Is this the Twilight Zone? Why are they acting like the guy following him home to give him something and entering his personal space is normal. The attorney doesn't know social cues?
the 'tysm
Trying to humble ppl you're afraid of never works... they'll learn eventually (●￣(ｴ)￣●)
there should be a tag or a warning for beast x buff daddy. This guy gets more scenes French fried by all types of animals instead of by white hair. my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined
That was icky and the writer wrapped it up in he liked her and she liked him so it was okay in the end. Unless this turns into a plot line later on, what was the point of adding the "dubious consent" trope?
She saw something was wrong with her daughter, ignored it until it was too late and then tried to kill her instead of getting her help bruh
It’s hard to see at first, until retrospect. Hindsight is 20/20. It’s impossible to be sure sometimes until something horrible happens, and even then the mom doesn’t actually know how involved her daughter was there. Like, she just believes her daughter caused it. From what we know she just watched. Horrible, but a different kind of horrible.
Though given the story it does seem she is pretty messed up, given her behaviors towards the MC and MC’s friend. Back to the mom, she did have her entire world kind of shattered there. She’s definitely not perfect, and it is extreme. She didn’t do it though. I mean imagine below being or having reason to believe your daughter was in part responsible for drowning a little boy her age.
That’s pretty difficult to cope with. This is also an extremely young age, this sort of thing isn’t easy to catch so soon or that early. The mom had a “all these things my daughter was doing make sense now” moment. The fish thing had even been recent to then, and the mom seemed to be trying to figure out what to do. She’s pretty human, she didn’t make perfect decisions but did her best.
She didn’t give up on her daughter, but also didn’t excuse or minimize what she did or may have done. She’s actually being pretty responsible, though also rather believable. Now that she knows what her daughter is capable of she tries to stop it. She didn’t before. She also does try to cover it up though. Which, it is her daughter.
We kinda need to see how she reacts or what she does if her daughter does something truly unforgivable and directly so. I kinda wonder what the truth is behind some of the other incidents, since her mother considered killing the both of them one other time, the boyfriend incident. The mom could still be kind of crazy, and the daughter not as bad as the recent incident suggests.
This has nothing to do with hindsight. At the beginning of chapter 60 her sister makes a comment about her behavior.
"You give up too easily without even trying."
The housemaid she fired told her about a cruel incident, which she acknowledged as cruel.
When she saw her nephew, she was immediately scared of her daughter. At that point she should have at the very least taken credence of the housekeepers words.
This is a rich family, it costs them nothing to see a psychiatrist.
You can sympathize with the mother, but she is a pushover who doesn't like to make decisions and when she's forced to she makes the wrong one.
I didn't really understand what you were trying to say for the most part, but I did want to add that if you readers can understand that the wife was being neglected by her new family, especially her husband, you should also understand that the little girl, the person more at risk, was being neglected too.
Meaning she was failed by everybody and more importantly both her parents
This entire viewpoint is made from current understanding though, without looking at the timeline, or putting yourself in chronological perspectives. In the current time, it is true she was being neglected and the daughter grew up in a broken environment, but we were also only showed a part of the whole story until now.
The comment in chapter 60 is made within a certain context as well, it was made within a particular moment. It is portrayed in her desire to give up and take her life and her daughters, but she doesn’t. She hasn’t given up on her daughter, she’s been trying.
Within the presented timeline, all these events also happened within a short timeframe of one another. The mother also didn’t have the support of the father. It’s not about sympathizing with her but an analysis of character and events.
It’s actually rather inhumane to immediately act upon information. Humans take time to process new things, and situations. If you are invested in psychology, and similar events, it’s obvious what is going on. That’s not the case with the mother. This is a new situation for her, and all these events happened within a rather quick sequential order from how the story presents it.
Even a psychiatrist wouldn’t necessarily help in this situation within the timeframe. It’s also extreme to assume a child could go from harming a creature to harming a person. Normally things don’t escalate that fast. The human mind struggles to accept some facts because it can damage you. Accepting your daughter, your flesh and blood, is capable of harming others to the extent of causing their death, is a very difficult logical leap to come to.
The mother did actually make a few correct choices. She took her daughter out of her current environment and tried to get her therapy immediately when she realized just how bad things were. You have to understand people intrinsically. We as readers are being presented this information and the events in an easily digestible format, knowing this is a story, with the hindsight and biased view of the narrative.
I actually have a family member like the daughter. Which is why I understand why it went like this. It is very hard to tell immediately especially when they are at a young age like that. Some of these behaviors also overlap with normal ones at that age. Unless a huge event occurs, or you have experience with it, it’s not so simple to distinguish. It’s also a pretty extreme and nuclear response to act upon something you aren’t fully sure or certain of too.
When the mother was certain of it, she did act upon it. She did do something, and she did try to be an authority that could improve her daughter. A lot of what she did is what you are supposed to do. People like this often do need structure and to be taught a certain way.
The only real thing that was done wrong is that no one was watching the kids closely enough. If either parent was being more attentive nothing bad would have happened. Otherwise though, what are you expecting? Going swimming is a bit innocuous. Assuming your daughter could actually kill some one would be insane at that point. She’s a little girl. If something bad was going to happen it’s actually more likely it would have happened back with the aquarium too.
You are conflating your life with this story. Please use references like chapter numbers because I can't recall what you're recalling. My reference from chapter 60 occurred before her 1st and 2nd marriage.
Yes the timeline is shakey after that but an outside source who was around her daughter constantly warned her that her daughter did something strange and she fired her for it.
She was immediately afraid of her daughter. She did not think her daughter was well, in fact her first thought being fear is very telling of how cognisant she was of her daughter's odd behavior.
Keeping that in mind, the fear that she felt was definitely before the child drowned.
Maybe a psychiatrist couldn't/ wouldn't have done something but maybe she wouldn't have felt as guilty and avoidant as she was when the child actually died because at that point she hadn't addressed the issue with her daughter by the end of chapter 60.
there is also this beautiful terrible thing called denial, or confirmation bias. It prevents you from doing the rational thing and allows you to ignore weird things because you don't want to believe it.
Most people try to deny there is something wrong with them, especially if they think that society will treat them worse if they are "wrong." Many people still refuse to go to a psychiatrist because they don't want to be seen as "weird" or "off" or "ill".
Within the story you can see the mother trying to deny there is something wrong, and when she finally does accept that, she tries to make herself believe that she can fix her child and make her feel things she is incapable of despite knowing her child is incapable of those feelings.
Denial doesn't lessen her culpability and nothing happened to confirm her bias. She was scared because her wet nephew, reminded her of the dead fish. That's the opposite of her bias. My point is she could've done something but she made the wrong choice per usual.
I can empathize with her fear but not at the expense of her daughter. ┗( T﹏T )┛That's just my opinion
never said it reduces her responsibility in any way, just pointing out the fact that judgment could have been clouded beforehand and that she could see everything in hindsight given that you said "This has nothing to do with hindsight" and your reason being she was given plenty of clues beforehand
That still doesn't compute, because for her to be able to deny it, that means she was actively ignoring the issue at hand- which she was
Even goblins have better luck finding a job ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