Criticism of the author of Chainsaw Man for Look Back returns

This article contains spoilers for the "Look Back" manga. Discretion is advised to the reader.

When Tatsuki Fujimoto released "Look Back" in July 2021, the work attracted a great deal of criticism due to the one-shot including a depiction of an attack on a building motivated by accusations of plagiarism. This was taken as a clear reference to the 2019 Kyoto Animation Arson, and it didn't help much that Fujimoto released this one-shot right on the second anniversary of said tragedy.

As was the case with the one-shot manga three years ago, the criticism has come again now that the animated film adaptation will arrive from Studio Durian on June 28 in theaters in Japan. But before we review these criticisms, why do they exist in the first place?

>>SPOILERS BEGIN

The story follows the intertwined fates of Fujino and Kyomoto, two aspiring manga authors we met when they were high school students. Both artists pursue ambitions together, and then apart, in a harrowing story of rivalry, jealousy, creative passion, and friendship.

In a climactic scene, the art school where Kyomoto studied is attacked by a man armed with an axe who kills twelve students, including Kyomoto. As he attacks her, he accuses her of plagiarizing his art, an echo of the accusations the Kyoto Animation arsonist made against the studio.

>> SPOILERS END

Although the original manga was edited by Shueisha to evade the allegations, original drafts exposed at a Tatsuki Fujimoto exhibition in France confirmed that the attack in the "Look Back" story occurred on July 18, 2019, the same day as the attack on Kyoto Animation. Now, it's obvious that the criticisms arose, don't you think?

But now that "Look Back" will be adapted into animation, the story will reach many more people and it is evident that the reference will be more recognized. Or perhaps the feature film version will also be edited so as not to hurt sensibilities?

• "On a day when many people were killed in a case that had not yet gone to trial, the editors of Shonen Jump were very excited about the 'biggest uproar in history' without any shame. Numerous problems and criticisms at work. Secondary damage caused by messy apologies and corrections. Look Back is still treated as a masterpiece uncritically by most, and now that it's being made into a movie, it's very hard!"
• "I had a friend who worked at Kyoto Animation, and she was safe, but until I got in touch with her, I was really afraid she had died. I couldn't read the rest of Look Back."
• "The retrospective is about the arson case at Kyoto Animation (it's not explicitly stated, but I can only guess from the content), and to publish it on the day of the two-year anniversary of the incident is crazy. The author who drew it also decided when to publish it, although the trial had not concluded at the time of publication. Both the author who drew it and the publisher who published it are crazy."
• "In contrast to "Sayonara Eri," which consciously reflects the author's ego, "Look Back" is an emotional depiction of a real-life incident, and reveals Tatsuki Fujimoto's true intentions. Sayonara, Eri," which is like a response to the open criticism and reviews following the release of "Look Back," is also off-putting as a whole. A manga I hate."
• "As good a manga artist as Tatsuki Fujimoto is, I get the impression that he's just a tacky man, and I feel like he should at least stick to Chainsaw Man. I'm not going to see the film either."
• "I think Look Back is a good manga, but I can't help but criticize it because it won't have enough "changes" in the adaptation that it doesn't remind me of the first version that referenced the actual incident. The problem is that after they published it, they edited it, as if they had already planned it. I think I've said it before, but don't do it in Shonen Jump, do it in doujinshi."
• "The tweets I made when I criticized Shonen Jump about Look Back seemed good to me, but I haven't changed my mind. I think some remember that the work was criticized at the time, but I still think that the problem is not the quality of the work, but the fact that it was published on July 19, or late at night on July 18, when the incident occurred, and that it "referenced" the incident."
• "Look Back, I think the work itself has strength, but the way it was accepted and consumed by readers was very bad because of its 'bad workmanship', so it's natural to get depressed about the storm of 'consumption' that will come when it becomes animation and goes out into the big commercial market."

Source: Yaraon!