First I'd like to point out that I do not hate Akane. In fact I can sympathize with her fairly often and have defended her on several occasions. Having said that, I recently have gotten into an argument with an Akane fan boy. They were of the Saint Akane stance. I don't mind defending Akane but you should not demonize the other characters while doing so. While Akane is not a bad person and probably one of the nicest people in the manga she is far from a saint.
Generally I try to avoid these arguments since I find them to be pointless. I can show as much evidence/ logical thinking as I want and it generally does not change the persons opinion. Generally these type of arguments turn into flame wars or one side just stops arguing. Which is why I'm surprised this particular one went as long as it did and did not turn into a "I'm right and your wrong and nothing you can say will change that" type thing. I do not believe I changed the persons stance much if at all though (this is not a direct copy of the talk it is a cleaned up version, sticks to only on topic stuff, and points have been separated more - in original talk were more clumped together - talk is very one-sided because original was one-sided, the fanboy was not very good at bringing up counter points, fanboy should have dropped the comparison to Ranma and instead have listed Akane's good points or compared her to someone else - or have brought up Ranma's more negative traits such as his occasional Machiavellian tendencies).
Fanboy claims that Akane is a very independent girl.
Me - Is not independent at all, constantly relies on others for most things. She can't cook, clean, sew, or really take care of herself in any way, goes to Ranma whenever she has a problem, etc.
Fanboy claims Akane always has a valid reason to hit Ranma and he deserves it.
Me - Even supposing physical violence is okay to retaliate with it still is a false statement. Akane has hit Ranma for no or very poor reasons several times in the manga. She knocked him out of a window because she didn't want him hearing a conversation during the Valentines day story arc. She hit him when he tried to cheer her up when it looked like she was crying. She has hit him for other peoples actions such as Shampoo's/Nabiki's. She has hit him because he might do something, Cologne explained how to stop the smiling three year death and she hit him not because he did it but because he might do it. I can go on for quite some time.
Fanboy claims Ranma always insults Akane.
Me - Nope. Ranma does not insult her every time he has an opportunity to do so. He has even on occasion attempted to not insult her. Such as when she first made a meal for him and instead of insulting it he attempted to continue training (Akane herself tasted it and considered it bad - she did still hit him for not eating it).
Fanboy claims Akane never insults Ranma.
Me - Yes she does. Depending on what you count as an insult there are a few volumes where Akane insulted Ranma more than he did her.
Fanboy claims Ranma uses much worse insults than Akane does.
Me - Matter of opinion but I disagree. She has used pretty bad insults like calling him sick and twisted, accusing him of being a rapist, freak, pervert, told him to "Be a woman for the rest of your life and find a real man to marry" after splashing him, etc.
Fanboy - Ranma doesn't do much for Akane.
Me - Ranma has done a lot for Akane. He started fights with several people because of her Mikado (Akane came running to him about P-chan being stolen), Herb (Herb threw Akane) , Mariko (made Akane cry), etc. He took her place in battle versus Kodachi. He showed up to help her with the dojo destroyer even though he had something he considered very important to do (get a cure for his curse). He rescued her when she was kidnapped. He saved her when she was drowning. He tries to cheer her up when she is sad. He killed Saffron to get her to the water in time.He was willing to marry her when he thought she was turned into a duck to make her happy. And so on...
Fanboy - Akane always helps Ranma when he needs help.
Me - While Akane does help Ranma more than anyone else in the manga she also has stood idly by when she had the ability to help him. Examples: Volume 34 stood idly by while Ranma's mom tried to kill the pervert in her room, Volume 33 allowed all the blame for the disorder in the household to be shoved onto Ranma. During Mirror clone arc allowed everyone to tie up Ranma, etc.
Fanboy - Akane is sensitive to other peoples feelings and Ranma's just an insensitive jerk.
