Fandom Theory and Occam's Razor
Jan. 15th, 2012 11:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mark_asphodelamielleon and scarletmorning spurred me to post it now. Now, originally I had the post formatted in a proper fashion, defining my terms and explaining the difference between fandom "theories" and a true scientific theory, but I'm guessing nobody cares. If you want to go into that sort of detail, please ask.Anyway, use of Occam's Razor in fandom (or anyone else, really) amounts to this: the more complicated an explanation is, the more machinations it requires to work, the less likely it is to be true. Doesn't mean it can't be true; some "elegant" explanations are wrong. But the "elegant" explanation is more likely to be the correct explanation for whatever it is you're trying to explain and/or predict.
As Ammie said here (locked post), one explanation for Ike's FE10 ending is that he's a selfish character. Well, that's pretty simple and to-the-bone. But accepting that Ike is fundamentally selfish above all else requires ignoring, or bending, a great deal else in Tellius canon. It's a seemingly elegant explanation that requires pretty complicated machinations to work, and is therefore suspect.
Fandom isn't science, so perhaps it makes sense that we've borrowed terms from religious debate for fandom discussions. We invoke "canon" aka "Word of God" to indicate that we get material from a media creator that can't be overturned, but creators can be sloppy. Creators can change their mind Creators can give supplemental materials to explain (or contradict) what's in the text. Things can get altered in translation (see: when Ammie exploded my nice little idea that used the wording of the NoA FE8 script as opposed to the NoA FE7 script to explain the relative ages of the Lord characters).
And then we can always play "Death of the Author" or exploit readings of the text that are likely unintended but nonetheless make sense on some level (ex: Kirby is the true villain of the Kirby games). That's part of what makes fandom compelling for those of us who are into the meta and fanfiction. But the basic rules of constructing a logical argument shouldn't be ignored, even when it's all in fun. Delightful crack theories are delightful precisely because they make an alarming amount of sense. Delightful theories exploit "gaps" in the canon, or explain things that hang out there unanswered. Ideas that exist completely inside a gap in the canon with nothing to support or contradict them, or that explain things that don't require an answer, don't have quite the same impact on a reader.
Example: Raphi and Sriya were batting around the crack idea that Lyon somehow got transformed into Legault. It's cute, there's not really anything to contradict it, and Raphi even made a 'fic out of it. It doesn't really shed any light on Elibe canon or Magvel canon, though-- it's a self-contained little bit 'o crack. Whereas the idea that
kyusil proposed regarding Roy and his marriage options (that Roy's various unromantic matchups are in fact a demonstration of his alleged political ability in action) is, to me, a highly compelling one. Do I think that it's necessarily what the scriptwriters intended? No, I think they were likely just being sloppy. But the political angle is to me a very interesting one that a 'fic writer can (and should!) exploit to good use. It offers a new way of examining Roy that takes two things from canon (his diverse marriage options and his stated political skills) and unites them in a way that can be used to shed light upon the characters, their world, or both. And with Roy being the arguable central figure of the entire Elibe saga, something that illuminates his character "matters" a great deal, inasmuch as any meta-fun "matters". And then there's the deep end of fandom meta. Or the "off the deep end" sector, the kind that constructs amazingly elaborate theories, air-castles of assumptions piled upon tiny projections of canon, just begging to be demolished. Harry Potter fandom was terrible in this regard. Please look up "Archiving the Banana Peels of Imagination" if you want to see some of this in action; I will say for this particular theorist that they seemed to be a very nice and enthusiastic person, but their meta was just... incredible. In the original sense of that word. The problem with a lot of the HP meta crowd, both the cheerfully zany sort and the oddly... malicious... sort, was that they started with one assumption, slapped another upon it, and then another upon that, and finally they had this great towering edifice of headcanon that made sense to them but had little to do with the actual, you know, books. Whether the idea was "Dumbledore didn't really die" or "How Snape will save everything" or "Dumbledore is evil" or "Ron will become a Death Eater," they cherry-picked canon (took what they wanted and ignored the rest) and employed complicated machinations to make everything work. We're talking Rube Goldberg contraptions, if not MC Escher mechanisms.
