#Although for one thing there are multiple different canons and also even book canon contradicts itself. So. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

shihalyfie · 3 years

Text

"Canon” and “not canon” in the Adventure/02 universe

This is something I want to talk about, because it has a certain degree of relevance to the question of what I choose to take into account in my analyses and what I don’t. I write a lot about Adventure and 02 because both series are ridiculously consistent over their 104-episode runtime, but there are times when things contradict or don’t quite track together, and I have to figure out how to best rationalize them -- which means I need to make arbitrary decisions on what to count and not count, and when one does make those kinds of decisions, you’re very liable to get the complaint: “but that’s not canon!”

Which always makes me think: who decided that? And in the end, this is something that I think extends beyond just Digimon; every fanbase for everything always wants to believe there’s a clear-cut answer to things that everyone’s supposed to follow in a canonical timeline, and things that fall outside it. And sometimes, for some franchises, that is doable, because official staff will actually say outright that “this counts, and this doesn’t.” But that’s not how Toei and Bandai work, and their modus operandi has always been to toss a bunch of often-contradictory stuff at everyone and go “figure it out yourself,” and I think at some point the fanbase really needs to acknowledge that this so-called clear-cut boundary of “canon” and “not canon” doesn’t actually exist at all. Or in other words, any assertion of something being “canon” or “not canon” in the Adventure and 02 universe is purely something arbitrarily defined by fans, and was never determined by official - which, conversely, has actually encouraged you to take as much as you want and figure out the rest yourself.

Before we begin, I do want to make clear that this is not about one’s personal canon based on one’s own preferences -- that is to say, if you’re going “I don’t consider this canon because I don’t like this/don’t want to work with this,” then that’s entirely your right, especially if you’re doing creative work and need to decide what to apply and to not to apply. (Although, as always, one must be conscientious and respectful of those who do like it and consider it canon, because everyone’s going to differ on this.) What I am talking about is when people take a substantial part of the franchise that they otherwise like, such as a movie or drama CD, see one detail that’s contradictory in terms of the timeline or lore, and take that as evidence of “yep, the entire thing’s not canon. We’ll just throw the entire thing out, then.” It just makes me think -- you threw out a perfectly good work for that?! That’s such a waste!

First of all, Toei and Bandai don’t work that way

In general, a lot of the contradictions in the series have a “right hand is not talking to left hand” problem, because as much as we would like to believe that a Digimon series is written by a single consistent entity, the franchise itself is a huge trade-off between Toei and Bandai, and a lot of things from Bandai -- spinoffs, crossover material, games, what have you -- don’t exactly have a stellar track record of being vetted by Toei anime staff. It’s pretty well-known that game portrayals of certain characters can be really off or have misleading info, and even V-Tamer’s somewhat guilty of it. So this is going to happen no matter whether you like it or not, and it happens with any long-running kids’ series that involves a collaboration between multiple companies like this.

Moreover, the traditional custom for Toei “side movies” (in this case, meaning things like the original movie, Our War Game!, Hurricane Touchdown, and Diablomon Strikes Back) is that they’re produced with minimal involvement from the original series’s core staff -- at most, the producer is lightly involved -- and are sometimes even worked on simultaneously with the start of the original series, so you often end up with a movie that’s impossible to fit anywhere in the series timeline because there wasn’t any communication with the two sides. And for that, it’s all too easy to dismiss those movies as “non-canon”, with the fanbase arbitrarily deciding that canon ones are canon because they fit -- but Toei itself has never taken this stance.

The other thing is that, given that Adventure/02 is famous for its ridiculous level of worldbuilding consistency thanks to its director Kakudou’s conscientious efforts on it, it means that as a result, anything not made by him was prone to running afoul on it, and it’s not like the stance back then was to just reject all of it wholesale. “Doesn’t comply with the lore” is so often equated with “not canon”, but Kakudou, the author of that lore, not only made no indication of invalidating or disliking those non-compliant things, but also conversely made an active effort to make those things relevant in spite of that! (See: Our War Game! below.) The official stance is to not deny those works for being noncompliant -- it’s just that Kakudou seems to be the detail-oriented kind of person who personally prefers to work with things that have a high level of consistency (he’s very quick to say “I wasn’t involved on that” whenever someone brings up something from said external materials, not in any condescending way, just “I wasn’t involved, so don’t attribute that to me”). In fact, one of the reasons there wasn’t initially a third Adventure series was that he had difficulty finding a way to adhere to the higher-ups’ pressure to keep all of these contradictions consistent -- so the official stance itself is to try and maintain all of those side works, and that it would be better to end the series itself than to have to do something like deny them.

Which makes things very frustrating for the fans, of course, but nevertheless, that’s how it is -- even back in 2000, the right-hand-not-talking-to-left-hand phenomenon was this significant! And it would have been easy for official to step in and go “okay, we’ll put a statement out here that these don’t apply,” but no, the stance was be that it would be better to stop dragging it out longer and cancel a whole series than to deny those works, which leads us to the current situation. (Plus, think how insulting it would feel from a PR perspective if someone got attached to one of those “non-canon” materials only for official to come out and outright say “yeah this doesn’t count anymore”; we can name examples of this happening in other franchises that have understandably gotten a lot of people upset, and it would be especially offensive to do this right after said material had been released.)

Bolstering the concept of official staff’s very loose opinion of “canon” are the Adventure novels, which were supervised by Kakudou himself and written by Digimon episode screenwriter Masaki Hiro, and are non-compliant with Adventure timeline by design, because it’d be bad for the format to try and depict every single detail in the anime in the form of three novels. Several events are condensed or shuffled out of order, or even sometimes completely different (Koushirou’s incident with Vadermon goes very differently from the anime version). Despite that, this is said directly to be intended as a series of novels to help people understand Adventure and 02 better, and several details in Two-and-a-Half Year Break and Spring 2003 are incredibly consistent with it (namely in the sense of details meant to retroactively connect Adventure to 02, and other background details like Daisuke’s backstory). So you are supposed to do some kind of mental leap where you don’t take the contradictions around the actual events too seriously, but still accept the spirit and the background information you learn from it and retroactively apply it to Adventure and 02 -- and, presumably, that’s probably what you’re expected to do with everything else, too.

And this isn’t even getting into the fact that the anime itself has occasional contradictions and errors due to things like animator error or simply different writers writing different episodes -- the Adventure and 02 staff were certainly very detail-oriented, but they are human and of course inevitably slipped up here and there. How seriously do you take honorifics shifting from episode to episode in ways that don’t seem intentional, or the fact every background material refers to Osamu and Ken having a bunk bed and yet the actual episode with both of them fails to depict it? How do you deal with the fact that the Animation Chronicle is one of the most extensively useful post-02 reference materials with tons of production background info not revealed in the anime, and yet is infamously full of suspected typos that would cause some pretty massive implications if true, or all of those other Bandai and Shueisha-commissioned “side books” and other pieces of media meant to entertain the kids while the series was airing but clearly had no input from Toei staff whatsoever?

In the end, frustrating as it is, the answer seems to be the same as ever: figure it out yourself.

The standards for what’s “canon” and “not canon” are way too arbitrary

Let’s look at a handful of things that have been historically dismissed as “non-canon” by the fanbase:

The Adventure mini dramas and Armor Evolution to the Unknown: Drama CDs that were generally dismissed as non-canon because they’re “too crack” to be canon (their writing style is of the “it’s okay to push the boundaries of characterization for the sake of comedy” sort, and it wouldn’t be until later when we finally got some more serious drama CDs). The latter is full of honorific inconsistencies, most prominently Daisuke and Ken still being on surname basis at a time they’re not supposed to be (due to the fact that it was released while the series was still being produced). But official word is that you’re still supposed to consider them canon -- and yes, that’s Kakudou himself giving official sanction to a drama CD that involved a massive amount of fourth wall breaking and a completely unexplained reunion between the Adventure kids and their Digimon sometime between 1999 and 2002 (apparently this wasn’t the only one, either). How is this supposed to work? Figure it out yourself.

Hurricane Touchdown: The funny part is that up until Kizuna validated Wallace’s existence, there was no actual consistent agreement on why this movie shouldn’t be canon (the Western side being “evolutionary form timeline violations”, the Japanese side being Wallace’s status as a Chosen Child prior to 1995), which really goes to show you how arbitrary all of this is. It also has a sequel drama CD in the form of The Door to Summer, which is also contradictory with Hurricane Touchdown’s ending, so we’ve got two layers of “it can’t be canon because...” -- and yet it has a lot of interesting Daisuke characterization, and, heck, the whole character of Wallace himself, that would all be rejected if you throw this out wholesale. Then Kizuna came along, and there’s a general sense of hesitation against easily denying officially-sanctioned “main” entries like that, which retroactively forced people to somehow skip past all that and accept it, just for the sake of Kizuna’s notability.

Diablomon Strikes Back: Similar to the above, it used to be constantly dismissed as “a non-canon fun movie” because of the evolutionary forms that appear in it, despite the fact that 02 itself established that it wasn’t that hard to restore evolutionary forms if you figured something out. Somehow, a ton of people treated it as such an impossibility that “they figured it out in the first three months of 2003″ would be a viable explanation, and yet official word is that of the second through fourth movies, this is the one that had the most amount of initial consultation with the TV anime staff! And then tri. and Kizuna came along and clearly had high-level evolutions in play too, and dismissing DSB on these grounds meant dismissing those by proxy, and a lot of people were too intimidated to do that and decided to retroactively validate DSB instead, after years of having dismissed it for this reason. Again: look how arbitrary this all is.

The tri. stage play: Mainly because its timeline of events doesn’t fit tri. at all (in regards to the reboot and part 5). This is a fair assessment to make in light of the fact that it doesn’t seem to work very hard to be compliant with the very series it’s branded with, but, funnily enough, it’s actually more lore-compliant with the original Adventure and 02 than the tri. anime series is, and yet the few minor contradictions it makes with the tri. anime series are sufficient to consider it completely kicked out of canon, yet those same people who declare it so aren’t as willing to hold the anime to that same standard just because it holds a more prominent “main” position.

