Framing this and framing that!
# # # # # #
Since I typed all this and nearly broke my fingers in the process, here's what I think about the criticisms (if I put that very loosely) the fandom levels against Kishimoto's treatment of Sasuke and the Uchiha—and the "framing issues" that I keep coming across in many a post.
(This can prove to be somewhat bracing, so proceed with caution and at your own discretion.)
Why does the fandom keep using a journalistic phrase "media framing" for narratology? The correct term is either frame-story or framework; and both of these are markedly different: the former's just a manner in which a series of stories are structured; and the latter's the structure of a particular story.
The term "framing", to my knowledge, doesn't even exist in literary theory. The reason for it is that there can be various genres that muddy that term: how would you define this so-called "framing" in a narrative that's either overrun with unreliable narrators or running on unreliable narrators; what about absurdism; what about satire? It's just a layman's term that's abused by a lot of Fandom-Discourse writers to lend credence to whatever argument they've come up with on Saturday. The media-framing is there as a narrative (for the express purpose of the creation of a particular meaning to broadcast) is created from a scenario that isn't a narrative; to utilize that term to define a narrative that's … a narrative makes no sense whatsoever.
I'd be the rude one here and say it outright: the fandom's argument on framing is incorrect. This isn't how framing works. In fact, this fandom has a fundamental issue with grasping framing (or whatever that means as they seldom define it) as a whole. Journalism is a very different topic. It's got little to do with visual grammar in narratives. It's mostly about the manner in which sentences are structured.
The most accurate comparison can be made between advertisements and narratives, but only to an extent. Literature is also a part of media. Media is just a plural for different mediums. And all of framing (I'm starting to really hate this word) in narratives are directly picked up from literary theory; and the basic method to decode most visual grammar is just based on 5 (or was it 6?) rules of grammar in regard to syntax. So "framing" isn't far removed from basic grammatical structures to begin with; hence, your best bet is to go for "framing" in regard to the structures with the narrative, not outside it. You can't ignore the 99% of the narrative and only stick to the last bits that do abide by what you say. Throughout the manga, the framing is either neutral or close to it.
However, the author's intentions are unjustly dragged into the discussions. But what are the author's intentions? In the earlier interviews, you can see that what many Pro-Sasuke readers are accusing him of is very much correct: he did portray Sasuke as misguided, but a narrative that's built on Will of Fire wouldn't show it any other way; but then as the narrative went on, Kishimoto showed a different stance; and his interviews back it up.
At the heart of it, the manga is about bonds from Naruto's side in regard to community (or what it means to be in a community); and in many ways, Naruto reflects Kishimoto's own fears (he's said so himself); Sasuke exists as a metaphorical challenger to Kishimoto's own views on politics, family, and friendship, which is why there's very little reconciliation between them in this regard; they're fundamentally very different people.
That's why you never get any insight on anything from Sasuke (I can count maybe five panels in the entire manga that do that); it isn't till he opens his mouth that you know as to what he's thinking. This is a conscious choice, not an accident, because Kishimoto can't understand Sasuke; he's an anomaly in Naruto's world, and by extension, Kishimoto's. This manga is just a very long self-expression of empathy in regard to Sasuke: why does he do what he did; why can't he come back; why can't he let go; etc.; etc.; etc.? There are so many "whys" and all of them are delivered from various iterations of Leaf's community. It's a desperate bid to understand, rationalize, and observe a character that's far removed from Kishimoto and his views—and that is ... fine! There's nothing malicious about this. In fact, I commend Kishimoto's effort to even go this far into the criticism of the military, given the fact that he comes from a very small village (the lack of trees in the city frightened him initially), which is a part of a country that's nothing more than a terrorist empire's vassal state, designed to butt heads with her foes.
You'd think that it would be easy as pie for a man like that to just ... pen whatever the fuck he wants. It's not. This isn't how it works, and the process—or rather, progress in that development to understand the victims wronged by the state ... frankly, is beautiful.
Sasuke started as someone walking "into the darkness"; yet his Mangekyō is the only one that's inverted; and in the War-Arc, when he opens his eyes, he outright states, "these eyes can see through darkness!" It's the very same "walking into darkness" flipped over its head at the very end. Even Kishimoto understood that it isn't as simple as a walk into darkness and everything goes black; no, it's a constant struggle between autonomy and state's aggression and the essence of survival that lies at the heart of it.
The fandom takes to heart the former "he was in dawkness" and the beats the fucking shit outta it, not even fucking bothering to analyze the character in its entirety. Heck, many fans revile Kage Summit Arc's Sasuke, and I want to ask them this: why the fuck do you even like this character? Is it the duck-arse hair? The long list of abilities that their "favos" would never have? Is it that he's broody and cool? If you aren't even engaging with the arc that presents a clear divide between what Kishimoto thought and what he was going to think in the future, a tussle between two sharp dichotomies, then why even fucking bother with these empty self-serving, criticizing (Fandoms criticize; they don't know a thing about criticism) tirades that center horrifically on "why doesn't he behave the way I want him to; why's he not like his Hebi version; why was he shown in dawkness (Kishi hates him; fuck you, kishi; I can do better than you!)" and not what the character is trying to illustrate: a confusion in the narrative's direction itself, clearly from an author who's lost; so Sasuke's lost; and that's ... not bad writing, I'm sorry. I'd stand by this, it's brilliant writing from a man who's struggling to make sense of a character who's so fucking remote to everything he believes in.