Well, elaborate contraptions, whether physical constructions or meta constructions, break down easily. These meta writers had made themselves the meta equivalent of the Space Shuttle-- magnificent and fundamentally faulty. And when their meta-shuttles exploded, many of them had the nerve to get pissy with Rowling. If they'd showed respect for basic logic and the principles of argument on the front end, not to mention a bit of respect for canon, they might have come up with sturdy and functional vehicle for their meta instead!By all means, ignore Occam's Razor in fandom if it's all fun and games. But if you're expecting to convince other theorists, or if you're trying to provide a serious explanation of a problematic text (film, book, videogame, TV script...), or if you're so invested in your pet theory that it makes you upset and angry to see a rebuttal[*], it's good to keep the basics in mind. The more convoluted your pet explanation is, the less likely you are to convince anyone, and the more likely you are to be entirely wrong.
And we've all gotten things entirely, 110% wrong.
* Not kidding about the HP crowd when it comes to anger and vitriol re: exploding headcanon. Not kidding at all.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 06:36 pm (UTC)There's also that moment when you come up with a bit of headcanon... and some word of god or newer release proves you 100% right. :D Best feeling.
I think the theories I enjoy the most are the ones obviously unintended, but both viable and significant with evidence alone.
Eg, Magvel is the continuation of failing at Tellius. Explanation for the DK? Check! Being able to sustain 800 years of almost total peace? Check! Vague reference to the gods sending sacred stones when everyone only seems to recognize Latona? Check!
But then I think that can be said for a lot of "this world is secretly also that world" theories.
And I happen to like the majority of those crack theories too.no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 11:09 pm (UTC)I actually get a little creeped out by it. Though there were a few moments in HP7 when I was pumping my fist in the air and shouting "yeah!" because I'd gotten some things right.
I think the theories I enjoy the most are the ones obviously unintended, but both viable and significant with evidence alone.
Those are great, yeah.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-18 05:11 am (UTC)Before Deathly Hallows came along, I remember jokingly saying that Kingsley should be a nighttime radio host with that soothing voice of his, and idly mentioning that it would be cool if someone ended up riding a dragon.
maaaybe a little rambly sorry
Date: 2012-01-15 07:11 pm (UTC)I think the attachment to personal theories is a pretty huge point. The best example I can think of is in FF fandom - there's a certain theory for FFVIII that is really cool in my opinion, holds together really well, and adds a lot of dimension to previously underdeveloped parts of the storyline. Unfortunately, one of the guidebooks for the game (which are pretty serious business Word of God things) added a detail that blew it out of the water. I don't think it's wrong that people kept exploring this theory, because like I said, it was really interesting. But a certain subset kept insisting it was meant to be, 100% canon, this is what was actually intended, etc. And not only is that silly, it's also just. . . not very fun.
There definitely needs to be a line between "this definitely happened" and "this happened in my head". Even if the former makes sense with everything, you can't counter canon with headcanon or theorizing and expect to be taken seriously, IMO. Like with Ammie's meta - Ike leaving Tellius might not fit with someone's interpretation of him up to that point, and they can feel free to write alternate continuities where he sticks around or whatever. But that doesn't mean Ike leaving was totally "out of character" or should be ignored when discussing him. (Not that this stops some people, but eh.)
Re: maaaybe a little rambly sorry
Date: 2012-01-15 07:40 pm (UTC)Re: maaaybe a little rambly sorry
Date: 2012-01-15 07:55 pm (UTC)I thought it was really interesting and added a layer of development and motive to Ultimecia that wasn't there to begin with, as well as adding even more interest to Rinoa (who I love a lot) but yeah, the Ultimania guide stated sorceresses have normal lifespans, which blew the far-future-Rinoa idea out of the water.
Oh gosh, yeah. FF fandom was crazy then, still crazy now. I mean, it's been what, 15 years? And people are still fighting over who Cloud is gonna bone.
Re: maaaybe a little rambly sorry
Date: 2012-01-15 11:13 pm (UTC)Re: maaaybe a little rambly sorry
Date: 2012-01-15 07:55 pm (UTC)As it is in-game, I think Ike ditching Tellius is a mild inconsistency, something the makers decided was worthwhile for the aura it gave as the conclusion to the plot. And for a long time I found Ike ditching Tellius to be very difficult to reconcile with what canon had otherwise shown him to be.
Personally, though, I didn't think the answer was to ignore that it ever happened. But I'm one of those people who can never let anything go. :P I don't blame people when they decide to say "... Yeah, history got it wrong. Ike secretly came back in five years."
