Revenge

[CyberCubed]

Do you think Splinter is in the right morally to want revenge on Shredder for killing his master?

[Galactus]

No he isn't. Even more troubling is he raised four sons to carry it out rather than do it himself. Subsequent issues show that Splinter does love his sons and I suspect that if you asked Kevin and Peter now they'd say Splinter didn't raise and train the turtles in martial arts just for revenge and had they known they'd have a whole series out of TMNT might have worked that in to the first issue but the idea that was a factor at all puts Splinter in a not too good light.

Of course the idea of how much of our morality we can apply the same morality to a character so steeped in ancient Japanese traditions and one that lived apart from society is an interesting question. I'm suprised it's barely ever been explored outside of City At War with the turtles questioning if they really want to continue Splinter's fight for him.

[Coola Yagami]

We can assume Splinter only raised then to kill Saki, but after the deed was done, they realized they just can't move on and live regular human lives so they stayed together and grew closer as a family.

[Shark_Blade]

Of course. For a better word, for justice.

They can’t even go to the police, so they sort their own ****.

[Leo656]

I mean, sure? I'm a pretty big advocate for revenge. I'm big on "balance" and if someone does you wrong then they deserve to get it paid back to them, sure.

At the same time, I'm also a big believer in "all actions have consequences", even payback. So it wouldn't be a very good story if they got their revenge and then there was no fallout.

[aprilbound]

I thought Shredder didn't kill his master in this version?

[Zachatello00]

I'm thinking it makes "sense" on the one hand, but the question is "is it morally right" for Splinter to seek revenge. To that, I answer "no."

Fighting will always breed more fighting.

I suppose it depends on what you consider to be "moral".

I personally subscribe to the teaching of not to being overcome by evil, but to overcome evil with good.

In the 4kids show - 2k3, whatever you wanna call it - Splinter specifically tells the turtles that he didn't tell them the story of Shredder murdering Yoshi because he didn't want their training to be tainted by the hatred that was still in his heart. So, evidently, Peter at least, switched direction on that.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Zachatello00

I'm thinking it makes "sense" on the one hand, but the question is "is it morally right" for Splinter to seek revenge. To that, I answer "no."

Fighting will always breed more fighting.

I suppose it depends on what you consider to be "moral".

I personally subscribe to the teaching of not to being overcome by evil, but to overcome evil with good.

In the 4kids show - 2k3, whatever you wanna call it - Splinter specifically tells the turtles that he didn't tell them the story of Shredder murdering Yoshi because he didn't want their training to be tainted by the hatred that was still in his heart. So, evidently, Peter at least, switched direction on that.

Yeah, that made me roll my eyes ironically cause it was the exact opposite of why he trained him in the comics. Not different, like say the OT where Splinter basically taught them ninjitsu as a form of self defense, but like verbatim the exact opposite of why he trained them.

Like Batman saying he's not fighting crime because his parents were murdered so no family would ever have to suffer that, but idk.... like fighting crime so he himself would never get corrupt with anger and hate and become a killer like Joe Chill, or some other nonsense.

[Leo656]

I mean, more than anything it just illustrates how Peter Laird had grown and matured as both a person and as a storyteller between the publication of TMNT #1 and development of the 4Kids series.

It's very, very clear that TMNT #1 was thrown together with very little foresight at all, and they were mostly just riffing on trends. Thus, all the characters and plot being very one-dimensional compared to what would come later on. "Revenge" for its own sake was a good enough motivation for the "good guys" when you're not planning on ever following up or further developing that story. But once it becomes an ongoing story, you have to add more layers, which by definition reframes the entire narrative. And that's where you start to apply logic to things and realize that Mirage Splinter in issue #1 was pretty much kind of an asshole.

One could reasonably assume that had the story originally been written with the knowledge that 1. It would become a long-running ongoing, and 2. Most of the brand's fans, at least at one point in time, would skew younger, Splinter and the Turtles would have probably had much different, or at least more nuanced, motivations.

Therefore, I don't actually have a big problem with the way they presented things in 4Kids, because it kind of feels like if Laird could go back to Square One and rewrite everything from the ground up, knowing Then what he knows Now, that he wouldn't have settled for "revenge for its own sake" as their initial motivation. He probably would have written it similarly to what was presented in 4Kids. So even though it's The Exact Opposite of the original origin, it doesn't really bother me.

[Metropoliskid41]

Yes, under the eastern moral ethics that influence the characters, yes Splinter is justified and morally right. Taking the turtles solely at face value by name, they are ninjas which are hired assassin, literally trained to kill. But looking at them closer with how they are presented, Splinter & the Turtles are much more akin to Samurai. And Samurai are governed by the ethical principles and tenets of Bushido, the eastern warrior’s philosophy. It exists in many forms and evolutions over time in Japan, ranging from chivalry to religious status in that evolution over the centuries. As such, a warrior/samurai must avenge his master or commit seppuku to maintain his honor. To turn away and leave ones master unavenged, is dishonorable. A warrior serves his master above all else, including sacrificing his own life to protect the life and/or image and honor of his master.

