This is a theory page on the Death Note Fanon Wiki.
Now this isn't formal and is directly off the top of my head, since I just finished the whole series anime/manga, like maybe 3 hours ago, and my response to the horrifying reviews and happiness I saw that came with the terrible and irrational ending to the series. Here I will procede to clarify the series to you and show you how all arguments against it involve personal vendetta's, attempting to be politically correct ignoring what you know must be true because your scared of being shown to be smart since it's against your warped morals (yes I can give you historical and natural evidence to prove you have warped morals) and ignorant-unviable-irrational-not even worthy of me showing you this out of generosity, created opinions. Here is the more than obvious reality of the series, enjoy.
When I see these views all over the internet that favor Light dying I'm faced with two options: These people are either trying to be politically correct or well.....some people must not be able to see the big picture. So let me explain the big picture. The big picture here is from the concepts that the manga/anime was actually trying to display (aka the point of it). The big question of the manga/anime I guess is: "Is murder wrong" and basically the intent is where the answer lies. In Light's scenario the answer lies with searching to attain world peace. With world peace and crimes abolished (which includes littering at some point way down the line), not only would the human race flourish, but environmental problems can mostly be solved pollution wise, and I'm sure there are many more world problems that can be that much closer to being solved when people don't have to worry about corruption or being stabbed in the back by power hungry people. So since Light's aim is to abolish all evil in the world, is there really a more noble or honorable cause for murder? The answer is obviously not for those of you still wondering. What is frustrating about how the series ended is that the ignorant mass wins. Which is just not good enough for what the series had accomplished thus far. Now before we go into this, if your glad Light lost because your still mad he killed L, leave this page. Your opinions aren't viable for the depth of what the series portrays to be worthy of reading this. So Who is Light? Light is not the average teenage boy. He is a guy that is not only a genious across Japan (and the world, at least deductive reasoning wise, being proven through his defeat of L later on), but that he has figured out how women and how to get whomever he wants, he has mastered athletics (champion tennis player), and most importantly spent time in the corrupted society of populated innercity life (through living in the city and experiencing and also through working with his dad and police department to solve many cases over the years). So what does someone with all these accomplishments do with their time? They sit there and be bored because what is there to do, really. So being as ambitious as Light is, which is probably one of his biggest traits, its not surprising that when a power to kill people in the way that only he has (and im not going to explain the other obvious benefits), he begins to form a vision as all ambitious people do, hence ambition. With all these qualities about him he probably one of the few people in the world (like maybe of 300 people in the world) that could actually have the intelligence to not get caught and legitimately attain world peace by eliminating all corruption. To do this he traded his future of any honest life as basically a payment for self-sacrifice morally to bear the weight of all the evil on the world, end corruption and make it so that only he had to bloody his hands. In not so if-so-factso terms, he traded his soul for the end of corruption. His aim was to eliminate all corruption in the world, and then be a symbol aka-"god" to keep it out. Now most people are going to make a beginners mistake on the God bit thinking "OMG becky, anyone who thinks they can be god to other humans obviously has mental issues, is unstable and has serious egotistical problems!" ......Don't let this be you. I don't think a better choice of term than God could have been chosen. What is god? technically it is one that controls an aspect of reality. In this case that is obviously Kira (Light) who controls all crime in the world shifting what is reality using a power that only he has (the deathnote). The fact that he uses the term god to describe what he will become is basically showing that he can in fact use a dictionary and realizes that he is actual going to have that power to change the environment of human society (I mean who wouldn't be super pumped about that). So to clear that up, anyone who really has a problem with him using the term god.... can only be mentally ill (so ok I won't condescend on you) or the only other possible latter is that you are a completely uneducated person too poor or stupid to own a dictionary, find a library with a dictionary or use the computer you're reading this with to look to at a dictionary. If these aren't available to you then I would really be intrigued to know how your reading this.. Now, I want to go ahead and point out the worst made character in the show. That would be Near. Near is either the most prideful or most contradictory character i've ever seen. This would be because in the end of the show he killed Light. Now since Near was supposed to be a genious of deductive reasoning and tends to only take any action ever based on facts, it seems pretty obvious that this last choice he made doesn't follow what he was supposed to be about or represent. The facts were that 4-5years into the Kiba-world, crime rate went down 70%, all wars and conflicts ceased to exist and even America agreed with Kiba (they didn't say so, but by realizing it was worthless to try and stop him and that he really was doing good, they just accepted it), probably the most respected nation in the world in all serious matters. Big picture wise, Kiba was good for the world and was probably the fastest way to revitalizing the earth itself and solving the majority of world issues today. This being said, Near could have only then gone on to kill/capture Light only because: 1.He was too young and immature to see the big picture. 2.He was way to sad about L. and had to avenge/win the case (pretty much a game) or 3. Like I said the author was either legally or physically held at gunpoint and knew that to the general population that would be a easy way to make Light lose. He contricts everything he had represented and stood for and what L. stood for in his last choice of actions.