Re: maaaybe a little rambly sorry
Date: 2012-01-15 08:10 pm (UTC)But I think if you have a theory that rides entirely on "Ike leaving forever is wrong", that's pretty hard to justify. And if you do decide to go against what definitely happens, even if it's inconsistent, I think it's important to keep in mind that what you're going with is not, in fact, the "true" version of things. Once you get into "this is what really should have happened because I said so", that's kind of sketchy territory.
Re: maaaybe a little rambly sorry
Date: 2012-01-15 08:34 pm (UTC)Re: maaaybe a little rambly sorry
Date: 2012-01-15 11:50 pm (UTC)"... Yeah, history got it wrong. Ike secretly came back in five years."
ties in really well for me.
Though I liked that Ike disappeared "forever" or was never seen again or whatever. I mean, I didn't think it was entirely OOC-- he was a mix IMO of a reluctant hero and the hero who realizes that someone has to step up so they do it for the Greater Good. It wasn't like he was waiting for his Shining Moment to prove he was a hero. Eventually it was just what he needed to do, so he did it...though at the very start of 9 he is looking for something more...if that makes sense.
Re: maaaybe a little rambly sorry
Date: 2012-01-15 11:07 pm (UTC)In corners of HP fandom, you could. :(
Some people think that swythv was "brilliant" and insightful and that was all pure headcanon and moonshine.
But that doesn't mean Ike leaving was totally "out of character"
I'm not one to say that canon can't be OOC by virtue of being canon, because IMO works written by committee (TV shows especially) or works continued officially by someone who isn't the original creators need to be taken into account. I mean, if a TV show establishes that Character A hates mushrooms, and a guest writer makes a show in Season 5 that has Character A chowing down on mushrooms, the Occam's Razor explanation there, to me, is Somebody Goofed.
And when you have writers turning over their book series to ghostwriters and assistants, well...
But I think that's an accusation that should be employed with extreme caution. To call the Seth/Natasha support, the Kent/Fiora support, or the Innes/Vanessa support (I have seen each accusation more than once) doesn't fly, to me. That, IMO, is saying "this doesn't mesh with my headcanon, so it's OOC" instead of saying "Oh, maybe I was wrong about this character and they have another facet to them I hadn't considered." Same thing with, say, Hermione in HP6. People thought her behavior was OOC; I didn't care for it, but I think it was clear she was always emotionally brittle, and this was her particular year to fray and act out. Harry and Ron had already each hit their rough patch. But so many people had this perfect strong headcanon!Hermione and the way she was written in HP6 drove them nuts.
And then for something like FE1/3 vs FE11/12... it's pretty fair to consider those two separate sets of characters, IMO. I was pissed off by things done in FE12, but IMO it doesn't alter the existence of FE3. It's a separate work, and the original work still exists. FE12!Catria is not an OOC FE3!Catria. She's FE12!Catria and I have issues with her.
Re: maaaybe a little rambly sorry
Date: 2012-01-15 11:23 pm (UTC)Having different writers makes it a bit easier, I think. Taking the Archanea remakes as a totally separate entity makes a lot of sense to me, for example. And in another FF case, I admittedly ignore the additional stuff for FFVII mostly because it contradicts what actually happened (and was helmed by totally different teams, as well.) But in cases where as far as anybody knows it was all the same team? It almost always makes me side-eye a little bit.
Re: maaaybe a little rambly sorry
Date: 2012-01-16 09:47 am (UTC)Ah, Ultimania FF8. I wish I could disregard that stupid thing the same way I do for Ultimania FF7, but it was printed before the Square Enix merger, so I can't blame Nomura and the other fools.
....
Actually, wait a minute, I disregard canon all the time. ^_^ Never mind.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 07:50 pm (UTC)And then Deathly Hallows happened. And then it was not so fun. Heh.
Basically, word.
(I adore the thought of political!Roy. Hmmm. Hmmmm.)
no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 10:54 pm (UTC)and I'm smarter than the author and canon is wrong!"no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 11:14 pm (UTC)Also, reading crazy theories is loltastic ID (And sometimes they hurt. If they're written by certain apologists...)
no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 11:21 pm (UTC)Oh lawd, after Frozen Teardrop came out...
But besides the crack crazy Gundam Wing fandom, I think that's why I couldn't break into the fandom well even in Fire Emblem because...