On the other hand, let’s look at some of the things that have been more likely to be accepted than the above:

Our War Game!: Reading this is probably going to make everyone go “whaaaaaat?”, but yep: according to Kakudou, the second through fourth movies were all made without his supervision or involvement and thus have lore contradictions (although he also made sure to say that they’re very fine movies, too). We still haven’t figured out what the lore contradiction is, and so the fanbase considers it canon, and even 02 itself makes multiple references to “the Diablomon incident” in 2000, so you can’t consider this non-canon in the slightest...but yes, according to the official side, it’s actually got a contradictory incursion somewhere in there. There is one hypothesis as to what it is, and it’s such a minor thing that no fan or even official member of staff would dare deny the movie for it, but it still contributes to how arbitrary this entire concept is: Kakudou didn’t want to give anyone (except Miyako, who’s based off a real person) canonical birthdays or blood types for the sake of preventing horoscoping, but Sora’s birthday is portrayed as being around March in the movie. And yes, Kakudou himself refers to this as being something that only happened because he wasn’t involved. (Remember what I said about him historically being quick to disclaim involvement on anything he wasn’t involved on, regardless of how much of a minor detail it is, yet doesn’t necessarily intend to deny the work entirely due to it?)

Tag Tamers: A very vital part of Ken’s backstory that establishes a lot of context behind the Dark Seed and the elusive Akiyama Ryou, which also does not make sense with 02′s timeline and characterization at all, presumably because Bandai and Toei weren’t properly communicating on what kind of details they needed to iron out for this. But of course, all of us would like some explanation to Ken’s backstory, and we have to apply some kind of logic as to how that makes sense, and I’ve yet to see people declare Tag Tamers (or any of the other WonderSwan games) as entirely non-canon as a result.

tri.: For obvious reasons, it’s a “major entry in the franchise”, so people are generally more averse to dismissing it so easily (or, at least, for reasons that aren’t related to pure preference), but I find it rather ironic that Kizuna’s the one that got all the attention for apparently being lore non-compliant, when the exact same lore points mentioned in Kakudou’s reasoning as to why it’s non-compliant (along with a ton of things that actually were in Adventure and 02′s text) are gone against even more regularly and prominently in tri., whereas Kizuna still goes out of its way to adhere to most of these and only seems to have incurred a contradiction in terms of originally intended ideology, and, possibly, its extensive use of the aforementioned movies. (Recall that this got brought up for Kizuna specifically because Kakudou was initially consulted for it; he wasn’t involved in tri. to begin with at all.) See above on how people’s unwillingness to write this one off so easily despite everything ended up retroactively dragging DSB into “accepted canon” territory; that’s how arbitrary this entire thing is.

Then, tied to all of this and making it even more confusing is Kizuna, which, again, putting all issues of personal preference aside, is basically being torn back and forth between all of these whenever you try to apply one of the above arbitrary standards. It’s allegedly lore-noncompliant with Kakudou’s lore and thus lacks his involvement, but it does have the involvement of original series producer Seki Hiromi who was known to be responsible for the series’s original human drama themes (including the premise of 02 itself) and personally vetted the scripts so that everyone could be properly in-character and the original themes still intact; it’s supposedly a “main” entry to the point where people will stop denying older works’ canonicity because of it (see Hurricane Touchdown above), but, legally speaking, is actually classified in the same “gekijouban” category that the first four movies and things like the Tamers through Savers movies are; the staff will say to hell and back that the 02 epilogue still holds (and the movie makes abundant retroactive references in both worldbuilding and themes to it), but many people out there will still insist that the movie ending that way means that (like with DSB above) “they figured it out” between the movie’s ending and the epilogue is apparently some kind of impossibility, and either the movie is non-canon or the 02 epilogue is invalidated now. (My personal stance on this is that the epilogue itself provides the answer to how they figure it out if you look closely at the movie’s themes, but that’s a tangent.)

The point I’m trying to make is that regardless of whatever stance you take on all of the above points, this is all extremely arbitrary, and these fanbase rationalizations on why this and that isn’t canon are constantly contradicting each other, shifting, and occasionally based on really meaningless things. And, again, it’s fine if you’re saying that you don’t consider this or that canon because you personally dislike it or where it went, or you find it difficult to work with, or between two contradictory things you prefer one or the other (I certainly have my fair share of strong opinions in this regard) -- but it would be better if we all admitted this and went “I just don’t consider this canon” instead of acting like there were ever some universal consensus or official backing.

"It didn’t happen this exact way, but something resembling it still happened”

So, we’re in this uncomfortable situation where we’ve been handed a ball of knots and have to work with it (a very frustrating situation especially for fanfic writers), and I have to personally say that I think all of this comes from people having far too inflexible of a concept of “canon” and “not canon”, especially to the point of rejecting a full-on perfectly fine entry just because of one timeline issue. I honestly think it’d be better if we could rather take a certain stance close to the Pixiv dictionary wiki’s view of how Wallace can appear in Kizuna: “(some version of) Wallace exists in the timeline of the main story.”

Right, so: Hurricane Touchdown is contradictory. The evolutions don’t work at that point in timeline, and Wallace shouldn’t be able to be a Chosen Child from before 1995. Those things don’t work with Adventure and 02′s timeline and lore. However, let’s look at the following story: let’s say that, between 02 episodes 14 and 15 (when the movie first screened), while school was on break, Daisuke and his friends went on a summer adventure to the US and met a boy named Wallace, who had a struggle regarding one of his partners losing his sanity, and bonded with him and helped put his partner to rest. No part of this contradicts 02 at all. There we go! So we can safely say that some story that mostly resembled Hurricane Touchdown happened in the canon timeline. Some of its details weren’t exactly the way they happened in “the movie we, as the audience, saw” -- but something that substantially resembled the movie still happened in the universe of Daisuke and his friends. And you can apply that same logic to Tag Tamers, or any other vital canonical but ostensibly contradictory material -- the media that we as the audience got may not accurately reflect the events in universe, but there’s absolutely nothing saying that some more timeline and lore-consistent alternate version didn’t happen in canon instead.

Moreover, even Adventure/02 itself gives you a bit of precedent for this concept -- namely, the fact that the final episode of 02 reveals that the entirety of Adventure and 02 is part of Takeru’s novels. It’s a pretty common theory that there might be differences in the way “the story we got” was presented, versus how they actually happened in the world Takeru lived in -- of course, Takeru certainly went out of his way to remove as much bias from the situation as he could, but you can hardly say that he, as a human, would be completely free from it, and he himself even admits that everyone he consulted had differing opinions on the events in question. And not every single piece of Digimon media has the Hirata-Hiroaki-as-Takeru narrator, which means that perhaps it’s not entirely out of the question that the different takes on the stories that the Tokyo Chosen Children went through in their youth would not be entirely consistent with each other, depending on who’s telling it. But that doesn’t mean that those events necessarily didn’t happen at all, just that some of the details were different from what we as the audience saw.

In the end, I leave the rest to everyone else to figure out -- as I said, I think this is a decision everyone will have to make for themselves, whether they’re a fanfic writer picking and choosing what to include for the sake of a coherent fic, or whether they’re just expressing a preference to not have to think too hard about or work with something they’re turned off by. (And in the case that there is someone who expresses their dislike of working with something and doesn’t want to consider it canon, I think it’s very rude to give them grief for that, and conversely, if you don’t want to consider something canon but encounter someone who doesn’t have as much of a problem with it, it’s very rude to try and expect them to change their opinion to yours.) But I do think it would do well for all of us to have a bit more of an open mind and a creative attitude towards these kinds of things before trying to shove everything into a “fully canon” and “fully not canon” binary.

#digimon #digimon adventure #digimon adventure 02 #shihameta #kizuna spoilers

70 notes · View notes

fiercestpurpose · 3 years

Text

Intro Guide to Star Wars Comics

There are a lot of Star Wars comics, and they don’t even all take place in the same timeline as all the other ones, so this is a basic guide. It certainly does not list all the comics. It is just meant to be a useful guide for people who might want to delve deeper into Star Wars continuity.

Continuity note: In 2014, Disney announced that it was going to be making a new Star Wars trilogy. In order to make new continuity, Disney retconned away the Legends continuity that had been built up over the course of nearly forty years. Some things were held over as canon, including (of course) the original trilogy, the sequel trilogy, and The 2008 Clone Wars TV series. However, the novels, stories, video games, and comics that were part of the Legends canon were placed aside in favor of a new Disney canon.

Star Wars comics are divided into three main eras: first Marvel era, Dark Horse era, and second Marvel era , which is the current one. The first Marvel era and the Dark Horse era are in the pre-2014 Legends continuity, and the second Marvel era is in the new Disney canon.

Marvel Comics (1970s and 80s)

The original Star Wars comics were published by Marvel, which acquired the rights to comic book adaptations before the first film was released. Indeed, Star Wars #1 was released a month before Star Wars opened in theaters. These comics are fun and interesting from an historical perspective, but they are not especially important to continuity. Many of the things established in these comics are directly contradicted by later canon (such as Bespin having a solid surface), although some characters introduced here are later important to Legends canon (such as Lumiya).

Star Wars (1977) - The main series. It starts with a retelling of Star Wars and then goes on to fill in the gap between the films. Goes on until after the events of Return of the Jedi. A lot of Luke, Leia, Han, and Lando running around and having episodic adventures.

Star Wars: Ewoks (1985) - This one is fun. Magic, princesses, evil witches, heroes, and, most importantly, ewoks!

Star Wars: Droids (1986) - Read this comic if you want to see Threepio being in love with Artoo. I don’t think anything else happens in this comic, but boy is Threepio in love with Artoo.

Dark Horse (1990s-2010s)

This is where Legends continuity begins to get serious. Many of the comics produced during this time tie into some other piece of media, such as a video game or a novel or a television series, and many of them tie into and influence each other. There are several different eras of Star Wars history here, and the comics are as good a place to start exploring them as any.

Star Wars (1998) - Starting in 2002 with issue #46, this comic was known as Star Wars: Republic. This comic is set primarily during the prequel trilogy and mostly focuses on the Jedi Order and The Clone Wars. Read this to learn more about Quinlan Vos, Ki-Adi Mundi, Plo Koon, Aayla Secura, and the rest of the Jedi before and during The Clone Wars.

