Tate no Yuusha no Nariagari Episode 9 Discussion

mnedel said:
@nightcrawlercyp



Man have larger brains since they have bigger bodies and heads. Subsequently they have more gray and white matter. However, the gray/white matter ratio is consistently higher in women than men. Women also have a thicker and more convoluted cortex. There is also no correlation between brain size and intelligence. There is one meta study which claims that man have 5 points higher IQ but these finding were hotly debated in a series of articles in Nature. A number of other studies found that in general men and women have equal IQ with man having more variable scores meaning that more males are both at the high and low ends of the distribution. Even if we pretend that the 5 points difference is right, it would still be relatively inconsequential and much smaller that the variation within each group. That is to say, nothing in neuroscience justifies your extreme claims that women are significantly less intelligent than men or that they don’t mature past teenagers level.


I don’t know what STEM is.



How about Barbara McClintock, Dorothy Hodgkin, Rita Levi-Montalcini, Rosalind Franklin, Elizabeth Blackburn, Gertrude B. Elion, Mary-Claire King and many others. This is mostly from biology and medicine, my fields of research, there are certainly many others in other areas of science.



Don’t lie, women have higher pain tolerance which is believed to be an evolutionary adaptation to child baring. Women are not carriers of diseases, they are less susceptible to diseases. Increase your reading comprehension.


I was talking about everyday responsibilities, those that affect the entire population, like the double standard in office. For example, if a male manager barks out an order, he is treated like someone who is in charge and a leader. But when a woman manager communicates in the exact same way, she’s immediately labeled assertive, dominating, aggressive and overbearing. As far as crimes go, yes, I agree that women receive less prison time and I think that both males and females should receive same sentences for same crimes but let’s not forget that males commit the great majority of violent crimes. Also, let’s not forget that in half the world, women can be imprisoned, killed, raped, mutilated for small offences which would be tolerated in men.



Historically, many: having extra marital sex, speaking in public, not covering yourself, working, getting an education, disobeying you husband, owning property, joining the military, fighting for yourself, driving a car and so on.



Last time I checked, to have a baby you need both parties to have unprotected sex. Why would a woman bear greater responsibility than a man? Since the man is equally responsible, its only natural that he should also finance the baby. Women can get fired just the same as man. Many are even afraid to get pregnant due to fear of losing their jobs.



You sir know nothing about the economy. Women entering the workforce boosted the economy and allowed it to grow and develop faster. Even with most women working, the EU still needs hundreds of thousands of more workers. That is why countries like Germany are trying to attract thousands of qualified immigrants. Just compare the countries with working women to those where women can’t work. I’m certain you think that Afghanistan is a better place to live than Switzerland, right? Even Saudi Arabia is trying to boost its female workforce in order to better the economy lol. Your claim about wages is also wrong. When more women join the workforce, wages rise — including for men. The wages for everybody are coming down because of globalism, the same reason all big factories are moving to Asia. Educate yourself.



Nothing wrong in wanting a career. Maybe men could help with raising children, now theres a thought. And natality problems are a far more complex issue then just women wanting careers. Its also nice how you don’t mention men at all, when in many cases it is them who don’t want to marry and start a family.


So, you think that blacks are inferior to whites, that they are less intelligent and more aggressive.

Let’s summarize, you are both a misogynist and a racist. You condone slavery and you think that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or work and should basically be enslaved by man. You sir are not fit for modern society, please go back to the cave you came from.

That's why I said I, as in me, find it as creepy garbage that the MC is having these little girls around him. Obviously, you don't think so but that's beside the point. I was responded to by someone that said it's ok because, in medieval times, 13 years got married. It’s sort of like me complaining that the DCEU Superman is an unlikeable prick who doesn’t give a damn about collateral damage (IMO). That I find it to be a shitty thing to do to a universal inspiration for kids. And people respond by saying that this Superman was raised by a nihilistic Randian Jonathan Kent so it makes sense for why he is that way in this incarnation, therefore my complaints are invalid. Creators can portray whatever they want, but if somebody criticizes the nature at which you choose to engage with it, you can’t just throw out an in-story justification for why it is like that, because they’re two entirely different moods of criticism.

Just that this isn't a Thermian Argument. Just saying what wish-fulfillment is.

1. Yeah, he is. He's is as dull as they come. What kind of person was he before he entered this world? Out of all heroes that were summoned, he was the oblivious one out of the lot - a power fantasy about good ol' Japanese NEET boy saving a damsel in distress, a child no less, who gets attached to him, develops romantic feelings for him, and then growing up super fast making it more bearable to put her in a relationship with MC. He is given the high moral ground, despite some of the things he does isn't morally correct. He wins the jackpot of obtaining an egg of a Filolial, the queen class of her race at that, and also has the ability to transform into a cute little girl where her and the other little girl, fight for the MC's attention (which is a harem troupe). His weapon is said to be the weakest but as we observe, it's actually OP. He was made out to be the loser hero, but as we observe, he's the savior and the other heroes are the losers who are incompetent. It's like everything comes easy for this character.

2. Meaning, he ignores or is oblivious to all her advances that she loves him romantically (which is also a troupe e.g. Goblin Slayer). Firo was always going to follow Naofumi, he got the egg and he was the first person Naofumi saw. These ain't the only little girls in this story either. And his intentions for doing all of these things for Raphtalia isn't solely out of the goodness of his heart, he still was a cold prick towards her with his attitude.

Sure it does, the fact that the author has written little cute girls siding with him, following him on his adventure, having them being the center point of sleazy fanservice etc having made Raphtalia's race being able to grow quickly through leveling so you don't feel weird when the 10-year-old tries her best to get the person (who is much older) she has romantic feelings for to notice these feelings is creepy garbage to me. Just like how Raphtalia's slave curse mark is on her tits. Why there? What was the author's reasoning? Sleazy fanservice? Narratively, Raphtalia is written to be a dependable right-hand man to Naofumi, courageous, loyal etc she's an active agent to the plot, she comes up plans, and her personal arc meshes around the story so far - but, the way she has been framed (as well as Firo in moments) is that of a piece of meat. So many people here view them as superfluous eye candy (observing the waifu wars), as irrational (kawaii clumsy girl) etc.

I am not looking for people agreeing with me. I shared what I think, took a jab at the creator and someone starts trying to tell me that my complaints are invalid because of in-universe justification (13-year-olds were married in medieval times) when my complaint is directed at the creator's creative decisions.

It's kind of easy to tell the intent (though the intent doesn't really matter because the finished text is creators ideas). The creator doesn't necessarily want to promote everything he/she depicts, but it is pretty clear what he's/she's indulging in and pandering to with this kind of writing. It's power fantasy + there's also the revenge porn aspect that gets taken to a gross extreme. That's enough for me to find it off-putting, more so because of the half-assed writing that doesn't even explore its implications, and dare I say judge the creator based on what I've seen of his/her writing and what he's/she's said in interviews.

Depending on context and framing, I do believe there are things you can tell about an author's views that allow you to judge them in their role as creator. And what I've seen of the original writing in the WN and LN doesn't paint a pretty picture. Especially Shield Hero WN



Then we have this gems from the LN

[spoiler]"I caught the eye of the raccoon-girl. And I realized, looking into her eyes, how I felt. Yes. This thing was a woman, the same gender as that one that betrayed me. I looked into her scared eyes and immediately thought that I wanted to control her. I thought I could just pretend that I’d turned Myne into a slave… If she died, it might make me feel better. Granted, I didn’t know what world Motoyasu was from, but he was human, and humans had a history of slavery. If you think about it, we’re all sort of slaves to society anyway."

That woman/one is always italicized and comes up like that a dozen times. It just comes off as absurd to me and makes the MC's trauma more laughable than anything, hard to disassociate this authorial intent even in the manga and anime now. And of course, if it does nothing interesting with those elements, it's even more legitimate to point it out and it is the case so far with Shield Hero. That's the killer for me. It's not like I'm against morally gray or even black characters/worlds, I just think these kinds of subjects should be handled with more thought and not played for, again, cheap shock and sympathy bait to be used and tossed aside for the MC's sake. These tricks certainly do work when it comes to grabbing an audience at first, but that's what makes them all the lazier for me. I just find this kind of (self-insert) power fantasy and where it leads to disturbing at its core, particularly in light of the author's comment of "There are some enemies that are very unreasonable and violent--I based them on some people I know." That's just my personal opinion of course, but it's the writing and its lack of nuance in the world, characters and subject matters that makes me dismiss it that harshly.

I will stand by the misunderstood nice guy MC who is hated by the world and saved by his cute 10-year-old slave girl being cheap bait that can attract certain things. And in the author's original writing the MC does hate everyone... starting from women:

"She cried in the night, had a disease, and was skinny as twigs. If I weren’t careful, she’d end up dead. And that wouldn’t be good for anyone. I momentarily smiled at the thought of dying and bringing that woman down with me. But back to reality: that wasn’t an ideal scenario. “If you do your job, I won’t abandon you.” And I’d be really in a tight spot if she died. … Yes, anything with the same gender as that woman…ugh, her! My head was spinning. I had to stop thinking about it. It was painful. It was time to think of how to use this slave to get stronger. Just the thought of women made me remember that woman. I couldn’t even think about liking women right then. Honestly, they just repulsed me."

This doesn't have to be a bad thing by itself, depicting these prejudices and traumas in characters is as valid as everything else and something you can actually learn from when done right. The difference is in how it came to be in Shield Hero and how it's handled in a self-indulgent and wish-fulfilling manner alongside the rest of the narrative mess, instead of given the serious attention it deserves.[/spoiler]

Another topic is slavery. I've not seen anyone not understand that Naofumi was driven to buy a slave by his circumstances because that's pretty much central to the main criticism of the slavery, that the creator decided to portray it as justified. The protagonist owning - or "owning" - female slaves isn't exactly a new isekai trope/power fantasy, and the creators always come up with some way to morally absolve the MC of the stigma of owning another person, but if it ends up being justified that's just because the author chose to write it that way. Here is a question the creator was asked and watch how he makes a Thermian Argument.

Q. The main character, Naofumi, displays conflicting moral tones. He seems considerate yet often crass at the same time, to downright immoral as well, as with his laissez-faire attitude toward slavery. Could you explain your intention by creating a character with rapidly wavering moral tones?

A. As for purchasing a slave, he was forced to do it because of his situation--he needed help from others in a time and place where no one would help him.

Naofumi wasn't forced, Naofumi isn't real, Shield Hero is fiction and the creator decided to write this. He's acting like that this was the only option available for his character when there is a multitude of options being the all-powerful creator. Like I said before, the Thermian Argument almost always employed in bad faith defenses of fiction to excuse whatever relation they might have to the real world. People who use it either don't understand the difference between intent and impact when it comes to the experience of fiction or does, but just don't want to admit to themselves (let alone others) that an artistic work they like has some pernicious elements in it. If you want to create a piece of fiction that references real-world things, then you should be prepared for people to critique and analyze how exactly you handle them. That is a sign that people are actually engaging with your work.

