The violence towards child Gohan is kinda disturbing.

[Toparaman]

Yeah, Roshi's behavior doesn't bother me because it's so absurd that it's funny. Usually the wise martial-arts sensei is very well-mannered and restrained, but Toriyama flips that stereotype and makes him a goofy pervert.

The Gohan stuff is more disturbing to me because it's played straight, and you're supposed to accept it at face-value. There's no meta-commentary going on like there is with Roshi.

[mAcChaos]

It's supposed to be disturbing. Freeza and Vegeta and the rest of them are vicious.

[Toparaman]

True, but it's a little cheap, don't you think? Putting children in danger to gain the audience's sympathy, I mean. I retract what I said in my original post about Toriyama being potentially messed-up in the head, but I still think it's a little too dark for such a simplistic story.

[Hades]

The point of Gohan's struggles isn't to take joy in child abuse but to drive home the point of how dangerous and ruthless the enemies are, that they would do that to him.

Also in Roshi's case, the perverted old man is a pretty common thing in most anime. It's just played for laughs. It's like saying when Homer strangles Bart in the Simpsons that child services should come and take Bart away. Obviously it is not meant to be taken seriously.

I think that was actually dealt with in an episode of the Simpsons once.

Besides, WRT Roshi, there's Played for Laughs one end, and there's Dude, Not Funny on the other. Roshi's behaviour slides towards the latter in many instances.

[ABED]

True, but it's a little cheap, don't you think? Putting children in danger to gain the audience's sympathy, I mean.

Why is it cheap, it's a legitimate storytelling technique.

Besides, I don't really think you can compare South Park and Dragonball's humour, since they are so completely different in tone and delivery.

Don't get caught up in the concretes, I'm simply pointing out that unnaceptable behavior can be played for comedy in the proper contexts (eg one where it's not rewarded).

[sonikku956]

Because Gohan was 4 at the start of the series, yeah the violence is pretty disturbing at times. Especially when he got his neck snapped.

[Silver Sinspawn]

I'd like to remind you guys that King Vegeta stabbed Broly and left him to die. Infant Broly.

[Naughty Kinto Un]

True, but it's a little cheap, don't you think? Putting children in danger to gain the audience's sympathy, I mean.

Why is it cheap, it's a legitimate storytelling technique.

Harming children in fiction is one of the easiest, almost guaranteed ways to provoke an emotional response from the audience. Unless it's crucial to the story, it's just there to shock, thus making it too easy, too cheap, with a hint and a dash of manipulation and exploitation thrown in. When avoidable, serious writers shouldn't fall back on that technique, however "legitimate" it may be. It's lazy.

I don't bemoan Toriyama's storytelling choice here. Dragon Ball was never meant to be serious literature. But that doesn't stop it from being cheap.

[Saiga]

I fail to see that. In the case of Dragon Ball, it's not like the violence to a child is completely random. Gohan is a fighter, and gets hurt like any of the other fighters. That's not a cheap trick to gain sympathy, because Gohan being a fighter is relevant to the plot and as such he gets injured.

[Kid Buu]

I'd like to remind you guys that King Vegeta stabbed Broly and left him to die. Infant Broly.

Broly: The True Victim of the Series.

[Naughty Kinto Un]

I fail to see that. In the case of Dragon Ball, it's not like the violence to a child is completely random. Gohan is a fighter, and gets hurt like any of the other fighters. That's not a cheap trick to gain sympathy, because Gohan being a fighter is relevant to the plot and as such he gets injured.

I'm not saying it doesn't fit Dragon Ball. I mentioned above that that kind of writing is appropriate to the series. However, snapping a child's neck is an easy, lazy way to get a dramatic emotional response from the audience. There's nothing strong or clever or original about that writing. It's cheap. But that's OK. Dragon Ball is chockfull of cheap moments and that's part of series' charm, part of what makes it such a guilty pleasure. That a cheap device is relevant to the plot doesn't prevent it from being cheap.

Another example of a cheap storytelling device is when one character aims a gun at another's face, or especially a Mexican stand off scenario. It's an almost guaranteed tension builder. It's also one of the laziest storytelling tropes a writer can find in her bag of tricks. It may be relevant or even appropriate to the plot, but unless the writer somehow turns the premise on its head, it's a cheap device. And for light entertainment, there's nothing really wrong with that. It's often what the audience demands.

The other side of the “harmed child” coin is the TV sitcom child whose cuteness is relied on by the show's writers for cheap laughs or heartfelt awws; frequently through the use of mispronounced words, or naïve misinterpretations of adult concepts, or helpless dependence upon adult characters. Both the obvious harmed child and the oh-so-cute child tropes can be used effectively by both competent writers as well as hacks. But great writers can elevate a cheap device out of its innate cheapness by innovating its form or context -- which wasn't what Toriyama did in this instance. Recoome breaks Gohan's neck, the audience has a strong emotional response. It's effective. It did its job. Not much more to it than that.

Again, I have no issue with cheap storytelling in itself. Obviously I like it myself sometimes. But there's no need to overstate its quality or be in denial about it. I say this as someone who considers the Ginyu Force battle one of the best in the series.

[Saiga]

I disagree completely. I think you're far too quick to label something as being cheap or lazy just because it has the potential to be used that way. Especially with your example of the gun pointed at someone's head, and it always being cheap unless the premise is turned on it's head.

[rereboy]

Gohan's injuries aren't cheap at all. He gets hurt because he is a fighter like the rest of the gang, not because he is a child.

A much better example of using children as a plot point to gain the reader's sympathy is cargo's death.

[ABED]

Harming children in fiction is one of the easiest, almost guaranteed ways to provoke an emotional response from the audience.

Again, so what? So what if it's shocking, that's a legitimate emotional reaction that a writer can use to draw the audience into their story. It's not lazy and clearly it's not almost guarenteed. It's only bad when it doesn't elicit the emotional response the writer was going for, in this case, I think Toriyama didn't overplay his hand.

You keep using "almost guarenteed" but if it's cheap and hackneyed, chances are it won't elicit the proper emotional response, but rather an eyeroll from the audience. Gohan's neck being broken isn't cheap because it wasn't just Gohan nor did the child get hurt first. Every fighter there got injured.

[soulnova]

Gohan's trianing was harsh but it was the only way to even the odds against the Saiyans. The fate of the planet was at stake.

To be completely honest, I didn't have a problem with Recoome snapping Gohan's neck. The guy had almost blasted Vegeta from existence with barely any effort. Gohan standing up against him and getting his ass/neck handed was only logical.


Having said that, I completely understand Chi-Chi's complete aversion for her child fighting anything. I would go ballistic too if I was in her shoes.

[MCDaveG]

Oh, Come on!!!!