There is a great article that discusses revenge as a part of Bushido, which can be found here:

https://yab.yomiuri.co.jp/adv/wol/dy...re_100906.html

A relevant excerpt from that article is below:

The scholar Mitamura Engyo, an authority on the Edo period (1603-1868 prior to the Meiji period in Japan) stated that samurai were convinced that if they did not carry out revenge, they would lose their honor as samurai. Chiba Kameo also mentioned that samurai were forced into revenge, sacrificing themselves to the code of bushido (the samurai code of chivalry), which compelled them to carry out revenge

[DragonSoul]

I would say yes that Splinter is morally right in seeking revenge according to his own set of beliefs. It is mainly Eurocentric and western cultural norms that view revenge as irrational. Revenge is sometimes seen as a foundational block to warrior culture; so much so that all warrior cultures across the globe have their own version of revenge. In early Japan, blood revenge was legal or apart of the cultural norm that expected revenge as a means to preserve honor and to restore balance to the community.

Personally, I am indifferent towards whether or not Splinter is right for wanting revenge against Shredder. The one thing I was always curious though is why legal action against Oroku Saki was never explored. I know Splinter and the turtles are mutants but Oroku Saki also murdered Tang Shen which would have started a police investigation against Saki. Unless it was explored and I am just unaware of it.

Anyways, I think Metropoliskid41 has some good points too. Revenge is apart of Bushido.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I mean, more than anything it just illustrates how Peter Laird had grown and matured as both a person and as a storyteller between the publication of TMNT #1 and development of the 4Kids series.

It's very, very clear that TMNT #1 was thrown together with very little foresight at all, and they were mostly just riffing on trends. Thus, all the characters and plot being very one-dimensional compared to what would come later on. "Revenge" for its own sake was a good enough motivation for the "good guys" when you're not planning on ever following up or further developing that story. But once it becomes an ongoing story, you have to add more layers, which by definition reframes the entire narrative. And that's where you start to apply logic to things and realize that Mirage Splinter in issue #1 was pretty much kind of an asshole.

One could reasonably assume that had the story originally been written with the knowledge that 1. It would become a long-running ongoing, and 2. Most of the brand's fans, at least at one point in time, would skew younger, Splinter and the Turtles would have probably had much different, or at least more nuanced, motivations.

Therefore, I don't actually have a big problem with the way they presented things in 4Kids, because it kind of feels like if Laird could go back to Square One and rewrite everything from the ground up, knowing Then what he knows Now, that he wouldn't have settled for "revenge for its own sake" as their initial motivation. He probably would have written it similarly to what was presented in 4Kids. So even though it's The Exact Opposite of the original origin, it doesn't really bother me.

I tend to agree with this. You can actually see Peter and Kevin growing both artists and writers as Vol.1 of the Mirage series went on. It would be interesting to see if the more quality storytelling we got in say Return to New York would had been present in the first issue whether it would still be a success. It's always been my belief that the unpolished nature of it was part of what hooked people in. For example Laird himself has speculated had he known TMNT would be popular enough to be a whole series whether he would have killed off Shredder in the first issue but frankly him slinking away as he did so often in the cartoon with "I'll get you next time you wretched reptiles" doesn't have quite the same punch.

There is a lot of things in that first issue that you can tell were written in the belief that it was only going to be a one-off story and they never thought they'd expand on it.Like how when Splinter explains the origin (for the benefit of the reader) it's presented as new information to the turtles as well. At least that was partly retconned that at very least the turtles knew of Yoshi's existence (if not the circumstances of his death) and the mutagen accident.

Originally Posted by DragonSoul

I would say yes that Splinter is morally right in seeking revenge according to his own set of beliefs. It is mainly Eurocentric and western cultural norms that view revenge as irrational. Revenge is sometimes seen as a foundational block to warrior culture; so much so that all warrior cultures across the globe have their own version of revenge. In early Japan, blood revenge was legal or apart of the cultural norm that expected revenge as a means to preserve honor and to restore balance to the community.

Personally, I am indifferent towards whether or not Splinter is right for wanting revenge against Shredder. The one thing I was always curious though is why legal action against Oroku Saki was never explored. I know Splinter and the turtles are mutants but Oroku Saki also murdered Tang Shen which would have started a police investigation against Saki. Unless it was explored and I am just unaware of it.

Anyways, I think Metropoliskid41 has some good points too. Revenge is apart of Bushido.

Yes but modern Japanese culture doesn't advocate that murder is okay if it's for revenge. It's still against the law. Whether you think the law should apply to non humans who live on the fringes of society is a different question.

Also the turtles aren't really samurai nor are they even really ninjas more like a riff on pop cultures version of ninjas and martial arts warriors in general.