Because they kept spinning things lol I ain't replying to them now. Perfectly willing in order to enjoy? That doesn't even make sense! I took a jab at the creator, directed to him/her and no one else in this thread, only to receive a Thermian Argument. Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? If Raphtalia and Naofumi had sex in episode 2, it makes all critiques to this creative decision invalid since little girls got married in medieval times? Because it's justified in-universe? So what's that saying? Creators can't be criticized for their creative decisions because in-universe logic and justification render everything critique and complaint invalid? Anyway, I'm done with this thread.

malMaxi said:
My problem with your argument is not that it is assertion, but that it shares the property of all circular arguments, - is useless for establishing what is true and what is not.

That being said, the only way i'm dropping the logic loop argument is after you prove A without having to imply B and C. You can always try to reformulate the stated argument, though.

Erm, no? I mean, he does have that trait, i'll grant you as much, but having one shared trait with other otaku MCs is not really a solid case for calling him the same.
Heck, not even all otaku MCs have that trait. Consider the protagonist of "God only knows", who is most definitely an otaku MC, but carries a completely different attitude towards women.

One of Naofumi's differences from other otaku MCs is how he deals with failure (by actually taking responsibility and changing both himself and the world around him). Most other otaku MCs don't actually experience failure, or are spared having to deal with it (excepting possibly Re:Zero MC, but i'm not sure we even have technical evidence of him being an otaku).

His opinion is that he doesn't like some facets of what is going on, but is not bothered by it so much as to do something about it. Believe it or not, this is an actual opinion, and an opinion that seems to me like a completely valid and believable reaction of a normal human, who suddenly being thrust into the new world. Leave the offensive posturing to heroes with actual weapons, Shield hero needs to be able to take things in stride (and then make a fool out of himself in court by taking things in stride too much).

My point, he is a perfectly adequate facsimile of a human being. And if his particular set of base character traits make him a convenient temporary candidate for "expositional sock puppet" role, all the better.

The transformation WAS a character arc, though?
If there is a written rule somewhere that character arcs cannot be short and to the point, i must have missed the memo.

If you are working with some definition of character arc that prevents what happens to Naofumi in ep.1 to be called one, do share said definition.

I maintain that empathy can be possible for any kind of characterisation. The only reason it is impossible is because you defined it to be impossible. Which probably means we mean different things when we say "empathy".

Since at this point i am not entirely sure what exactly you mean by "empathize", i am therefore not sure about how to answer your question.

If by "empathize" you mean "are able to understand the character and the world from the character's point of view", then i believe every single instance of me refuting your claims that Naofumi doesn't have a point of view would be an example of that.

There is something about Naofumi that has so far afforded me a dive of quite rare depth, much more than any other character since ... TTGL's Simon, i guess?

As to what it is about Naofumi specifically - i can't really say at this point. Who knows, maybe it is a dirty and embarassing manipulative little secret that you will be able to unearth with your level of understanding of characters in fiction, as well as human psychology in general and my personal psychology in particular. It does seem like a tall order, but one should never give up hope :D

Are you sex-negative or something? If a woman wants a tatoo on her chest, this doesn't mean she is meat. This means she wants to keep that mark close to her heart. You claim she is 10 year old, but she doesn't look, act or feel like one, so why again should i consider her a 10 year old? Just because you don't buy the age-level magic? You claim she is a strong, dependable woman, but some very limited instances of even suggesting that she HAS sexuality, and now she is meat?

From what i gather, you just assume sleazy fanservice from the get-go, so everything you look at seems like sleazy fanservice to you. I mean, the amount of ACTUAL sleazy fanservice in Shield Hero is not even in the same order of magnitude as something like Goblin Slayer. And Goblin Slayer, in turn is an order of magnitude more tame than something like High School DxD. To you, i understand, just having a pool episode and a chest tattoo is already enough to condemn the show for all eternity.

-Stray said:
The best parts of the series ended after the first shield v spear duel and Raph being there for Naofumi, after that even up to date with the manga nothing happened that tops that, well, maybe there is one but I don't find it that appealing in comparison with Raph and Nao's scene.
At this point everything is going downhill, its not the worst but definitely better than the typical overpowered harem building (slime, SAO and other isekai generic shit out there with a goody 2 shoes MC) you guys may think this is Nao building a harem but its not if you compare it to its other kinds, this boi has not blushed in romance nor has indicated the will to partake in romance even once after Mein screwed him over.

SSL443 said:
But that describes any fallacy. Now you're just playing around with semantics.

Don't need to, because my argument was already stated without the loop.

This is great. You're trying to argue that having hardly any emotion, doing nothing, and restating the plot via bland internal monologue constitutes character and personality. You all but agree outright the Naofumi is just a sockpuppet for the first episode, but no, this is still a real character that we can empathise with.

Oh yeah, "he doesn't like some facets of what is going one, but is not bothered by it so much as to do something about it." This is what it means to be a typical bland and characterless MC; a robot programmed to scam people over the phone has more personality and motivation. Why isn't he bothered by it? He doesn't need to be arrogant or posture in order to stand up for himself.

Yeah, you did miss it. Google it.

This is the same thing you brought up before about Raphtalia's "growth". I can only assume that you uphold CliffsNotes alongside great literature, because in the end it is the same thing, it's just more straightforward and to the point.

Bottom line, a character making a snap transformation is not an arc by any measure of the definition. This abrupt of a transformation doesn't even make sense because it not only constitutes an attitude change, but also an experience change - suddenly he knows how to be a thug and "aggressivly barter" to get his way. And no, the scene where he gets the armoror to go down to 60% is not a setup, because he doesn't actually haggle. He fools around asking for the goods for free, then comes out with the final number and the guy just goes with it. This isn't an example of his haggling prowess, it's just shitty, contrived writing. The whole point of bartering scenes is that it shows a character knows how to read a person and situation, as well as having superior resolve. We get none of that in this scene; it's actually one of the few scenes in this show that I would call bad enough to be insulting.

Also, the whole setup of Naofumi is that he's a limp shut-in; a sudden penchant for business comes out of noewhere. He can't both be savy and completely oblivious that he is being set up.

You haven't refuted anything, though. You keep reading things into what actually happens, either because there is more in the source material or you are just projecting your personal interpretation. At most you've proved my point that Naofumi has all the substance of a bag of sand; hey, it's unhappy with what's going on but can't be bothered to do anything about it - because that's a great premise for a character that the audience needs to empathize with!

Even if we accept that Naofumi has a decent character for the purpose of discussion, he's hardly the deepest or vividesiesst. Seems that you are more concerned with his situation than his actual character, which makes my interpretation of your response to him look more and more likely...

Do you know what tone means? Tone is the attitude of the AUTHOR towards the subject.

And the tone of the story with regards to this deatail is that she is a piece of meat.

Depicting a female character as a sexual being is of course fine, but doing it in a lazy and sleezy way is not. Let's see, how do we show that Raphtalia is developing an interest in Naofmi romantically? Got it, let's have the very first thing be trying to get him to look at her tits. Perfection.

"It's not completely sleezy, just a bit". Great defenese!

Souji said:
It might just be me, but Malty and Motoyasu seems to have been downgraded from assholes that I was looking forward to root against to Team Rocket.


Edit:


I literally posted a few seconds after you.

malMaxi said:
Look, i don't know who is it that "we" you are talking about. who are apparently unable to empathise with anyone not acting like a friggin' rock star, but i'm not part of that "we". I can easily empathise with characters not portrayed to be particularily outstanding or special people. I can totally imagine a person like that existing and i can totally feel their feelings in the moment. If you can't, this is not a commentary on Shield Hero (beyond maybe it making certain choices with respect to target audience).

Since you haven't actually addressed anything regarding the actual definition of empathy, i will now simply assert that you have no actual point to make on this subject beyond the fact that you don't like Shield Hero, which informs all of your further points through a case of completely circular logic.

Not going to look for your definitions for you, sorry. Maybe if i felt even a tiny bit of actual good faith you were going on about in one of the DMs, i would. But if you want to claim that a definition of character arc exists that doesn't apply to Naofumi, you are the one who has to supply it, not me.

What? How in the world do you even come to that? Great literature is great because of the rich texture and detail it contains, abridging it with Cliff's notes only kills it.

Well, all of this is moot because you apparently just one-sidedly decided that there is no texture in Shield Hero the second you saw MC's face.

I'm not an expert on bartering myself, so i can't comment on how real that bit is. It may well be that the author's research slipped in this case.

However, i can comment that the instance you are citing is the first time we see the character in any sort of trade interaction. There is no reason to just assume he'd be bad at it. Unless you are maybe of the opinion that dull people can't haggle at all, the same way you assume that dull people are basically not people and can't be empathized with.

2nd, have you ever talked with an actual otaku? These people are all about being savvy at the weirdest of random things out of completely nowhere, while being completely unable to transfer their expertise in these random fields to other aspects of life.

Instead you are here, telling people that actually relate to Naofumi that they are all relating to a bag of sand.

How did you derive that i'm more concerned about his situation than his character?

Did you, perchance, forget that you are talking to a guy that did a minute by minute breakdown of every minute detail of that very character?

You seem to often forget things that don't suit your circular logic that begins with you disliking otaku characters and concludes that otaku characters all can't be empathized with.

Since when?

All of this stems from the fact that you refuse to accept that Naofumi and Raftalia as actual characters. Since you haven't made your case even for that part so far, i'm not sure what you are even trying to achieve here.

Since you haven't actually made a real case of how much sexuality is okay to portray and when, you don't just have bad attacking position, you don't really have any offense at all.

You probably think you made that case, but it all goes back to the idea of "properly formed characters" that you haven't really established beyond "characters SSL443 likes".

SSL443 said:
There aren't many character-driven stories about people that aren't special in some way. That's kind of the point of the point of a story. Being introverted or whatever doesn't make a character inherently boring or uninteresting. Nor does it excuse that character from not being properly characterized.

I've already defined it. You just don't like the implications of the definition.

It's not "my" definition, it is THE definition. It's your responsibility to know and use correct definitions. Until you educate yourself I'll conclude there is nothing more to discuss on this point.

Whenever I point out issues with pacing you hand-wave them away with some variation of "what needed to happen happened". Taking that to the logical conclusion, a summary of a story must be the pinnacle of effective writing, because it is "straight and to the point".

But now you're claiming that "rich texture and detail" brings value to a narrative. So which is it? Does it matter or doesn't it?

Yes, the second I saw the MC's face I decided to prejudge the whole show. You got me.

It doesn't matter how real it is, it matters whether or not it is relevant and effective with respect to the narrative and characters. It isn't.

