[Anime] Why you should watch: Space Brothers

 

Today we take a look at Space Brothers (Uchū Kyōdai). 

This is an anime about two brothers and their childhood promise to one day stand on the Moon together. But more than about the goal, it is about the journey, and their love for space. While the younger Hibito aims for the Moon, the elder Mutta, who thinks he cannot let his your brother outshine him, aims for Mars.

This is a show full of optimism. The belief that in vast emptiness of space, Earth with all its life and humanity is a miracle unto itself. But no matter how great that is, the real astronaut always wants to go deeper into space. 

The protagonist, Mutta Nanba has his own problems. He gave up on his dream of going to space when young, and had to watch his younger brother Hibito become an astronaut and go to the Moon. Now he's playing catch-up and rediscovering his love for space. 

The show is about testing the budding astronaut's character, and through various trials and tribulations, we see how Mutta grows. At least in anime, he never really gets over his impostor syndrome. He is never really confident, he always thinks he has to put in extra effort in order not to fall behind his colleagues, and he can be his own worst critic. But all these traits make his quirkiness endearing.

The anime loves to repeat certain scenes of formative memories, from Mutta's childhood stargazing to Agony of Doha, and it is a shame that after 99 episodes it ends at a point where things should really get interesting. The manga goes on. 

Nevertheless, if you're looking for a show about brotherly love, the cameradery and rivalry that comes with it, a show with everoptimistic outlook on the future, of space exploration, then Space Brothers is a show for you.

Why internal consistency in stories matters

Jack Reacher, created by starryai.com

 Internal consistency. 

This is something I discovered needs to be present throughout the series, or even a story. The realisation came while reading Jack Reacher novels by Lee Child. I understand that the author leaves the protagonist as a mostly blank slate. Gives him the manoeuvring space and allows the reader to imagine himself as Reacher. That at least is the theory. If we agree with that, is something else. 

Child likes to pay lip service through Reacher to the cause of the day, to show how hip and with times his hero is. All well and fine. But it's jarring when there is no reflection on the hero's actions that contradict his beliefs, even if they were meant as lip service. 

Example: Reacher states that women are as capable as men in combat. He trully believes that. And then later on with one swing he accidentally snaps the neck of a female serial killer who got in his way. 

Another example is the way he is extorted into helping FBI. Through previous books it's established Reacher doesn't let bullies get away with it no matter who they are. He's going to tolerate them as long as they're pestering him, but if they go after someone innocent or someone he likes, the gloves are off.

 So the way in which Reacher helps FBI because they threaten to doxx his girlfriend, and thus put her life in danger from a local crime lord is just stupid. Especially when you take in consideration that one call from Reacher to the highest echelons of FBI would get him rid of those wicked agents, because they owe him from previous books. 

But we're supposed to just accept it, so the story can happen, even when that same story could happen while also staying true to the character. 

I draw comparison with another thriller author, Tom Clancy. He also loved to pay lip service to the cause of the day, but he had the wisdom to do it in a way it didn't come back to bite him. 

Example: Women are as capable in leadership positions as men. Prime example through Jack Ryan series is the head of Secret Service. Clancy acknowledges that in normal circumstances she could never become the head of the secret service, but once the opportunity arises, Clancy has her rise up to the occasion and demonstrate her capabilities in action. 

When there appeared an incapable woman in leadership position Clancy went to great lengths in order to demonstrate she wasn't incapable because she was a woman, but because she was promoted to the position without merit. 

In short, it is often said, show don't tell. With internal consistency is show what you tell, or at least acknowledge how the actions that contradict already stated facts influence the beliefs of the characters.

 It doesn't have to be much, it doesn't have to be definitive, but it has to be acknowledged. One simple sentence can make a world of difference. 

For example: "Reacher always believed women were as capable in combat as men, and then he remembered X lying on the bathroom floor. He thought she just passed out, but in truth she was dead." Something like that. It doesn't have to mean the hero immediately radically changes his views. It just has to show the reader that the hero has minimum reflection on things happening to him.

What makes "Dark arts" dark in Harry Potter?

Voldemort, created by starryai.com

 I always assumed there is some sort of hard delineation between the "ordinary" magic and the "dark arts" in the Harry Potter universe.

I always assumed there must be some special reason why the three unforgivable curses are a class of their own.

With the latest craze around Hogwarts Legacy, and all the Youtubers happily burning their enemies to ashes while slamming them up and down on the floor, only to vary it up with an occasional torture curse, I decided to look it up.

It turns out I was wrong.

"The Dark Arts,[1] also known as Dark Magic,[2][3] was a term that referred to any type of magic that was mainly used to cause harm to, exert control over, or even kill people and creatures.[4][1] Most people who practised what was known as the Dark Arts were evil, but not all."

This is the definition from the official Wiki.

Considering you can kill, torture, or even control another with an ordinary spell, the only difference between "dark magic" and the rest is that the former is specialised enough that you can't do harm by accident. I would even argue that this feature makes it safer to use.

There is no such thing as accidental misfire with dark magic. Its use is by definition premeditated and thought out.

Now for the unforgivable curses:

"The Unforgivable Curses were three of the most powerful and sinister spells known to the wizarding world,[1] as well as the strongest known Dark spells in existence.[2] They were tools of the Dark Arts and were first classified as "Unforgivable" in 1717, with the strictest penalties attached to their use.[3]"

I always thought there was more to it. Like there was deeper reasoning why those three would be unforgivable. I assumed, that the use of those curses would at least scar the soul of its caster or some such. I thought that dark magic would be powerful, but at a terrible price, that rare few would be willing to pay. 

That made sense to me. It turns out it's all just a trivial matter that somebody decided once upon a time.

What does this all mean?

That the delineation between good and evil in Harry Potter is arbitrary and trivial. What is good or allowed depends on some random sheet of paper, and can be changed at any given time. What is considered dark magic is called as such because the people who like to use it are usually wicked, or mean, or evil. But there is nothing inherently good, bad, or anything else about the dark magic spells in Harry Potter universe. They are just tools for the job.

The "good guys" are on the other hand "good" because unlike the dark wizards, they kill people with normal spells where they burn them to death. Or petrify and throw them into an ocean. I made up those examples, but according to provided definitions, people would still die, while the killers would not be considered dark wizards.

While dark wizards use specialised tools for their evil equivalent to a mace or a flail, the regular wizards are fine using the equivalent of a blacksmith's hammer. Both can achieve the same result, one is just meant for that purpose while the other is among other things also capable of it.

We can argue the intentions, try to whitewash it as a last resort, say it was in self-defence. But at the end of the day, there is no real difference between dark arts and the rest of the magic in HP universe. Because the only thing that separates dark magic in Harry Potter from the rest of it is its specialisation.

And while fire spells can be "accidentally" used for torture, for threats, and for killing, unforgivable curses cannot.