|
Post by milareppa on Oct 10, 2009 15:03:43 GMT -5
I think, ultimately, this unique talent with swords is why his true weapon manifested as a sword, and possibly explains his obsession with obtaining a sword... it's not just in his nature to fight with a sword, it's in his very soul. A true samurai, in other words. Sort of. Weren't the samurai the servants? I'd expect Sesshoumaru to be the example samurai follow rather than a samurai himself. So, in short, yes. Although it's my understanding that the Meiji government was as bad as rewriting Japanese history as the Victorians were at rewriting British history (and for mostly the same reasons, too) - so I think we have some leeway on how we portray samurai. They weren't really as noble in real-life as either the Meiji or Hollywood rewrites want us to think. So perhaps Sesshoumaru's flaws are in keeping with samurai too. Is that quoting Takahashi or the translation? Either way, it seems to be such an ambiguous phrase, we're probably free to interpret it however we want. Which is what I like in my literature - it's what makes literature superior to film and television, there's more freedom to interpret the story however you want (despite the sad trend with some modern authors trying to control exactly what their reader-base thinks - Rumiko Takahashi doesn't seem to be this kind of author, thankfully). One day, someone is going to explain to me what they see as continuity errors and plot-holes in this manga, because I don't seem to see half as many as everyone else does. I need to know what I'm missing!
|
|
ladyjanegrey
Full Member
"I GOTTA keep it together!"
Posts: 171
|
Post by ladyjanegrey on Oct 10, 2009 17:58:43 GMT -5
A true samurai, in other words. Sort of. Weren't the samurai the servants? I'd expect Sesshoumaru to be the example samurai follow rather than a samurai himself. So, in short, yes. Although it's my understanding that the Meiji government was as bad as rewriting Japanese history as the Victorians were at rewriting British history (and for mostly the same reasons, too) - so I think we have some leeway on how we portray samurai. They weren't really as noble in real-life as either the Meiji or Hollywood rewrites want us to think. So perhaps Sesshoumaru's flaws are in keeping with samurai too. Technically yes, samurai were warriors working for the nobles. But there samurai who were nobles. It was kind of like Medieval Europe, where knights served the nobles, but often became noble themselves. And remember, it was samurai like Oda Nobunaga (where have we heard that name??? lol) et. al. who became the virtual rulers of Japan at just around this time. And yes, "modern" writings have influenced what we "know" about the samurai, and the medieval knights. Noblesse oblige, forsooth! But remember, the name of the story is, "InuYasha: a Feudal Fairytale." In fact, what amazes me is that all the characters are not "noble," i.e. ideal, but have their flaws; and gist of the story is their struggle to move beyond them, to better themselves (except maybe Naraku). So. perhaps I should of said that Sesshoumaru is the ideal of the noble samurai. His sword is his soul, but in the end he strives to move beyond his flaws.
|
|
|
Post by ryuyokaijellytoast on Oct 10, 2009 18:30:47 GMT -5
Isn't that a bit of a weird thing to say "I need to know what I'm missing!" considering Concoidialfracture just told you 'what you're missing' and that infact what she said isn't an ambiguous phrase what so ever. I've just gotten here and it seems to be just like any other inuyasha fansite I've been to, you seem to be a bit batty seeing as inuyasha isn't an amazing nor a horrid story (But a normal one), and you're putting it up on a pedistal saying that you're the ultimate inuyasha fan and you know everything about it.
|
|
|
Post by milareppa on Oct 10, 2009 20:30:44 GMT -5
Excellent point, ladyjanegrey. Thanks for that. Heh, now I've got the Scarlet Pimpernel on the brain. Must be the giant headache I've been fending off all weekend. "I need to know what I'm missing!" was a tongue-in-cheek comment, hence both the exclaimation mark and smiley that followed straight after it. You might misunderstand my post. When I asked what I was missing, I wasn't referring to her quote. She was talking about the plot-holes that were bothering her. I am aware that I don't see as many plot-holes as some other people, and as a result, I don't understand exactly what plot-hole is being discussed unless it's actually stated. That's got absolutely nothing to do with whether I think I'm right or wrong, or whether I think she's right or wrong - or whether I think it's possible for *anyone* to be right or wrong when discussing a literary creation. It simply means I'm not telepathic and if I don't understand something, I'll ask for clarification. When I ask for clarification, I'm genuinely trying to understand someone's point or post. I'm not mocking people by asking such a thing. I'm not using it as some kind of passive-aggressive attack to claim their post is stupid and mine is not. I'm genuinely asking for information. Perhaps the tongue-in-cheek comment was inappropriate, but the reason I used it was precisely because I wanted my post to be seen as light-hearted and friendly. It clearly didn't have the intended effect, so I apologise unreservedly for it. I can see, obviously, that she's using the quote to discuss a plot-hole with Tessaiga - I'm just not sure exactly what the plot-hole is and, like I said - I'm not sure what the quote is saying. It doesn't make much sense to me - I didn't say this facetiously. I'm being honest in my confusion and, no matter how tongue-in-cheek my comment, I genuinely feeling like I'm missing her point. That's not her fault, she didn't say those words or write them. She's just quoting them, but since she's the one that read the original quote, that's who I'm asking for information. If Patches or Ladyjanegrey or you had posted the quote, I would still be confused and I would still ask for clarification - except I would be directing my post to Patches, or Ladyjanegrey, or you. This conclusion you've reached confuses me, I must confess, not only because I was completely wrong on the anime thread about the Final Act episode structures, or that Ladyjanegrey corrected me in the post prior to yours, but because you seem to be chastising me for being confused - which should be proof positive that I don't know everything. I'm generally a chirpy person and happy to let things I don't like roll over me (and there're plenty of things I don't like in the manga/anime), so I don't know if that makes my posts seem excessively upbeat (I know it makes my posts waffle) - and I post my thoughts on something because I don't care if I'm right or wrong. I just enjoy the talking - I am the internet equivalent of a "chatterbox" I suppose. Ironically, I was once accused of being far too cynical about this show. Now I'm accused of putting it on a pedestal. I'm sure my posts will strike the middle-road eventually.
|
|
ladyjanegrey
Full Member
"I GOTTA keep it together!"
Posts: 171
|
Post by ladyjanegrey on Oct 10, 2009 22:55:57 GMT -5
Really, don't worry about it Milareppa. I can never see the plot holes, even when you can drive a semi through them.
|
|
|
Post by milareppa on Oct 11, 2009 4:03:30 GMT -5
Glad I'm not the only one.
|
|