There's no reason to assume that anything about any character, for fucks sake. The point of characterization is to ESTABLISH the things that a character IS good at, therefore DEFINING their CHARACTER.

How far do I have to go to spell out the basics? This is the first actual analysis I've done about how Naofumi isn't characterized properly and you blow it off with the lamest possible excuse. What a joke.

This just keeps getting better and better. Now you're trying to defend ass-pull by defining an otaku to be a character that happens to be good at random shit without any establishment or explanation. How convenient.

I hate to tell you, that just because a character is good at apparently unrelated skills doesn't mean it is acceptable to ignore setup and establishment of those skills. In other words, the character needs to be developed normally unless there is a good reason otherwise.

I'm not telling "people", I'm telling you. Because you're the one that decided to engage in this whole discussion. Not my fault if you don't like the implications.

Because he barely has a character, aside from the fragments that you've pieced together or fabricated over the course of your obsessive, blow-by-blow explication.

How could I forget? I expect to have nightmares about it for months.

I don't dislike otaku characters, as I already explained.

However, otaku characters can be problematic due to the ease with which they become self-inserts or wish fulfillment. As is the case in Shield Hero.

I have no idea. That is the definition as it pertains to literature and storytelling in general.

Yeah, I'm against this shit for "no reason".

All of this stems from the fact that you refuse to accept that Naofumi and Raftalia as actual characters. Since you haven't made your case even for that part so far, i'm not sure what you are even trying to achieve here.

And I don't know what YOU are trying to achieve. You've expended thousands of words just to inform me that you aren't satisfied with what I have to say or how I'm saying it. So why are you still replying, again?

I'm not interested in making any such case. You keep treating this like a formal debate, while I am treating this as informing a misguided and ignorant person of facts.

Sure. Whatever.

malMaxi said:
I've said it literally in my first DM reply to you. I'm using this discussion to flesh out my own position on Shield Hero. This has been plenty helpful so far. In fact, i believe i even mentioned we found another facet of Naofumi's characterization right here in this thread :D

I believe the fact that i view Shield Hero and Naofumi in particular as rich in texture and detail has already been established by a great deal of examples of my part.

If you actually established Raftalia as poorly written character by winning an actual argument with me, maybe that would've flied.

nightcrawlercyp said:
1. First off what does the size of the body have to do with it? Is not like neurons become bigger when your body is bigger. Second even accounting fit size difference male brain still is bigger. Third there is no debate when you look at the data.
2.When I talk about intelligence I mean intelligence potential. Also about the 5 points if you eliminate retards and people with mental disease the difference is much bigger. Basically if you count only healthy adults uou will get at least 10 points.
3.I will have to look up your list and get back to you. I will pm you with the answer. maybe we can leave this thread alone.
4. About men committing most crimes is highly debatable. First off many men get charged by their female attacker who plays victim. But generally women tend to use sex to convince dumb men to commit the crimes for them.
5.About the female manager thing have you considered that maybe she makes ad hominem attacks or maybe what she says is stupid. Most female managers I met were completely incompetent and while I got to deal with a lot of bad male managers too until recently I did not get ones to use passive agresive stuff. Unfortunately more and more low T men get in management. The main reason women fail as leaders is not enough T to take focused decissions when shit hits the fan.
6. Extra marital sex is part of the marriage contract. Is one of the things women bring. If they have ecrra marital sex they brake the contract.About speaking in public generally women say really dumb things. Women could work get an education owe property even before. That is a feminist lie. About covering yourself that is valid for men as well. Is just women have more sexually attractive parts. About disobeying your husband again is part if the marriage contract to obey him.About driving a car there were no cars and lack of T makes women in general much worse drivers due to how T deals with stress.
7. Well because that child would depend on her for the mext 3 years. That is why is more her responsibility. If I could carry the baby for a few months or produce milk would share the responsibility gladly.
8.How did it boost the economy? The same amounts of goods are consumed. And if the employer has more employees to chose from it will pay less. Also all the extra vacations women take have to be covered by someone and so the wages go even lower.
9.women did not go to military because physically they are much weaker and because if a man dies natality is not affected but if a woman dies it dies
10.Germany is taking immigrants because german people have no babies.
11.nothing wrong in wanting a career just have the babies first. The fertility window for women is just until around 40 but to prevent chances of complications they should before 30. Men can have babies at 70
12.Never said black people are inferior. I said they breaded out some characteristics. And by black I mean african black. If you kill all the smart people and just the dumb people reproduce what do you get? I actually support intelligent black people. About supporting slavery I never said I did. Is just things are way more complex than you make them seem. I fight against 9 to 5 jobs modern slavery you seem not to

mnedel said:


1. Bigger body means bigger skull and larger organs and muscles, in other words, more cells that need to be controlled. Therefore, more neurons are needed to adequately innervate the tissues. Male brains are, on average bigger than female ones because they have more neurons, not larger neurons, and they have a greater number of support, glial cells that feed and protect the neurons. So, brain size corelates with body size but brain size doesn’t corelate with intelligence (or according to some studies, corelates very weakly). Some women have bigger brains than men and these women tend to be tall.

2. The study that found the 5-point difference did count only the healthy people. It was meant to represent the general population so no mentally retarded individuals were included. Other groups found no difference between men and women. The 10-point thing is something you made up.

Again, nothing in neuroscience supports your extreme claims that women are significantly less intelligent than men or that they don’t mature past teenagers’ level.

4. Men do commit more violent crimes than women, that is a verified fact. The rest of this has nothing to do with reality and is just your hate for women speaking.

56. Again, this is nothing more than you ranting against women due to your misogyny while elevating men and not counting them to the same standard. Nothing factual here and nothing to discuss.

7. The conception of a baby is as much responsibility of a man than it is a woman’s. So, if a man couldn’t control himself and had unprotected sex with a woman, he, off course, should help the mother as much as possible in raising the child.

8. On top of my head, it boosted the economy by greatly increasing the workforce thus allowing the economy to grow and develop much faster and to a greater extent. It also increases income per household thus leading to greater spending and more educated workforce. If you would to ban females from working now, it would annihilate the economy. The economy would be short millions of qualified workers. Even freaking Saudi Arabia is trying to boost its female workforce because its better for the economy.

9. Yes, men are generally physically stronger than women and are better in melee combat. But this has little to do with modern military where you can be sitting behind a desk and driving a drone or sniping someone from a comfy position on a high building. Still, in many countries’ women are not permitted in the military.

10. That is just part of the issue. Taking away half the workforce certainly wouldn’t help but encouraging women and men to have children, would.

11. If you want more children (without sinking back in to poverty and ignorance), young parents (especially women) need more support not less. It’s not a coincidence that developed countries that offer longer maternity and paternity leave and other benefits, have higher birth rates. It doesn’t matter how long the men can have babies, what matters is that they need to be more involved in raising them.

12. You can’t bread out intelligence. Intelligence is a complex trait determined by the interplay of thousands of genes. There is no single factor that determines intelligence. Not to mention, that intelligence is always a desirable trait. People with higher intelligence, on average, live longer. In other words, someone who is both dumb and highly aggressive is more likely to die early especially if that person lives in a volatile environment. Sub-Saharan countries being a mess has nothing to do with intelligence of black people and everything to do with politics, namely colonialism. European colonists destroyed political and social structures that were in place. Traditional borders were disregarded, countries were artificially created, tribes that were enemies were now parts of the same country, some nationalities were favored over others creating strife, natural riches were plundered, people were shipped to slavery and so on. Then the Europeans retreated and left a mess that persists to this day. Calling a whole continent of people less intelligent and more savage than the white man is racism, pure and simple. Its nice you want to fight for the rights of workers. There are ways to do that without denying the basic rights and enslaving half the population, you know.

nightcrawlercyp said:
For the fist points you are just saying is not true without any proof so I will leave it at that.
8. First off the amount of goods consumed is the same regardless so having more people working does not improve economy just lower the wages.Second they tried this last year on woman's day. You know what happened? Most of women got fired and no one cared. You assume most women are qualified when in fact they are just diversity hires.
9. Because in Afghanistan they used drones...
10. How do you figure? If you take away half the workforce based on simple supply and demand the wages will raise and one of the couple can earn enough for the whole family. Also if women can just ride the carousel they will void having babies until their wombs become Detroit and is too late.
11. actually they don't. Belgium offers the longest maternity and benefits in the world and they are still under replacement levels. The problem is not being involved in raising them rather the fertility window. By the time a women has her career started her fertility window is almost if not entirely closed i.e. she cannot have babies anymore regardless how much you pay her.
12. any feature can be breaded out. Second the reason why intelligence was required in Europe and Asia was because of the rough environment that required someone smart. If you killed every smart man in Europe in winter you would starve. And Asia the bad terrain meant that without them you would starve as crops would fail. In most Africa you could survive pretty well as a hunter gatherer. You did not need to be smart to catch a gazelle or run from a lion. About colonism you see as a problem is interesting that as soon as they drove out the white colonist the countries failed and started starving. And what political structures you mean? This is make belief. About natural riches plundered on one hand I agree, on the other the african tribes could not exploit them. What use are riches if you have no access to them or way of using them? I am not calling the whole continent, there are exceptions like egypt, maroc, and generally the northern countries but those are just exceptions. About people being shipped to slavery, most of those shipped were already slaves to other black people and in danger of being cannibalized. Slavery was something general and had nothing to do with race or skin color despite what you think and the worse was the one done by muslims. But of course since muslim black male slaves did not have any kids (castrated) you probably do not know about this. About the last sentence, rights come with responsibilities and not giving women rights for free does not equal enslaving them.

mnedel said:

Its you who is making stuff up. Everything I have wrote is accurate information taken from scientific studies. For example, your 5-point IQ difference comes from here: Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis by Richard Lynna and Paul Irwing.
Having stable, independent income means more spending, higher income per household means more spending, higher income per household means your children can get a better education. You obviously understand nothing about the economy so go educate yourself before writing more nonsense. Most women are qualified. Women now represent the majority in high education. I’m not an American so I might have missed it, but I don’t remember anything in the news about most women in the USA getting fired lol.
Afghanistan and other third world countries do have drones, aircraft, snipers … not as much or as advanced as USA or Russia, but they do have some. And there have been great female fighter pilots and sniper even in WW2. And, also, notice how all these countries that have no female rights are such splendid places to live like Pakistan and Afghanistan, right?
If you take away half the workforce your country would be near collapse, there will be no one to work in your factories, not enough people to run your administration, people would be dying in the streets since the hospitals would lose half of their staff and so on. You would need to immediately import millions of foreign workers. One person cant do the job of 2.
Carusel?
Belgium doesn’t have the longest maternity leave, its just 15 weeks of payed leave. There are countries that give much more, just checked.
Obviously, you don’t know how genetics work, so take the word of the expert, namely me. A complex trait like intelligence can’t just be bread out unless you are artificially inbreeding people. Intelligence is a desirable trait under any circumstances. It gives greater chance of survival and natural selection will favor higher intelligence, not the other way around. You need to be plenty smart to catch fast, alert pray, survive against large predators, survive in harsh, hot conditions and so on. However, there is a study that suggests that modern humans are accumulating slightly deleterious mutations with increasing rate due to relaxed purifying selection (a consequence of technology, medicine, ...), resulting in a 'future genetic load' that could eventually lead to slight deterioration of intelligence. Note, that this effect is described in western countries and is hotly debated.
I shortly described in the previous post how colonialism destroyed Africa. The inability to understand is on you.
Slavery did exist in many societies trough out history but I focused on Africa because that was what we were debating. It’s a fact that slavery in Africa exploded because of oversees demand.
Who are men to give women rights? How did men earn their rights?
Both man and women are human beings, they are equal, both have given great contributions to human civilization and should have equal rights period.

