This was a post I'd written back in January, but never got around to finishing. Now that Gambino has risen in popularity again, I figured I'd revive it and post it for others to read through and respond to. It's still only what I'd consider half-finished. But it has room for growth, and I'm curious about what others have to say about the character.
Raise your hand if you’ve noticed Miura setting up parallels between Gambino and Guts as father figures. For those who didn’t raise your hands, how many of you sympathized with Gambino? I think the lack of empathy for characters like Gambino can enshroud people from what Miura is trying to convey.
The way Miura humanizes his antagonists is among the reasons I love and respect him as a writer. But for every Griffith fanboy there are a thousand who disregard lesser characters like Carcus or Gambino who are also portrayed with a balance of realistic personalities and traits, not all of them agreeable.
I 've encountered many readers who are too quick to write Gambino off as a monster for trying to kill Guts. Is he a villain? Maybe. But his motivations are grounded, and his portrayal as an abusive father is nuanced just enough that we get glimpses of the man beneath the abrasive persona he's cultivated as a mercenary.
I believe Miura embeds enough humanity in him to leave astute readers with, at worst, conflicted feelings about his life and death. Not hatred. So, bear with me a moment as we take a fresh look at Gambino’s scenes, and try to understand who he was.
What kind of man was Gambino?
He puts on a macho, sarcastic air as leader of a band of ruthless mercenaries. The kind of gang he runs is fundamentally different from the Hawks. When Guts joins the Hawks, he comments that he’s surprised by how friendly and open they are with each other. It's markedly different from the mercenary camps he'd grown up around. Those were filled with the kind of people who are comfortable spending their entire lives chasing killing fields for money. If there was a dream, it was to survive the next day. That’s the kind of environment that produced Gambino.
In this kind of mercenary camp, there's no place for children. But Gambino was thrust into fatherhood because of his feelings for Shisu. The couple's first child was miscarried, but as chance would have it, the two found and adopted Guts shortly afterward. Shisu clearly transferred her motherly feelings onto Guts. Gambino appears wary, but willing, to adopt Guts. But we don’t get a scene between the two before Shisu died from plague, three years later. And that event forever tarnished Gambino's relationship with Guts.
After Shisu’s death, any fatherly feelings Gambino may have harbored were scoured away. Guts’ existence was reduced to a living memory of that tragedy. Combined with the superstitious circumstances that they found Guts in, he becomes an easy excuse for Gambino to blame for how his life ended in such turmoil. It’s why he’s able to rationalize selling Guts to Donovan, and why he ultimately tries to murder him.
More Human than Monster
There’s something peculiar about the way Miura chose to handle Gambino. As an author, he certainly doesn’t take the easiest path. Miura seems to go out of his way to humanize Gambino on three separate occasions, and I’ll lay out each example separately.
Sins of the Father
The differences between who Gambino was and who Guts ultimately became is something Miura has touched on a few times in the series. Furthermore, I think Miura bolsters the circumstantial similarities between the characters with direct visual parallels.
In volume 3, when Shisu first finds Guts, she is draped in a robe and appears to be mentally challenged, at the very least she's not all there. She draws Guts close to her breast, but Gambino pulls her away. She screams, and clings for it.
In volume 14, when Casca gives birth to the demon child, she is wearing a small, thin sheet, and has become mentally challenged. She draws it close to her breast, but Guts pulls it away. She screams, and clings for it.
Mercenaries chide Guts for trying to use a long sword at the age of 6. Guts insists. Gambino agrees, holding his own long sword draped over his shoulder. He says that there aren’t children’s toys around here.
Fast forward to volume 18. Isidro finds Guts sleeping, and tries to take the Dragon Slayer. Guts wakes, picks up the sword and stows it away behind him. His arm is still over his shoulder when he tells him that it’s not a children’s toy.
These aren't concrete, but they visually imply things that readers should already have noticed narratively about the connection between these two characters.
Raise your hand if you’ve noticed Miura setting up parallels between Gambino and Guts as father figures. For those who didn’t raise your hands, how many of you sympathized with Gambino? I think the lack of empathy for characters like Gambino can enshroud people from what Miura is trying to convey.
The way Miura humanizes his antagonists is among the reasons I love and respect him as a writer. But for every Griffith fanboy there are a thousand who disregard lesser characters like Carcus or Gambino who are also portrayed with a balance of realistic personalities and traits, not all of them agreeable.
I 've encountered many readers who are too quick to write Gambino off as a monster for trying to kill Guts. Is he a villain? Maybe. But his motivations are grounded, and his portrayal as an abusive father is nuanced just enough that we get glimpses of the man beneath the abrasive persona he's cultivated as a mercenary.