When you ask for the author to do more, you're asking for an author to procure some sympathy out of thin air to understand the people he doesn't understand—not in the beginning, anyway. What's superficial about initiating a process like this? Sasuke was never going to receive some long-standing ovation in the narrative. People like Sasuke are viewed with a hostility; this narrative, on the other hand, blunted that considerably and left with the readers a challenge, which almost all of them failed rather miserably. Look at about half the people who do sympathize with the kid: they don't like his methods. How do you expect the author to please their fragile sentiments that're wounded over a little violence. At this point, you're asking for the impossible!
To suggest that all of this wasn't intentioned is a dishonest position to take. There's no evidence as to what you're suggesting, either. It's an easy dismissal, one that I just can't agree with—as either something is well-written and thus well-intentioned, or it isn't. You can't argue at both sides of the fence here and come out with a coherent answer. Did his brutal schedule affect his ability? Of course it did. Look at Itachi, Kakashi (he didn't want to bring this guy back, so there's that), Shikamaru and the goofy end to the Pain Arc; but that doesn't mean that everything else around it is devoid of rationale, intention, and value. At this point, you might as well just dismiss the whole thing and call it a day—because, if you go for this view, then everything's a happy accident; and we both know that that's not true.
To reduce the whole thing down to "the hero won and Sasuke was labelled a villain" is a very reductionist stance—very much so. The manga doesn't have to meet you at your terms. It's got its own. It's just a refusal to engage with the text, not unless it meets you at your own terms. You do know that Sasuke stands as an opposition, right? So what he's saying is the opposition; and that's more than enough to create a marked schism between two dogmas. Why's that not enough for you? What's there not to get? Why should Sasuke get an affirmative from outside himself? Why's his view not enough, even if it anchors only the entirety of the damn manga? What are you looking for? Therapy language, "Sasuke, you are valid"; "we acknowledge your trauma"; or "you're right"? This isn't middle-school; you're required to bring to the narrative your own moral apparatus; it isn't Kishimoto's responsibility to break it down at a fundamental level for you. That's never happening in a narrative like this. Not even Paradise Lost that illustrates the greatest vengeance and the greatest wrong in the history of humanity ever went for this route. Why? Satan's out-matched by a cosmically effective force; and he alone has to take up the arms and create a difference between two sharp views: holy and unholy and what it means to be at the wrong end of judgement. Sasuke's no different; so either you accept this approach or you don't, because that's how Sasuke is; and there really isn't any flaw in this approach; it just doesn't match up with yours.
Why do you want Naruto to acknowledge Sasuke? This isn't how it works. Would his acknowledgment suddenly take away the flaws in the narrative? The ending, of course, is a stinking pile of rubbish; but that doesn't detract from the rest of the manga—only 99% of it. This isn't a conundrum you can't fathom—it's a rather simple logic, and not everything is about "heroes winning it all". I'd go as far as to state that heroes are a less-than-elaborate metaphor of state and religious propaganda; the fact that the manga even challenged it—on any level—is a marvel in itself. And whilst yes, Naruto is idealism; then Sasuke isn't. And that's perfectly fine. To demand from the narrative a Sasuke-heavy view goes against the very nature of politics as a whole—even historically. You might as well just ask for a miracle.
There's a reason why so many questions are aimed at Sasuke, and he answers the way he feels, with the information he has on him, with the actions that construct his aggression. And half his fucking fandom is filled with the damned self-inserting shippers and the namby-pamby "two wrongs don't make a right" bullshiters who're just not O-K with the violence that he exhibits. And I'd ask you, why? In which realm is violence the "wrong" thing that's maligning the Uchiha and Sasuke and depicting them as "craai-zee" loons out to get us all? Is it really that; or is it how they've chosen to "frame (gotta love this word)" the whole thing? Intense trauma would naturally evoke intense passions. Sasuke's shown to be raw in this regard—in complete honesty; and in that simplicity the Fandom can't seem to locate the heart of the conflict that it's created itself: "the author's just mean to Sasuke and Uchiha." The Uchiha aren't real. Sasuke isn't real. The narrative's strength lies in that audacity to present the violence as it is, not how it ought to be in any x, y, and z's fool's imagination (this man studied mossad, so he must've studied Hezbollah, their greatest nemesis; albeit he doesn't mention it, but there's no former without the latter). Long story short: it isn't the "framing" that's the big bad in this discussion; it's the readers that refuse to experience the honesty from state-wronged victims, as in their anger they see an insufferable agent that's hard for their empathy to parse; and that's not Kishimoto's fault—and I'd always stand by this.
# # # # # #