Me - Not going to argue that Ranma can be insensitive to others and occasionally is a jerk but he has also been shown to be sensitive to other peoples feelings multiple times and dislikes hurting people. It is the primary reason he apologizes to people. Akane maybe sensitive to other peoples feeling but she is usually just as insensitive to other people as Ranma if not more so on several occasions. She has shown to be consistently insensitive to Ranma's feelings on his curse, his fear of cats -even using it against him, takes the side of someone who was an accessory to kidnapping her, nearly killed her, and has publicly stated would kill Ranma over Ranma's (Ryoga), is insensitive to the other fiancee's feelings, is insensitive to Ryoga's feelings (going on a date with Ryoga to make Ranma jealous is pretty insensitive thing to do to Ryoga), etc.
Fanboy - Ranma must be much worse since he's made Akane cry so often.
Me - First logic is wrong. All that would really show is that she is more thin skinned than Ranma i.e. easier to make cry. Second Ranma has not made Akane cry very often. Mariko made her cry, she cried about Dr Tofu not loving her, etc.
Fanboy - Ranma doesn't cry because of Akane's actions so he must be worse than her.
Me - First most people don't consider crying to be manly so Ranma is unlikely to cry where people can see. Second Ranma can take being insulted with out crying. Thirdly Ranma actually is shown crying or at least with tears in the corner of his eyes (generally her because guys don't cry) more often than Akane has. He cried when Akane poked his wound, he cried when Happosai used a pressure point to make him cry, he (technically she) cried when the ice skating guy took his first kiss, he cried when he thought Akane dead, he (technically she) had tears in her eyes when his curse was locked, etc.
Fanboy - If Ranma was a nice guy like Ryoga she wouldn't hit/insult him.
Me - First I doubt that if Ranma was a nice guy it would matter much since several of the times she does so is because of other people's actions and his curse (you know things Ranma has absolutely no control over). Second Ryoga is in not a nicer guy than Ranma. He holds grudges, actually tried to kill someone (Ranma), tried to read her diary during the mushrooms of aging storyline, tried to bathe with her in the same storyline, tried to date both Akari and Akane at the same time, uses his cursed form to cuddle up with Akane, tried to use magic to force Akane to love him -koi rod, etc.
Fanboy - Akane has a good reason she just got engaged out of the blue to someone she doesn't know and has unwanted male attention.
Me - That is not a good enough reason to excuse her actions. Even if it was, it is only a good reason for a short time. Ranma also has the same excuse in that he was engaged out of the blue to someone he didn't know or want to be engaged to. In fact Ranma at that point of time in the manga did not even want to be in that country, he wanted to go back to China and look for a cure to his curse. Ranma had to be physically knocked out and carried just to show up.
Fanboy - Akane has more reason to be insensitive than Ranma does.
Me - I have absolutely no idea how that conclusion could be reached. In fact it is sort of strange that Ranma is as sensitive as he is. Think about it Ranma was raised by Genma and did not spend his time in one locale. Of Ranma's past that we know about Ranma pre-getting his curse he had very little contact with females. Training journey in which he likely stopped at training grounds and dojo's which would primarily be males. He did not even know his mother (left his mom as a baby). He didn't know Ukyo was a girl. The school that we know about prior to Nerima was an all boys school. If anything Akane doesn't have a reason to be as insensitive as she is, she went to a co-ed school, has many friends, and had sisters to guide her upbringing.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
Double Standards
There are many, many double standards in our (and other) societies. A double standard is a standard applied more leniently to one group than to another. The most common being the double standards between males and females. If I were going to write about every double standard I can think about this post would easily be longer than any other post I've written; there are a lot of double standards. This particular post is about hitting and the double standard that is involved.
I dislike double standards. In my opinion there should be one standard that everyone attempts to follow regardless of race, sex, financial status, creed, etc., but the world we live in is absolutely full of double standards. One that pisses me off especially is the one that states that it is okay for a girl to hit a guy. Everyone knows it's not okay for a guy to hit a girl but for some reason people find it acceptable for a girl to hit a guy. The standard should be don't hit anyone.
