![[sticky entry]](http://s.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/entry/sticky_entry.png){kind=small}
I use tags for more than just content. Tags will also signal when I'm taking a different approach, and this list might help anyone who's a little confused as to how/what sort of reply a post may warrant. (Not all tags are in here; I didn't see reason to list the ones that are concrete or probably obvious.)
( Tags for approach, attitude, context, content, and audience. )
Just some things to keep in mind, if you're ever unsure how to gauge a post's unfamiliar tone or my reactions to comments.
Also, if my writing style ever confuses you, this post might help. Or at least, it tries.
recent manga reads & rereads
25 January 2012 08:36 pmIn this post: GetBackers, Vampire Knight, D.Gray-man, Amatsuki, Di(e)ce.
I gave up on GetBackers, despite![[personal profile]](http://s.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot's rec. Mostly, though, because of its discordance. Background, if you're not aware: it's the usual shonen bromance kind of story, with a fair bit of quasi-science-fiction/supernatural mixings, and plenty of the usual cliches. Two things about its development stuck in my head while reading. Hmm, make that three. I made it about halfway through the anime, then tried the manga, and quit about halfway through. While watching the anime, I also checked into the anime's development, and noted an unusual bit of info about the series' wrap-up (which happened prior to the story wrap-up, so there was the usual question of whether to do an anime-original ending).
Note: the story is actually a three-way invention, from what I gather. I think, not sure, but I seem to recall the author is actually a brother-sister penname, who work jointly with an artist. That is, the penname gives credit to brother and sister, but apparently (why am I surprised) the only mention of author quotations act like it's just one guy. So, dunno what the sister does. Anyway.
I can't find where I came across this bit -- I think in one of the articles cited in the wiki entry. Apparently, the anime director suggested making Kazuki's relationship canonical (anime canon, that is) with his second, Juubei. (Their respective weaponry, threads and needles, even suggest the pairing... among the many, many other things that do, including their own dialogue.) The mangaka-author refused, saying that Kazuki already had a destined pairing, Ren Radou.
Then I got to that character's introduction in the anime, and discovered the character isn't even real. She's part of the 3D/holographic construct. Alright, it's one thing if there's a flesh-and-blood half to match with the flesh-and-blood (err, in context, that is) character, but I have major issues with a story-author who'd insist there's a pairing, and choose a pairing in which one character is a computer program. It'd be one thing if the author insisted it be left undefined, but it says a lot to me about the author's agenda if he'd choose this real/nonreal pairing over the damn-near-text of a real/real pairing. There's erasure, and then there's replacement that reaches the level of ridiculous.
( The second bit was the mangaka-artist, who -- based on the copious amounts of ho-yay artwork -- has some serious yaoi fanboi leanings. Like, not even leanings. I'd say that tree fell over in the forest awhile back... and other commentary, and then onto the rest of the list. )
...and that should be enough for now. Back to catching up on Amatsuki, and at some point, I really will finally finish Kekkaishi, and catch up on Nurarihyon no Mago. Well, once I finish two other major projects on my plate, and there's always the kitchen...
I gave up on GetBackers, despite
branchandroot's rec. Mostly, though, because of its discordance. Background, if you're not aware: it's the usual shonen bromance kind of story, with a fair bit of quasi-science-fiction/supernatural mixings, and plenty of the usual cliches. Two things about its development stuck in my head while reading. Hmm, make that three. I made it about halfway through the anime, then tried the manga, and quit about halfway through. While watching the anime, I also checked into the anime's development, and noted an unusual bit of info about the series' wrap-up (which happened prior to the story wrap-up, so there was the usual question of whether to do an anime-original ending). Note: the story is actually a three-way invention, from what I gather. I think, not sure, but I seem to recall the author is actually a brother-sister penname, who work jointly with an artist. That is, the penname gives credit to brother and sister, but apparently (why am I surprised) the only mention of author quotations act like it's just one guy. So, dunno what the sister does. Anyway.
I can't find where I came across this bit -- I think in one of the articles cited in the wiki entry. Apparently, the anime director suggested making Kazuki's relationship canonical (anime canon, that is) with his second, Juubei. (Their respective weaponry, threads and needles, even suggest the pairing... among the many, many other things that do, including their own dialogue.) The mangaka-author refused, saying that Kazuki already had a destined pairing, Ren Radou.
Then I got to that character's introduction in the anime, and discovered the character isn't even real. She's part of the 3D/holographic construct. Alright, it's one thing if there's a flesh-and-blood half to match with the flesh-and-blood (err, in context, that is) character, but I have major issues with a story-author who'd insist there's a pairing, and choose a pairing in which one character is a computer program. It'd be one thing if the author insisted it be left undefined, but it says a lot to me about the author's agenda if he'd choose this real/nonreal pairing over the damn-near-text of a real/real pairing. There's erasure, and then there's replacement that reaches the level of ridiculous.