nightcrawlercyp said:
men earned their rights by spilling their blood and by paying huge taxes women by reeing. About the carousel I mean by jummping from sexual encounter to next until they hit the wall. Also over 90% of jobs in areas that hold the society together are held by men so firing all wimen will have almost no impact.But most countries are near collapse now as they follow the late stages of mouse utopia model. But is clear I cannot convince you and there is no point debating this here. I can pm you my mail if you want to discuss more.

mnedel said:


So, dying in wars they caused in the first place somehow qualifies men to lead? Not to mention that many women were successful leaders even in times of strife or that all countries that focused on masculinity and conquest without developing social structures and law, collapsed fairly quickly. Women have sacrificed as much as men trough out history. Women pay taxes just as much as men. Taxes have nothing to do with gender.
So, a society would go on as normal even without health care, schools, law, administration, pharmacy…? The only two industries that are so predominantly dominated by men as you claim are construction and transportation. You think these two industries could carry a country even if all others are either destroyed or severely hit? If you think that firing all women in a western country would have almost no negative effect you are simply delusional. Not to mention that if this happened in the whole world, like you would want, there wouldn’t even be any foreign workers to import.
No, I don’t want to discuss this any further, it is, as you say pointless. We have made enough arguments (or skipped them) so anyone reading this discussion could make their own mind on the matter. Lets just stop here.

malMaxi said:
Oh, i was worried that my and @SSL443 were taking over the thread, but i guess i worried over nothing :)

Sorry, are you telling me what i was looking forward and what i was not?

Sarcasm aside, you did tell me that all my emotions are basically the result of emotional manipulation. You did it in your third DM to me. I can provide a quote, if necessary. I can even provide the context of the quote, which makes it absolutely certain that you weren't making some generalized claim, you were specifically denying my positive emotion.

Also, i'm sure that in your mind what i was doing so far was "complaining and flailing about", because, well - nothing else works in your slanted perception. However, i will point out that, unlike you, i have actually achieved a great deal of results, from further fleshing out my understanding of Naofumi as a character on the basis of how he is portrayed in the show, all the way to actually defining my concept of empathy for very first time in my life in a very clear and uncertain set of terms. The latter part especially is being exceptionally useful in other discussions, not pertaining to Shield Hero.

No, you see, what you would get is that i would appear, quote your post with a mention of you, and tell you something to the effect "I am not sure what exactly uou mean by a persecution complex, but the incel part is definitely false in my case. Yet, the Shield Hero appeals to me. Therefore your claim that the entire appeal of Shield Hero is down to the incel persecution complex is false".

And then we'd have a grand old time, where you would try to prove i'm an incel on the basis of nothing more than me liking Shield Hero, and myself pointing out all the neverending false assumptions and circular loops in your logic :D

The fire under me was lit not by you, but by the work of art that is Shield Hero (flawed and fundamentally compromised as it may be). You need to look no further than this site to see at least one example of other similarly in-depth discussions i am having on the subject with other people. And that's just one website.

b) other people don't assert that they understand my psychology better than i do. In rare cases where they do, they are usually actually on to something and i agree. However, if i disagree, they accept that maybe they have overreached and dial it back a little. You are remarkably bullheaded in that regard. To be fair, that's the only thing you have going for you so far.

Leaving aside the fact that you have so far completely failed to prove lack of writing quality (which is utterly surprising to me, because the writing quality is actually not that good, but you keep focusing on all the wrong things :D)

you are framing it in a way that liking that writing tells something about me as a person.

It is not my fault all of your arguments against Naofumi are so easily dismantled, with the only thing left standing is your dislike of Naofumi (which cannot be logically dismantled, because emotions are not logical to begin with).

I'll grant you that "otaku MCs" bit might've been an overreach on my part. However, since you haven't really elaborated on what exactly you like about the otaku MC in Gate, - and have already stated that you have no interest whatsoever putting any actual work in this discussion, - no progress can be made on that front until i actually find the time to sit down and watch it myself.

But at the same time, you have given no real explanation whatsoever for your dislike of Naofumi beyond that fact that he represents a rather boring (in your opinion) human being.

What you have done, is indicated that boring human beings are not, in your opinion, worth telling stories about.

I therefore infer that what guides your dislike of Naofumi is fundamental distaste for a certain kind of character. Which you then camouflage by denying that kind of character the very status as a character.

Unlike your claims about me being manipulated, however, you do have an out: you need only to provide an actual definition of "character", have that definition stand some testing with historical examples, then demonstrate that Naofumi does, in fact, not fit said definition, and then have that demonstration stand some more testing for contradictions with both logic and actual content of the show.

nightcrawlercyp said:
1. wars were mainly caused by women. Do you think when a woman asks for stuff it just fells from the sky? Also although terrible sometimes there is little choice on both sides. Both sides want to survive.
2. If you get more from the state than you pay back you are not really pay taxes and most women are not net tax payers. Your maternity leave for instance is a good example.
3. Actually the opposite is true feminist countries collapsed fast.
4. show me these many women engineers plumbers electricians carpenters software developers surgeons mechanics lumber jacks professional drivers train conductors because I only see a small minority of them being women.
5.without state subsidized health care no pb. Without pharmacist sure. About administration women in administration fuck things up.Ad best they do a mediocre job. My experience with every women in administration. And is not their fault. They just do not have the hormone of the gods.

I can assure you that was not my original intent by turning the discussion in that direction. However, much like you do in your reply above, you had to go and make it all about you, interpreting it as some kind of attack on you personally.

Oh I've achieved great results from this discussion as well. I've formally outlined by definition of emotional manipulation and satisfied myself that it exists. Before this discussion I figured that you could argue that all stories are meant to "make" the audience feel one way or another. But closer examination revealed otherwise. I may even write an academic paper on the subject of emotional manipulation, with you as the main subject of study. Yorokobe, Shounen!

Really? So maybe you should jump into the other thread where somebody else came to this exact same conclusion and point out how wrong they are. I'd be interested to see how they'd respond.

And this is what I was referring to above; I make some claim about the show and you make it about you. Which itself is another form of circular reasoning.

In fact I have no interest whatsoever in whether you personally are an incel or have a persecution complex. Whether or not either of these things applies to you has no bearing on the reality of the show. Strange, I know, but true.

Christ, you're going at it like this on other websites? That's a monkaW.

Well, it's because I do understand your psychology better than you do. You've admitted that you don't know exactly why you find this story and character so compelling. I also haven't seen you identify exactly what it is about Naofumi as a character that allows you to identify with him. Everything you've said on the subject suggests that you identify with his plight - not the way he deals with it specifically.

You have been emotionally manipulated by the contrived victimization of Naofumi's character. The entire setup of this story is predicated on the audience getting upset over the unfairness of his situation. You only need to look at the comments here and elsewhere to see that this is exactly how people have responded.

Unless you can explain how you identify with Naofumi's character with respect to his situation, rather than just the situation itself, this conclusion will stand.

The things I'm focusing are perfectly fine. You can play dumb and pretend that the criteria that you have conveniently defined are the only valid measures of writing quality, and I will continue to know that you are smoking something. Much in the same way you also play dumb about well-known concepts like the definition of empathy, character arcs, etc.

Yep.

Only because you made this non sequiter connection that I think Naofumi is a bad character because I don't like him. I'll point out yet again that this is nothing more than typical fanboy whining.

You're way too fixated on whether or not I like otaku MCs. Proving that I dislike them will not invalidate my criticisms of the character.

I'd say he is not so much a boring human being as not a human being, period. There really is no such thing as a boring person. Calling someone boring is nothing more than laziness.

Characters are not people and therefore they can be genuinely boring.

Boring characters, certainly not. Generally the point of focusing a story on a character is that there is something of interest about them.

Once again, you're playing dumb (or maybe really are?) about extremely basic concepts, like the fact that characters need to be interesting.

Yes, I have a distaste for characters that SUCK. Congratulations for reaching this amazing inference, professor. The Nobel is waiting for you.

There you go again. I don't "need" to do anything. Regardless, my coverage of emotional manipulation has defined my position on what does and does not constitute a character with respect to this discussion.

malMaxi said:
I'll do once i encounter someone like that. So far, i really haven't. Maybe i'm frequenting the wrong places lol :D

I can't help it if i'm your living and breathing counterexample and your entire spiel is basically built about denying my existence or the validity of my existence as a counterexample.

Also, like i said, i'm putting together my 95 theses. This is part of that work.

From where i sit, you are playing dumb and pretending that the criteria you have conveniently defined are the only valid measures of writing quality. The reason i'm confident in my position is that you have so far completely failed to both provide your own definitions and actually support them with examples of their use in actual writing.

You do realise that this is response to the very point where i walk back the notion of specifically your distaste for otaku MCs being the problem? Again, not paying attention.

I agree that characters are not people. This, however, leaves you with no explanation as to how we feel empathy for characters as though they are actual people.

My definition of empathy has the advantage of explaining that. Yours doesn't.

However, your contention so far was that Naofumi is not even a character. Moving the goalpost now?

Okay, so Naofumi is now a character, but is a "boring" one.

Well, i don't find Naofumi boring, so i'm not sure how you can claim that as objective truth.

One would think that maybe writing a timed breakdown of a character would be sufficient indication that, at the very least, i don't find him boring.

Again, the only reason this keeps coming back to my person is because your argument, from the moment we engaged all the way back in your locked threaed, has my existence as counterevidence for your conclusion.

This is like saying that rivers flow. You need to define the actual properties of "interesting". And then find a way to deny my interest in Naofumi as not a real interest of something.

Not really, no. All you said so far is that manipulation comes from non-characters and inspiration comes from characters. You haven't defined any actual parameters of a character. Or rather, you tried, but then we found Naofumi exhibits all of these parameters, so he is a character.

SSL443 said:
No, I don't need to. I quote: "What you have done, is indicated that boring human beings are not, in your opinion, worth telling stories about."

