I don't think it's translation issue. I think author deliberately tried to show how victims blame themselves because of how society think. I think in the end author will show how this is wrong and that victim shouldn't be blamed.
I think how the author made it about their attractiveness is valid. The showbiz industry works on how charming a person is, also we the audience only knows them through what they show which is basically a made up character and their polished appearance which again is their looks. And when it comes to representation, do we even want to know the perpetrators side? The victims are who that needs justice. If the author focused on the perpetrators malice, there wouldn’t be the story of the victims suffering and their subsequent actions and it’s consequences. Now that we have Hikaru’s story we feel the weight of what he has done reduced. He was a victim and a perpetrator later.
So I got lost in my own text . I hope I passed what I was trying to say….
I agree
I like everyone's opinions regarding the recent chapters. I don't exactly know what the author's intention is but it seems like each opinion can apply to it.
Hmm, I've been enjoying this story, but some aspects bother me. Hikaru's backstory aligns with the trope of a traumatized child turned vengeful adult due to exploitation. It's clear that his experiences with an older woman as a child shaped his twisted outlook on life, leading him to target successful women in his quest for vengeance. The core reason for Hikaru's penchant for 'stealing talented women's potential' stems from having his innocence taken by a talented/successful woman.
On one hand, I appreciate the attempt to draw parallels between Hikaru and Ai, both victims of predatory adults who coveted their beauty and 'shininess.' Both had to carefully curate an innocent and untainted image to survive, akin to polished gems hiding imperfections. Yet, internally, they grapple with twisted emotions and misplaced blame for the trauma inflicted upon them. This stark contrast between their outward presentation and inner turmoil is where the metaphor of 'lies' arises. This is also why I would argue that the person who knew Ai best was Hikaru as they both shared similar backgrounds and experiences.
While I appreciate the use of the gem metaphor, its application troubles me. It's problematic to suggest that these children were targeted solely based on their attractiveness and that their 'shininess' compelled others to covet them. This notion, coupled with the excuse of 'lookism,' almost absolves perpetrators of their actions (“the power of lookism, turns people into monsters” Why are we acting like this out of one’s control?). I believe focusing on the violence and malice perpetrated by adults, rather than solely on the children's beauty, would have been a more appropriate approach.
I think what the author was trying to imply when comparing Hikaru and Ai with a gem was something similar to that of blood diamonds, where the conflict arises from human greed and exploitation rather than the inherent value of the gems themselves. Both Hikaru and Ai are victims of circumstances beyond their control, stained by the actions of adults who sought to possess them.
Then again it could just be a translation issue, as sometimes things don’t translate well or the meaning/nuance gets lost or not conveyed as accurately. Future chapters could also delve deeper into this subject or I could have interpreted this wrong.
If anyone else interpreted this differently please share your thoughts in the comments, as I like to hear others thoughts and opinions.