( The second bit was the mangaka-artist, who -- based on the copious amounts of ho-yay artwork -- has some serious yaoi fanboi leanings. Like, not even leanings. I'd say that tree fell over in the forest awhile back... and other commentary, and then onto the rest of the list. )
...and that should be enough for now. Back to catching up on Amatsuki, and at some point, I really will finally finish Kekkaishi, and catch up on Nurarihyon no Mago. Well, once I finish two other major projects on my plate, and there's always the kitchen...
ahaha my ears still work
24 January 2012 11:58 pmCarrying on with the voice actor bits, watching Natsume Yuujinchou ep4 (fourth season), and the new yokai introduced... instantaneous response: it's Ginko. That's got to be Ginko. And... it is.
There is something just too delightful about the VA whose best-known role is Ginko, guesting on Natsume Yuujinchou. I'm not expecting any inside jokes, I don't mean that kind of delight. Just... there's lots of seiyuu out there, but they got Ginko.
Okay, so I'm kind of wierd, sometimes.
There is something just too delightful about the VA whose best-known role is Ginko, guesting on Natsume Yuujinchou. I'm not expecting any inside jokes, I don't mean that kind of delight. Just... there's lots of seiyuu out there, but they got Ginko.
Okay, so I'm kind of wierd, sometimes.
boggling the mind
23 January 2012 12:04 pmWatching a bit of Towa no Quon, ep5, over lunch, and there's a very short scene with two VA I can't recall seeing in the same scene together, before. I know they've worked together, they have to have had, but this is the first time I can recall seeing just the two of them: Toru Ohkawa and Shinichiro Miki. Also known as Roy Mustang #1, and Roy Mustang #2, respectively.
It's a little odd. It's like Roy Mustang, in stereo... and I'm going to have to say that although Miki did a fairly good job, in the end, as Mustang, that everything else being equal, I still prefer Ohkawa's version. Miki's voice manages the sexy, just as well as Ohkawa, but Ohkawa manages one thing really well that Miki doesn't: the amiable, guy's guy, kind of easy-going tone. And by that I mean, it's a kind of delivery that doesn't load on the sexiness, but sounds just like some regular guy, the kind of guy who'd have beer and chips to watch the game, and order too much pizza with the notion of having it cold for breakfast the next morning. Probably while standing at the sink in his boxers, still half-asleep. Miki's delivery always sounds like he's up to something, or would like to be up to something. Ohkawa's able to dial that down and just sound like the only thing on his mind is that pizza, and maybe another beer.
ETA: Ohkawa can also pull off the military a helluva lot better than Miki, who always sounds just this edge (if not all the way into) insubordination. And while Mustang may be ultimately insubordinate, plans-wise, he spends a whole lot of the storyline not showing it. Ohkawa manages that dutiful military respect a great deal better.
Still. Dual Mustangs. I swear, there's a fanvid in there.
It's a little odd. It's like Roy Mustang, in stereo... and I'm going to have to say that although Miki did a fairly good job, in the end, as Mustang, that everything else being equal, I still prefer Ohkawa's version. Miki's voice manages the sexy, just as well as Ohkawa, but Ohkawa manages one thing really well that Miki doesn't: the amiable, guy's guy, kind of easy-going tone. And by that I mean, it's a kind of delivery that doesn't load on the sexiness, but sounds just like some regular guy, the kind of guy who'd have beer and chips to watch the game, and order too much pizza with the notion of having it cold for breakfast the next morning. Probably while standing at the sink in his boxers, still half-asleep. Miki's delivery always sounds like he's up to something, or would like to be up to something. Ohkawa's able to dial that down and just sound like the only thing on his mind is that pizza, and maybe another beer.
ETA: Ohkawa can also pull off the military a helluva lot better than Miki, who always sounds just this edge (if not all the way into) insubordination. And while Mustang may be ultimately insubordinate, plans-wise, he spends a whole lot of the storyline not showing it. Ohkawa manages that dutiful military respect a great deal better.
Still. Dual Mustangs. I swear, there's a fanvid in there.
I'll be right with you...
17 January 2012 08:07 pmI just need a moment to stop hyperventilating.
and then maybe a few more minutes to stop running around in crazy circles.
and then maybe a few more minutes to stop running around in crazy circles.
The past few months have been... well, there they've been. So instead, I'll list what's fit for quasi-public consumption. Reading list!
First, the manga.
Kamisama Hajimemashita: read it for the female protagonist. It's shoujo done right.
