being a consolation) is because she reminds him of his “old self” – shy, troubled, insecure. But that isn’t the basis of give and take; Yuki does all of the “giving,” trying to coax Machi out of her traumatized behavior. While that’s sweet in a sense, is it the foundation of a healthy romantic relationship?
On the other hand, Tohru is in fact on Yuki’s level, and their relationship does have a natural, healthy give and take dynamic…or am I missing something here? There’s a disconnect between what Yuki says he feels and what actually happens when he interacts with Machi and Tohru. That’s why I initially thought Yuki either wasn’t entirely genuine in his conversation with Kakeru, or he was trying to convince himself that he didn’t like Tohru “that way,” despite the indications that he does.
Yuki isn’t the type who would actively look for a replacement of someone, so looking for Tohru in Machi would be a subconscious action. Later on, of course, he would be disappointed because their personalities are so different – opposite, even, as Machi is a bit of a cold fish. In my headcanon, they break up after Yuki realizes his true motivation. Personally I would find that more interesting than the canon version, since rebounding is a common problem that FB never addresses. However, there is no indication in the text that Yuki connects Machi and Tohru in his mind at all, despite their obvious outward resemblance. We are supposed to believe their puppy love is profound.
You would have to read the entire manga to know that girl isn’t Tohru (or her twin sister).
This scene with Machi is quite reminiscent of the scene above, where Yuki considers his “bittersweet” feelings for Tohru. Why would he feel that way about a mother figure? On the other hand, what is more bittersweet than unrequited love? Here, with Machi, he frankly seems to be trying to ease the loneliness of losing Tohru to Kyo. Consider the context; Yuki kisses her for the first time after she calls him by his first name. That is significant because Yuki still hasn’t called Tohru by her first name, indicating a boundary between them. In the words of Adele, he is trying to “find someone like you.”
Maybe Yuki is supposed to be emotionally dense and not notice their physical similarity, but then again he is one of the most insightful characters in the story. In truth, I think the author had to whip up a romantic interest so Yuki wouldn’t end up alone, which of course would be disappointing…though maybe not as disappointing as him ending up with Machi (sorry). The development of their relationship felt rushed and forced. The empathy and genuine friendship between Yuki and Tohru that built up naturally and gradually just isn’t there with Machi. Maybe that’s why Yuki x Machi seems a bit empty and unsatisfying to me, like something is missing.
Yeah…so, obviously Yukiru is my favorite pairing. Though I truly appreciate the platonic love theme that the author was going for, I don’t think it was handled convincingly. To this day I believe Yukiru would be a more healthy and mature relationship than Kyoru. Or maybe I just overanalyze fictional characters, I don’t know.
Recently I reread Fruits Basket, my favorite manga of all time. The relationships between the characters are deeply touching, and are the driving force of the story’s plot. Yet even after all these years, some of the romantic pairings bother me, including Tohru x Kyo.
Intellectually I see the appeal of this couple, but I always felt as if their relationship would become the classic dynamic between an abuser and codependent. Kyo has anger issues that wouldn’t suddenly disappear after marriage, and I can imagine him turning into a wife beater. Of course, Tohru would blame herself and make excuses for him.
Kyo: Always Sulking or Throwing a Fit
Though I am glad Tohru is able to see the silver lining of goodness in Kyo’s heart…even sociopaths have some positive traits! That isn’t to imply Kyo is a sociopath; I just think of him as a typical brooding teenager. That doesn’t mean he’s a bad person, but he isn’t as emotionally mature as Yuki or even Momiji.
Instead, I have always preferred Tohru x Yuki. Yuki treats her better, and I don’t quite understand what Tohru sees in Kyo. They don’t really have chemistry either, while Tohru and Yuki do.
Sophisticated Innocence 