Probably the most frustrating thing in this series about the way it ended was that a character that possibly had only 2 minutes of screen time decided the ending. The ghost that came to retrieve his notebook and just happened to practically tell Mellow in passing (so not really with any purpose and coincidental) that the 13 day rule was fake not only caused the loss of Light to Near in the end, but much more - that I will come to explain. The second character that caused the loss and death of Light was his father indirectly and the death of himself and Takeda. All because the father failed to act. When the father had Mellow basically in his grasp he said something like "son take your hand off that trigger, I wouldn't want to have to kill you, blah blah blah, i already have your first name down and wrote for you to die in blah blah blah, i dont want to do this, take your hand off the trigger." Now most of you are saying, well how would he have been able to kill mellow, mellows finger was on the trigger. Saying that is a mistake, this is why: He easily could have written in the space of time he took to write everything else actually write that "mellow will die of a heart attack after taking his hand off the trigger in 2 seconds" while telling mellow the same threats he already was, he wrote enough down to have been able to do it. Then obviously he didn't do anything of this nature causing his own death by failing to act and in turn letting Mellow live to tell Near what he found out about the rule leading to the death of Light and Takeda. Since Mellow lived to tell Near this, Near didnt have to spend 13 days testing it out giving Light generally free time to prepare for the oncoming battle or have Near spend so much time turning his team against him and focusing on him right off the bat. He would have needed more evidence to build those assumptions to be worthwile of being spoken. Also Mellow comes back and makes Takeda kill herself instead of being more useful later.
Lastly I want to investigate the stupidity of the epilogue. In the epilogue they are wondering if they did the right thing (which they obviously didn't, they traded their lives for all the future generations and current that die from corruption Light could have prevented), but even worse how they describe the 1 year later world (post-kira) to be the exact same as the pre-kira world. Now that second part is especially uneducated. Without a doubt, as it has been shown in history before on numerous occasions: when an authority disappears, people suddenly have nothing to fear and commit huge amounts of crimes and it gets crazy, especially after Kira, because compared to Kira, what is a police force going to do Lolololololololol. Crime would have completely gone up at least 20-30%...at least.