The summary sounds like yet another stock premise from the land of girl's (and boy's) manga: our hero has a single parent, who up and abandons the kid, for reasons of debt, in this case gambling-related. Thus, by the end of the first chapter, Nanami has gone from being the poorest girl in school with a gambling father to still the poorest, but now abandoned by her father, and homeless thanks to the loan sharks confiscating everything. Stuck in a park with her one duffel bag and nowhere to go, she rescues a man from a barking dog, and in appreciation he... gives her his house. Which turns out to be a shrine. A rather forgotten and run-down shrine, at that. Which comes with its own shrine guardians, one of whom is a former wild fox and is mightily displeased that the shrine's god not only has not returned (after an absence of twenty years) but sent this girl in his place, as the new land-god.
( Kamisama comparisons, and Dengeki Daisy, Sengoku Strays, and a hope there'll be more coming from Rinne no Lagrange. )
I realized the other day that the first anime I saw was ten years ago, with Spirited Away. Outside of Miyazaki, it's taken ten years to be able to list this many good heroines in one post. Here's hoping in another ten years, such heroines will be so common that I can't fit them all in twenty posts this long.
First, the manga.
Kamisama Hajimemashita: read it for the female protagonist. It's shoujo done right.
The summary sounds like yet another stock premise from the land of girl's (and boy's) manga: our hero has a single parent, who up and abandons the kid, for reasons of debt, in this case gambling-related. Thus, by the end of the first chapter, Nanami has gone from being the poorest girl in school with a gambling father to still the poorest, but now abandoned by her father, and homeless thanks to the loan sharks confiscating everything. Stuck in a park with her one duffel bag and nowhere to go, she rescues a man from a barking dog, and in appreciation he... gives her his house. Which turns out to be a shrine. A rather forgotten and run-down shrine, at that. Which comes with its own shrine guardians, one of whom is a former wild fox and is mightily displeased that the shrine's god not only has not returned (after an absence of twenty years) but sent this girl in his place, as the new land-god.
( Kamisama comparisons, and Dengeki Daisy, Sengoku Strays, and a hope there'll be more coming from Rinne no Lagrange. )
I realized the other day that the first anime I saw was ten years ago, with Spirited Away. Outside of Miyazaki, it's taken ten years to be able to list this many good heroines in one post. Here's hoping in another ten years, such heroines will be so common that I can't fit them all in twenty posts this long.
oh, humanity.
19 November 2011 02:00 pmNo names here, because from what I've seen in my life, this is human nature and it gets repeated in any of a dozen places at any time. Doesn't change the fact that I find it amusing... and as amusing things are reason for chatter, here we go. If you're up for it, join me in the eye-rolling.
So let's say that there's a Japanese manga out there, which had originally been picked up by several groups for scanlation. All but one dropped it, and that last group -- we'll call A -- continued to scanlate over on the side.
Except, y'see, A has a Very Strict Policy of Do Not Share This Anywhere With Anyone Ever And Ever Or Else We'll Take Our Toys And Go Home But Not Before We Rant About How Horrible People Are. If that sounds like an exaggeration for the sake of humor... actually, it's not. Group A is very serious about this, folks, because scanlations are SRS BIZNESS.
A few months ago, B appeared on the scene, with a random scanlation of two chapters. (We'll call these chapters 10 and 11, just for demonstration purposes.) These appeared on various sharing/reading sites, but without any formal group acknowledgment. Just two chapters, out of nowhere.
Shortly after that, someone over in a fangroup for the manga posted a survey about A's policy of requiring a formal introductory letter in order to join the group and get the password and d/l the scanlations. Apparently the survey's response was pretty negative about A's policies. Unsurprisingly, A went completely ballistic. Not only did A grant the internets a rant the likes of which I hadn't read since FMA's daily explosions, A went a step further and deleted about a quarter of its registered readership because those names looked, uhm, suspicious. Apparently if you're really savvy and awesome (and fairly megalomaniacal), you can tell just from usernames who must be Stealing Your Work! and Posting It Without Permission! and Sharing With The Masses! and all that jazz.
( This is a saga that will amuse me for most of today, I suspect. )
In short: Mom was right! You really do learn all you need to know about human behavior on the playground.
So let's say that there's a Japanese manga out there, which had originally been picked up by several groups for scanlation. All but one dropped it, and that last group -- we'll call A -- continued to scanlate over on the side.
Except, y'see, A has a Very Strict Policy of Do Not Share This Anywhere With Anyone Ever And Ever Or Else We'll Take Our Toys And Go Home But Not Before We Rant About How Horrible People Are. If that sounds like an exaggeration for the sake of humor... actually, it's not. Group A is very serious about this, folks, because scanlations are SRS BIZNESS.
A few months ago, B appeared on the scene, with a random scanlation of two chapters. (We'll call these chapters 10 and 11, just for demonstration purposes.) These appeared on various sharing/reading sites, but without any formal group acknowledgment. Just two chapters, out of nowhere.
