The recent release of Jujutsu Kaisen chapter 269 has ignited notable discussions within the fandom, particularly due to Kusakabe’s contentious remark: “It’s Gojo’s fault for not killing Itadori.” As the acclaimed manga series by Gege Akutami approaches its climax with only two chapters left, many fans are left feeling uneasy about this statement.
Kusakabe’s comment seems to not only critique Gojo, a pivotal character in the series, but also comes across as particularly harsh and insensible towards Yuji, given that it is directed at him in a moment of profound significance.
In response, numerous fans have taken to social media to express their discontent, arguing that the remark was inappropriate and disrespectful considering the context.
However, it is possible that Kusakabe’s statement has been misconstrued. What appears to be a blunt and cold remark could, in fact, hold a deeper narrative significance than it seems at first glance.
Jujutsu Kaisen chapter 269: Kusakabe’s “It’s Gojo’s fault”comment may have a deeper implication
With the conclusion of Jujutsu Kaisen’s final showdown against Sukuna, culminating in Sukuna’s defeat, the series is actively wrapping up lingering plot points.
In chapter 269, as the main characters—Yuji, Megumi, and Nobara—reunite with other sorcerers, Yuji attempts to convey an apology. However, Kusakabe interrupts with the striking statement:
“It’s Gojo’s fault for not killing Itadori way back when.”
This commentary has ignited a wave of reactions from the Jujutsu Kaisen community. Many find his words cold, insensitive, and unwarranted, sparking conversations filled with frustration over their timing and tone.
A deeper look into why Jujutsu Kaisen fans are upset about Kusakabe’s statement
Firstly, fans interpret Kusakabe’s statement as uncalled for and disrespectful to Gojo, who played an instrumental role in diminishing Sukuna’s strength before the other sorcerers took over post-Gojo’s demise. Critics argue that Kusakabe’s role in the conflict was minimal, rendering his criticism of Gojo particularly perplexing and even comedic.
Moreover, many viewers find Kusakabe’s insinuation that Gojo should have executed Yuji earlier to be highly inappropriate. They argue it’s unjust to fault Gojo for allowing Yuji—a young individual whom Kusakabe refers to as a “kid”—a chance at survival instead of executing him as per the directives of the jujutsu society leaders.
Fans assert that Gojo’s decision to grant Yuji a chance at life should not be misinterpreted as a failing, and express criticism toward Kusakabe for making such a harsh statement. Furthermore, they perceive Kusakabe’s comment as particularly cruel towards Yuji, as it implies that it would have been preferable if Gojo had eliminated him from the onset.
Suggesting the death of a young “kid”who inadvertently ingested Sukuna’s finger is undeniably harsh, and articulating such a remark directly in front of Yuji exacerbates its insensitivity. Given these circumstances, the fans’ reactions to the comment are quite understandable.
Exploring how Kusakabe’s statement could be misinterpreted and potentially bear a harmless implication
That being said, Kusakabe’s comment may have been misunderstood. An alternative viewpoint suggests that his words were not meant to endorse Yuji’s earlier execution or to place blame on Gojo but may have served to comfort Yuji and alleviate his feelings of guilt.
Kusakabe might have intended to stress that the outcomes were not Yuji’s fault, placing the accountability on the adults who failed to protect them. His subsequent comment supports this interpretation.
“Itadori is a victim of Kenjaku’s jujutsu terrorism.”
This implies that actions taken by everyone involved shaped the outcome and were outside of Yuji’s control. Consequently, the younger generation—Yuji, Megumi, or Yuta—should not carry the burden of guilt; instead, he suggests that the responsibility lies with the adults in power for the circumstances at hand.
This perspective indicates that Kusakabe’s words may have been intended to provide encouragement to the younger characters and redirect the focus of accountability, rather than functioning as a severe critique as it first appeared.
Leave a Reply