While there are quite a few double standards in the Ranma manga (the manga even pokes fun at several of them) that particular one about a girl hitting a guy is the one I find to be the most annoying. In the case of the Ranma manga, it is acceptable to everyone (and a large percentage of the fandom) for Akane to escalate the arguments between her and Ranma to her using physical violence. Ranma ½ is a comedy that uses violence in the form slapstick on occasion which makes this somewhat more acceptable. The main reason I don't like that this particular slapstick is used is because the violence is one way (i.e. Ranma doesn't hit her back) and she has caused more damage to him than he ever has gotten in a fight. This double standard is not limited to comedy. Take Star Trek Voyager for instance Torres, the chief engineer, had broken the arm of her male subordinates without facing consequences or take Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Buffy alternated between sleeping with Spike and beating him up for being an unclean thing; had the roles been reversed (Spike doing the beating) it would have been viewed differently.
I'd like to say that this double standard is limited to fiction but it is not. This happens in real life a lot. A large part of this is because girls are physically weaker than guys. A guy hitting a girl is likely to cause more damage or kill. It is often the case that a guy will be called a wimp or sissy if he complained about the girl hitting him. I have encountered people who say that guys are more violent and aggressive than girls. This is untrue. There are many books and websites that show this belief to be untrue. For example the site titled REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY lists many studies that show that this belief is untrue. I hate when people say stuff like the world would be a better place if run by women because it is blatantly untrue, the world would be just as bad.
Here are some statistics that too few people seem to realize:
*Eighty two percent of all people have their first experience of violence at the hands of a women.
*Women are 3 times more likely than men to use weapons in domestic violence.
*About 60% of the women acknowledged they had more often been the first to strike a blow.
*Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely then they hit their female children.
*Woman kill more children then guys do.
--source of statistics is three separate studies done by The Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, under grants from the National Institute of Mental Health.
I dislike double standards. In my opinion there should be one standard that everyone attempts to follow regardless of race, sex, financial status, creed, etc., but the world we live in is absolutely full of double standards. One that pisses me off especially is the one that states that it is okay for a girl to hit a guy. Everyone knows it's not okay for a guy to hit a girl but for some reason people find it acceptable for a girl to hit a guy. The standard should be don't hit anyone.
While there are quite a few double standards in the Ranma manga (the manga even pokes fun at several of them) that particular one about a girl hitting a guy is the one I find to be the most annoying. In the case of the Ranma manga, it is acceptable to everyone (and a large percentage of the fandom) for Akane to escalate the arguments between her and Ranma to her using physical violence. Ranma ½ is a comedy that uses violence in the form slapstick on occasion which makes this somewhat more acceptable. The main reason I don't like that this particular slapstick is used is because the violence is one way (i.e. Ranma doesn't hit her back) and she has caused more damage to him than he ever has gotten in a fight. This double standard is not limited to comedy. Take Star Trek Voyager for instance Torres, the chief engineer, had broken the arm of her male subordinates without facing consequences or take Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Buffy alternated between sleeping with Spike and beating him up for being an unclean thing; had the roles been reversed (Spike doing the beating) it would have been viewed differently.
I'd like to say that this double standard is limited to fiction but it is not. This happens in real life a lot. A large part of this is because girls are physically weaker than guys. A guy hitting a girl is likely to cause more damage or kill. It is often the case that a guy will be called a wimp or sissy if he complained about the girl hitting him. I have encountered people who say that guys are more violent and aggressive than girls. This is untrue. There are many books and websites that show this belief to be untrue. For example the site titled REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY lists many studies that show that this belief is untrue. I hate when people say stuff like the world would be a better place if run by women because it is blatantly untrue, the world would be just as bad.
Here are some statistics that too few people seem to realize:
*Eighty two percent of all people have their first experience of violence at the hands of a women.