Shortly after that, someone over in a fangroup for the manga posted a survey about A's policy of requiring a formal introductory letter in order to join the group and get the password and d/l the scanlations. Apparently the survey's response was pretty negative about A's policies. Unsurprisingly, A went completely ballistic. Not only did A grant the internets a rant the likes of which I hadn't read since FMA's daily explosions, A went a step further and deleted about a quarter of its registered readership because those names looked, uhm, suspicious. Apparently if you're really savvy and awesome (and fairly megalomaniacal), you can tell just from usernames who must be Stealing Your Work! and Posting It Without Permission! and Sharing With The Masses! and all that jazz.
( This is a saga that will amuse me for most of today, I suspect. )
In short: Mom was right! You really do learn all you need to know about human behavior on the playground.
I've just been notified that a story on Scimitar may have been plagiarized. Compare:
http://www.scimitarsmile.com/story.p
http://centretruths.co.uk/fahdtu/MOUNTO
The policy's clear, but this is a shameful first for the archive. Anyone care to take a minute to compare the two and weigh in?
http://www.scimitarsmile.com/story.p
http://centretruths.co.uk/fahdtu/MOUNTO
The policy's clear, but this is a shameful first for the archive. Anyone care to take a minute to compare the two and weigh in?
[Edited/consolidated to reduce where I rambled. Wow, those cold meds are something.]
For a little background, readphoebe_zeitgeist's A perhaps-obvious point about shipping and voice work, and don't skip the comments, which are equally insightful.
The TL;DR version is that voicework can completely alter our impression of a work, which is (as Phoebe says), probably completely obvious. I think there's a side-issue at work, though, which is that the voicework can also tell us how the voice-actors, themselves, approached the work—and our impression of the work, therefore, is informed by the actors' interpretation. That is, interpretation as the output (the voice recordings) and interpretation as the input (their own view of a character, a story, the conflict, and so on). I'll refrain from quoting too much of the original post & replies, since you can read it there, but I do want to call out this example, fromaquila_black:
In short, I see the output-interpretation as hampered or stifled by the lack of input-interpretation. Or, in the instance of the Japanese voice actress, the output is significantly enhanced by the amount of input she gave it.
This is not that unusual for Japanese seiyuu, from the interviews I've seen. It's the English-speaking VA who spends considerable time watching the original, thinking about the character, that's the unusual one (and they do exist, but there's plenty more who don't know of the original or seem to care). A similar case in point, for me, was watching the VA interviews that came with the US release of the Cowboy Bebop movie.Spike's VA (from the series) didn't do the movie-Spike [See comments in re this statement.] Faye's VA... well, I recall the question was something about playing Faye, and the answer was mostly about how awesome it was to hang out with the gang, and we all get along well, and blah blah blah.
(Not saying VAs are the only ones who do this; I've seen many actors/actresses asked about their character and answer with how hard the filming was, or doing their own stunts, or how close the entire cast got to be. Okay, some actors/actresses just don't like to analyze a character, and insist it should be left to the audience. Except I'm not asking for the definitive meaning; I just want to know the actor/actress or VA actually gave characterization as much thought as I'm going to give it while ripping it apart.)
The reason the other VA non-responses stood out was because Edward's VA spent no little time explaining how much thought she'd put into trying to communicate Edward's utterly-Japanese wacky dialogue into an English equivalent (IIRC, the VA doesn't know Japanese). She put time and effort not just into understanding Edward, but into crafting the translated dialogue with the director and scriptwriter, to "find" Edward's English voice. That's a lot of extra work, though, for a job where you're probably only making a pittance, anyway. Not everyone can, or will, or even is allowed to, go beyond like that.
But criticisms like mine do put a lot of weight on VA shoulders, and I think we need to shift some of that to where it belongs: the director. If you're in a play, and you don't know or haven't yet seen where the story's going, it's the director who says, "read the line like this," or "the character is actually feeling like ___ but showing an expression of ____ because s/he is thinking ___." There's a reason for the old joke about the actor asking, "what's my motivation!?" When all else fails, the one who can best answer that is the director... and I think we may have a substantial lack of directors in US VA work, from the results I'm seeing. Either that, or the English-speaking VAs are so incredibly bad that no amount of directing would save 'em. Hard to tell from the final product.
( Now that's out of the way, time for the main course: Kuroshitsuji, and some side-by-side comparisons. )
This took all day on benedryl, so I think I'll turn the mic over to the rest of you, now.
ETA: forgot to mention this, but at least one member of the English Kuroshitsuji cast does deserve some mention: the VA for Meiran did a remarkable job of matching the Japanese VA's peculiarly hoarse-raspy-funny delivery. It's not a total match-up, but the VA gets points from me for not only mimicking the Japanese Meiran-style, but doing it with a low-class Brit accent as well. Well done, that.
