Girl it’s during the American civil war that ‘gave’ black slaves emancipation and drove native Americans into reservations that were basically like concentration camps. Read a history book instead of smut for once
"This scene is just the author using basic literacy devices. At the end day it's fiction and anyone has the right to tell any story they want"
Girl, this isn't some sci-fi romance. It's based on REAL HISTORY, of indigenous people who were severely abused and killed during this time. It's not fiction if the events that happened during this time still affect Indigenous Americans to this DAY. Google and library books are free, go get educated.
No, nobody is overreacting, using this line as a “literary” device in a manhwa taking place post civil war is imo, insensitive and stupid. Even if this is fiction, it’s based on real life events, and real life atrocities that still affect people today.
yeah it is fiction but like if that was the case theres limits imo, I think Jax should clarify the story as there are a lot of international fans who are mixed about this, as there are historical events that went on. But like at the end of the day if someone wants to write about weird stuff i dont think using the words "im your humble slave" was even ironic in this case. Plus the fact that the other character is native american and the rich guy is white is super weird. I think it's because Native Americans had their land being taken from them by European/White people. Everyone has their own opinions, but I do think we shouldn't allow these stories to be written like this as it's very harmful, doesn't matter if the art is pretty and all.
Pitchforks everywhere.
But I still stand by the fact that the story so far hasn't done anything wrong. There are a lot of things we don't know about the story yet. We don't even know for certain that he's Native American I thought he was biracial with Black heritage.
As for whether historical fantasy based on real events should be handled with seriousness and reverence, I'm honestly not sure. If we held every story to that standard, it would have to apply across the board, since different historical events matter deeply to different people. But then gems like Life of Brian or Titanic would count as "bad" simply because they didn't prioritize accuracy or solemnity. That said, there's also real merit in stories like The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas or 12 Years a Slave even though fictionalized, they offer genuine insight into those events.
My point is: there's room for both kinds of storytelling. Even when a writer is adding creative flair, their job is to research how to do it responsibly, and to communicate clearly how fictionalized the story is when that isn't already obvious.
Anyway, it's not like I have any moral high ground to judge from I'm over here pirating books because I can't afford them. Still stealing, though.
The boy in the striped pyjamas is notoriously criticised for its story telling and inaccuracies within it. No one is saying that these stories cannot be told, but a story such as this should not be told during such a difficult time. This is a Pocahontas story. Where a white man is tortured by the actions of his people and falls in love with the Native American. I don’t believe a story between a coloniser and the colonised should be romanticised when ‘ranch’ dealer raped and displaced native Americans.
And you cannot compare pirating a bl to years of oppression and slavery. Some things are not comparable
Yes, you cannot compare pirating to rape or slavery; those are 2 different morality weight classes. I would pirate most books anyway because I can't buy them, so why am I criticizing an author for a story they choose to write as a source of livelihood when I am not even paying for the book? It's like someone stealing a watch then insulting the owner for not buying one in a nicer color.
The only exception to this rule for me is books whose purpose is to spread inhuman messages.
I was writing this but got distracted by work, and proceeded to forget till I heard the manhwa was cancelled. Anyways since I am genuinely interested in this discussion and trying to understand, I will just put this here.
Yeah I heard that the Boy in the Striped Pjs was a bit problematic but it was the only other one I remember that wasn't a catholic saint historical retelling.
Yes I do agree that Romanticisation is an issue that could have been an issue but I don't know if it would have been written that way (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). If the story is handled in a way similar to how Solo for Two was handled where the author didn't use love to justify or erase the situation at hand, would the story have worked? I think think is a story can be told responsibly it should be able to be told, and I think there's a responsible way of telling this story without it being a shallow or romanticised.
I kind of love to see when difficult subject matters are handle properly and written into compelling and thought provoking stories about morality by authors.
Apologies but I am kind of failing to see the issue here I think a lot of people are over reacting and taking the "your humble slave" thing out of the context in which it said, and here context truly does matter.
To be clear the statement is not said from a point of subservience, but from a place of arrogance. The word HUMBLE is meant in Irony. From his demeanor along he radiates a sort of arrogance and confidence that wouldn't usually come from a slave, and he says this while looking down at his master from his horse. SLAVE is just the fact of the matter, he was asked who he was by Dean and that's who he is to Dean. From the way he behaves in the scene it is just a title, one that doesn't define his life. I mean no one who intends to leave as a slave will claim ownership of his master's ranch in from of them.
This scene is just the author using basic literacy devices. At the end day it's fiction and anyone has the right to tell any story they want.