*Women are 3 times more likely than men to use weapons in domestic violence.
*About 60% of the women acknowledged they had more often been the first to strike a blow.
*Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely then they hit their female children.
*Woman kill more children then guys do.
--source of statistics is three separate studies done by The Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, under grants from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Hachimaki - Headband
Hachimaki are Japanese headbands made of cloth (usually cotton), usually red or white, and often with a slogan like try hard or a picture of the rising sun. They are worn as a symbol of great exertion. These can be seen often since they are used for a wide variety of reasons mothers giving birth wear them, students studying for difficult exams, carpenters building temples, etc. Japanese competitive eater Takeru Kobayashi wore one while at a hotdog eating contest.Hachimaki are thought to help the wearer gather their spirits and show determination/resolve. It is thought by some that the slight pressure around the forehead helps improve speed of thought and concentration. Several theories as to their origins. One theory is that they were used to ward off evil another theory is that they were just worn to keep sweat out of the eyes of Samurai.
Akane can be seen putting one on a few times in the Ranma manga in preparation for a challenge for example before her first date with Ryoga which she had originally thought as a challenge from Ukyo. The picture is taken from volume 14 of Dr Slump (very good manga by the creator of Dragonball but better in my opinion).
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Conveniences in modern society
I was browsing a forum, I occasionally check, and one of the topics was on conveniences. It occurs to me that what the people on that site considered conveniences, I don't really see as conveniences.
It didn't mention important things like running water, cars, electricity, proper plumbing, access to medicine, proper housing, etc. I suppose that is because the people on the site don't consider them conveniences. I assume that they see them as essentials, even though a fairly large percentage of the human population have to make do with out them or if they do have them they are insufficient.
Things mentioned were things that aren't essential, purely convenient, could easily do without. Some of the things mentioned as being convenient are in my opinion not convenient when you really think about them. Sure some are convenient though frivolous like the clapper (sound activated electrical switch), automatic doors, motorized windows in cars, etc. Other things only appear to be convenient or are both convenient and nuisances.
One of the things mentioned is automated registers at grocery stores. I don't know about you but I hate them. Beyond the fact that they are taking away some jobs when you live in an area with a rising unemployment rate (9-20% depending on your race where I live). I find them to be very annoying since they frequently get prices wrong and break. Since none of the employees seems to know how to fix them, it seems to me that it makes some of the lines longer. A couple of the stores I've gone to had them for a short while but because of continuous problems with them they ended up removing them. I'm also assuming that they were removed because some people have found ways to cheat them (depending on the particular machine they can occasionally be tricked ex. scan one coupon multiple times or changing labels on item with a cheaper similar item).
Another convenience that is as much a nuisance as it is a convenience is cell phones. Yes it's nice to be able to call anyone anywhere but I find them damn annoying. Some peoples cell phones are really small and occasionally you'll think they are talking to you when they are really talking to someone else. A lot people are extremely rude on the phones and will ignore you when you want to talk to them. I hate when I go to the movies,library, or church and someones phone goes off and they just start talking. I hate that while your talking to the person their phone rings, so they pick it up and start talking in mid conversation with you. A side effect of cell phones is that there are less phone booths which, even though I never really used them much, I find annoying because I did use them occasionally and don't have a cell phone. Plus they are expensive 50 dollars a month or so.
Credit, debit, and gift cards were mentioned as a convenience and it's true debit and credit cards can be convenient when used properly. The problem is a fairly large percentage of the population do not use them properly. More people are in debt than not. Credit cards can have expensive fees/interest rates and people will use debit cards to purchase things that they don't have the money for in the account incurring over draft fees. Gift cards though are just stupid. Give the person cash. Some gift cards expire or decrease in value if not used within a certain amount of time. People are more likely to lose gift cards than cash. All your really doing is giving the business cash which they invest to make more cash. If you do purchase gift cards make sure you get something free with it or that the card is worth more than you pay e.g. occasionally can get a 25 dollar gift card for 20 dollars. Then use the card quickly.