For a little background, read
phoebe_zeitgeist's A perhaps-obvious point about shipping and voice work, and don't skip the comments, which are equally insightful. The TL;DR version is that voicework can completely alter our impression of a work, which is (as Phoebe says), probably completely obvious. I think there's a side-issue at work, though, which is that the voicework can also tell us how the voice-actors, themselves, approached the work—and our impression of the work, therefore, is informed by the actors' interpretation. That is, interpretation as the output (the voice recordings) and interpretation as the input (their own view of a character, a story, the conflict, and so on). I'll refrain from quoting too much of the original post & replies, since you can read it there, but I do want to call out this example, from
aquila_black:...my first introduction to Naruto was one of the movies, dubbed into English and shown once at our local theater... The movie had interviews with several of the American voice actors, the Japanese voice actors, and the manga-ka himself. The middle-aged American lady voicing Naruto was embarrassingly informal and unprofessional, and had nothing interesting to say about her character. The Japanese voice actress gave the camera a serious, well-thought out response about the responsibility she felt, at portraying the emotional complexities of an orphan who projects a relentlessly cheerful exterior, while often feeling desperately alienated and alone. Needless to say, it was a night and day difference. The Japanese actress convinced me that her character was worth my time.
In short, I see the output-interpretation as hampered or stifled by the lack of input-interpretation. Or, in the instance of the Japanese voice actress, the output is significantly enhanced by the amount of input she gave it.
This is not that unusual for Japanese seiyuu, from the interviews I've seen. It's the English-speaking VA who spends considerable time watching the original, thinking about the character, that's the unusual one (and they do exist, but there's plenty more who don't know of the original or seem to care). A similar case in point, for me, was watching the VA interviews that came with the US release of the Cowboy Bebop movie.
(Not saying VAs are the only ones who do this; I've seen many actors/actresses asked about their character and answer with how hard the filming was, or doing their own stunts, or how close the entire cast got to be. Okay, some actors/actresses just don't like to analyze a character, and insist it should be left to the audience. Except I'm not asking for the definitive meaning; I just want to know the actor/actress or VA actually gave characterization as much thought as I'm going to give it while ripping it apart.)
The reason the other VA non-responses stood out was because Edward's VA spent no little time explaining how much thought she'd put into trying to communicate Edward's utterly-Japanese wacky dialogue into an English equivalent (IIRC, the VA doesn't know Japanese). She put time and effort not just into understanding Edward, but into crafting the translated dialogue with the director and scriptwriter, to "find" Edward's English voice. That's a lot of extra work, though, for a job where you're probably only making a pittance, anyway. Not everyone can, or will, or even is allowed to, go beyond like that.
But criticisms like mine do put a lot of weight on VA shoulders, and I think we need to shift some of that to where it belongs: the director. If you're in a play, and you don't know or haven't yet seen where the story's going, it's the director who says, "read the line like this," or "the character is actually feeling like ___ but showing an expression of ____ because s/he is thinking ___." There's a reason for the old joke about the actor asking, "what's my motivation!?" When all else fails, the one who can best answer that is the director... and I think we may have a substantial lack of directors in US VA work, from the results I'm seeing. Either that, or the English-speaking VAs are so incredibly bad that no amount of directing would save 'em. Hard to tell from the final product.
( Now that's out of the way, time for the main course: Kuroshitsuji, and some side-by-side comparisons. )
This took all day on benedryl, so I think I'll turn the mic over to the rest of you, now.
ETA: forgot to mention this, but at least one member of the English Kuroshitsuji cast does deserve some mention: the VA for Meiran did a remarkable job of matching the Japanese VA's peculiarly hoarse-raspy-funny delivery. It's not a total match-up, but the VA gets points from me for not only mimicking the Japanese Meiran-style, but doing it with a low-class Brit accent as well. Well done, that.
where did my FMA disks go...
22 October 2011 09:13 pmFor reasons I won't go into here, decided I wanted to lie on the sofa and be lazy and watch something. Preferably something where at most I could hit the remote, instead of getting up and changing disks or whatever. (I'm talking about the computer-as-tv, since I don't have tv.)
Three episodes into Valkyria Chronicles (which I hadn't seen before) and all I can think is: I had no idea Arakawa was even more unconventional than I'd already thought her: all the FMA military women are in, well, military uniform. This show puts the women in miniskirts, and with over-the-knee stockings. (Do the male animators not realize how often you have to pull up your socks, when they're over the knee? And that there's a reason garters were invented?)