Star Wars: Empire (2002) - This comic is set near the end of the Empire’s rule and follows such figures as Darth Vader, Boba Fett, and various Stormtroopers as they attempt to root out enemies and fight rebels. (Spoiler alert: The Empire loses.)

Star Wars Tales (1999) - This series collects multiple shorter stories in each issue. Many of the stories featured here (including the Force-sensitive droid and the time Luke wandered into a sandstorm on Tatooine and met Anakin) are not canon even in Legends continuity, but they are interesting and fun.

Knights of the Old Republic (2006) - A series set during the Old Republic era. It centers on a Padawan who, after being framed for the murder of other Padawans, has to go on the run and find out what is really going on. The comic is set before the video game of the same name.

Dark Empire (1991) - This comic, along with the two sequel miniseries Dark Empire II and Empire’s End, follows Luke, Han, and Leia as they fight against Palpatine, who has resurrected himself via cloning.

Knight Errant (2010) - This comic, along with the two sequels Deluge (2011) and Escape (2012), is about the adventures of a lone Jedi Knight during the Old Republic era who gets stuck all alone in Sith space.

Star Wars: Legacy (2006) and Legacy (2013) - These are set during the Legacy era, more than one hundred years after the end of the original trilogy. The first series follows Cade Skywalker, a Force-sensitive who does not want to be a Jedi, and the second follows Ania Solo, a junkyard owner who is just trying to stay alive. This is as far into the future as the Legends timeline goes.

This is just a small selection. There are a lot of Dark Horse comics in every era of Legends, and once you start getting into the thick of it, you can see that the continuity is pretty complex and interrelated.

Marvel Comics (2010s-present)

I may be biased, but this is probably the best era for comics. These are written and illustrated by some of the most talented people working in comics today (and I am aware that that does make me sound like a press release). The rebooted canon also makes this a great place for people who are not long-time fans of the series to jump in, as you don’t need to worry about all the Legends characters and plot points. (That said, I will always be bitter that Disney decided to end the Legends canon.)

Star Wars (2015) - Like the original 1977 series, this comic takes place in between Episodes IV and V, following the adventures of Luke, Leia, and Han as they assist the Rebel Alliance and fight the Empire.

Shattered Empire (2015) - Released in the lead up to The Force Awakens, this comic introduced the characters of Shara Bey and Kes Dameron, Poe’s parents, and follows them in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Endor.

Chewbacca (2015), Lando (2015), Princess Leia (2015) - Marvel released these miniseries to highlight the individual characters. Chewbacca crash lands and finds himself in charge of helping a young girl, Lando pulls off a dangerous heist with the help of some unsavory characters, and Leia struggles with what it means to be the princess of a planet that no longer exists.

Darth Vader (2015) - Follows the adventures of Darth Vader. Closely related to Star Wars (2015) but showing the other side of the story. This comic is also notable for its introduction of the character of Doctor Aphra, who would later get her own spin-off series.

Poe Dameron (2016) - The adventures of Poe and Black Squadron as they fight the First Order under the instruction of General Leia Organa. This series has the best canon characterization of Poe that you’ll find anywhere.

Obi-Wan and Anakin (2016) - Set a few years after The Phantom Menace, this comic tells a story of a time when Anakin almost left the Jedi Order and how Obi-Wan convinced him to stay.

That’s a lot of comics! And that’s just a part of what the wonderful, confusing, exhausting world of Star Wars comics has to offer. I hope this guide provides some useful information for people who might want to get into reading comics in canon either old or new. And if you need or want any more information, Wookiepedia has a complete list of all Star Wars comics that you can refer to.

#m.txt #long post for ts #swedit #star wars #sw blogging #actually writing this was therapeutic but maybe it can also be useful

35 notes · View notes

eli-kittim · 4 years

Text

How Can Good Exegesis Make Bad Theology?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

The Canonical Context

This principle suggests that we should read the Books of the Bible not as distinct, individual compositions but rather as parts of a larger *canonical context*, that is, as part of the “canon” of Scripture. In other words, instead of evaluating each book separately in terms of its particular historical, literary, and editorial development, this principle focuses instead on its final canonical format that was legitimized by the various communities of faith. The idea is that since the redacted version or “final cut,” as it were, is considered “authoritative” by the different communities of faith, then this format should hold precedence over all previous versions or drafts.

Moreover, this concept holds that despite the fact that the Biblical Books were written by a number of different authors, at different times, in different places, using different languages, nevertheless the “canonical context” emphasizes the need to read these Books in dialogue with one another, as if they are part of a larger whole. So, the hermeneutical focus is not on the historical but rather on the canonical context. The hermeneutical guidelines of the canon therefore suggest that we might gain a better understanding of the larger message of Scripture by reading these Books as if they were interrelated with all the others, rather than as separate, diverse, and distinct sources. The premise is that the use of this type of context leads to sound Biblical theology.

——-

Theology

Theology is primarily concerned with the synthesis of the diverse voices within Scripture in order to grasp the overarching message of the complete Biblical revelation. It deals with Biblical epistemology and belief, either through systematic analysis and development of passages (systematic theology) or through the running themes of the entire Bible (Biblical theology). It addresses eternity and the transcendent, metaphysical or supernatural world. And it balances individual Scriptural interpretations by placing them within a larger theoretical framework. The premise is that there is a broader theological context in which each and every detailed exegesis coalesces to form a coherent whole! It’s as if the Bible is a single Book that contains a complete and wide-ranging revelation! It is under the auspices of theology, then, that the canonical context comes into play.

——-

Exegesis

The critical interpretation of Scriptural texts is known as “exegesis.” Its task is to use various methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a definitive explanation of Scripture! Exegesis provides the temporal, linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic context, analysis, and meaning of a text. It furnishes us with a critical understanding of the authorial intent, but only in relation to the specific and limited context of the particular text in question. It is the task of theology to further assess it in terms of its relation and compatibility to the overall Biblical revelation! One of the things that exegesis tries to establish is the composition’s historical setting or context, also known as “historical criticism.” This approach inquires about the author and his audience, the occasion and dating of the composition, the unique terms and concepts therein, the meaning of the overall message, and, last but not least, the *style* in which the message is written, otherwise known as the “genre.” While the author’s other writings on the topic are pivotal to understanding what he means, nothing is more important than the *genre* or the form in which his writing is presented.

——-

The Analogy of Scripture

One of the most important hermeneutical principles of exegesis is called “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). In short, it means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle requires that the implicit must be explained by the explicit. In other words, the exegesis of unclear or ambiguous parts of Scripture must be explained by clear and didactic ones that address the exact same topic. That means that one Biblical Book could very well explain another. For example, the New Testament (NT) Book of Ephesians 1.9-10 seems to demystify Galatians 4.4. This principle is based on the “revealed” inspiration (Gk. θεόπνευστος) of Scripture:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful

for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and

for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16

NRSV).

As for those scholars who refuse to take the NT’s alleged “pseudepigrapha” seriously because of their *apparent* false attribution, let me remind them that the most renowned textual scholars of the 20th century, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, acknowledged that even alleged “forged” works could still be “inspired!” It’s important to realize that just because these works may be written by unknown authors who may have attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of famous Biblical characters doesn’t mean that the subject-matter is equally false. The addition of amanuenses (secretaries) further complicates the issue.

So, returning to our subject, the analogy of Scripture allows the Bible to define its own terms, symbols, and phrases. It is via the analogy of Scripture, which defines the many and varied parts, that the broader canonical context is established, namely, the principle that the various Biblical Books form a coherent whole from which a larger theological system can emerge.

And, of course, interdisciplinary studies——such as archaeology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, epistemology, and philosophy——contribute to both systematic and Biblical theology by presenting their particular findings, concepts, and theoretical ideas.

——-

Testing the Legitimacy of these Principles

In explaining how these principles work in tandem, I’d like to put my personal and unique theology to the test. I have raised the following question: “What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event?” The immediate reaction of Christian apologetics or heresiology would be to revert to “dogmatic theology” (i.e., the dogmas or articles of faith) and the scholarly consensus, which state that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Really? Let’s consider some historical facts. There are no eyewitnesses! And there are no first-hand accounts! Although the following references were once thought to be multiple attestations or proofs of Jesus’ existence, nevertheless both the Tacitus and Josephus accounts are now considered to be either complete or partial forgeries, and therefore do not shed any light on Jesus’ historicity. One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:

. . . Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the

events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird

to people, but just read all of his letters.,

Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,

casting out a demon, doing any other

miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other

leaders, teaching the multitudes, even

speaking a parable, being baptized, being

transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being

arrested, put on trial, found guilty of

blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate

on charges of calling himself the King of the

Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a

very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us

about.

Therefore, there appears to be a literary discrepancy regarding the historicity of Jesus in the canonical context between the gospels and the epistles. And, as I will show in due time, there are many, many passages in the epistles that seem to contradict dogmatic theology’s belief in the historiographical nature of the gospels. So, if they want to have a sound theology, exegetes should give equal attention to the epistles. Why?

First, the epistles precede the gospels by several decades. In fact, they comprise the earliest recorded writings of the NT that circulated among the Christian churches (cf. Col. 4.16).

Second, unlike the gospels——which are essentially *theological* narratives that are largely borrowed from the Old Testament (OT)——the epistles are *expositional* writings that offer real, didactic and practical solutions and discuss spiritual principles and applications within an actual, historical, or eschatological context.

Third, according to Biblical scholarship, the gospels are not historiographical accounts or biographies, even though historical places and figures are sometimes mentioned. That is to say, the gospels are not giving us history proper. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a narrative that is borrowed from 2 Kings 4.40-44. The parallels and verbal agreements are virtually identical. And this is a typical example of the rest of the narratives. For instance, when Jesus speaks of the damned and says that “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48), few people know that this saying is actually derived from Isaiah 66.24. In other words, the gospels demonstrate a literary dependence on the OT that is called, “intertextuality.”

Fourth, the gospels are like watching a Broadway play. They are full of plots, subplots, theatrical devices (e.g. Aristotelian rhetoric; Homeric parallels), literary embellishments, dialogues, characters, and the like. Conversely, the epistles have none of these elements. They are straightforward and matter of fact. That’s why Biblical interpreters are expected to interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles——which are the more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture——must clarify the implicit meaning of the gospel literature. As you will see, the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the actual timeline of Christ’s *one-and-only* visitation!