I mainly at first thought everyone was "This is true because I say so and I'm smarter than the author and canon is wrong!", rather than 'Do you think that maybe?' Which, you guys all definitely are not the former. Which I feel bad for now assuming xD; But that was a long time ago. I don't think of y'all (referring to everyone on my friend list) are like that, at all.
I think being in certain fandoms has made me really cautious though. I used to be a huge canon whore, mainly with Harry Potter, and with Gundam, and other series. I'd never consider most fan theories, and would basically go 'Prove it happened in text, till then, not listening.' I... was, and still kind of am a bit stubborn. but at least in this part of the FE fandom I can take listening to theories and find it enjoyable rather than going a bit nuts about having everyone prove everything >.>;
no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 11:29 pm (UTC)Making it something that only "crazy" branches of fandom would do is pretty iffy, I think, because it's something we all might need a reminder on from time to time, you know?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-15 11:45 pm (UTC)Things evolve, though, and the tone is different from fandom to fandom. I had a great deal of trouble initially dealing with Fire Emblem as far as the "multiple canon pairings" goes. Prior to that, I'd only been in fandoms where canon pairings were canon or where things were open-ended and ambiguous. Getting my head around the possibility of multiple canon-blessed endings was an experience.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 12:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 01:15 am (UTC)Basically, I liked this post a lot. Everything you said makes sense. I like interesting theories, even if there are small gaps or ways they can be dis-proven via canon material.
What I don't like, though, are theories that people tout not only as headcanon, but as actual canon-- sorry, last time I checked, ANY PAIRING IN WOW (with notable few exceptions) is not canon. Eliwood written with any possible wife is "canon". So Eliwood/Ninian is technically no more "canon-compliant" than Eliwood/Lyn or Eliwood/Fiora.
I think creators can definitely fumble their own work up, but in that light, what they write is still canon, so regardless of how the fandom likes the author's choices, it's still canon, and they need to learn to Deal With It. It sucks when the ship you've rooted for isn't actually the one that sets sail into the sunset at the end, yeah. It's happened to just about every fandom-goer at one time, right? But in the end, Too Bad.
Sadly some fandoms like HP start getting mad at the creator. I mean yeah, maybe she did do things that aren't necessarily Great and Wonderful...but what, did they really expect the author to cater to them personally? Or the fandom? She's rich and famous already for her books... Literally she can do whatever she wants and get away with it. Know who else did and could? George Lucas. :|
Basically this: The more convoluted your pet explanation is, the less likely you are to convince anyone, and the more likely you are to be entirely wrong. was just absolutely perfect.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 02:20 am (UTC)Sometimes "canon" can't be reconciled, though. Anne Rice had two completely separate origin stories for one vampire character, and it couldn't be reconciled through "unreliable narrator" or anything else. Either it was one or the other. This is part of why I stopped reading Anne Rice.
Also, comic books. Good lord, what a mess most comic-book canon is.
but what, did they really expect the author to cater to them personally?
The sad thing is, some of them actually did. And when things didn't go their way, some believed she was even trying to spite them.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 04:46 am (UTC)I hear from
Much more about getting the vibe of a character right than sticking by the details of canon.
Also, lots of AUs. Hell, their canon has a lot of AUs.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 05:08 am (UTC)Bleh, somehow I am not surprised that people expected her to cater to them. I'd be more inclined if I were a famous author, to spite my audience just to get them good and riled up. The more hate on the internet, the more people will hear about my books and be too curious not to check them out...
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 04:48 am (UTC)Eh... for a series with "multiple canons" I do think there's a worthwhile distinction between what's more likely versus what's less likely.
For example, if you attack and kill Fargus in 16x, you never get to the Dread Isle and Nergal rules the world. This is not what people consider canon.
FE6 says Roy's mother is Ilian, so Eliwood/Lyn for example clashes somewhat with canon elsewhere.
I think it's also noteworthy that FE7 sets Eliwood/Ninian quite so much. Half the plot just about revolves around it.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 04:55 am (UTC)The thing is, killing Fargus couldn't be canon because it ends in a game over. It's an OPTION in-game but it ends in "game over"...right? Or do I remember this wrong?
Either way, there are small options that can be equally canon (go after ninian's ring or no?) but for the most part anything's just as canon. It bothers me when someone says, "I prefer X because I prefer canon" when in reality X is just as canon as Y or Z (example: Hector/Lyn, Hector/Farina, Hector/Florina).