Screw this. I'm gonna (re)watch me some Kuroshitsuji, which may not be quite as awesome as the manga (yes, I am CAUGHT UP NOW and YES that was a MOMENT OF CROWNING AWESOME the likes of which is rivaled by only a few other instances ever, like one-hand-counting amount, so I just reread several times to make it feel like it happened more) -- but still, there are no military women in miniskirts.
Granted, the female characters in Valkyria are shooting and driving tanks and throwing grenades, but still. It's hard to take that seriously when they're also wearing miniskirts while the men get, y'know, real uniforms.
Le sigh.
Three episodes into Valkyria Chronicles (which I hadn't seen before) and all I can think is: I had no idea Arakawa was even more unconventional than I'd already thought her: all the FMA military women are in, well, military uniform. This show puts the women in miniskirts, and with over-the-knee stockings. (Do the male animators not realize how often you have to pull up your socks, when they're over the knee? And that there's a reason garters were invented?)
Screw this. I'm gonna (re)watch me some Kuroshitsuji, which may not be quite as awesome as the manga (yes, I am CAUGHT UP NOW and YES that was a MOMENT OF CROWNING AWESOME the likes of which is rivaled by only a few other instances ever, like one-hand-counting amount, so I just reread several times to make it feel like it happened more) -- but still, there are no military women in miniskirts.
Granted, the female characters in Valkyria are shooting and driving tanks and throwing grenades, but still. It's hard to take that seriously when they're also wearing miniskirts while the men get, y'know, real uniforms.
Le sigh.
the straw feminist
22 October 2011 11:19 amRemember my rant about feminism? I know there were several replies along the lines of, "I do believe that men and women should be equal, but I'm not a feminist" or "...but I don't call myself a feminist" and even a comment about not being a feminazi.
If you've ever said or thought that, or know someone who has, watch this, because it explains why such disallowance matters. Pass it on.
If you've ever said or thought that, or know someone who has, watch this, because it explains why such disallowance matters. Pass it on.
Been watching Fate/Zero, which seemed (so far) intriguing, so I thought I'd watch some Fate/Stay_Night, just so I'm not completely lost.
TL;DR: just read the wiki entry and save yourself the pain.
Let's see. Where to begin, and yes, here there be spoilers. Technically. Me, I think the premise's treatment already stinks, so hard to spoil it any further.
Well, for starters, the hero -- Shirou -- is a textbook case of TSTL. I mean, we could teach entire semesters just on his stupidity alone, he's that textbook. Granted, it's not entirely valorized in that other characters voice their annoyance with his stupidity, but at the same time, the instant he tries to lift even his teeniest finger he's praised as being very good, a natural at something. Someone mentions spell-casting spots, and he identifies one immediately. He gets attacked by a champion, picks up a baton, and changes it into a weapon, first try ever. He tries sparring and he's a natural with powerful moves and assurance! It just makes his stupidity the rest of the time even more painful. I mean, if he at least struggled with what he can't do, then I'd be less likely to see his TSTL traits as, well, so damn stupid. Instead, he just comes across as naively unthinking, and I don't mean that in a cute way.
In the wiki entry, one of the antagonists -- Shinji -- is characterized as narcissistic (he is, definitely) and chauvinistic. Not sure about the latter, but I can say that Shirou is without a doubt one of the most sexist characters I've come across in awhile. He's facing the spiritual embodiment of King Freaking Arthur (aka Saber), and because (in what could've been a cool twist) King Arthur is more like a Joan of Arc character -- being female -- Shirou is adamant that she, uhm, shouldn't fight. Because girls are to be protected. And it's not like she's even facing death; as a non-corporeal entity, if she loses a battle, she just fades back into oblivion until the next time someone summons her. I'm not seeing a major issue here, in terms of the final cost of omg-death kind of cost.
But no, Shirou's got to jump in the way of a major baddie and get himself almost killed, because he's that adamant that girls should be protected. If Saber just hauled off and smacked him, I'd be all for it, but this story is more of the transitional same: the writers gave the girls guns, but took away all the ammo. Makes for a female character, like Saber, being a lot of talk but nothing to back it up. She tells him she's trained for combat, but caves almost immediately and agrees to let him (the untrained TSTL twit) fight; she hares into battle but the script makes sure to trip her up. Either it's her opponent calling a halt (like you didn't see that coming), or it's the script's setup that Shirou doesn't have enough "energy" to feed her spiritual needs. She's rendered helpless because the hero is a loser, but the result's the same: presented as a great hero, King/Queen Arthur is a lot of flash and not much kicking ass.
( My reader-writer-analysis brain finds it all so frustrating... )
TL;DR: just read the wiki entry and save yourself the pain.
Let's see. Where to begin, and yes, here there be spoilers. Technically. Me, I think the premise's treatment already stinks, so hard to spoil it any further.