Explain to me how a hypothetically boring character would be worth telling a story about. Forget about Naofumi and explain this. Because you're now arguing on two fronts. One, Naofumi isn't boring; the other, even if Naofumi were boring he could still be worth telling a story about. You can't expect to make two seperate arguments and then turn around and require that I only address the one you want.

SSL443 said:
What? I just told you about it, so run along and let them know what a shining counterexample you are. It's the "why people hate malty so much" thread.

That isn't how counterexamples work, though. The show can still be written from a certain standpoint whether you identify with it for that reason or not. Learn logic.

Also, like i said, i'm putting together my 95 theses. This is part of that work.

I don't need to. The definitions are what they are. I'm not proposing a new definition or some interpretation thereof. You can look them up, or you can continue to be obtuse and demand proof that up is the opposite of down.

Are you brain damaged? I was responding to your intention of watching GATE, pointing out how irrelevant that is to the discussion or my position. The fact that you were even considering such a thing shows you weren't actually walking anything back.

It does leave me with an explanation because I already defined that ages ago, several times.

Not my definition. The definition.

Nope, just using your language.

Again, that was your language, not mine. However, and this is the great thing, it makes no practical difference to my position.

You seem very fixated on "objective truth".

It proves that you have way too much time on your hands; it doesn't really say much about the character one way or the other. Given that many points of your analysis were, shall we say, "inventive".

I am no more likely to accept a neurotic micro-analysis than your high school literature teacher would have been. Put that into a cogent argument, citing relevant timestamps where necessary, and maybe there would have been something worth responding to.

You could just as easily point to the overally popularity of the show; it doesn't have any bearing on whether it is any good or not.

I didn't try to define them, I did. I then found that Naofumi exhibits the parameters of a bag of sand, I think it was. Which got us to where the dicussion is above.

malMaxi said:
There are plenty of "hypothetically boring" characters in russian classic literature. They are so boring that there are entire businesses making a nontrivial amount of money selling abridged versions of "War and Peace" and "Crime and Punishment" to schoolkids, so that they can do their literature homework without having to tolerate the sheer lack of interest they have in these texts. I mean, who in their right mind would find a sob story about a broken peasant dude drowning his dog (Turgenev's "Mumu") at all interesting?

Later, these kids grow up and, on one of those boring drives to work, decide to maybe put a "War and Peace" audiobook on. And then find what they previously thought to be boring to be utterly and completely fascinating, life-redefining and enlightening.

The only thing "boring" means to me is that I personally don't connect.

And, while my previous example makes the unfortunate and truly unintended implication that maybe lack of connection exists because of lack of growing up, there are plenty of other reasons for this lack of connection. And, while all of these reasons stem from basically lack of perspective, some of said perspective is incredibly hard to get.

Part of what makes Shield Hero so fascinating to me is, believe it or not, the experience of living through the 90s in Russia. And the best summary of that decade i ever heard sounded like "We hoped money will triumph over evil", which seems to be exactly Naofumi's entire bet in the aftermath of ep.1. Which is one of the many things that suddenly make his character not boring at all for me.

I'm not going to delve into this further, but i'm just throwing this out there to illustrate two things:
a) Some of perspectives that make the characters not boring may be inaccessible to you through no fault or lack of virtue on your part.
b) There are a great deal of contexts for Shield Hero you simply aren't considering, reducing all of it basically to boring persecution complex.

So, basically, your concept of "boring" as a state of character's being through which actual judgements of people engaging with the character can be drawn is simply alien to me.

Which is, incidentally, why i'm still so interested in having you explain your concept. Because maybe i would then get to enjoy more stories i couldn't previously, in the way you do.

Oh, of course you'll probably answer that characters in "War and Peace" are actually well written and therefore not boring. And that my wall of text so far misses the point. But since your concept of "boring character" is alien to me and you choose not to explain your terms, i doubt i can give you a better reply at this junction.

The best i can manage so far is that "there were plenty of stories and characters that i found boring at some point in my life, only to find them fascinating at the other. I sure am glad these stories and characters were written, despite them being hypothetically boring to someone like me at the time".
The Little Prince is another prime example of the same, by the way.

So that's the big part of my answer to this. Aside from that big part, another smaller and more focused part exists, which addresses specifically your complaint about characters, whose story essentially starts after they were acted upon by a superior force. To that i'll answer that some of stories i found boring because the characters were initially boring, until something that happened to them forced them to rapidly evolve into something actually interesting. This is the case, for example, with some of works by Strugacky brothers (seminal russian sci-fi writers). Some of their stories are literally stories about boring people becoming interesting and are also fascinating in their own right.

The same Strugacky brothers also have as story, where boring characters refused to become interesting, therefore dooming their own world to eternal slavery. This kind of story about consequence of being boring is also something worth writing every so often.

You haven't provided sufficient proof of the standpoint.
Alternatively, your standard of defining a standpoint is so harsh that i would actually struggle to name an anime that is not a kid's show that is actually adhering to it, making the standard kinda counterproductive in my eyes.

If i finish those, i might be :)
Might take a while tho.
Well, Luther also once was a nobody, so yeah.

Look, i literally don't know who you are, or which school of thought you come from. There are multiple definitions for every term we used here, all with different and nuanced meanings. If you use the term, it is on you to explain your use of it. I've explained mine.

You are being way too hostile for your own good. If you think your hostility has some impact on me, then it really doesn't.

Not really, no. You just said that properly constructed characters automatically result in empathy and spend a great deal of time talking about the process of said construction, but not about what empathy is and how it can be applied to something that is not human at all to begin with.

I understand and share Naofumi's feelings, so, again, you don't seem to really have a point. Or rather, your point is that Naofumi doesn't have feelings because he isn't a human being? Or isn't a character..?

So, which one is yours, and how does it apply to fictional characters?

Please, feel free to just stick to your own language for now. This will make the whole thing less confusing. Like i keep saying, you need only to define your terms.
If we are abandoning your language, then we are abandoning it and beginning to use my "convenient" definitions.

You seem very fixated on "objective truth".

Inventive seems like a good word. You are using it like a bad one.
If you have a dogma i'm violating, i'm ... supposed to be sorry? But i'm not?

Couldn't you have maybe laid out your standards BEFORE i did the whole thing?

More to the point, couldn't you follow your own standard? Give me something worth responding to, that is both cogent and with timestamps, so i can see how it is done.

This is not a popularity contest. You are making a blanket claim that is supposed to hold true for everyone who engages with Shield Hero. It doesn't hold true for me, therefore it doesn't hold true for everyone.

I'm actually struggling to remember the exact wording of your bag of sand argument. I do believe you have failed so far to actually address my examples of Naofumi acting on his own volition and under his own moral code.

SSL443 said:
So in order to understand what Sheild Hero is about I needed to have grown up in Russia in the 90s?

That's dumb. That's so dumb. Let's move on.

That doesn't make your "conterexample" any more applicable, though.

So there are different and nuanced meanings of "character arc"?

If you're going to accuse me of "not paying attention" then I'll get hostile.

Simple - understand feelings from another's frame of reference. If you know how a character will act and respond, then you know their frame of reference.

I don't have that with Naofumi because he doesn't DO anything in episode 1 prior to the framing, and his internal monogloge comprises either describing what is happening or telling us he's "pissed". Amazing characterization.

Do you understand his feelings because of how YOU would feel in the situation, or do you understand how HE feels in the situation based on his unique background and perspective? This is what I mean about interchangability of a character. I am not latching onto a certain convenient definition to make this work; rather, the term "empathy" is just a useful label for this distinction.

The most precise and accurate one.

Then don't use different language or try to put words in my mouth.

But what makes you think your perspective is any more objective? (careful)

"Inventive", meaning that you are producing observations and inferences that are not even implied in the source material.

It didn't even occur to me that anyone would do such a thing. Also, you weren't even replying to me.

We'll see.

Once again you miss the point. YOUR "conterexample" is irrelevant in the face of the many OTHER "counterexamples" as evidenced by the popularity of the series. In other words, many people like the show. If all it took to invalidate criticism was someone liking something, everything would be rated a 10/10 automatically.

I'm actually struggling to remember the exact wording of your bag of sand argument. I do believe you have failed so far to actually address my examples of Naofumi acting on his own volition and under his own moral code.

malMaxi said:
i don't know what experience you lack that would let you enjoy Shield Hero. There are multiple ways of engaging with it, mine is just only one (and it isn't even limited to the specifics of my environment growing up).

Your claim so far seems to be that only people that are susceptible to manipulation on the basis of persecution complex can relate to Shield Hero.
I am your counterexample because i'm not that person, but i relate to Shield Hero.

Consider Matrix. Neo is even more of a plaything of circumstance than Naofumi, arguably all the way until he begins training under Morpheus. Is he a manipulative non-character in your mind?

There are several points at which Naofumi does things that influence or help frame the climax of the episode and beyond. The most prominent thread features the money that he first haggles away from shopkeep, then hides in his shield. Both actually beng active behaviours on his part. Both result in him getting to walk away with a moral victory from the engagement in the climax and inform his further strategy going forward.

How do you even tell the difference? The only reason i'm even able to construct his perspective is through my own experience to begin with. And, unlike your hasty generalization, there is a great deal of research on the topic that makes me reasonably certain everyone constructs their perspectives in that way.

You have talked a bit about how constructing a character results in the effect of inspiration, but you didn't make any real effort to distinguish that situation from the situation where the act of constructing a character results in manipulation.

Furthermore, it seems you gauge the quality of construction of the character based on the presence of your inspiration to begin with. You call this a "biconditional statement", not realising that in doing so you basically destroy the concept of inspiration as anything separate from the process of constructing a character, rendering the statement of "character -> inspiration" into an A->A form of circular logic.

It doesn't require dismissing as much facts of reality than your perspective does. In this case, specifically the reality of what is presented in Shield Hero.

He acts it out throughout ep.1 and further beyond. He also lays it out towards the end of ep.1.

The code itself is decidedly meritocratic, prizes getting the job done above all things and is generally indifferent to anything that doesn't directly relate to getting the job done. He gauges the amount of job well done by the amount of reward he receives (which make money take a bit of a special place for him and inform his special relationship with the concept). He is not really bothered by missing out on rewards for the job he thinks he hasn't done, is indifferent to money he didn't actively earn or save and will reject any rewards that he doesn't feel were either deserved, or useful for the job.

SSL443 said:
Nobody needs experience to let them enjoy this show. It isn't that intelligent.

But my statement about this show being designed to appeal to such-and-such a sensibility is not something that can be "disproved" via counterexample. You're trying to conflate two statements I made for some unknown reason.

The Matrix is on another level compared to shield hero. It has much stronger themes that are well established, and the writing throughout the film makes heavy use of symbolism and foreshadowing.

As for the treatment of the character Neo, some elements of manipulation are used. However, as I pointed out in my original explication, use of manipulation to reinforce the tone or mood is not objectionable if it is not overused or the sole method of defining such elements. The difference here is that he does actively react to his situation as well as make proactive choices, even if some of them are futile.