It would be interesting to see if the police ever investigated Yoshi and Shen's murders. It would have been cool to tie it into Tristan Jones' Tales work were the turtles were allied with Miller and other police. Since we're discussing whether Splinter was morally right for seeking revenge against Saki I wonder if it ever crossed the character's mind to gather evidence on the murder as well as exposing the Shredder's criminal empire not that it would have made anywhere near as interesting story.

[D-ray]

I don't know if you are talking about the comics or the
2003 adaptation, but I'll answer from both points of view.

(2003)
I don't think that Splinter would hunt the Shredder (or Ch'rell) just because of revenge.
I mean, he is the first explaining in the serie how bad revenge can be.
I think it's more like an additional reason to eliminate him. Yes, Splinter kinda wanted revenge, but the only time he actually asked the turtles to defeat him is because he saw a bigger picture, which is to avoid his attempt in conquering the Utroms.

About the morality thing, I think it's subjective.
Usually revenge is not even worth the risk, but if it's for a cause (like for Splinter) I guess he is morally correct.
Ignoring the fact that you can make things better is a coward behaviour for me.

If the Shredder wasn't such a public danger, and maybe just killed Yoshi in all of his life, then I would say the revenge would not be morally correct, since you would just be falling to his unmoral level, killing for no real goal except for revenge.

I talked abit deeply about this in the "Casey did the RIGHT THING?" post that I think you already saw.

(comic)
I haven't read the comics too much (I know I should, but I'm not rich, and reading scans is not honourful), but as I
know about Splinter there, which is training the turtles just for revenge, I don't think he is totally right.
I mean, sure, killing him does have a better purpose, which is eliminating such menace, but writing the turtles
future before they could choose... ehh, is not really correct.

Again, I'm no expert about the comic, so I might be wrong; but if Splinter's only reason to fight Shredder was
for revenge, and not anything else, then no, he is not morally correct. As Zachatello00 said, fight only breeds more fight (which is explained perfectly
in the 2003 adaptation with Karai seeking for revenge as well), and it's kind of pointless.

[MikeandRaph87]

Here is a good question and I don't have an opinion either way. Where is justice and revenge separated? It is a gray area that may be defined by intention,however I would like to read thoughts from you all.

[DragonSoul]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Yes but modern Japanese culture doesn't advocate that murder is okay if it's for revenge. It's still against the law. Whether you think the law should apply to non humans who live on the fringes of society is a different question.

Also the turtles aren't really samurai nor are they even really ninjas more like a riff on pop cultures version of ninjas and martial arts warriors in general.

Which is why I said "early Japan" as blood revenge was a cultural practice that was regularly practiced and made legal in the Muromachi period, 1336-1573 BCE (Curtis 2012, 9) [source provided is a secondary source but has an interesting thesis topic]. I mention the cultural history of Japan because it can be viewed as a base for Splinter's character as well as to remind that not every culture thinks like a post-colonial westerner.

The turtles do follow Bushido principles as it is showed in the mirage comics and it is reflected in their daily interactions with Splinter. The use of "master Splinter" is a reflection of bushido and Japanese cultural etiquette. "The Last Ronin" uses the word "Ronin" which means a samurai warrior without a master. The concept that ninjas and samurai were different is also a western misconception about Japanese culture as ninjas and samurai warriors were not mutually exclusive.

I also disagree, the exploration of the Oroku Saki case would have been a very interesting story plot. It would have helped to establish the lore of the TMNT world as well as provide another interesting plot device which is the inadequacy of the justice system which gives rise to vigilantism.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by D-ray

Again, I'm no expert about the comic, so I might be wrong; but if Splinter's only reason to fight Shredder was
for revenge, and not anything else, then no, he is not morally correct. As Zachatello00 said, fight only breeds more fight (which is explained perfectly
in the 2003 adaptation with Karai seeking for revenge as well), and it's kind of pointless.

Mirage Splinter does not care if he's morally correct, as he has no one to answer to in the sewers and isn't a part of any society. Mirage Splinter's "father" (and "mother," too) was killed in front of him by a man who now has to die by any tools at his disposal. Simple as that.

[Metropoliskid41]

Originally Posted by D-ray

I don't know if you are talking about the comics or the
2003 adaptation, but I'll answer from both points of view.

(comic)
I haven't read the comics too much (I know I should, but I'm not rich, and reading scans is not honourful)
.

FYI, IDW has a TMNT digital comics app that is free to download & you can purchase digital copies of TMNT comics right off the app. They have the original black & white Eastman & Laird Mirage issues for download at $2 an issue, or in 4 issue collections for $4, under the “Black & White Classics.” Legal, low cost way to read the comics that started it all.

[Shark_Blade]

Yes I read via IDW app too. Very convenient. I hate how eBay sells absurd markup prices.

[superstaff]

This is one of the best TMNT conversations I've ever read, it's great.

[frank_one]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Do you think Splinter is in the right morally to want revenge on Shredder for killing his master?

How can you expect any morality from a giant rat and his fellows freaks?