Fifth, whereas the gospels’ literary genre is mainly •theological•——that is to say, “pseudo-historical”——the genre of the epistolary literature of the NT is chiefly •expositional.• So, the question arises, which of the two genres is giving us the real deal: is it the “theological narrative” or the “expository writing”?

In order to answer this question, we first need to consider some of the differences in both genres. For example, although equally “inspired,” the gospels include certain narratives that are unanimously rejected as “unhistorical” by both Biblical scholars and historians alike. Stories like the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, and so on, are not considered to be historical. By contrast, the epistles never once mention the aforesaid stories, nor is there any mention of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, and the like. Why? Because the Epistles are NOT “theological.” They’re expository writings whose intention is to give us the “facts” as they really are!

Bottom line, the epistles give us a far more accurate picture of Jesus’ *visitation* than the gospels.

In conclusion, it appears that the gospels conceal Jesus far more effectively than they reveal him.

——-

Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies

The “proof-text fallacy” comprises the idea of putting together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate a particular theological point that’s often disparagingly called “a private interpretation.” But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn these principles on their head. Classical Christianity typically determines heresy by assessing the latter’s overall view. If it doesn’t fit within the existing theological schema it is said to be heretical. Thus, dogmatic theology sets the theological standard against which all other theories are measured. They would argue that good exegesis doesn’t necessarily guarantee good theology, and can lead to a “coherence fallacy.” In other words, even if the exegesis of a string of proof-texts is accurate, the conclusion may not be compatible with the overall existing theology. This would be equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence.

By the same token, I can argue that traditional, historical-Jesus exegesis of certain proof-texts might be accurate but it may not fit the theology of an eschatological Christ, as we find in the epistles (e.g., Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 12.5). That would equally constitute a coherence fallacy. So, these guidelines tend to discourage independent proof-texting apart from a systematic coherency of Scripture. But what if the supposed canonical context is wrong? What if the underlying theological assumption is off? What then? So, the $64,000 question is, who can accurately determine the big picture? And who gets to decide?

For example, I think that we have confused Biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In my view, the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story *beforehand* so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is *written in advance* (cf. מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית [declaring the end from the beginning], Isa. 46.9-10; προεπηγγείλατο [promised beforehand], Rom. 1.2; προγνώσει [foreknowledge], Acts 2.22-23; προκεχειροτονημένοις [to appoint beforehand], Acts 10.40-41; ερχόμενα [things to come], Jn 16.13)!

So, if we exchange the theology of the gospels for that of the epistles we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, all the explanations in vv. 16-18 are referring to the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (cf. 1 Pet. 1.10-11; 1 Jn 2.28).

In response, Dogmatic Theology would probably say that such a conclusion is at odds with the canonical context and that it seems to be based on autonomous proof-texting that is obviously out of touch with the broader theological teaching of Scripture. Really? So the so-called “teaching” of Scripture that Jesus died in Antiquity is a nonnegotiable, foregone conclusion? What if the basis upon which this gospel teaching rests is itself a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the teaching of the *epistles*? For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7). The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of •eschatology• in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, according to the *epistolary literature*, Jesus is not a historical but rather an “eschatological” figure! Given that the NT epistles are part of the Biblical *canon,* their overall message holds equal value with that of the NT gospels, since they, too, are an integral part of the canonical context! To that extent, even the gospels concede that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (see Lk. 17.30; cf. 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7)!

What is more, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play an important role therein. The Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10b) in “prophetic” categories:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the

prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to

them, God will add to that person the

plagues described in this book; if anyone

takes away from the words of the book of

this prophecy, God will take away that

person’s share in the tree of life and in the

holy city, which are described in this book

(Rev. 22.18-19 NRSV).

Incidentally, the Book of Revelation is considered to be an epistle. Thus, it represents, confirms, and validates the overarching *prophetic theme* or eschatological “theology” of the epistolary literature. That is not to say that the •theology• of the epistles stands alone and apart from that of the OT canon. Far from it! Even the *theology* of the OT confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistles (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)! As a matter of fact, mine is the *only* view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!

Does this sound like a proof-text or coherence fallacy? If it does, it’s because you’re evaluating it from the theology of the gospels. If, on the other hand, you assess it using the theology of the epistles, it will seem to be in-context or in-sync with it. So, the theological focus and coherency of Scripture will change depending on which angle you view it from.

——-

Visions of the Resurrection

There are quite a few scholars that view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the theological message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:

The resurrection itself is not an event of

past history. All that historical criticism can

establish is that the first disciples came to

believe the resurrection (Rudolph

Bultmann, ‘The New Testament and

Mythology,’ in Kerygma and Myth: A

Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner

Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller [London:

S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).

When the evangelists spoke about the

resurrection of Jesus, they told stories

about apparitions or visions (John Dominic

Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A

Memoir’ [San Francisco:

HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).

At the heart of the Christian religion lies a

vision described in Greek by Paul as

ophehe—-“he was seen.” And Paul himself,

who claims to have witnessed an

appearance asserted repeatedly “I have

seen the Lord.” So Paul is the main source

of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the

belief in resurrection ... (Gerd Lüdemann,

‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,

Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John

Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97,

100).

It is undisputable that some of the followers

of Jesus came to think that he had been

raised from the dead, and that something

had to have happened to make them think

so. Our earliest records are consistent on

this point, and I think they provide us with

the historically reliable information in one

key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the

resurrection was based on visionary

experiences. I should stress it was visions,

and nothing else, that led to the first

disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart

D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The

Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from

Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],

183-184).

Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. In the words of NT textual critic Kurt Aland:

It almost then appears as if Jesus were a

mere PHANTOM . . .

——-

Exegetical Application

I deliberately stay away from theology when I exegete Scripture precisely because it will taint the evidence with presuppositions, assumptions, and speculations that are not in the text. Thus, instead of focusing on the authorial intent hermeneutic, it will inevitably superimpose out-of-context meanings and create an eisegesis. All this, of course, is courtesy of confirmation bias.

So, I think one of the reasons why we’ve done so poorly in understanding, for example, the story of Jesus is because we have mixed-up exegesis with theology. When theology drives the exegesis, then the exegesis becomes blind and erroneous.

My method of exegesis is very simple. I see EXACTLY what the text *says,* EXACTLY *how* it says it. I don’t add or subtract anything, and I don’t speculate, guess, or theorize based on existing philosophies or theologies. The minute we go outside *the analogy of scripture,* that’s when we start to speculate. And that’s how we err. In short, let the Scriptures tell you what it means. Thus, the best interpretation is no interpretation at all!

——-

Conclusion

To find the truth, we must consider all the evidence objectively. Evangelicals, for instance, would be biased if they didn’t consider the academic standpoint even if, at times, it seems to be guided by liberal theology. In this way, they will be in a better position to consider objectively all the possibilities and probabilities regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s because the truth usually touches all points of view . . .

One of the exegetical stumbling blocks is our inability to view the gospels as “inspired metaphors.” Given their literary dependence on the OT, it appears as if the gospels themselves are “inspired parables.”

So, if the epistolary literature, which is both expositional and explicit, seems to contradict these so-called “theological parables,” then it becomes quite obvious that the “theology” of the gospels fails to meet scholarly and academic parameters. And, therefore, the epistolary literature must be given more serious attention and consideration!

Our exegetical shortcomings often stem from forced or anachronistic interpretations that are based on *theological speculation* and conjecture rather than on detailed exegesis. Even the Biblical translations themselves are not immune to the interpretative process, whether they be of dynamic or formal equivalence.

That’s why I have developed an exegetical system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach to the study of the Biblical Christ. Accordingly, I argue that the epistles are the primary *keys* to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s ***ONLY*** visitation! Hence, I leave you with one final rhetorical question:

What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future

event?

7 notes · View notes

sbooksbowm · 4 years

Text

The ‘Does this make sense?’ check: Chapter 3, Part 1, intertextuality and reader recognition

This chape examines the reader function of the fandom communication circuit. What makes the reading experience of fic? How do readers acknowledge and interpret meaning, and how do they set expectations for the reading material with which they engage? Finally, how does the practice of reading (which is often considered private) actually maintain community? Let’s break it down:

Part 1 examines intertextuality, or how a fic makes reference to other works in its text, and how those references build an in-text universe for the reader

Part 2 examines paratexts, which are all the texts in a work that is not the body (i.e. the title, the tags, the chapter titles, summaries, author notes, appendices, etc. as opposed to the actual story). I look at how paratexts, particularly tags, are crucial infrastructure for signaling a fic’s content, which helps readers set expectations for what the fic will do

Part 3 puts the two together, looking at how the reading experience unfolds with these two textual features and how reading fic maintains the boundaries of a fandom

Introduction: intertextuality? paratexts?

In this chapter, I explore the reader node of the fandom communication circuit, discussing how circulating textual meaning to readers relies on paratexts and intertextuality, which root fanfiction in the network of writing from which it was born. Rather than focus on individual selection, which I foreground in Chapter 2, Brownian motion is a useful model for considering the overall motion and interpretation of these textual means, aligning it with the community aspects of reading fanfiction. I argue how the intertextual and paratextual elements of fic are crucial to its reading. Readers expect resonances of intertextuality in a fic, and they rely on paratexts to signal a fic’s basic content for their reading selection purposes.

I define intertextuality, to paraphrase Busse, as the explicit or implicit references in a fic to metatexts, cultural and literary contexts, and other interpretive texts (i.e. other fic) [1]. The intertextuality with other fic is most important in developing fanon and signaling the place of a fic in the larger fandom. Busse characterizes fic through fragmentation, intertextuality, performativity, and intimacy [2]. These elements, especially fragmentation and intertextuality, underscore the Brownian motion of fic production, a concept adopted by Juli Parrish to describe the aggregation of fannish textual output in constituting fanon [3]. Fic—as works-in-progress, stand-alone pieces, series—constitutes the broader fandom, and the referential intertextuality employed by fic moves the fandom in a given direction [4]. Intertextuality also signals to the reader the writer’s experience and knowledge of the boundaries of the universe, and it employs self-referential elements that, when understood, affirm the reader’s own fandom experience and knowledge. Goodman argues that fanon and rigorous classification ‘actually help police or maintain the boundaries of the official fictional universe’, by signaling to a reader what differences from canon they will encounter in a fic [5].