Well, for starters, the hero -- Shirou -- is a textbook case of TSTL. I mean, we could teach entire semesters just on his stupidity alone, he's that textbook. Granted, it's not entirely valorized in that other characters voice their annoyance with his stupidity, but at the same time, the instant he tries to lift even his teeniest finger he's praised as being very good, a natural at something. Someone mentions spell-casting spots, and he identifies one immediately. He gets attacked by a champion, picks up a baton, and changes it into a weapon, first try ever. He tries sparring and he's a natural with powerful moves and assurance! It just makes his stupidity the rest of the time even more painful. I mean, if he at least struggled with what he can't do, then I'd be less likely to see his TSTL traits as, well, so damn stupid. Instead, he just comes across as naively unthinking, and I don't mean that in a cute way.
In the wiki entry, one of the antagonists -- Shinji -- is characterized as narcissistic (he is, definitely) and chauvinistic. Not sure about the latter, but I can say that Shirou is without a doubt one of the most sexist characters I've come across in awhile. He's facing the spiritual embodiment of King Freaking Arthur (aka Saber), and because (in what could've been a cool twist) King Arthur is more like a Joan of Arc character -- being female -- Shirou is adamant that she, uhm, shouldn't fight. Because girls are to be protected. And it's not like she's even facing death; as a non-corporeal entity, if she loses a battle, she just fades back into oblivion until the next time someone summons her. I'm not seeing a major issue here, in terms of the final cost of omg-death kind of cost.
But no, Shirou's got to jump in the way of a major baddie and get himself almost killed, because he's that adamant that girls should be protected. If Saber just hauled off and smacked him, I'd be all for it, but this story is more of the transitional same: the writers gave the girls guns, but took away all the ammo. Makes for a female character, like Saber, being a lot of talk but nothing to back it up. She tells him she's trained for combat, but caves almost immediately and agrees to let him (the untrained TSTL twit) fight; she hares into battle but the script makes sure to trip her up. Either it's her opponent calling a halt (like you didn't see that coming), or it's the script's setup that Shirou doesn't have enough "energy" to feed her spiritual needs. She's rendered helpless because the hero is a loser, but the result's the same: presented as a great hero, King/Queen Arthur is a lot of flash and not much kicking ass.
( My reader-writer-analysis brain finds it all so frustrating... )
Oh, wait, I do, it's because I think we've entered something like year nine of correspondence, so it's probably safe to say that branchandroot's influence on me is beyond dire, at this point. Hence watching the first 30-or-so episodes of GetBackers. Right. I know. Like a decade behind everyone else, but I guess Em can wear down even the most stubborn of dogs.
Currently it's on pause, while I watch Fate/Zero and then realize that maybe watching Fate/Stay_Night might help, which I'll probably fast-forward through all but the fight scenes, and only that so I can watch the OVA. And even then, only that because OVAs (usually) have higher budgets and therefore better fight scenes. And then I'll get back to the other, or maybe by then I'll just break down and read the manga.
branchandroot's influence on me is beyond dire, at this point. Hence watching the first 30-or-so episodes of GetBackers. Right. I know. Like a decade behind everyone else, but I guess Em can wear down even the most stubborn of dogs. Currently it's on pause, while I watch Fate/Zero and then realize that maybe watching Fate/Stay_Night might help, which I'll probably fast-forward through all but the fight scenes, and only that so I can watch the OVA. And even then, only that because OVAs (usually) have higher budgets and therefore better fight scenes. And then I'll get back to the other, or maybe by then I'll just break down and read the manga.
[Site-name redacted since that's not the issue.]
I think I'm getting what they're saying, and I'm not sure I'm liking it, so maybe I'm missing something. What does the following mean, in real-world non-fancy terms? Or at least, what's your impression of what it (might) mean?
"By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content, messages, text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, profiles, works of authorship, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") on or through the Services, you hereby grant to [site], a non-exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly display, store, reproduce, transmit, and distribute such Content on and through the Services. This license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the Services. You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, and (ii) the posting of your Content on or through the Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any person. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of any Content posted by you to or through the Services."
I think I'm getting what they're saying, and I'm not sure I'm liking it, so maybe I'm missing something. What does the following mean, in real-world non-fancy terms? Or at least, what's your impression of what it (might) mean?
"By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content, messages, text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, profiles, works of authorship, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") on or through the Services, you hereby grant to [site], a non-exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly display, store, reproduce, transmit, and distribute such Content on and through the Services. This license will terminate at the time you remove such Content from the Services. You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, and (ii) the posting of your Content on or through the Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any person. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of any Content posted by you to or through the Services."
Don't make him mad.