As far as educated guesses and which is more likely to happen (pairing or otherwise), you're right. We can make educated guesses. I'm sure if Lilina was half-Sacaen this info would be kind of...er...important. So the chance of Lyn being Lilina's mother? Probably less than Florina or Farina. But I can't say that Hector/Lyn isn't as canon because it's still a viable canon game ending...if that makes any sense.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 05:57 am (UTC)So, that said, shouldn't Ninian's centrality to the plot mean something for the place of Eliwood/Ninian? Shouldn't the fact that there's one song that's used only for Hector/Lyn A in 29x mean something?
Also I dunno, one fourth Sacaen doesn't strike me as important as Eliwood marrying a dragon and I definitely wouldn't discount Ninian on that point.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 06:16 am (UTC)And yeah, I thought Ninian's centrality to the plot should count for something, but it's just as viable (probably more so) to go back to her own people. I think it's really up to how you interpret the characters as to what decision you'd think they'd make. Some people will do anything for love, but not everyone is so daring.
1/4 Sacaen isn't as big a deal as 1/2 dragon, definitely. But the problem here is mostly that a.) nobody knows Ninian is a dragon that matters, and b.) everyone knows what Lyn is. The physical evidence would be overwhelming for one but not the other so much. Though that is also an interpretation thing.
As for the music, well, music never meant much to me in a game, so I can't say that counts for anything to me personally. But if I shipped a pairing and they had a speshul song I would probably be a teeny bit gleeful about it. :P
actually i'm really lost and not sure what we're discussing anymore. so tired.
Basically I am all for various takes on the canon, i.e., "the bad ending", a "game over", "if the bad guys won"-- or even just one particular bad guy, for example, Oliver. I'm even okay if people claim it is an alternate canon (like an alternate of the most accepted canon). Cause it's still technically an option.
I'm just not okay with people pulling fanon out of their ass (or even with good educated guesswork) and then claiming that this fanon is actually canon... Good guesswork does not canon make.
I mean some fanon is so good it's practically canon in the minds of the fans. But some people or even entire fandoms take it too far.
Like for years the InuYasha fandom insisted that InuYasha purred when his ears were touched/petted? What the everloving fuck were they talking about? To this day I really don't know.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 06:26 am (UTC)Characterization is complicated, and on those grounds Ninian is quite complicated. But in terms of what the story seemed to be setting up....
Also I think Roy being part dragon would be a big deal. Sophia seems to manifest part-dragon powers, after all. I can't seem to recall if there's an indication in Elibe if dragons can sense others like them, although I'd think that would be likely too.
Basically, out of the possible "alternate canon"s, I do think there's a way to vaguely distinguish some as "more canon" than others.
But it doesn't mean that the other alternate canons aren't valid, of course.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 07:02 pm (UTC)They have piles of somewhat romantically slanted interaction whether you choose to support them or not, whereas Eliwood/Fiora is "self-contained". Eliwood/Fiora only exists if you choose for it to exist. You can't write about Eliwood beyond chapter 29 (and before the end of the game, preferably) without mentioning Ninian. You can write about either Eliwood or Fiora without mentioning either of them.
The fact that one can be situationally ignored and the other can't is important to me.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 03:05 pm (UTC)Re: the "bad endings" to FE6 and FE3/12, I say they absolutely count as canon. You get a cut scene, credits roll, you get character bios...
16X I'm a little more iffy about. And then there's things like Pelleas & Sephiran in FE10 and Michalis in FE12-- what's "more canon," having them dead or alive at the end of the game? Dead, because it's the default? Maybe.
Shouldn't the fact that there's one song that's used only for Hector/Lyn A in 29x mean something?
How about the fact that Vanessa's crush on Innes is referenced in half her other supports? Does that make him her "true" love interest as opposed to Forde?
Re: Lilina-- Kyu made a good point that IS appears to have weirdly dropped the ball with her in the FE6 script. Yeah, if she's one-quarter Sacaean, it might have merited a mention, but a lot else could have merited a mention wrt Lilina!
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 06:50 pm (UTC)I think Vanessa's crush on Innes is a big part of her character at the very least. For example, in a fic about Fiora you could ignore Eliwood/Fiora all you please, but a Vanessa/Forde better mention her feeling towards Innes.