So after realizing how awesome this world could have been and had the potential to be where the average man including myself and anyone else literally have to do nothing, but lead honest lives to succeed and not worry about theft or getting killed (for the most part...i guess the potential is still there) makes this manga supremely disappointing. Especially since this manga/anime is make believe so it literally could have ended whatever which way. And well sadly the ignoarnt masses win yet again as usual, it seems to be inevitable, which i guess is the only valid reasoning behind the ending to the series. Anyone that doesnt see the big picture on the ideals in the series will disagree with me, or like we discussed earlier, just because they liked L, thus making the majority of people that view with opinions of that intent illegitimate. So since Light put more work into making the world a better place than anyone in this show and constantly was under extreme pressure, its unbelievable that the author would just let him not complete the perfect world. So my only conclusion is that he was forced at gunpoint or by threat or overcome by a writing team to make the conclusion less politically aggressive towards todays society (aka pre-kira world) so that commercially it would have a less chance of being banned and they could make more money. Since the author obviously knew light and every character in total depth and created the world in which this is all possible, it would be very doubtful that he wanted an ending in which Light was not successful, since seeing the world and all the ideals and basically my whole argument being based off of what he wrote in the first place (im basically clarifying for those who don't understand) showing he definitely does not have a warped sense of justice that is ignorant of the justice of the majority. Also the contradictions of the character near can only be a subtle hint that the author didn't want it to end the way it did, or that Near was actually a little kid that wanted to win the game and avenge L (which is still pretty lame seeing as how he may have doomed the world by denying a solution to the majority of its problems).
I've pretty much gone undefeated in any argument out there towards the ending of this, so just to throw in answers to anything you could possibly have to say that you think has the smallest chance of being more logical, here are some preemptive responses: most of your points are going to be politcally correct and ignore the realistic big picture just so you can call yourself a fake human (one who ignores the obvious bad things in human nature that were practically adaptive so that we were even able to live on this earth this long, like greed and other survival instincts - really think about this, because its true, dont use the ignorant "but i dont need things for survival that greed would make you only want.." wanting leads to being less vulnerable to the world longer, so its still a survival instinct). So that goes without saying that politically correct answer's for the most part aren't worth anything in a big picture argument....(so basically the whole series of deathnote). Most of you that disagree with me are going to try to ignore what the show was attempting to display ideal wise -the view of justice; well, it's what you consider is better for the environment and creates the good life for the majority, but if you dont think that abolished corruption is an amazing jump worth supporting, more than basically what we've accomplished in the last 32,000 years, then your sense of justice is pretty warped. If you were a normal person not committing crimes, then like it said in the show, that you literally had nothing to fear. He only killed those that committed unnecessary crime and tried to stop him from making the world a better place for the majority of people. The 10 for 10 million rule. I guess in this case though, it would probably be closer to the 1.5 billion for 4.5 billion people and those that died were guilty anyhow. Of couse you might think about complaining the he will without a doubt kill a few innocents that are allegedly criminals, but then I'd have to ask you if you were high, because it should be completley clear by now that even if a million innocents slipped through the fingers of all the actual criminals being killed, it still is such a minor thing, that it has legitimately no consequence to the peace that could be achieved shown through the big picture of what Light was accomplishing. Now you could even use the same argument that nuclear weapons were used on World War 2, they saved more lives then they destroyed and were attempting to gain world peace through deterrence (obviously once people saw what they did, they decided not to create physical conflict, as shown through the more than obvious example of the cold war). Despite this Kira was actually obtaining world peace, I mean he had gone above and beyond, to kill him is techincally ethically and morally an injustice to the world. I mean the only way it wouldn't be would of couse be if you wanted the world to rot lolololololol.
I hope this has clarified things for some people, I realize I'm something like 5 years late, but i just read and watched everything over the last two days when I came across it for the first time and became horrified of what I saw as reviews and opinions about the series. Also if you want to know more about the big picture and basically where this sense of Kira being a state and providing many services to his citizens (aka- the world), I suggest you read Thomas Hobbes, because he is the most realistic person of all time.
P.S. anything you have to argue about Light's emotions, immaturity, or anything else that is probably wrong and obviously could only have the potential to be a minor issue easily shown to be insignificant with evidence from the series on multiple fronts- do yourself and the rest of the world a favor and don't post.