Many conveniences are also environmentally unfriendly. Some can be done easily by hand and just waste electricity like auto-opening doors. Some stuff that is supposedly packaged conveniently is really over packaged waste of packaging material.
I can probably continue listing inconvenient conveniences but I think you get my point. Some "conveniences" aren't really conveniences.
It didn't mention important things like running water, cars, electricity, proper plumbing, access to medicine, proper housing, etc. I suppose that is because the people on the site don't consider them conveniences. I assume that they see them as essentials, even though a fairly large percentage of the human population have to make do with out them or if they do have them they are insufficient.
Things mentioned were things that aren't essential, purely convenient, could easily do without. Some of the things mentioned as being convenient are in my opinion not convenient when you really think about them. Sure some are convenient though frivolous like the clapper (sound activated electrical switch), automatic doors, motorized windows in cars, etc. Other things only appear to be convenient or are both convenient and nuisances.
One of the things mentioned is automated registers at grocery stores. I don't know about you but I hate them. Beyond the fact that they are taking away some jobs when you live in an area with a rising unemployment rate (9-20% depending on your race where I live). I find them to be very annoying since they frequently get prices wrong and break. Since none of the employees seems to know how to fix them, it seems to me that it makes some of the lines longer. A couple of the stores I've gone to had them for a short while but because of continuous problems with them they ended up removing them. I'm also assuming that they were removed because some people have found ways to cheat them (depending on the particular machine they can occasionally be tricked ex. scan one coupon multiple times or changing labels on item with a cheaper similar item).
Another convenience that is as much a nuisance as it is a convenience is cell phones. Yes it's nice to be able to call anyone anywhere but I find them damn annoying. Some peoples cell phones are really small and occasionally you'll think they are talking to you when they are really talking to someone else. A lot people are extremely rude on the phones and will ignore you when you want to talk to them. I hate when I go to the movies,library, or church and someones phone goes off and they just start talking. I hate that while your talking to the person their phone rings, so they pick it up and start talking in mid conversation with you. A side effect of cell phones is that there are less phone booths which, even though I never really used them much, I find annoying because I did use them occasionally and don't have a cell phone. Plus they are expensive 50 dollars a month or so.
Credit, debit, and gift cards were mentioned as a convenience and it's true debit and credit cards can be convenient when used properly. The problem is a fairly large percentage of the population do not use them properly. More people are in debt than not. Credit cards can have expensive fees/interest rates and people will use debit cards to purchase things that they don't have the money for in the account incurring over draft fees. Gift cards though are just stupid. Give the person cash. Some gift cards expire or decrease in value if not used within a certain amount of time. People are more likely to lose gift cards than cash. All your really doing is giving the business cash which they invest to make more cash. If you do purchase gift cards make sure you get something free with it or that the card is worth more than you pay e.g. occasionally can get a 25 dollar gift card for 20 dollars. Then use the card quickly.
Many conveniences are also environmentally unfriendly. Some can be done easily by hand and just waste electricity like auto-opening doors. Some stuff that is supposedly packaged conveniently is really over packaged waste of packaging material.
I can probably continue listing inconvenient conveniences but I think you get my point. Some "conveniences" aren't really conveniences.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Superman Doomsday
I recently watched the Superman Doomsday animated movie. Having read the book The Death and Life of Superman by Roger Stern. I was disappointed in this movie. I had not read the actual comic books this was based on, at the time of it's publishing I had very little interest in comic books. Personally I would have preferred it to stick with the source material.
Doomsday is supposedly a weapon of Doomsday. As a Doomsday weapon he sucks. Would make a great front line soldier but as an apocalyptic weapon, not so great. Goes around killing things one at a time. Let's see over 6 billion people on Earth. If Doomsday were to kill 1000 people a day it would take him around 16,500 years to kill every human. That's not taking into account that people reproduce, that he'd also spend time hunting down the countless animals, and that people would actively go out of their way to stay as far from him as they could.