Paratexts, which signal interpretation, are an expression of those boundaries, a framework that speaks to the agreed upon or favored tropes, styles, conventions, and characterizations. Paratexts amount to ‘authorial guidance, instructions and injunctions’, and writers must choose paratexts themselves, thus these boundaries are necessarily dictated by the writers [6]. For example, AO3’s robust tagging system serves as boundary markers for readers looking for fic, who can filter for specific relationships or content. The tagging system is managed by tag wranglers, who monitor the tags of a fandom and group similar tags that express the same fannish ideas. Tag wrangling is a concrete expression of the boundaries of the fictional universe, which are ever expanding with each new interpretation.

The first section of this chapter examines how intertextuality crosses multiple zones of the community model, couching reading practices in community-generated context. I illustrate this phenomenon with a Percy Jackson meta-speculative analysis on Tumblr that was transformed into a fanfiction piece and a series of Harry Potter ‘what if?’ reimaginings built from Tumblr prompts.

As a reminder, the community model looks like this:

Part 1: Intertextuality as Reader Recognition

‘the jackson files’ by ideasofmarch exemplifies how the ‘dialogic amateur community status’ of fic ‘foregrounds collective and intertextual aspects’ of reading and writing, demonstrating how intertextual reading crosses multiple zones of the Community Model [7]. Based on a Tumblr post by couldnt-think-of-a-funny-name, ‘the jackson files’ articulates the meta-speculative analysis presented in couldnt’s Tumblr post in a mix of narrative and Twitter-style storytelling. Notably, couldnt posted her analysis on 10 July, and ‘the jackson files’ was posted on AO3 four days later, capturing the rapid reader response that ebbs and flows on Tumblr and that is usually difficult to track ex-post-facto. The fic’s reliance on that post affirms the transitional relationship between writer and reader in the fandom communication circuit, as well as reader-as-participant in a quickly-moving development of fanon (couldnt’s post has 11,727 notes as of 5 August, 2020 and 13,015 notes as of 25 Aug, 2020) [8]. ‘the jackson files’ is doubly intertextual: it is a Percy Jackson fic and Buzzfeed Unsolved crossover, and it draws from a Tumblr meta-analysis. The fic is more legible in the context of couldnt’s post, demonstrating how ‘the text’s meaning can be tied to a specific place, time, and community in ways that make it difficult to read’ outside of the context of the fandom and the circulation of the Tumblr post [9].

ideasofmarch’s interpretation demonstrates how the circulation of fic text through the reader is a multi-layered process: ‘Fan fiction becomes an exemplary instantiation of reader-response-based approaches, not only because the source text’s readers clearly and literally respond but also because any reading of these responses requires a complex reading model that cannot separate text from reader and author’ [10]. In this case, ideasofmarch’s roles as narrative and creative interpreter of couldnt’s post cross multiple zones of the community model: drawing from meta-analysis in the response zone, acting as reader and writer, in order to form the text.

Although tracking the fannish artifacts that anchor fic production can prove difficult after discourse has swept into new territory, some fic writers consistently cite the digital artifacts that service their fic production. The writing practice of both ideasofmarch and dirgewithoutmusic is predicated on reading practices that are engrained in the community context. Many of dirgewithoutmusic’s AU fics, for example, respond to reader prompts, articulating dirge’s role as an interpreter of said prompts. dirge, as a reader of Harry Potter, plays on the structure of the books, which relies on the reader’s knowledge of the series to understand the poignancy of certain moments, motifs, alterations, and flourishes. In ‘the last son’, dirge imagines the progression of the Harry Potter series with Ron Weasley as the Chosen One instead of Harry Potter.

**(an aside: if you enjoy HP fic and have not read this piece, go read it now so I don’t spoil it for you)**

Among the many changes, including different deaths of major characters and a shift in the Weasley family dynamic, is the motif of the blue Ford Anglia owned by Ron’s now-deceased father, Arthur. In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Ron and Harry fly the Ford Anglia to school because they’ve missed the train; the car later rescues them from acromantulas in the Forbidden Forest. dirge concludes the fic—after two Weasley brothers are lost to the war and the surviving siblings return home—with Ginny Weasley repairing the car, claiming, ‘I bet I can get this thing to fly’ [11]. The conclusion resonates with the reader because it points to what the car symbolizes in another strand of the Harry Potter universe while containing the promise of adventure in the current iteration. dirge’s works are bookended by community-based reading practices: a reader-submitted prompt, then a reader response contingent on understanding the intertextuality of the fic.

Kristina Busse, Framing fan fiction, p.142.

Busse, p.142.

Juli Parrish, ‘Metaphors we read by: People, process, and fan fiction’, 3.11.

Karen Hellekson and Kristina Busse, Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet, p.9. ‘The events created by the fan community in a particular fandom and repeated pervasively throughout the fantext [body of fan creations]. Fanon often creates particular details or character readings even though canon does not fully support it—or, at times, outright contradicts it’.

Lesley Goodman, ‘Disappointing Fans: Fandom, Fictional Theory, and the Death of the Author’, p.666-667.

Martin Barker, ‘Speaking of “paratexts”: A theoretical revisitation’, p.240, 242. Paratexts ‘points of reference and relevance in relation to the work, suggest and contribute to the mode of participation in it’.

Busse, p.143.

couldnt-think-of-a-funny-name, “okay, so: Rachel is literally one of the richest people in the country…’, Tumblr, 10 Jul, 2020; Busse, p.114. ‘Fan fiction increases both the quantity and the speed of dissemination and intertextuality, however, so that fans can often see tropes get created, picked up, subverted, and dismissed within months, if not days.’

Busse, p.151.

Busse, p.155.

dirgewithoutmusic, ‘the last son’, Archive of Our Own, 29 Sept, 2016.

#does this make sense check #dissertation #research #Kristina Busse #Lesley Goodman #Martin Barker #Juli Parrish #Karen Hellekson #dirgewithoutmusic #ideasofmarch #couldn't-think-of-a-funny-name #the last son #the jackson files #intertextuality #reader response #fic legibility #fic readers

4 notes · View notes

vow-upon-a-star · 5 years

Text

Hypocrisy regarding translations.

“What aren’t you understand? For Lumen Publishing to PURCHASE the rights to translate the novels that means Square Enix allowed it, which means they wanted the translations. Once more, you cannot publish a translation unless you have the approval of the copyright holder.”

This doesn’t apply to the English version for some reason. Nor does it matter Nojima, the man who wrote the novellas, approves of the English version.

“Cloud was her friend, more than a friend, for she had loved him.”

(link)

Nojima also said he wrote each story from the respective character’s perspective. I.e third person limited from Aerith in CoTLS:W. They are not objective statements from Nojima. Whatever let’s ignore this and continue to say he confirmed Cloud and Aerith lovers in multiple languages, except the English one that he supports. There isn’t much to say here, I mean...when the author himself supports this translation over all the others if pretty much makes “well it contradicts the German, French, and Spanish!” when here the author himself is approving the English version. Just...there’s no need to argue. Word of God has spoken. The English translation of the Novella is approved by the dude who actually WROTE the story.

Cleriths before the English version of the 25th Anniversary Ultimania is released:

Dark Horse is a major company, this is huge, no matter how you feel about the mistakes and retcons SE just legitimized them!!!!

“They removed the “aisuru mono” that referenced Aerith.”

すべての決着を …… 少年時代のあこがれ、愛するものを奪った仇、そしてリユニオンの母体—–セフィロス。星の敵として以上に因縁の存在である彼と1対1で決着をつけなくては、クラウドの戦いは終わらない。

The bolded bit is “Aisuru Mono” 愛するもの

Clerith fan translation: "The enemy who was admired in childhood, took away something loved for the reunion of mother Sephiroth.”

Anonymous translator: “The one admired in boyhood, the enemy who took away a loved one, and Mother’s reunion body Sephiroth. ”

Clerith fan translation: With all determination…

Sephiroth— an idol in his early youth, the one who took away his dearly beloved, and then the prototype of “reunion.” Not only he is the enemy of the Planet and the above reasons, also because the 1-to-1 fight with him is not yet settled, Cloud’s battle is not end.

Cloti Anonymous translator

Settling it all… A longing for boyhood, an enemy who robbed loved ones, and Mother’s reunion- Sephiroth. “In addition as the enemy of the planet, if Cloud doesn’t settle score with him one on one, clouds’s battle will not be over

Anonymous translation:

To the settling of everything..... The one idolized in boyhood, the foe who snatched away loved ones, the Reunion of his mother's body—Sephiroth. More than a fateful existence as enemy of the Planet, Cloud's battle will not end unless things are settled with him, one on one.

“The French and Japanese are clear!”

Bataille decisive…

Son idole ge jeunesse, l’assassin de ses proches et la piece maitresse du project Jenova : un ex-SOLDAT nomme Sephiroth, C’est un dancer pour la planete, et Cloud doit le battre en duel afin d’en finir une bonne fois pour toutes.

Clerith translation of the French version:

“Last battle…

His youth idol, the murderer of his close relatives/loved ones (in french they use the word proches which can mean both of the meanings) and the centerpiece of Jenova project : an ex Soldier called Sephiroth. It’s a danger for the plant, and Cloud must fight him to defeat him once and for all”

Anonymous translation of the French version:

Decisive battle …

His youthful idol, the killer of his loved ones and the masterpiece of Project Jenova: an ex-SOLDIER calls Sephiroth, It’s a dancer for the planet, and Cloud has to duel him in order to finish once and for all for all.

The French translation is clear guys. But what about the Japanese aisuru mono? Why would the French do this?!

Oh.

Hey, what about the German translation?

Die Letzte Entscheidung...

Sephiroth: Clouds idol, doch sein held vernichtete Clouds heimatstadt und war verantwortfich fur den Tod vieler Menschen. Als er sich zum Feind des Planeten erklart, fuhlt Cloud sich schicksalhaft mit ihm verbunden. So lange er ihn nicht im direkten duell besiegt, wird der kampf fur Cloud niemals enden.