14 October 2011 07:26 pmYou wouldn't like him when he's mad.
Which really amounts to, he'll yell. A lot. Loudly. But for a little 9lb guy, that's still a serious amount of noise... which all happened because I interrupted his Patrolling to take a picture of the Incredibly Trashy But Still Workable Birdfeeder.
Which really amounts to, he'll yell. A lot. Loudly. But for a little 9lb guy, that's still a serious amount of noise... which all happened because I interrupted his Patrolling to take a picture of the Incredibly Trashy But Still Workable Birdfeeder.
win some, lose some
13 October 2011 08:23 pmWell, wiped the drive & upgraded, and now I have to (a) figure out wtf Mac has changed for all its settings, (b) wtf is up with making me use my admin pw for EVERYTHING, and the most important, (c) MAKING IT DO WHAT I WANT. Sadly, experience has taught me it's the last that'll take the longest (if it's ever achieved). On the plus side, very speedy now! Though I wonder how much of that is because my address book got messed up and/or didn't save to the backup drive, and now... well, that was a lot of addresses. Guess I just need to spend a few days convincing myself that I didn't want to write any of you, anyway. Sheesh. It's always something...
[Note: get a drink and have a seat. This is almost up to my usual levels of longwindedness, but this time, I do have a point! Other than the one on the top of my head.]
I came across an insightful comment the other day while researching, and the comment resonated with me strongly in light of the requirements compiling I was tackling at the same time.
"If you're not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold." -- blue_beetle
Think about that for a bit, but first I want to run past everyone some of the thoughts bouncing in my head as a result of researching Delicious, Diigo, Pinboard, and various other (past and present) bookmarking applications. One particular journal entry (from 2008) compares Delicious and Diigo, though I'll rephrase some of the author's conclusions, since I think he got his main summary backwards. Here's the basis of his argument, thought:
In essence (and to undo the backwards of his summary): Delicious is grounded in using content to find users, while Diigo emphasizes using users to find content. Somehow, I'm not surprised that so far, of the folks replying to my informal poll, that most of you have indicated that you follow the content and then, as a secondary step, discover like-minded users -- seeing how many of you have said you preferred old!delicious and don't like or care for the diigo approach.
Granted, these two things (users, content) are intertwined: you find a tag you want to follow, you start seeing the same names pop up, you realize the same people are marking things you're also liking, and you may switch your focus from the tag to the user, in hopes they'll lead you to even better stuff.
Here's the crux, though: what is the actual product?
This shit ain't free, y'know. Servers and storage and developers and designers don't just grow on trees. It's got to be paid for, either in cash or in kind or in stock or in some way, but usually cash since most landlords & mortgage companies don't accept vegetables, these days. If you see a product that you can consume, and it's free, someone paid for it. Maybe not you, but someone: NSTaaFL, after all.
( Let me step back here, to the days when I first found an investor, wrote a business plan, and opened a bookstore... and other commentary about the dot-com and post-dot-com business models. )
More thoughts later. For now, it's your turn.
I came across an insightful comment the other day while researching, and the comment resonated with me strongly in light of the requirements compiling I was tackling at the same time.
"If you're not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold." -- blue_beetle
Think about that for a bit, but first I want to run past everyone some of the thoughts bouncing in my head as a result of researching Delicious, Diigo, Pinboard, and various other (past and present) bookmarking applications. One particular journal entry (from 2008) compares Delicious and Diigo, though I'll rephrase some of the author's conclusions, since I think he got his main summary backwards. Here's the basis of his argument, thought:
Delicious, an original web 2.0 company, still has “user-generated” as its core raison d’être. Diigo has the later-stage web 2.0 philosophy of being a “social network”.
In essence (and to undo the backwards of his summary): Delicious is grounded in using content to find users, while Diigo emphasizes using users to find content. Somehow, I'm not surprised that so far, of the folks replying to my informal poll, that most of you have indicated that you follow the content and then, as a secondary step, discover like-minded users -- seeing how many of you have said you preferred old!delicious and don't like or care for the diigo approach.
Granted, these two things (users, content) are intertwined: you find a tag you want to follow, you start seeing the same names pop up, you realize the same people are marking things you're also liking, and you may switch your focus from the tag to the user, in hopes they'll lead you to even better stuff.
Here's the crux, though: what is the actual product?
This shit ain't free, y'know. Servers and storage and developers and designers don't just grow on trees. It's got to be paid for, either in cash or in kind or in stock or in some way, but usually cash since most landlords & mortgage companies don't accept vegetables, these days. If you see a product that you can consume, and it's free, someone paid for it. Maybe not you, but someone: NSTaaFL, after all.
( Let me step back here, to the days when I first found an investor, wrote a business plan, and opened a bookstore... and other commentary about the dot-com and post-dot-com business models. )
More thoughts later. For now, it's your turn.