7

Unmarked Spoilers.


There are several fights in the second half of the anime between Teigu users who both walk away alive after the battle. The rule that was established,

namely, that if two Teigu users fight each other, one of them is guaranteed to die,

seems to create many plot holes. (The list is of examples and is not supposed to be exhaustive.)

  1. Wave and Tatsumi fight (actually Wave beats Tatsumi)
  2. Leone and Run in the royal palace.
  3. Bols vs Leone and Akame
  4. Kurome vs Leone and Mine

Is this the case, or is there some reason given in the anime that explains this apparent contradiction?

  • Yeah, I agree these are contradictions. So what is your question? Sounds like you answered it yourself. :p – Secret Evil Radio Mar 8 '15 at 16:52
  • 2
    It's either an over-exaggeration to show that the Teigu are powerful weapons, or it's meant for a "serious" fight, i.e. a fight to the death (duh!). – Gao Mar 8 '15 at 16:57
  • 2
    Well, technically all of them die except for Akame in the anime... so it kind of works. – FatalSleep Mar 8 '15 at 23:45
  • 1
    @SecretEvilRadio I was expecting some explanation of that rule in the context of the fights mentioned. – Mindwin Mar 9 '15 at 22:42
  • 1
    @FatalSleep Then the rule could be written as "When two teigu users fight, none of them can become immortal" - And indeed there are no immortals humans in that universe – Mindwin Mar 9 '15 at 22:46
6

You're being too literal. You're hearing "when two Teigu users fight, one of them dies" and assuming that this is an infallible statement of an inviolable rule of the universe. That's silly. If you consider the actual context of when this statement is made, or just be less literal about it, you'd realize the statement is merely saying "these things can be pretty lethal when used to that end, and similarly for the people who possess them". In even shorter terms: "they're powerful, dude!"

Consider some similar examples:

"Two men enter, only one man leaves!" ... and then the other one leaves a little later and less happy.

"There can be only one." ... unless we simply resolve to leave each other alone. Also, are we aliens, or what, because there's probably lots of us if so.

"One ring to rule them all." ... but utterly fail to have any usable power over the majority of those it was supposed to rule.

"The greatest sword ever forged." ... because we have totally measured all swords across all history and agreed upon an uncontroversial and objective measurement of greatness for said swords. Also we clearly defined what a sword is ahead of time, so this is not an ambiguous statement.

"You pay for the whole seat, but you'll only need the edge!"

None of these things are literally true and inviolable and any violation of them in a story is not a plot hole. Indeed, their violation in stories is usually the entire point. It demonstrates how the characters are not infallible, and the heroes and top-tier villains need to demonstrate how amazing they are by overcoming them. They are either statements of potent intent (Sauron wanted the ring to rule them all, but Dwarves didn't care and Elves were too savvy and resistant), or statements to underscore the gravity of the situation (the Thunderdome is serious business, so best get amped).

Now, constant violation of the statement can take the edge off of something. If you routinely find yourself needing far more than the edge of your seat, you will become inured to statements to the contrary. You may have expected Teigu fights to be routinely deadly and brutal, but if you see several things to the contrary you will start taking the matter less seriously. This would be a flaw in story structure (or the reader/viewer just being jaded), but not a plot hole.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.