As for whether Innes/Vanessa is the most canon for both of them -- I'm not sure. Not familiar enough with Innes to say. But probably -- I wouldn't say "true" love interest so much as something like "default" or "implied". (I don't like it personally though....) Much like how girls' dating sims generally have a lead guy who is implicitly the designated love interest.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 11:23 pm (UTC)Agreed. And, for the reasons you said-- dramatically, they're deflating. Rather like the bad ending in Aria of Sorrow.
As for whether Innes/Vanessa is the most canon for both of them -- I'm not sure. Not familiar enough with Innes to say.
I'm on the fence about that. On the one hand, she's totally into him (Syrene fangirls him too, hah). On the other hand, while unrequited pining is more a hallmark of the Kaga-era games, just because Vanessa has an Innes obsession doesn't mean he's into her. Their supports could just be a cute little thing tossed out there rather than "implied canon," which is where I'd stick Seth/Eirika.
Now, I'm sure someone, somewhere has worked out how fast the various support rankings can be achieved for each set of characters. Does anyone in fic-land give priority to a pairing based on speed of supports? That seems a pretty sensible bit of information to use.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 12:16 am (UTC)Also worth noting that in Tellius, supports are often paced in consideration of the game plot. Elincia's supports take two chapters at most... because there are only chapters you can take her to before endgame. Soren's support with Ike is unusually slow, because B has to come after they arrive at Sienne, and A is more dramatically appropriate at chapter 23.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 12:22 am (UTC)And Innes's favored option is... Gerik. Hmm. Oh well, I ship it.
Also worth noting that in Tellius, supports are often paced in consideration of the game plot.
I'd read that certain supports did that in FE12, but haven't verified it yet. Obviously the supports for the buttload of characters you get in the last few chapters come quickly, tough.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 09:48 am (UTC)*puts on tin-foil hat, waves from dinghy*
I take a Silly Putty approach to canon, really. I like to bend it and stretch it to make fun shapes that frequently bear very little resemblance to the original ball.
Excellent article, Mark!
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 03:11 pm (UTC)I like to bend it and stretch it to make fun shapes that frequently bear very little resemblance to the original ball..
But I don't see you claiming that your Silly Putty shapes are what the game creators (or other media creators) "really intended," which is where the Harry Potter theorists and such have fun afoul of reality.
Ex: You posit a Queen of Ilia in your post-FE7 epic.
Canon says "nope," as Zealot turning Ilia into a kingdom is part of the FE6 plotline. I don't see you turning around and claiming there really is an Ilian queen circa FE7 and we all just have to look harder, or follow the clues, or that canon is playing games with us.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 12:11 pm (UTC)As for what the creators intended, I've learned something over the past few years: Every time I've found out what the creators of anything in a Japanese medium have intended, be it anime / manga or a JRPG, I've been disappointed (and frequently angered), especially by how they regard their own characters and what they feel happened in the plot. So! I've learned to take what I like and throw out what I don't. I don't claim to know the motives, just what I see on the screen. ... And it makes me feel so much better to not sweat it. :-)
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 04:52 pm (UTC)Oh, and Z. If you ask near any Gundam and SRW fan, Z apparently fixed SEED Destiny's plot. Oh, and Kira gets smacked. I found it absolutely hilarious that the other characters treated him exactly how I interpreted him, rather than seeing him as 'Jesus Yamato', they saw him as an immature brat with a bit of a complex. The SEED writer hated this, but many people tend to agree it was a better portrayal than in the show. Hell, even in SRW Alpha 3, which is a separate timeline, they treat Kira with the same kind of thing, Shinji is the one that tells him to grow up in this incarnation.
I wonder if they'd ever do a giant FE crossover? SUPER WAR OF THE FIRE EMBLEM GO!
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 12:08 pm (UTC)And there you have several reasons why I am an SRW fan for life.
Though, if you really want to see SEED Destiny done super-right, play Generation Of C.E. They throw out the entire second half of the show and replace it with awesome.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 09:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 09:35 pm (UTC)'Kaworu asks if the strength Shinji showed back then was just fictional, and whether this is really the answer that he found at the end of all his struggles. As for why Kaworu is here - he loves Shinji, pure and simple.'
Basically, Kaworu's kinda spirit shows up to tell Shinji that xD Which... honestly I think Kaworu is the only person in the main series that was truly good for him, and... it just sucks he dies. After that little sequence he does fully go away though.