Lex Luther is supposed to be a super genius. In this movie, he came off as an idiot to me. Sure he created a cure for aids and bird flu. His purposely making the cure a life long series of treatments makes sense from a capitalistic point of view. If your goal is to make money curing the diseases is not the way to go. Other than that, just about everything he said and did was stupid.
His logic is flawed. When his people find Doomsday buried and an alien holograpically projects itself and says stuff in an alien language. Luther say that it is a warning and that the only reason an alien race would trap a being and dump it on the planet Earth is becuase they couldn't kill it. Not true. For starters it might not of been a warning at all. It could have been a threat or the alien could have been saying something like "let the games begin". Secondly just becuase you decide to trap and dump something on a planet doesn't mean that you do not have the ability to kill it. There are a lot of other possible reasons to do so. Logically thinking though if you did have the ability to trap something but not the ability to kill it, there are a lot of better ways and places to dump it. They sent it to Earth, when they could have just as easily sent it somewhere else like into a sun, into a black hole, or onto and then into the void between galaxies.
I also found Luther's hitting on Lois to be very stupid. Judging by Lois's past actions he really should have expected Lois to knock him out. I also found it stupid that he kept the Superman clones in the same building as he was in so that it could be easily traced to him. This is particularly stupid since he killed a girl earlier in the story to cover up that he and his people were the ones to find and release Doomsday. One thing he went to quite a bit effort to hide, up to killing the person most loyal to him, and yet the other thing he didn't try to hide/cover up at all. Kept the records of it in his office and did the stuff in the building he was in.
Considering that in the battle versus Doomsday, Superman was going to die. The battle was pretty crappy and Superman's tactics were beyond dumb. The smartest thing he did was to grab Doomsday and take him into space. That should have been one of the first things he should have done since Doomsday can't fly. Slamming Doomsday into the planet is an ok tactic, could have just left him in space though, but considering how much of the Earth's surface is unpopulated his landing spot was very dumb - middle of one of the most populated cities on the planet.
Doomsday is supposedly a weapon of Doomsday. As a Doomsday weapon he sucks. Would make a great front line soldier but as an apocalyptic weapon, not so great. Goes around killing things one at a time. Let's see over 6 billion people on Earth. If Doomsday were to kill 1000 people a day it would take him around 16,500 years to kill every human. That's not taking into account that people reproduce, that he'd also spend time hunting down the countless animals, and that people would actively go out of their way to stay as far from him as they could.
Lex Luther is supposed to be a super genius. In this movie, he came off as an idiot to me. Sure he created a cure for aids and bird flu. His purposely making the cure a life long series of treatments makes sense from a capitalistic point of view. If your goal is to make money curing the diseases is not the way to go. Other than that, just about everything he said and did was stupid.
His logic is flawed. When his people find Doomsday buried and an alien holograpically projects itself and says stuff in an alien language. Luther say that it is a warning and that the only reason an alien race would trap a being and dump it on the planet Earth is becuase they couldn't kill it. Not true. For starters it might not of been a warning at all. It could have been a threat or the alien could have been saying something like "let the games begin". Secondly just becuase you decide to trap and dump something on a planet doesn't mean that you do not have the ability to kill it. There are a lot of other possible reasons to do so. Logically thinking though if you did have the ability to trap something but not the ability to kill it, there are a lot of better ways and places to dump it. They sent it to Earth, when they could have just as easily sent it somewhere else like into a sun, into a black hole, or onto and then into the void between galaxies.