Sephiroth: Clouds idol, but his hero destroyed Cloud's hometown and was responsible for the deaths of many people. When he declares himself an enemy of the planet, Cloud fatefully feels connected to him. As long as he does not defeat him in a direct duel, the fight for the Cloud will never end.

And finally, we have the English version.

The End of Everything

Sephiroth –the hero of Cloud’s youth, the man who took everything from him, and the foundation of the Jenova Reunion Theory. Cloud’s battle cannot end until he confronts the enemy of the Planet and settles things, man to man.

The Japanese, French, German, and English make no reference to Aerith specifically, but rather reference Sephiroth taking away many people/things from Cloud without any being more important than the other.

As a side note, it makes little sense for Cloud and Sephiroth’s final battle having to do with solely Aerith, considering he wanted to settle things with Sephiroth before Aerith was murdered.

Dark Horse did not remove “a reference to Aerith” because there was no reference solely to her.

This is eyes 目

And this is ears 耳

It's a typo. ”This guy are sick.” “Aeris” and referring to Rosso as a “he.”

Like the French version doesn’t have mistakes? Since we’re at it, let’s look at something the French translation did that is absent from the Japanese and English version.

“Aerith s’est finalement rendu compte qu’il etait manipule par une autre concsience. Alors qu’il l’attaque, elle refuse de se defendre et lui parle comme une mere quis tenterait de calmer la rage de son fils.”

Aerith finally realized that he was being manipulated by another conscience. While he’s attacking her, she refuses to defend herself and speaks to him like a mother trying to calm the rage of her son.

vs the German version

Aerith merkt, dass Cloud von einem fremden willen gelenkt wurde. Obwohl er selbst ihr gregenuber gewalttatig wird, spricht sie auf ein, als ware er ein kleines Kind, und meint, dass es nicht seine Schuld war.

Aerith realizes that Cloud has been controlled by someone else. Although he himself violently greets her, she speaks as if he were a small child, saying that it was not his fault.

The Japanese:

クラウドが別の意思に支配されていると気づいたエアリス。彼に暴力を振るわれても抵抗せず、「あなたのせいじゃない」と子どもをなだめるように言いつづける。

Aerith realized that Cloud was being controlled by another will/person. She doesn’t resist him even as he strikes her violently, saying “It’s not your fault” over and over to try and calm the child down.

Aerith realized that Cloud was being controlled by another will. Without resisting his violent attack, she continues to say “It’s not your fault”, in order to soothe the child.

And the English version:

In my opinion, the English version did cleriths a solid here. I do believe that the “anti-clerith” English version would be favored by shippers since the French translated it very differently.

While I’m still beating this dead horse let’s look at the French translation’s version of Cloud and Tifa’s love.

Pendant sa jeunesse, Cloud etait un jeune rebelle qui s’isolait des autres enfants, car il voul’ait croire qu’il etait different. A ses yeux, neanmoins, Tifa etait une personne speciale. C’est dans ses souvenirs que l’on decouvre cette romance ephemere.

During his youth, Cloud was a young rebel who isolated himself from other children, because he wanted to believe that he was different. In his eyes, however, Tifa was a special person. It is in his memories that we discover this ephemeral romance.

Ephemeral of course means, fleeting. This has been used as canon proof by CA that Cloud’s feelings for Tifa were short-lived and fleeting. Here it states there was a short-lived romance.

This statement is contradicted in the same book, in the same language.

Pendant des années, Tifa et Cloud ont secrètement eu des sentiments l’un pour l’autre. Avant la dernière bataille face à Sephiroth, ils arrivent enfin a se les avouer.

Anonymous translation

For years, Tifa and Cloud have secretly had feelings for each other. Before the last battle with Sephiroth, they finally manage to confess.

You can read this post here about what this translation means.

Let’s move on to the German version! Which...is pretty different.

Als Cloud klein war, wurde gleichaltrigen Kindern gemieden, Der einsame und ausgestoßene Cloud erschuf seine eigene Erklarung und glaubte, etwas ganz Besonderes zu sein. Fur ihn war aber Tifa damals sehr wichtig. In seiner Gedankenwelt wird deutlich, wie innig seine Emotionen damals fur sie waren.

When Cloud was little he was shunned by kids the same age. The lonely and outcast Cloud created his own explanation for it and believed to be something special. But Tifa was important to him back then. In the world inside his mind it become clear how deeply his feelings for her were.

In case your wondering, innig translates to “intimate” when doing a literal translation. The French says ephemeral, the German says intimate. You could say, “Well it doesn’t matter because it is in the past!” which brings me to the German translation of the highwind scene.

Scene: When Tifa is alone with Cloud on the night before the final battle and she doesn't know what she should tell him

For years Cloud and Tifa have fostered feelings for each other. Before the final battle against Sephiroth both can finally admit them.

The Japanese version:

明かされた本当の願い幼いころのクラウドは、同年代の者たちから孤立し、自分は特別だと思いこもうとする、ねくれた子どもだった。そんな彼にとって大切だったのがティファ——淡く幼い恋心が、精神世界にて明かされる。

Anonymous fan-translation:

“As a young child, Cloud was rebellious and isolated from those around his age, so he would try to convince himself that he was special. As such, Tifa was important to him. A childhood awakening of love is revealed in the mental world.

English version:

In his youth, Cloud strayed isolated from his peers. He was an eccentric child who always viewed himself as different from the rest. The only person he held close to his heart was Tifa. Their love is brought into the light when Tifa explores Cloud’s subconscious.

Japanese Version:

明かされた本当の願い長年、互いに好意を抱いていたティファとクラウド。セフィロスとの最終決戦を目前にようやく、相手を求める気持ちを確かめ合えた。

Anonymous fan-translation:

For many years, Cloud and Tifa have been holding favor for one another. At last facing the impending final battle with Sephiroth, they confirm together their feelings of desire towards one another

English version:

Tifa and Cloud have cared for each other for many years. Only before the final battle with Sephiroth are the two finally able to realize the depths of each other’s feelings.

THE BEST PART IS NONE OF THIS MATTERS!

TL:DR; ALL CLAIMS BY THE SAME PERSON:

And this isn’t even the full post I was going to post. There’s plenty of hypocrisy regarding the Novella translations, but I feel that Nojima (the actual author) supporting the ENGLISH translation above all others pretty much shows which translation of the Japanese version the author supports.

#ltd #meta #cloti #ship wars #hypocrisy #sorry it's so long!#long post #sorry for clogging the tag #needed to get this off my chest

159 notes · View notes

juniper-and-lamplight · 6 years

Text

Recent Reads - May 19, 2018

Multifandom--Dirk Gently, Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter, a bit of Star Trek--and a mix of old and new, as usual. I've already recced some of these fics individually, but life's too short not to be effusive about the things you love, so I'm including them here too <3 Recs under the cut...

The Answer to a Question - @a-candle-for-sherlock - 22k, T, Holmes/Watson

"These are the stories behind the story we know: what really happened to Watson's marriage, and what made him follow Holmes to Reichenbach; what secrets were hidden in the mountains, and what a dead man wrote to the man he left behind." This fic made me Feel Feelings and also made me (almost) late for work.

To Join These Men in Holy Matrimony - A_Candle_For_Sherlock - 10k, T, Holmes/Watson

"Sherlock Holmes is a contradiction, an enigma, a force; at once the most generous spirit and the most self-contained man I have ever known. I've known more of him, I think, than anyone on earth. Yet for years I'd learned nothing about his boyhood, nor his fears, nor his future hopes, nor his father’s name. I never felt it as a lack until I knew he loved me." A moving story about family, forgiveness, self-acceptance, and historical queer marriages.

The Narrator - candle_beck - 8k, M, Holmes/Watson

"Watson is a degenerate gambler, a reluctant romantic, and the least reliable narrator in the history of the written word." A brief, gritty glimpse of my favorite Victorian disasters.

where the falling angels meet the rising apes - @cosmicoceanfic - 26k, T, AU (crossover, Dirk Gently & Discworld)

"A story of Death and the boy who could see him, through the years." In my sadness over finally finishing the Tiffany Aching books, I allowed myself to indulge in Discworld/Dirk Gently fics, and this one was an especially satisfying blend of the two universes. Highlights include Dirk & Bart's friendship, and Farah having a stare-off with Death.

you could bring my healing - cosmicocean - 38k, T, Dirk/Todd, AU (fantasy)

"Where the whole thing takes place in a fantasy world that is not unlike but not quite mostly for legal reasons Ankh-Morpork, Dirk is generally an existential dragon, Todd is a washed up electrical lute player, everyone is kind of awkward and useless except maybe for Amanda, and there is a boatload of fantasy references, plus one (1) Star Wars one." Sheer escapist delight.

Start at the Beginning - @dont-offend-the-bees - 61k, T, Dirk/Todd (AU, fake relationship)

”Y’know, make it up. Pretend to be in a relationship with someone. Can’t be that hard to fake, right?” it was still a stupid idea, but Todd was actually pretty invested in it now. He leaned forward, folding his arms. “C’mon, think about it- you got any other desperate homeless friends?” Takes a wacky ensemble piece and transforms it into a different sort of wacky ensemble piece. Sparing use of fake dating tropes makes this fic all the more enjoyable.

Absence Makes The Heart Grow Fonder: A Lovely Sentiment, But Rarely Applies To Anniversary Gifts - DontOffendTheBees - 7k, M, Dirk/Todd

"In which Dirk and Todd celebrate three years together- but forgot they were supposed to be doing that." Featuring: Todd Brotzman's "funhouse of self-loathing," Dirk & Todd's mutual uselessness, Amanda & Farah's mutual exasperation, winks to Douglas Adams canon, and a clever meta twist.

How We Go Together - ekb112 - 3k, E, Kirk/Spock

"'Have you ever been in love, Spock?' A series of moments in Jim and Spock's relationship." I like a semi-annual spot of K/S. It's a classic ship for a reason, and this fic scratched the itch just right.

Easy As Breathing - electricteatime | @kieren-fucking-walker - 1k, G, Dirk/Todd

"Their days start together. Warm and close, but all elbows and knees, tangled in covers and noses buried into hair. It takes time to swim up through the pull of sleep to break the surface, but when they come to they wake up to each other." A lovely soft distillation of a relationship.

