I'm a fan of Nagabe's work.
I read "The Wize Wize Beasts of the Wizarding Wizdoms", enjoyed it, and then expected to be just as pleased with the next book I'd bought, "Love on the Other Side". Unfortunately I was not.
As a disclaimer; I understand the book was drawn and written by adults from a different country. I can't judge the story by Japan's standards, and can only do so by my own Western ideals. I do not believe however that this disqualifies my thoughts or opinions. Proceed with this in mind.
"Love on the Other Side" is a collection of short stories the author has drawn over the years now sold as a single book. The art, as always, is fantastic. Nagabe is skillful with ink and storytelling, their works are easy to follow and interesting to look at. This is one of the reasons why I bought the book in the first place.
My second reason was that I enjoy relationships explored between humans and non-humans. Specifically I bought the book in hopes of reading about different dynamics and forms of love between them - especially since the English localised blurb sells the collection as something with "Love (that comes) in many forms".
This came from a misinterpretation of the English title perhaps, but I understood "different forms of love" to mean there would be a range between platonic, familial, and sexual/romantic love rather than just one theme. To a degree, the circumstances of love are different but all (with the exception of perhaps one) are framed romantically. I would have still enjoyed this, if it wasn't for a recurring dynamic throughout the stories.
Out of the 6 stories, only 2 don't involve very young children. The stories, "The Wolf Man and the Girl-Wolf", "Emergency Rations", and "The White King" were the ones to make me the most uncomfortable. Below I'll explain them as simply as possible.
Trigger warnings for child grooming and potential beastiality, also heavy spoilers:
Before I begin, if you are someone who believes "fiction doesn't impact reality", or that "artists should be able to draw what they want", then you probably won't agree with me. I disagree with these two sentiments, and I believe artists, writers, and publishers have a social responsibility not to promote unhealthy dynamics or behaviours. A monster and a young child falling in love would never happen, because monsters aren't real. What is real however are adults who take advantage of children and coerce them into "loving relationships", regardless of malicious intent or not. I am a fan of Nagabe, but the implications of elements in these shorts did raise my eyebrows and I question the thought processes that went behind the creation of such "love" stories. I also wonder how these things slipped under so many people's radars.
In the stories I mentioned above, there are adult-coded animals who are paired with a young child. In the "Wolf Man" story, the adult male raises a child by himself. He teaches her how to speak, how to dress, how to eat - how to act like a human. At one point he tells the child that he loves her, which at that point can be taken as familial. The story ends with the wolf man proposing to her as an adult where he admits he always intended to marry her, waiting until she was an "appropriate age". She tells him that they "(had) always been mates" and ends with them looking outside to a sunny day. It's framed very romantically, but I couldn't help but feel uncomfortable with the idea. I don't think because he is a wolf this type of dynamic should be overlooked, or excused. He is an animal only in appearance and otherwise acts very human. In real life terms, this is considered child grooming and an abuse of power. If you ignore that an adult man married a child he raised, I suppose it could be quite romantic :)
"Rations" has a very similar dynamic, with the exception that the animal man is raising a child who cannot speak to become his "emergency rations". He becomes attached to her and decides not to eat her at the end, and I thought that was fine. He does say however, "In blissful ignorance, you've fallen for me" which definitely has romantic connotations. She is a child who cannot speak, and he is the parental figure. Even if it's more of a mistake on his part, the two are framed then as romantically involved rather than as a child and their caregiver. She is more a pet than anything else to him.
Lastly, "The White King" is a "love" story between again, a young child, who is bullied for being albino, and an adult white lion who lives at a zoo. Every night the orphaned child visits the lion and speaks with him in his enclosure. Eventually the two run away together after confessing they've fallen for each other. Had the lion not been so realistic, I might have ignored this one. Apart from being able to speak with the child, he is a lion through and through - walking on all fours, chewing on bones left in his enclosure, talking about how he hunted in the wild. It was one step away from being complete implied beastiality had the lion not been able to speak.
Now I'm aware that sensitive matters can be artistically expressed in fiction as a form of exploration, and that these relationships were between humans and furries...but the media we consume indirectly informs our relationship with the world and how we act, what we consider acceptable, what we consider immoral, etc... so for many of these stories to be centred around adults and children in a romantic sense (animal or not) makes me upset.
I don't really know how to proceed from here as a fan of their work, and I would like to still read the other series they've published but...this is something that's always going to be in the back of my mind now.
If you've read all of this and still want to check the book out for yourself, by all means. The art is still. beautiful and the other stories are interesting or cute. If you think I'm reaching, well, you're entitled to that opinion. I know what I read though.