In his first scene he says "ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're awake or still dreaming?" This single line of dialog shows him interacting with another character, expresses how he feels, and all while foreshadowing the plot and themes of the film.

In the office escape scene, he is too afraid to climb along the ledge and decides to stay in the building and be apprehended.

The pretex for his arrest is predicated on his activities as a hacker. This is also established in his first scene in the film. This gives the antagonists a clear motivation. Even if their true purpose is more sinister and as yet unknown, it keeps their behavior from seeming entirely arbitrary.

In the interrogation scene, Neo flips off the agent and demands his phone call. Not only is this a clear decision on his part, but it reveals volumes about his character. It shows personality. Whether or not the action is fruitful is irrelevant - a character who is unable to affect their situation is not the same as a character who is not depicted as even trying.

And finally, there is of course the famous red pill scene. One of the main themes of the film is fate vs free will, and Neo's decision to choose free will is a defining moment for his character. Moreover, the preceeding events of the film show a clear progression leading to this moment, both in terms of the plot and his characterization.

It doesn't bode well if this is the most prominent "thread" that demonstrates his agency in the opening of the story.

As I already pointed out, the haggling scene fails to demonstrate any skill or aptitude on his part. Therefore it is not only poor characterization, but a poor setup for later events.

Taken at face value for their presence in the narrative, both the haggling and the squirelling away of his spare funds are hardly compelling characterization. Throwing the money back at the other heroes and Malty is obviously a symbolic gesture that underscores his response to the situation, but it isn't much more than that. Their link to and impact on the narrative and character is limited at best.

Compare to the Matrix interrogation scene referenced above. Neo giving Smith the finger is an obvious parallel, but the difference is that the gesture establishes Neo's response to the situation. The audience doesn't know how Neo feels or what he will do until that moment. Throwing the money is little more than dramatic punctuation, by contrast. In other words, it has much less power as a character-defining moment.

Sure, personal expereince informs our responses, but then this draws into question how anyone can understand or relate to sci-fi or fantasy literature, or any other situation they haven't experienced for that matter. It's the job of the author to create compelling characters through whom the audience experiences the story.

Empathy requires an understaning of how another person feels; they might not respond the same way you do. With real people this takes effort and communication; with fictional characters, the heavy lifting is done by the author.

Again, it is the actions, responses, and overall personality of a character that define characterization and allow the audience to understand and care about them.

Nope.

But these so-called "facts" are only relevant from your subjective perspective. From mine, they do not lend credence to your position.

This sounds less like a moral code and more like a business strategy. More importantly, there is no indication of it during most of ep.1 and once it does emerge it is out of nothing. Not a great case for strong characterization.

malMaxi said:
And yet me having the experiences i have lets me enjoy it. Whereas you not having it (or maybe having some other negative ones) prevents you from doing so, but you are pretending that it is the show's fault.

Your claim never was simply that the show is designed to appeal to such and such a sensibility. Your claim was always a stronger claim: that it is logically impossible for it to appeal for anything else.

However, again, Naofumi makes plenty of active choices and there is much more defining Shield Hero than just "manipulation" (which you haven't even defined).

If i'm wrong, then it is a demonstrable fact that so far you've not been able to actually form a cogent argument refuting my claims beyond a random variant of "it is stupid moving on". Almost as if you consider your own dislike for Shield Hero to be sufficient proof of it being objectively bad for everyone's tastes.

Before we move on to point-by-point comparison of your claims regarding Neo to what actually happens around Naofumi, i also have to point out that i personally never really related to the whole "life is a dream" theme of Matrix. I find that avenue of artistic research successfully and completely resolved by Jorge Luis Borges in 1947's House of Asterion, where he spends a great deal of time and effort painting an extremely compelling picture of a "dream within a dream" reality, before utterly dismanting, deconstructing and tearing down everything he built up in many pages of material until that point in the span of basically 2 sentences.

Neither i feel that Matrix has actually addressed the notion of human free will in any shape, way or form. To begin with, you can't address free will from "reality is a dream" stance, because the concept of will makes no sense if there isn't a reality for it to impact. However, it also bears mentioning that ineffectual will isn't a will and a will that arises from a pill is not free. A much better job of addressing the notion of free will within the setting of Matrix was done in "world record" animatrix short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXgYbMWrNc

Naofumi recounting the tale of his brother takes basically the same mechanical place in Shield Hero narrative.

The tale of Naofumi's brother is weaker than the "ever have that feeling" of Matrix for the following reasons:
- It doesn't directly talk about feelings.
- It speaks to a much less universal experience than "awake or still dreaming" (which is more or less universal).
- It is much less directly connected to the plot of the story going
forward.

The tale of Naofumi's brother, however, works better (at least, for me specifically) than the "dream within a dream" of Matrix for the following reason:
- Since the experience of "awake or still dreaming" is universal, it doesn't
really say anything about Neo specifically as a person. The story of Naofumi's brother tells me everything i need to know about Naofumi, not in the least because i have the experience of actually attempting to do the same thing he did for his brother, with various degrees of success.

- It does indicate the themes of the work going forward, which all have to do with various states of relationship between fantasy and reality

- The situation presented is actually deep enough that properly unpacking just that situation presents in its own right an interesting exploration of all the ways fantasies of different people interact with reality, specifically in terms of the relationship of fantasy of parents regarding Naofumi's brother to the reality of brother's ability and the relationship of Naofumi's engagement in fantasy worlds to the reality of brother's mental state. The discussions i had with people in other places on that point alone seriously dwarf the conversation we've had with you so far.

... So "too afraid to do things" is now valid characterization?
Weren't you attacking the same characterization of Naofumi as "stupid" a while back?

The pretext to Naofumi's rape accusation is predicated on him being a pawn in the power play that swirls around the summoned heroes in the fantasy kingdom of Melromark. There was nothing arbitrary whatsoever about Naofumi ending up as he did.

Contrast with the behaviour of agents, who behave nothing like any sort of actual investigative order-keeping force would and whose cruelty to Neo seem completely undeserved and utterly arbitrary. It is one thing to bring a person in for questioning. It is completely another to torture a person while magically sealing their ability to speak. Nothing Neo did prior to the event even remotely warranted that sort of response.

In the rape trial scene, Naofumi also fights against the guards and makes demands. So if the interrogation scene served to characterize Neo, then the rape trial scene served to characterize Naofumi.

To begin with, the framing of this decision as "fate vs free will" is dubious at best. Going with Morpheus is just another fate, as far as i can tell. Well, sure, Morpheus was selling his case as hard as he could, but there are no established reasons to trust his evaluation in the story at that point. Furthermore, the entire choosing the red pill maybe was fate to begin with, because it is not like Neo even had a real reason to take the blue pill, having just lived through everything that went down. Decision implies sacrifice, Neo wasn't sacrificing anything in that scene.

In Shield Hero, the equivalent to the red pill scene is IMO the moment where Naofumi decides to take the shopkeep's help. The 5 copper piece of coat he loans IS his red pill. His sacrifice are the last shreds of his pride.

The interrogation scene fails to demonstrate any law enforcement skill or aptitude on the part of the agents, so it is just as dubious. It only works as good setup for the events to come because the agents have magical powers, which they apparently freely abuse to control society, while hiding them from the rest of society with even more magic. All of this only works if Matrix was not interested with dealing with actual human society from the get-go. Which it wasn't, it was living the dream instead.

The only real intent of the haggling scene is to demonstrate that for Naofumi money is something he pays an unusual amount of attention to. Pursuing the best deal in the market, to him, warants more attention than the entire royal court. Which completely informs his later decision to bet on money against royal court.

So is the squirreling away of money. He won't care how much he squanders by being a doofus in the court, but he will care about the money in his actual hands. All effective characterization in my books.

I wouldn't call throwing the money "little more than dramatic punctuation". Moral victories are still victories and are still important. However, i'll also point out that Naofumi's moral victory was informed by much more than throwing the money. There are multiple instances of him giving the proverbial middle finger to the entire situation, therefore, as you say, "establishing his response" and thus having the force of defining character.

You are saying "compelling" like reading a book about characters doing things is actually a substitute for a real experience of doing these things.

For the umpteenth time, and i left my original quote in on purpose, saying that understanding and care arises from actions, responses and overall personality is all fine and good, and i even agree. The issue you are not addressing is HOW it arises.

The process is not just automatic. There are intermediaries involved. What all of these intermediaries are doing is supplementing the very sparse representation of a fictional character (which will ALWAYS be sparse, compared to an actual human being, no matter how much "heavy lifting" the author does by describing actions, responses and overall personality) with an unimaginable amount of minute details. These intermediaries are our individual experiences. The characters we interact with can't help but be shaped by our individual experiences. Sometimes, the individual experiences of different peoplem, applied to the same canvas of a character, will create wholly contrasting results.

Sometimes, one person will love the kind of guy Naofumi is, while another person wouldn't think Naofumi is even a viable human being.

Again, leaving my original quote in on purpose.
Well, i don't have any other interpretations of what you are doing and your own interpretation - that you actually know how characters are constructed - doesn't explain why you consdier Naofumi non-character, because all of the things that, say, Neo does - he also does.

Business strategy involves details of goods being sold, it doesn't deal with the fundamentals of evaluation of the goodness itself.

There is plenty indication of what Naofumi considers good and what he doesn't in ep.1. In fact, that's basically the content of the entire episode, complete with starry eyed looks to the sky, hopes and dreams for the future as well as shattering of those hopes and dreams and putting back together at least a semblance of sanity.

Also let me point out that Neo, the characterization virtues of whom you have extolled so much, is basically a moral blank slate for basically the entire segment before awakening on board of the ship. The only thing we really learn about his stance of things until he emerges on Navuhodonosor is that he thinks him dying would be something to avoid. And that, according to you, is supposedly a case for good characterization.

SSL443 said:
What I have been addressing is not enjoyment or appeal, but rather the technicalities of execution. While I do also have issues with Shield Hero at the conceptual level, my main gripes with the series are more fundamental.

I made a separate remark on what I would say if I were engaging in a formal critique of Shield Hero, e.g. dealing with themes and deeper analysis. I'm not really doing that, though.

I wrote an entire essay defining it.

The dialogue in the red pill scene clearly touches on the theme of free will. Might want to watch it again and refresh your memory before leaning on it as evidence to support your points.

In short, it bears no similarity whatsoever to the dialogue I referenced in the Matrix.It's one piece of exposition in a larger expositional dump that takes place at the start of the first episode in place of anything actually interesting. Because only reason this scenen is necessary is to show that yes, this is an isekai.

It's a single line of (internal) dialogue. How the hell does it "tell you everything you need to know"? It could mean anything; it hints at an entire story that we are never told.