Dress You Up in My Love - electricteatime - 3k, T, Dirk/Todd

“'So, what? Your solution is a pair of skin tight leopard print pants? How is that better than anything I’ve worn?'

Dirk just grins wildly at him, it’s the most like himself he’s looked in days. 'Put them on.'” A fluffy missing scene fic with a wonderful sense of interiority. (How is electricteatime is so good at characterization?!?)

A Flame Undamped - Frayach, read by wench_fics - 5k, 40min, M, Harry/Draco

"A happy ending. Because I can finally imagine one." Hurt/comfort doesn't even BEGIN to cover this sequel to The Price We Pay for Wings. No one does pain and poignancy--and sometimes, healing--like Frayach.

Saturn in Retrograde - gooseflesh - WIP series, M, Dirk/Todd

"As with most things in Dirk Gently's life, things are fine until they're not. A mystery and minor inconvenience for Todd Brotzman takes a terrifying turn when Dirk insists on investigating, and it'll take more than a hunch for them to hold onto to all that they've built." I'm not typically an angst gremlin, but I can't stop reading this WIP, even as the characters' situation worsens exponentially.

Death by Kittenshark - howldax - 1k, G, Dirk/Todd

"'You know,' Dirk says sternly, 'if you murder me, there will be nobody around to feed you.'" Cats (even cats who are also sharks) are gonna cat. Charming and fluffy.

i was born in a summer storm (i live there still) - janeseyre - 10k, G, Farah & Todd & Dirk

"Farah confronts the vestiges of her past as she, Dirk, and Todd travel east to visit her mother. It turns out Farah isn’t as over her father’s death as she thought she was." A deeper look into Farah’s families, both biological and chosen; full of lovely little smile moments and Farah getting the closure she deserves.

The Burning Heart - @may-shepard - 119k, M, John/Sherlock, AU (post s3 fix-it)

"Although he’s certain he’ll never get over Sherlock, John plans to move on, and build a new life with Mark, unaware that Sherlock is not quite as dead as he appears, and that Mark is hiding secrets of his own." As is my habit with zeitgeist-y fics, I didn't get around to this one until well after the rest of the fandom, but I'm glad I did. Here's to an assassin plot that's actually plausible and compelling!

The Easiest Way - nntkiwff - WIP, T, Dirk/Todd, Farah/Todd (“basically OT3”)

"'Is that everything?'

'Yes, essentially,' Dirk says, as Todd is saying, 'I don't have magic powers.'" A slow burn WIP, set immediately after the return from Wendimoor, featuring multiple perspectives (including Ken!), in-depth characterization, and some excellent lines, like this one about Farah: “She says all of this as though she is ashamed of being cursed, instead of proud that she blew up an evil warlock.”

Blood Magic and Rebirth (or, The One Where They Are All Feminist Academics) - @notcaycepollard - 1k, G, gen (Harry Potter)

"Moon cups, Luna thinks. Moon cups and blood magic. And she remembers the old itch under her skin, and a music box fluttering into a flock of birds, and wonders just how powerful it could be." This is 1000% headcanon for me now.

A Little Bit Scandalous - @oneprotagonistshort - 1k, E, Dirk/Todd

"Dirk Gently was self-aware enough to admit that he had… a thing. A quirk. One of those idiosyncratic little peculiarities that made up a tiny part of his personality. A kink. He just liked that extra edge; the need to be quiet or someone might hear, the blood pounding in his ears while he stayed hyper-alert for footsteps, the way Todd kissed him so urgently that he lost his breath." I especially appreciated the characterization behind the kink in this one.

Relative Distance - Quesarasara | @itsnotgonnareaditselfpeople, read by @lockedinjohnlock-podfics - 45k, 5hrs, E, John/Sherlock

"Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end." One of the author's tags on this fic is "What if everyone just acted like a damn adult for a change?", which really clarifies how the fic differs from the later seasons of the show.

it's an institute you can't disparage - @shortcrust - 19k, T, Dirk/Todd

"Todd wakes up beside Dirk Gently four years to the day after having met him realises - abruptly and with categoric certainty - that he wants to do so every day for the rest of his life. What the fuck, he thinks." Hilarious, insightful, and absolutely nails a) the ridiculousness and pathos of Todd Brotzman mired in needless self-doubt, and b) my favorite Ship Dynamic: compatible disasters.

there's cell reception on this widow's walk - strix_alba - 2k, T, Farah/Tina

"In which Tina sort-of-kind-of asks Farah to stay with her in Bergsberg, and Farah kind-of-sort-of wants to say yes." Awkward flirting, Farina styles! Tina mentally describes Dirk & Todd & Farah as a “bunch of hot, uptight weirdos,” which is p e r f e c t.

Just Like That - @sussexbound (SamanthaLenore) - 8k, E, John/Sherlock

"For the first time in what feels like years he WANTS." The perfect combination of unf and feeeels.

Further fic recs | Fic Bookmarks

97 notes · View notes

douchebagbrainwaves · 3 years

Text

A WORD TO DIE

The rich spend their time more like everyone else too. And the pages don't have the clean, sparse feel they used to. Now we'd give a different answer.1 After all, Google Maps, the canonical Ajax application, was the result of a startup happens before they want that extra oomph that the big stars have. What I can't tell, even now. In fact, a high average outcome across all situations, and smart means one does spectacularly well in a few. It's just ten times more irresponsible not to focus on just two goals: a explain what you're doing, you're now on a path labelled get rich or bust.

Within a generation of its birth in England, the Industrial Revolution did is their social disruptiveness. What I mean is, if you're a technology company, their thoughts are your product. It's not for the people who just make exactly what the customers tell them to. While the nerds were being trained to please. I wanted to be popular. But this was less costly than giving in, which would probably have been better for all of us, because it's not on topic by the real standard, which is so much harder that it seems a good trend and I expect them to listen to. The purchase price is just the effect of training.2 In math, every proof is timeless unless it contains a mistake. If I was any good, why didn't you? Perhaps great hackers can load a large amount of context into their head, so that a month was a huge interval.

If we have to train longer for them. I'm designing a new dialect of Lisp. Some links are both fluff, in the summer of 2005, most of which now seem to be advancing rapidly, most investors will leave you alone. They made search work, then go to grad school. They haven't decided what they'll do afterward. He means the same thing: obedience. This amounts to asking what I got wrong, because if I'd explained things well enough, nothing should have surprised them. The results so far are messy, but encouraging. So you can still get large returns on large amounts of money; you just have to do your homework. In most fields the appearance of ease seems to come over people when they try to be creative.3 The defining quality seems to be through working on hard problems.

Seeing the system in use by real users—people they don't know—gives them lots of new ideas. In towns like Houston and Chicago and Detroit it's too small to measure. If you don't and a competitor does, you're in trouble.4 And they either don't work for the hot startup that's rapidly growing into one. It was no coincidence that the great paintings of the Renaissance are all full of people. You can of course build something for users other than yourself. One way to answer this question is to look back. Attitudes to copying often make a round trip. You'd think it would help them forget their problems. What's different about your brain after you have experience, and empathy. To the extent there's any difference between the 20th and 21st best players is less than with angels or VCs. In some ways, this assumption makes life a lot easier.

What I'm going to try to explain why teenage kids are tormented. It's hard to judge you correctly, there's usually some kind of announcer. But except for books, I now actively avoid stuff.5 Good design may not have to accept new CEOs if they don't want to pool risk, because the bigger your ambition, the longer it's going to be an inexhaustible source of research papers, despite the fact that you can't do anything really risky with it. For example, a friend came to visit from New York. The sixth largest center for oil, or finance, or publishing? Instead start with the problem you're solving, and then gradually refine this initial sketch. But great work still comes disproportionately from a few hotspots: the Bauhaus, the Manhattan Project, the New Yorker, Lockheed's Skunk Works, Xerox Parc.6 There was that same odd atmosphere created by a large number of ordinary cars than a small number of expensive ones. You can probably start a startup right out of college are only aware of the shortcomings of the INS, but there's enough overlap that this remark contradicts them. For example, I think it will be a fluid network of smaller, independent units.

I think that, like angels, but there aren't enough investors who will help the company in restricted stock, vesting over four years, and the founders are usually required to accept vesting—to surrender their stock and earn it back over the next 4-5 years. Now we'd give a different answer. Writing software as multiple layers is a powerful technique even within applications.7 A lot of governments experimented with the disastrous in the twentieth century. Everyone's model of work you grew up with. It's also the best route to that holy grail, reusability. It probably takes at least a precedent.

We say this sort of thing. You may be wasting your time although they probably won't be coming this month. We need good taste to make good things, you'll inevitably do it in a distinctive way, just as the proper role of anteaters is to poke their noses into anthills. They didn't know. It was obvious then too that the wealth of the world just doesn't get startups, and who the competitors are and why this company is one of those things until you strike something. I don't regret that because I've learned so much from working on hard problems. Which in practice usually means, whatever existing agreement he finds lying around his firm. This explanation also suggests why wisdom is such an elusive concept: there's no such thing as good taste, but that they won't even fund them.

If they're measuring something inborn, they can't be measuring intelligence. Just as the relationship between the founders and the company is sold. Steve Jobs. A program is a formal description of the problem. They started because they wanted to join a different tribe. But there were moments when he was looking at the floor. And it is completely non-discriminatory. In language design, we should be consciously seeking out situations where we can trade efficiency for even the smallest increase in convenience. The key to being a good hacker may be to think about the product. Adults can't avoid seeing that teenage kids are tormented.

Notes

Proceedings of 2003 Spam Conference. One measure of the word programmers care about.

Investors will deliberately threaten you with a face-saving compromise. People tell the whole venture business. This is everyday life in general.

Probabilities in this algorithm are calculated using a degenerate case of heirs, rather than giving grants.

Yes, I believe, which merchants used to those. All you have a connection to one of the infrastructure that this filter runs on.

You can still see fossils of their core values is Don't be evil.

The worst explosions happen when unpromising-seeming startups are usually about things you like the word content and tried for a monitor.

Since the remaining 13%, 11 didn't have TV because they could be made. In principle companies aren't limited by the National Center for Education Statistics, the users' need has to be in that era had no government powerful enough to incorporate a prediction of quality in the middle of the words we use have a significant number. Don't be evil, they did that in New York, but sword thrusts.