I also found Luther's hitting on Lois to be very stupid. Judging by Lois's past actions he really should have expected Lois to knock him out. I also found it stupid that he kept the Superman clones in the same building as he was in so that it could be easily traced to him. This is particularly stupid since he killed a girl earlier in the story to cover up that he and his people were the ones to find and release Doomsday. One thing he went to quite a bit effort to hide, up to killing the person most loyal to him, and yet the other thing he didn't try to hide/cover up at all. Kept the records of it in his office and did the stuff in the building he was in.
Considering that in the battle versus Doomsday, Superman was going to die. The battle was pretty crappy and Superman's tactics were beyond dumb. The smartest thing he did was to grab Doomsday and take him into space. That should have been one of the first things he should have done since Doomsday can't fly. Slamming Doomsday into the planet is an ok tactic, could have just left him in space though, but considering how much of the Earth's surface is unpopulated his landing spot was very dumb - middle of one of the most populated cities on the planet.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Ranma Out of Character
It is nearly impossible to write a Ranma story without someone thinking it is out of character or really any story in which you are not the original creator (and even then the reader may see it as OOC). You may try but it'll be your interpretation of the characters which everyone might not agree on. For some stories like Batman that has had multiple writers, multiple incarnation, and even rewritten parts of the story or changed the characters (early batman comics had Batman actually kill some of his opponents for example) it's difficult to say what is OOC or not because you don't know what version the person reading/writing will have as their source material (70's tv batman, 90's Batman, early batman, movie Batman, etc.)
Ranma is easier in someways in that it had one writer for all 38 volumes. Of course memory is fallible and people will forget parts. Not every reader of the fic or even every writer of fan fiction will have read the manga. Instead they may have seen the anime which was written by different people with their own views of Ranma. I wrote a few posts on the differences earlier; differences specific to the character Ranma and general differences. Even if the reader and the writer are using the manga they may have read different translations (online scan, VIZ, Russian version, etc.), which are different from one another. People who have seen the anime and read the manga may attempt to mesh the two together. Beyond that people will likely have read other fan fiction which will have also influenced them on the characters. Fanon is very rampant, in a earlier posting I listed many things seen in Ranma fanfiction that are countered by the manga; see here. That list is far from being a complete list I could add a lot more.
Then there are things like matter of perspective. From a first person perspective the manga is pretty dark and basically a tragedy. I have a post on that as well see here. From third person it's a comedy but not from first. So if you switch to a first person perspective the feeling of the story will change.
Then beyond that there are things like character decay (some characters become more 2 dimensional), PIS, and CIS. I went into some detail but no where near enough in this post here. My personal opinion on this for fic usage is that CIS (character induced stupidity) should be in full effect. Example of CIS, Ranma allowing himself to become distracted while fighting. PIS (Plot induced stupidity) and character decay though should be forgotten examples of these are Ranma's actions during the Gambling King Arc that was almost entirely PIS and directly counters the rest of the manga (none of the other arcs support it). An example of character decay is Kasumi becoming a mindless housewife even though in earlier arcs she would make comments, do things, and go on trips.
Beyond even that is that Ranma is set in Japan with a different culture than what most of the readers/writers of English fan fiction would be familiar with. The writer of the fic may have a better understanding of Japanese culture which would give them a different point of view than the reader does.
Basically the point of this post is, while I think it's good to attempt to keep the characters in character, no matter what you do someone will likely not see it as in character. So just write the story and don't worry too much about it being out of character. People will still read and like a story as long as it is good regardless of the characters staying in character. Of course if it's too out of character, you should probably just make it an original character.
Ranma is easier in someways in that it had one writer for all 38 volumes. Of course memory is fallible and people will forget parts. Not every reader of the fic or even every writer of fan fiction will have read the manga. Instead they may have seen the anime which was written by different people with their own views of Ranma. I wrote a few posts on the differences earlier; differences specific to the character Ranma and general differences. Even if the reader and the writer are using the manga they may have read different translations (online scan, VIZ, Russian version, etc.), which are different from one another. People who have seen the anime and read the manga may attempt to mesh the two together. Beyond that people will likely have read other fan fiction which will have also influenced them on the characters. Fanon is very rampant, in a earlier posting I listed many things seen in Ranma fanfiction that are countered by the manga; see here. That list is far from being a complete list I could add a lot more.