What? Honestly I'm left without knowing how to respond... now you're just putting together random phrases that sound vaguely erudite and relevant in support of this avenue of argument. Aside from the fact that this has very little to do with whatever themes might be present in this show, this notion of a thematic thread is so poorly defined that I'm not even sure how you would go about either proving or denying it.

???

Are you talking about stuff that is in the manga/LN?

No, because you're equivocating. Neo tries and fails to overcome his fear. There is clear conflict and emotion in the scene. It isn't simply a tacit acceptance of the situation. Rather, it shows Neo encountering an obstacle and failing to overcome it. It's foreshadowing, and it sets up his arc as he continues to face challenges throuought the story and gradually reaches the point where he can meet them.

In fact it is arbitrary because there is no hint that there is any kind of consiracy or powerplay. Unlike in the Matrix, which opens with an action sequence that introduces this side of the story, not to mention the heavy thematic forshadowing that pervade the storytelling even at the introduction of Neo as a character.

Again, the foreshadowing of sinister forces at work, not to mention to the opening scene of the film, provides the necessary context. This is what GOOD WRITING looks like.

No, the agents do not act like normal, mundane law enforcement officials, which is the whole fucking point.

You can't draw such a parallel because of the vast difference in execution of the scenes. When Neo makes his stand, it's the first information that the audience has on how he is responding to and attempting to deal with the situation. That makes his action both powerful and necessary.

With Naofumi, his disposition has already been given away by his facial expression and posture throughout the scene. Lashing out at the guards and anyone else is just an natural progression of the scene.

Yes, depicting Naofumi's rage in this situation is characterization, I will grant you. However, once again it is nothing more than generic and predictable. Who wouldn't be angry in this situation? And considering that Naofumi is a hero, the power dynamic isn't as one sided as it might be; however much the King wants to undermine him, it's clear that they do need him and are not willing to dispose of him out of hand.

Another big problem that none of this even begins to touch on is that this a pivotal moment in the story. This is over half an hour into the first episode, plenty of time for Naofumi's character to be established. And his character needs to be established in this vital scene, so that the audience can epathize with him. They need to empathize with him because he is facing a major, plot-driving setup, one that sets the stage for the narrative going forard.

In other words, it is too late to be layering on the characterization. In terms of the plot, this scene is go-time, and the audience needs to be fully invested in the character. That should have been the point of the preceding 30 minutes of runtime.

And even all THAT doesn't begin to touch on the problem of how contrived the circumstances and behavior of the other characters are in this scene. The problems with the setup of this story goes deep, through multiple levels of mediocrity.

Huh? Since when does decision imply sacrifice? And in fact he was sacrificing the security of his artificial life.

This is what I mean about your "analysis" being completely delusional and frankly baffling.

Number one, the narrative queues are just not there to establish this as an analogous moment to the red pill scene. It isn't treated with the same level of importance. Number two, it isn't a turning point for the plot. Naofumi is still down on his luck; so big deal, he has a cloak now. At no point does it become important to the story or even his immediate survival.

And your notion that he is sacrificing his pride or some shit just is not there with the characterization or framing of the scene. In fact, we don't even get to see Naofumi's face when he takes the cloak! We just get to hear his dull, expressionless voice vowing to repay the "debt".

I don't know what your point is. "Law enforcement skill" is not relevant to the scene, only that they try to get him to work with them by cutting a deal.

And this is useful or interesting characterization because why? What does it have to do with the themes of the show? Naofumi's preoccuption with money is nothing more than a way to solidify his role as a sort-of-but-not-really anti-hero, in that he declines to behave altruistically and instead goes around grubbing for money because damned if he owes anyone anything after getting accused of fake rape!!!

How is that effective characterization? I'd call that inconsistency. He's super-focused on money and getting the most out of any deal, but he throws away what little money he has left in an empty gesture. That's fucking terrible characterization.

Is it a moral victory? They have him exactly where they want him, even if it isn't a very useful place and apparently completely lacking in any kind of follow-up plan except to mildly inconvenience him from time to time.

And you're undermining your own point; if he already gave a metaphorical middle finger to the situation, throwing the money IS just dramatic punctuation, because it isn't achieving anything that wasn't already achieved prior in the scene. In short, it's melodrama, not some amazing character-defining stroke of the artistic brush.

???

Except I didn't. Where is this even coming from? Calling a character or story "compelling" is a valid and common thing to do, but you're acting like I'm the first human to do such a thing. I'm going to ignore the rest of your remarks on this subject because the pretext is stupid.

What? You asked me to distinguish valid characterization from manipulation, which I did. You're making this a moving target and then acting like it's my fault.

Okay, what does this have to do with anything? A character acting a certain way can inform and illuminate our perception of experiences we've never had. It doesn't have to completely replicate reality. This is a requirement that you have apparently pulled out of thin air because it suits your flawed line of attack.

Yes, because his characterization sucks.

And what does what you outlined above have to do with the assessment of goodness?

All that is barely a step removed from a bunch of insipid nothing; but regardless, it all goes out the window after the rape accusation. Apparently you missed the point of Naofumi's whole character shift away from idealized naievete to hardboiled cynicism - at least, that is what the story was trying to do.

lul?

I have not at any point tried to argue that Neo is a paragon of good characterization. His characterization is adequate, but I would agree that he is not the richest or deepest character.

What's more interesting to me is that you clearly brought him up to torpedo my definition of a non-character. When that didn't work, you turned around and now want to argue how he IS a blank slate.

Yes, you really are that transparent.

malMaxi said:
Execution is judged by results. Results are enjoyment and appeal, as experienced by an individual. If i enjoy and it appeals to me, the execution is fine for me.

We can also talk about what other results can be there and why they are good in their own right, even if enjoyment and appeal are not present. Though, i must say, you have so far avoided that approach to the topic with interesting tenacity.

Okay.
So should i take it as you having forfeited the claim that it is logically impossible for anyone to empathize with this show?
If you did, things will get much easier from here one out.

Yes, and all you wrote boils down to: "good characters inspire, bad characters manipulate". We've been over this multiple times.

Because just saying "free will" means you automatically address it, right :D

There is a difference between teasing the concept, toying with the concept. presenting the concept and actually addressing it. Matrix toys with the concept, but in doing so it employs the thought traditions where free will itself is an oxymoron, which prevents it from moving on the subject anywhere beyond basically an equivalent of teenage rebellion.

The reason this scene is necessary is to establish Naofumi's fundamentals as a character.

Are you honestly telling me that a single line of internal dialogue is not enough to give sufficient foundation for a character?

It couldn't "mean anything".

And yet you are denying it.

Look, i could go on and on to explain how this story is relevant in great many moments in the show, but you'll again just dismiss as " vaguely erudite and relevant in support of this avenue of argument".

This story is fundamental to the understanding of what a Shield Hero even is as a concept. It reverbates through the entire material, both anime and LN (at least until the material gets actually bad, which is around volume 8 of the LN).

I can say all the same things about the rape trial. Naofumi tries and fails to overcome the situation by appealing to Myne. And it is not just foreshadowing, it is the event that sets the main story thread of Shield Hero in motion, which lasts all the way to final confrontation.

Yeah, i remember there was an action scene in the opening of Matrix.

I guess I'll agree that the story would benefit from Melromark's political undercurrents being exposed a bit more prior to the engagement. However, it is also true that what i saw was already enough for me.

Specifically: there is the visier speaking into the king's ear, which, as far as i'm concerned, as a universal shorthand for "politics afoot".

Also, the entire situation of people trying to get away from a hero they view as "weak", only for one person to then change to his side is basically screaming "power play", as far as i'm concerned.

If, as you say, "the whole fucking point" was that Neo lives in a crazy world that has nothing to do with our reality, then yeah, that one got accross.

However, do recall that we have the whole "reality is a dream" theme established. And "the whole fucking point" of the "reality is a dream" theme is that the illusion is supposed to be perfectly mundane and, when horrible, then horrible in a non-supernatural way. Dragging actual supernatural nightmare elements into mundane reality is one of the ways Matrix undermines its own themes, resulting in its ultimate failure to address them.

I thank you for having granted me that this moment was characterization of Naofumi.

As for the rest of your criticism, it seems to be heavily rooted in your utter distaste for seeing normal people do normal things and react in normal ways. You also consider one-sided power dynamics necessarily more powerful or interesting than something with actual dynamics. Do note that none of this actually speaks to objective quality of characterization, these are all just your tastes.

I was fully invested in Naofumi at the time of that scene. Obviously, the preceding 20-odd minutes of runtime were spent well, as far as i'm concerned.

Closer to your point, i can say is that i have nothing against pivotal moments of the story resulting in further layers of characterization.

mid-15c., "act of deciding," from Old French décision (14c.), from Latin decisionem (nominative decisio) "a decision, settlement, agreement," noun of action from past-participle stem of decidere "to decide, determine," literally "to cut off," from de "off" (see de-) + caedere "to cut" (from PIE root *kae-id- "to strike").
https://www.etymonline.com/word/decision

The security of his artificial life was already thrououghtly destroyed by what can only be described as nightmarish monsters. The blue pill variant is already cut off.

Have you ever been in a point where you had to actually sacrifice your pride for something? Dull, expressionless voice, vowing to correct your behaviour, - this sounds about the right reaction to me.

I am not going to even attempt to convince you of importance of that scene to the dynamics of character you don't even understand. However, i will point out two things
1) It is his signature cloak that he wears on all the artwork going forward.
2) It is the first instance of him actually establishing a positive contract with someone in the series, something that informs his behaviour going forward

???
Your description of the importance of the scene is actually correct :D

The reason you are unable to connect this to the themes of the show might have something to do with you being aggressively against doing thematical analysis of Shield Hero.

I, on another hand, see a rather direct connection.

Or maybe the way this character understands money is not the way you understand them, and therefore there is no inconsistency and the gesture is not actually empty :D

Demonstrating that the place where they have him isn't very useful was the actual content of moral victory, though?

So tell me, how exactly would a character "acting a certain way to inform and illuminate our perception of experiences we've never had" would achieve that, if not based on our own previous experiences?

I don't see a problem with that.

In fact, it is idealized naivete that is most prone to such shifts. More balanced worldviews don't take things as hard.

Hmmmm? Neo wasn't meant to "torpedo" anything. It was simply a way to understand your position. It is not my fault your position is so poor that merely attempting to understand it results in what you perceive as "torpedoing".

Also, having adequate characterization and being a moral blank slate are not actually morally exclusive, so i'm not sure why you are even treating it like an accusation.

malMaxi said:
Also let me point out that Neo, the characterization virtues of whom you have extolled so much, is basically a moral blank slate for basically the entire segment before awakening on board of the ship. The only thing we really learn about his stance of things until he emerges on Navuhodonosor is that he thinks him dying would be something to avoid. And that, according to you, is supposedly a case for good characterization.

SSL443 said:
A convenient definition for you, then. It should be obvious that this isn't how I am judging the execution of this show.