Just wanna add, as an argument, that the issue with Light Yagami was he was not teaching morals or anything like that. He was only instilling fear, which is not attacking the root of crime. He was going to die eventually anyways. And even if he passed on the power to someone else, who's to say they would have continued killing criminals forever? Once the next person who received the death note stopped killing criminals and perhaps killed for their own gain appeared, crimes would increase and the most powerful weapon of mass murder would be in the hands of someone evil. Killing caught criminals would not solve all crime. Extremists and people willing to die for their cause (ie. Terrorists) would not fear Kira. Criminals would evolve in ways where they could insure they would not get caught or could hide their identity. Personally, while a perfect world sounds nice, bring judged by a person who is naturally flawed by nature just as me does not sound ideal. Not to mention, I never saw corrupt politicians being targeted. Only people who broke laws. There are still corrupt people in the world who are not kind, hardworking, or pure in any way who would live on because they are not technically criminals. And they would continue to lawfully ruin people's lives. No one human being can account for all types of crimes against others. On another note, realistically the world would be split between people who agree with Kira and people who don't. There would be wars, attacks and all of that. Just look at what happened with Mellows friend who was shot after the kidnapping of Takada. The people basically said anyone who don't agree and follow Kira should die. Light was creating a sense of entitlement among those who agreed with him. His followers felt that they had more worth than those who didn't. Since when is a good world filled with people who will kill others for not having the same ethics? Light wasn't creating a new world, he was creating an old one, where people's lives are judged by one person and those who disagree with that one person are considered less. Sounds a lot like how old empires worked. Just some food for thought. We all have opinions. -A
Mark — your arguments are nothing more than a load of bloviating about points that we all agree with. You fail to address what is possibly the simplest counterargument to any theory that the existence of Kira is good for the world. In the words of John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton's sympathies with the Confederacy during the Civil War aside, this maxim has stood the test of time. Light is human, and his arrogance (his power corrupting him) was his downfall. I do agree that the Near arc was rushed, but reading the manga will clear up many reservations you have about it. Now, to change tacks slightly: many Kira supporters fail to grasp the core Machiavellian morals that motivate and drive Light. In short, as Machiavelli writes in the 17th chapter of The Prince, "it is far safer to be feared than loved." Yet, Machiavelli himself would have strong words of rebuke for Light, as later in that chapter he asserts that fear is simply a means to an end — the security of the one wielding power. He states explicitly and firmly that fear instilled should never be excessive, as that endangers the one wielding power; yet, this is exactly what Light did. If you believe that the ICPO, L, the SPK, Near and even Mello were pursuing Light because of some idealistic view of what justice is, I would ask you to reconsider your opinion. Light's opponents arose because of pure, primal fear, and that fear is, indirectly, what brought him down. Even more damning to Light, in Chapter 8 Machiavelli openly decries the idea of executions to gain and maintain power, using the case study of Agathocles of Syracuse. Agathocles was a Greek tyrant who summarily executed the entirety of the old oligarchy upon his rise to power in Syracuse. As Machiavelli wrote addressing Agathocles' deeds, "Yet one cannot call it virtue to kill one's citizens, betray one's friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; these modes can enable one to acquire empire, but not glory... his savage cruelty and inhumanity, together with his infinite crimes, do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men. Thus, one cannot attribute to fortune or virtue what he achieved without either." Finally, I assert that it is pointless to say that Light was the correct party, and it is equally short-sighted to claim that L/the SPK/Near were in the right. Nothing in this world is black and white, wholly good or wholly evil. The system will never change, because of that maxim I expressed above. As long as civilization exists, there will be societies or individuals who hold absolute power and prevent a perfect utopia from being attained. It doesn't matter if power is held by a seemingly useless government, an egomaniacal serial killer or a morally bankrupt detective — the end result is the same.
In addition, addressing the ad hominem attacks that appeared frequently throughout your argument: ad hominem attacks are a sign of not only arguing in bad faith, but also of a weak argument. The other party in an argument is not your enemy, but someone who is helping your opinion change and grow while you help theirs evolve as well. Keep this in mind as you scour through my response searching for spelling errors or grammatical mistakes to latch on to instead of addressing my actual points. I am not so egotistical to think that my writing is perfect. However, I give you my thanks — usually I have to pay someone to copy edit for me! — D