I believe Miura embeds enough humanity in him to leave astute readers with, at worst, conflicted feelings about his life and death. Not hatred. So, bear with me a moment as we take a fresh look at Gambino’s scenes, and try to understand who he was.
What kind of man was Gambino?
He puts on a macho, sarcastic air as leader of a band of ruthless mercenaries. The kind of gang he runs is fundamentally different from the Hawks. When Guts joins the Hawks, he comments that he’s surprised by how friendly and open they are with each other. It's markedly different from the mercenary camps he'd grown up around. Those were filled with the kind of people who are comfortable spending their entire lives chasing killing fields for money. If there was a dream, it was to survive the next day. That’s the kind of environment that produced Gambino.
In this kind of mercenary camp, there's no place for children. But Gambino was thrust into fatherhood because of his feelings for Shisu. The couple's first child was miscarried, but as chance would have it, the two found and adopted Guts shortly afterward. Shisu clearly transferred her motherly feelings onto Guts. Gambino appears wary, but willing, to adopt Guts. But we don’t get a scene between the two before Shisu died from plague, three years later. And that event forever tarnished Gambino's relationship with Guts.
After Shisu’s death, any fatherly feelings Gambino may have harbored were scoured away. Guts’ existence was reduced to a living memory of that tragedy. Combined with the superstitious circumstances that they found Guts in, he becomes an easy excuse for Gambino to blame for how his life ended in such turmoil. It’s why he’s able to rationalize selling Guts to Donovan, and why he ultimately tries to murder him.
More Human than Monster
There’s something peculiar about the way Miura chose to handle Gambino. As an author, he certainly doesn’t take the easiest path. Miura seems to go out of his way to humanize Gambino on three separate occasions, and I’ll lay out each example separately.
- The distinctive scar Guts has across the bridge of his nose came from a moment of rage in Gambino, during training. He lashed out at Guts, who surprised him by being able to get past his defenses. Initially Gambino plays it off like what he did wasn’t a big deal. But days later, he seeks Guts out, and delivers an ointment for his face. The narrator points out that this may have been merely to soothe his guilty conscience. But that notation in and of itself implies there may have been more to this act than mere guilt. Of course, it’s never elaborated on beyond this.
- Despite his behavior, Gambino is shown to genuinely care for Shisu. In her dying moments, he was away in battle. A nurse chides him for not being by her side. Three years later, delirious after having his leg amputated, Gambino calls out for Shisu, remembering that night when he was away. He says, "Wait ... Shisu. Don't die. I'm on my way back," as he reaches out for Guts' hand.
Conveying that sense of loss is a small, but significant moment for our understanding of this otherwise emotionless character. In his line of work, there must have been other women. But six years after Shisu's death, it continues to haunt him, and she's still who he goes to in his mind for comfort. Fevered or not, he reaches out for his one link to her: Guts.
For a character destined to try to kill the protagonist, a scene like this is not necessary. So why include it, and why portray it in this manner? Functionally, it serves two purposes. The first being that it shows Guts responding to the impending death of his father-figure, drawing closer to him despite his treatment. But it’s also the lone emotional moment we get from Gambino. - When Gambino enters Guts’ tent with the intent to kill him, he does so while drunk. Miura could have chosen to simply have this man driven by rage, finally pushed over the brink after reflecting on his shitty life. But no, Miura humanizes Gambino, and somewhat distances him from the monstrous act, by making him drunk in the scene.
These moments of compassion bind Gambino to Guts. Despite his rough treatment, and the murderous intent he ends his life on, Guts genuinely regrets what happened. He’s not able to cast his death aside, or feel remorseless like so many of the other deaths he’s caused. The death of the man he considers to be his father is the most significant in his life, until he loses his friends.
Sins of the Father
The differences between who Gambino was and who Guts ultimately became is something Miura has touched on a few times in the series. Furthermore, I think Miura bolsters the circumstantial similarities between the characters with direct visual parallels.
In volume 3, when Shisu first finds Guts, she is draped in a robe and appears to be mentally challenged, at the very least she's not all there. She draws Guts close to her breast, but Gambino pulls her away. She screams, and clings for it.
In volume 14, when Casca gives birth to the demon child, she is wearing a small, thin sheet, and has become mentally challenged. She draws it close to her breast, but Guts pulls it away. She screams, and clings for it.
Mercenaries chide Guts for trying to use a long sword at the age of 6. Guts insists. Gambino agrees, holding his own long sword draped over his shoulder. He says that there aren’t children’s toys around here.
Fast forward to volume 18. Isidro finds Guts sleeping, and tries to take the Dragon Slayer. Guts wakes, picks up the sword and stows it away behind him. His arm is still over his shoulder when he tells him that it’s not a children’s toy.
These aren't concrete, but they visually imply things that readers should already have noticed narratively about the connection between these two characters.