>>4076931>Poor explanation that repeats itself ad nauseam for 100 pages. Nasu is infamous for this writing "style." I wouldn't call it detailedStill detailed, still explained. You effectively mitigated your prior point by admitting that he in fact does state and explain it.
> YesThen stop trying to act as if your clouded and ridiculously obvious subjective view of the character is an objective one.