Thanks to the many people who answered my questions about various languages and/or read drafts of this, Aaron Iba, Steven Levy, Mike Moritz, Sam Altman, Chip Coldwell, Patrick Collison, and Jessica Livingston for sparking my interest in this topic.

0 notes

sentiment-or-profit · 7 years

Text

Greetings, all! What follows is something I’ve been wanting to address for a while. It’s a bit of a headache (I know, believe me------I had to write it all out xD), so bear with me, please. :) (A big thanks to born-to-be-admired for contributing to this post as well!)

I have stated multiple times, as I’m sure many of you have noticed, that myself and my exclusive partners do not abide by the canon of S3 of the new series (Or S2 beyond E04) of Poldark. Sadly, both S3 and a great deal of S2 do a horrible job portraying both events and characters, straying dramatically not only from the source content (The novels) but more importantly, from the already existing canon of the show (Most notably in the cases of characters such as George, Elizabeth, Demelza, and Caroline). Also, both butcher the passage of time beyond recognition. As a result, we have been now been presented with versions of events/characters that I consider to be poorly conceived of and in some cases entirely inaccurate, and so don’t abide by.

Let me just start off by saying that I am in no way attempting to dictate other people’s portrayals------like me, you’re free to run with whatever version of the canon you want, for whatever your reasons. As I’ve said before, the canon I abide by is taken essentially from the books, with modifications made to allow for the canon of S1 of the new series (And S2 up to E04), which is my first and foremost source.

This doesn’t mean that I’m unwilling to interact with people who don’t abide by all the same canon as me------as I’ve said, I’m not here to dictate other people’s portrayals, and so long as blatant contradictions don’t arise in our interactions, we’re probably going to be okay. However, if contradictions are raised, and it becomes clear that our versions of events/characters are very different, I may be forced to drop the exchange. Obviously, it just doesn’t work to have my character saying one thing happened and yours saying another when that thing is meant to be an indisputable fact.

So, what I would request first and foremost is that you don’t assume when RPing with me that anything happened like it happened in S3 of the new series, or in S2 from E04 onward. I understand this may be confusing for some people (Particularly those who haven’t read the books), and that you may be wondering what remains and what doesn’t, and in the cases of the things that don’t, what occurs instead. I will try to outline some of the differences I think are most likely to arise below.

Of course, there’s a lot I could go into------the vast majority of George’s behavior in S3 is illogical, and that’s not even touching on other characters/events. That said, I will try to keep this short and highlight the points which I feel are most likely to come up during interaction, and which could be potentially detrimental to that exchange (And not go into all of the whys, since that would get unnecessarily lengthy). Also, I won't delve too deeply into anything involving only myself and my exclusive partners, as we're already on the same page, and that information isn’t going to be of a lot of use to other people.

First off, let’s talk about the passage of time in the new series. This is very complicated and messy (Take my word for it), but I will try to put it as simply as possible: not as much time passes in the new series as passes in the books. Of course, this shouldn’t matter much, provided the story is adapted to suit. But it isn’t. Instead, there comes a time in S2 where to the new series fails to acknowledge the fact that less time has gone by (And does nothing to compensate for the time lost). In other words, with the passage of time the show has presented, it is not possible for the year to be 1794 at the start of S3, but the series writers choose to behave as if the year is 1794 just the same. The year should in fact be 1791, and this is what myself and my exclusive partners run with. This means that George and Elizabeth’s marriage takes place in 1790, and Valentine and Clowance’s births in 1791. Agatha’s death would take place in 1792. Morwenna’s arrival at Trenwith/Drake and Sam’s arrival at Nampara, however, must still take place in the year of 1794 (Again, I won’t go into all of the reasons why. Just take my word for it). This also means that Dwight (Who would have joined the Navy in 1790 instead of 1793) is at sea for longer before he is taken prisoner.

Now that’s out of the way, let’s move on to those points I was going to highlight. Again, these are taken directly from the novels, with some small modifications made to allow for the canon of S1 (And S2 up to E04), which remains my first and foremost canon source.

- Both Jud and Prudie have been dismissed from service at Nampara by the time of Valentine’s birth (They still live nearby in the village of Sawle), having been replaced by John and Jane Gimlett.

- Dwight does not attend Elizabeth during Valentine’s birth. Rather, she is attended first by Dr. Choake, and then by Dr. Behenna.

- Dwight does not treat Valentine when he develops rickets. This also falls to Dr. Behenna.

- George does not question Dwight about Valentine’s prematurity. These questions are posed to Dr. Behenna.

- George and Geoffrey Charles get along well prior to George discovering that he and Morwenna have been associating with Drake.

- Geoffrey Charles does not take interest in visiting Ross, or in mining.

- Morwenna’s appointment as Geoffrey Charles’s governess is a mutual decision reached by George and Elizabeth, both of whom are in favor of the idea. George does not spring her appointment on Elizabeth, and Geoffrey Charles is informed he is to have a governess beforehand.

- George never deliberately attempts to use Morwenna to put distance between Elizabeth and Geoffrey Charles, but rather hopes that her presence will better prepare Geoffrey Charles for the more disciplined environment he will be faced with when he begins attending school.

- Elizabeth, while saddened by the growing distance between herself and Geoffrey Charles, is never resentful towards Morwenna, and is only ever kind to her.

- Morwenna, while greatly taken with Drake and influenced by her feelings for him, always maintains a strong regard for what is expected of her and their respective social standings. She would never lightly disgrace her family, or abandon them financially by marrying a penniless man without their consent. She feels not only a considerable obligation to conform to what is socially acceptable, but also a genuine desire to please and care for her family.

- Morwenna and Drake at no point agree to marry (Prior to their marriage near the end of The Angry Tide, that is).

- Geoffrey Charles, while very pleased that Drake and Morwenna are friends, takes a greater interest in his own friendship with Drake. He is not aware of Drake and Morwenna’s romantic interest in one another, and does not attempt to encourage it.

- Demelza, while disappointed that Ross does not accept the magistracy he was offered, is not critical of his decision. She does feel as though he could have effected positive change had he taken the position, but she is far more deeply troubled by the fact that she feels he has declined an honor that was his by right, and she feels badly that he will not receive the recognition she believes he deserves. However, she fully supports his decision, and firmly believes he should only do what he feels to be right. This incident does not create any contention between them.

- While George is eager to make a good match for Morwenna for his own personal benefit, he also looks to please Elizabeth by securing an advantageous marriage for cousin, as well as to prevent Morwenna further influencing Geoffrey Charles (By sending her away), as he believes her influence to be a poor one. He also has a genuine concern for Morwenna’s future.

- Demelza and Morwenna do not meet prior to Morwenna’s marriage to Osborne.

- Ross did not torment George with toads while they were at school, and has nothing whatsoever to do with George’s dislike of them.

- On the sixth of June, after Drake has stopped bringing toads to Trenwith land but before his arrest for the theft of Geoffrey Charles’s bible, George and Elizabeth are informed by Clarence Odgers that Drake and Morwenna have been meeting. George, at this point, forbids Morwenna and Geoffrey Charles from seeing Drake. They meet once more at Trenwith in spite of this, and Geoffrey Charles gives Drake his bible.

- Drake’s bringing of the toads to Trenwith land and his supposed theft of Geoffrey Charles’s bible both take place prior to Dwight and Hugh’s rescue by Ross (The mission to France occurs immediately after Drake’s release).

- Morwenna marries Osborne while Drake is gone to France. Drake learns of Morwenna’s marriage to Osborne shortly after his return from France. Drake and Morwenna have no further contact after he returns.

- George does not make Morwenna’s marriage to Osborne a stipulation of Drake’s release; in fact, she has already heard of Drake’s release by the time she consents to marrying Osborne. In other words, although there is considerable pressure put upon her to do so, Morwenna is not forced to marry Osborne. Rather, she marries him because it is what is expected of her and what will most benefit her family, and also because (In spite of her love for him) she has always been aware that marrying Drake was never a rational option. Also because (Having heard of Drake’s arrest and feeling their relationship played a part) she does not wish to endanger him in future.

- Following Dwight and Hugh’s rescue, Ross and crew put in at Falmouth (Where the Blameys live), not at Hendrawna Beach.

- Following his imprisonment in France, Dwight’s physical health is compromised and he is left permanently weakened, which impacts his relationship with Caroline and his ability to practice his profession.

- Morwenna does not speak to anyone about the abuse she suffers at Osborne’s hands.

- Hugh does not sketch. Poetry is his only artistic endeavor.

- When Ross informs Demelza of his decision to decline a seat in Parliament, she is both pleased and relieved. As with the magistracy, she feels as though he might have effected positive change, and she would have been glad to see him do so---however, she feels he would have been very unhappy as a Member of Parliament, as there would have been a far greater likelihood of him being forced to deviate from his own beliefs and morals. Thus, she both supports and commends his decision to decline the offer.

- Demelza’s feelings for Hugh do not originate from spite or revenge. She does not wish to use him, and she does not indulge his advances out of resentment towards Ross. Rather, she comes to genuinely care for Hugh over a long period of time, and is particularly vulnerable to his attentiveness, as even when matters are well between her and Ross, he can be negligent of her more sensitive feelings. Hugh offers a kind of concern and thoughtfulness she has never been given before. When she learns of Ross and Elizabeth’s meeting in the graveyard, it does further distance her from Ross, which does make her more susceptible to her feelings for Hugh, but her own unfaithfulness is not an act of revenge. She never intends to be unfaithful, and she never intentionally encourages Hugh, though her feelings for him do undermine her efforts at times. When Hugh and Demelza do finally sleep together, it happens first and foremost because of her own deep feelings for him, developed over his many months of pursuit, and also out of sympathy, both for his illness, and for the love he bears her, as she knows she cannot truly give him what he wants.

- Though he has great misgivings about their relationship, and is fully aware that each has feelings for the other, Ross does not know that Demelza has been unfaithful to him until some time after the fact, when Hugh is on his deathbed. When he finds out, he reacts very badly.

Again, this is by no means everything wrong with S3, or everything that I do differently------but it does touch on a lot of the points I feel are more likely to come up. Thanks for taking the time to read this, and have a good one! ;)

#「 defeat to him did not mean what it meant for most people — ooc 」

23 notes · View notes