So the "results are enjoyment and appeal" except when they aren't?

No. What?

Except that it doesn't, though. We've been over that multiple times as well. I will decline to reply to the rest of your remarks on this subject as I've already addressed them. You're welcome to quote specific parts of my original essay that you think don't make the distinction.

What fundamentals does it provide?
---
Yes. I am. In this case. The purpose of this line is to explain why Naofumi is able to live at home, pursuing the "idyllic otaku life". Without more detail, it establishes only a very small amount about Naofumi.
---

Sure it could. We don't know the motivation - did Naofumi do it out of selflessness to protect a beloved sibling, or was it calculated to achieve the exact situation that he is in at the start of the show? What kind of relationship does he have with his brother, before and after this event? Did he incur personal risk?

You're making my point about how you probably enjoy reading cliffsnotes instead of real literature - because apparantly a single, vague sentance is enough to establish an entire foundation of a character for you. In fact this "story" is not even as elucidating about the character as a study guide would be.

No, I mean suddenly you have decided the themes of Shield Hero have to do with "fantasy and reality" something something. lul wat?

So now it reverberates throughout the entire material. Good god.

Once again, not narratively analogous. Naofmi appealing to Malty is not a personal struggle that could succeed or fail.

Yes, which you keep repeating as though it is relevant to anything I've said. All that proves is that you are easily satisfied.

So kings can't have advisors now? We actually hear what the advisor says, so calling it "politics afoot" is a stretch regardless.

But you admit that there isn't any indication of a larger political conspiracy. That's fine, then, thank you.

I'm not granting anything, it's characterization by definition.

I find boring characters reacting in boring ways to be boring. Also, Naofumi's reaction might work better for me if the setup felt less contrived. His emotional response to the situation aren't earned.

Which is not advancing the discussion because it is an irrelevant assertion.

I have nothing against this either.

lul. Etymology does not equal definition. All that means is that you are cutting off a choice when you make a decision. Calling it a sacrifice is an over dramatization.

I decided to have soup for lunch today. Oh no, I sacrificed having a sandwhich, I'll have to wait until tomorrow. Yeah, that "definition" doesn't work.

The mental security of not having to face the reality of his existence.

Good equivocation. I have nothing more to add.

So you're arguing that the lack of a shot of his facial expression in a pivotal scene where he supposedly sacrifices the last of his pride is excused by showing the cloak he's wearing on the cover?

Still waiting to hear how that relates to any themes (which you have failed to explicate so far).

Then it is the job of the story to explain how the character understands money. Still not getting how this is consistent with his subsequent behavior.

Fuck you?

It demonstrates no such thing. That is demonstrated later.

I'm not seeing the moral victory. They want to take him down, so he helps them along by throwing the rest of his money away. Yes, I understand that the gesture is suppoed to show that he is rejecting the money that they gave him, money that was a "handout" or whatever - but the more poignant moral victory here would have been using their money for his own benefit. Money that they didn't want him to have to begin with. Money that they failed to steal back from him because he hid it in what you claimed was some kind of amazing, character-defining moment.

Yeah, so character defining that it is rendered pointless mere minutes later.

Stories can be about things you haven't experienced before. I'll let you work out the rest.

But then it can't be a foundation for what Naofumi thinks is good or not. Because it changes 30 minutes into the show.

You brought up Neo because whatever I said on his status as a character could be twisted to your advantage.

If I agree that he is a "non-character", then you argue that Naofumi is characterized better, that more is done with his character than Neo.

If I disagree that he is a "non-character" (as I did), then you argue that Nafoumi has similar characterization, even though the parallels you pointed out are tenuous to the point of being absurd.

What I didn't expect is that you would also go off on a wild tangent about how the themes in the Matrix suck or whatever. I should've, though, because it's exactly the sort of self-important, pseudo-intellectual kind of thing that you should do.

How disingenuous can you get? Let me refresh your memory.


Implying that because Neo is actually a blank slate, he doesn't have characterization worth extolling. Note your language: "supposedly a case for good characterization".

malMaxi said:
This was actually an open invitation to seriously consider the other possible side.
The fact that you chose to take a cheap shot instead of the invitation is telling.

But i suppose you still maintain that it is logically impossible for anyone to feel empathy for the Shield Hero.

If you think you addressed this somewhere and i missed it, referencing and quoting is on you, not on me.

But let's be real, you won't do jack and i will pour over everything you written just on the off chance i actually missed something important. Because i actually like Shield Hero :)

I find it exceedingly funny how you say all the right words and still can't put them together in a picture, instead complaining that you weren't given enough. And all of that after talking up a storm about author's responsibility. I, on another hand, am perfectly content with just working with what the author gave me.

If Naofumi isn't mentioning anything outside of idyllic otaku life, then this is his motivation.

Which means he is both selfish and idealises the otaku life. The saving of brother is therefore informed mostly by his desire to establish his otaku life as worthwhile, therefore justifying the money he spends on merch (of which we see a large amount on screen).

However, this is not the most important bit. The most important bit is the explanation of how exactly Naofumi served as a shield for his brother, and his brother served as a shield for him. And that was by Naofumi having the brother recuperate from the pressures of reality inside a protected fantasy, with Naofumi as his guide and arbiter within that protected sphere, while the brother, having recuperated, then acted as a shield for Naofumi's idyllic otaku life.

Let's proceed with this after you get on board with the fundamentals above.

Neither is Neo failing to jump out of the window.

We are living in a world where designing and animating a character is a cost. One that wouldn't have been undertaken if that character was not somehow important. And the importance of an otherwise nondescript vizier has, since fairy tale times, been to highlight that politics are afoot.

I find characters that represent normal everyday people to be very interesting.

Point being, boring for you does not mean boring for everyone, therefore does not mean "logically impossible to be not boring".

You make it relevant every time you refuse to take back the notion that me being invested in Naofumi is a logical impossibility.

Obviously, expanding the definition of decision to include pointless stuff does nothing to address the actual point, since the red pill scene is not pointless and has its place in its chain of events.

Well, I actually have more to add. We do see Naofumi's face clearly immediately before he grabs the cape. It is a face of intense dissatisfaction, suspecting some manner of a trap. The scene changes to the hand for a very brief moment, in order to highlight the response to the decision. The moment is very brief indeed so there is no reason that Naofumi's opinion of the deal is in any way better.

Well, i'm sure that is not really all that important. Just shows how someone actually paying attention to the referenced material could do much more interesting criticisms than everything you manage to come up with :D

Nah. What i'm saying is that you misrepresented the scene entirely. But that's okay, because in misrepresenting it you got me to rewatch it and update my understanding of Naofumi a little bit more :D

Yeah, basically started doing that.

You get 4 instances of the story addressing various money-related scenarios before that point. Your fault for not understanding the explanations given.
But that's okay, we will go over them in short order after you figure out how being otaku factors into all of this :)

I notice you are starting to be incredibly easy on the use of f-words. Maybe another mod report is in order?

If you have a problem with my reasoning (that, according to your own definition of empathy and the fact that you don't empathise with Naofumi, you are not able to see things from his perspective, therefore not the best judge of meaning behind his actions), you need only to actually point it out.

As an added bonus, should you use a "Naofumi is a non-character" defense in this instance, then you'll find yourself in a conundrum, where your perceived lack of meaning behind Naofumi's actions leads you to label him a non-character, which leads you to have no empathy for him, which is equivalent to you being unable to view things from his perspective, which leads to your perceived lack of meaning behind his actions.

Naofumi did score a moral victory over the Spear Hero at least, where the Spear Hero's retort to the money-throwing was restrained.

Since i'm now reevaluating my opinion of Naofumi's pride being still intact before meeting the shopkeep, i guess i don't mind granting you that, since Naofumi didn't leave the place with his pride intact, Malty still had the ultimate moral victoy in that particular engagement.

As is only proper, because the court is ultimately her territory at that point in the story and Naofumi deeply disrespected that fact, for which he paid the proper price.

However, what Malty didn't realize is the specific way in which Naofumi would collapse. Since the otaku ideal collapsed, he no longer needed the money. The money without the ideal becomes a burden, so he throws them away. In doing so, he shows that he won't be paid for by others. The reason he was able to maintain the fantasy of an idyllic otaku life is because he, ultimately, was shielded by his brother's high performance. In the courtroom, he already arrives at the notion that now HE has to perform, which he states outright.

The disconnect in the money-related thread that you are seeing is due to the fact that, at that point, Naofumi still doesn't quite realize the purpose of money. In the courtroom, they are still a bit of a fantasy to him, kind of like chips in some otaku game. Him playing the haggling game earlier indicates that he wanted to play the game. Him squirreling away the earnings is indication of the same. And then him throwing away the money indicates that he isn't willing to play the game with these people anymore.

Here is a piece of relevant reading: https://interestingliterature.com/2016/01/22/a-short-analysis-of-jabberwocky-by-lewis-carroll/
The article itself is a brilliant example of the author attempting to parse a poem chock full of nothing but new and never-before-seen stuff in terms of his own past experiences.

Here is the take on things as provided by Lewis Caroll himself, where Humpty Dumpty is explaining the meaning of all the new words in Jabberwocky in terms of the old ones: http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/poem/humptydumpty.html

TLDR: you have a much bigger library of past experiences than you think and you parse all your new experiences through that library. You might find some writers and poets who disagree, but I don't think you'll find any such cognitive scientist.

You keep going on about self-important pseudo-intellectual, but I'm not the guy who claims to understand the objective quality of art here, going so far as making character assessments, but completely neglecting to actually provide evidence.

Other than that, guilty as charged. I've seen too much of "real" intellectuals for one lifetime.

More to the point, you are ascribing to me too much cunning in terms of Neo. The only reason i brought him up is that i was reasonably certain there is no way in hell you'd call him a bad character, which mean you'd have to actually engage with the fact that he has - at least superficially - a much more pronounced aspect of what you call manipulation than Naofumi. The hope was to actually have you say something specific about your position by means of contrast. And guess what, it worked pretty well :D

As a result, i was able to finally (with you help, in the capacity of basically a squash wall to bounce my ideas off) formulate something approaching the actual thematic core of Shield Hero.

But first, let's see how well what is formulated stands your bare and unabashed hostility. There is no better test for strength of ideas, really.

Once we settle the content of the first 30 mins, we can then address the change in the second half and maybe confirm your position that the new Naofumi springs basically out of nowhere without any rhyme or reason, or maybe confirm something else entirely :D

SSL443 said:
stuff

_kukiyomenai said:
I thought Naofumi will fight that Pope over Holy Water good thing he provided the real stuff. I swear to god my blood boils whenever that Motoyasu and Myena show up. Hahaha. He deserves a kick from Filo. No wonder Naofumi will lose trust with that royal family after he went through

SouthRzVa said:
So basically, Motoyasu is a lolicon