Then there are things like matter of perspective. From a first person perspective the manga is pretty dark and basically a tragedy. I have a post on that as well see here. From third person it's a comedy but not from first. So if you switch to a first person perspective the feeling of the story will change.
Then beyond that there are things like character decay (some characters become more 2 dimensional), PIS, and CIS. I went into some detail but no where near enough in this post here. My personal opinion on this for fic usage is that CIS (character induced stupidity) should be in full effect. Example of CIS, Ranma allowing himself to become distracted while fighting. PIS (Plot induced stupidity) and character decay though should be forgotten examples of these are Ranma's actions during the Gambling King Arc that was almost entirely PIS and directly counters the rest of the manga (none of the other arcs support it). An example of character decay is Kasumi becoming a mindless housewife even though in earlier arcs she would make comments, do things, and go on trips.
Beyond even that is that Ranma is set in Japan with a different culture than what most of the readers/writers of English fan fiction would be familiar with. The writer of the fic may have a better understanding of Japanese culture which would give them a different point of view than the reader does.
Basically the point of this post is, while I think it's good to attempt to keep the characters in character, no matter what you do someone will likely not see it as in character. So just write the story and don't worry too much about it being out of character. People will still read and like a story as long as it is good regardless of the characters staying in character. Of course if it's too out of character, you should probably just make it an original character.
Honor and Morals
I looked up the definitions of Morals, Honor, Ethics and Law, and the online definitions were not very good in my opinion. The online definitions did not differentiate between them enough. While they are codes of conduct they are not the same and do conflict on occasion. These things differ by religion, society, and even by the individual. The ethics of Plato are different than say the ethics of Confucius. The laws of Japan are not the same as the laws of the United States.
My views on these:
Laws - government enforced rules
Honor - Complex system of standards of what is due to one's self and to others (others being society, family, or religion)
Morals - your distinctions between right and wrong (standards)
Ethics - way you go about achieving your morals (practice)
Originally ethics and morals were the same thing one being the Greek term the other being a Latin term but in common usage they have come to have distinctions. For some reason in the United States morals are often associated with sex, i.e. a moral person does not sleep around and won't condone others doing so; whereas, ethics have been associated with business, i.e. an ethical business man will treat you fairly and not cheat.
That these can and do conflict is very obvious. Some honorable things are blatantly illegal, such as in Sudan killing a female family member whom had sex before marriage is considered honorable (300 or so women die a year from this). It's also immoral and unethical. Back stabbing someone, metaphorically speaking, is ethically/morally wrong but legal. A person can have good morals (strong sense of right and wrong) but have crappy ethics (uses questionable means to do good). There are/have been laws that were unethical (there is a reason laws change).
My views on these:
Laws - government enforced rules
Honor - Complex system of standards of what is due to one's self and to others (others being society, family, or religion)
Morals - your distinctions between right and wrong (standards)
Ethics - way you go about achieving your morals (practice)
Originally ethics and morals were the same thing one being the Greek term the other being a Latin term but in common usage they have come to have distinctions. For some reason in the United States morals are often associated with sex, i.e. a moral person does not sleep around and won't condone others doing so; whereas, ethics have been associated with business, i.e. an ethical business man will treat you fairly and not cheat.
That these can and do conflict is very obvious. Some honorable things are blatantly illegal, such as in Sudan killing a female family member whom had sex before marriage is considered honorable (300 or so women die a year from this). It's also immoral and unethical. Back stabbing someone, metaphorically speaking, is ethically/morally wrong but legal. A person can have good morals (strong sense of right and wrong) but have crappy ethics (uses questionable means to do good). There are/have been laws that were unethical (there is a reason laws change).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)