Nah, you can give up on Caribou lol
Oops
Someone was triggered
Go on, go on... after all, I'm only here to revive this thread a little bit.
This is gonna be fun !
Wuat ?
No.
By fuck**g up I'm mean promising stuff he didn't deliver on. I mean by that taking his readers for morons.
Oda NEVER did that.
Yes, you point ? There is no point here.
No. Not at all. What Oda did what letting his character express a desire.
Promising you Yamato as a future member would be like letting the narrator statuate that Yamato would be relevant for the story of the strawhats later. THAT would be a sort of promise.
This is not what happened.
YOU and Yamato fan choosed to take Yamato's words as a promise when they weren't one. From DAY one, I explained with evidence clearly why this would never happen.
Yeah, don't get into it too much, you risk understanding that you are wrong lol
Indeed. Which is in fact not something that is them place to say. Which creates the specific corruption I'm talking about later of the premisse 'Yamato will join". And therefore, a subversive affirmation.
Wrong.
Reread the story.
Wrong
What the crew heared is Yamato saying "so, I will be your crewmate now". Which was literally followed by Jinbe sayin "I'll need to wait for the word of the captain on that".
It is a subversion. Clear and simple. Not a promise and not Oda making it clear.
What it is on the other hand, is Oda playing with the notion that there might still be room on the Sunny. Through Yamato (and Carrot), Oda revived the "who is the next Nakama" debate. Which is why this thread is still alive. Now... maybe he is just trolling us like he like to do or maybe he is preping the field for a character to really join this time.
Yes it does. It shows NARRATIVELY that Yamato has more to offer than being a strawhat for the actual story of Wano because of her ties with Momo and Oden.
Indeed, standing next to a character means nothing. But fighting for said character and protecting said character and mentoring said character, in short having a narrative STRONG BOND with said character is proving the fact that Yamato and Momo are more than just two characters in the same story and are in fact linked deeply. Which is something that only happens in One Piece between the "princes" and the "helpers of the prince"
For Luffy no. For Oda, its relevant. We can say that because of the SBS and because of the way missnamed character are treated in the story.
The missnamaing in itself is not relevant enough to say "Yamato is destined to not be a strawhat".. but added to others information showing that Yamato is actually riding the opposite direction, its relevant enough as added evidence.
Conflict is NEVER meaningless. Conflict even for joke always has a narrative purpose.
No its not. In this context Jinbe acts as a buffer to avoid the reader creating too much expectation on Yamato joining the crew (at least those who can manage their expectations). Its literally Oda saying "careful, I'm not promising anything here" abd him showing you that a different outcome could happen. Such a piece of conflictual dialogue is never meaningless. Again, everything has a purpose.
Yes it precisely is when the choice of Yamato simply goes the opposite way of the choices of Oden. I've already explained that here, but here we go again... Yamato, Momo and Luffy are constructed in wano as antithesis for Oden's character. Each one's choices and actions are going in the opposite direction of what Oden did, simply because Oden was a flawed character :
- Yamato choosed to stay in Wano and take responsibility instead of going out to the sea like Oden
- Momo choosed to keep the frontiers closed instead of recklessly opening them like Oden wanted
- Luffy choosed to rely on his friend instead of taking (literaly) all the burden on his back alone like Oden did
The reason for this antithesis is because the notion of friendship and shared responsibilities are written to be the reasons for victory in Wano. Oden did pushed everyone moving forward and was an amazing character, but he was flawed and took responsibilities alone and too late, which allowed Kaido to strive in the first place. Yamato, Momo and Luffy are constructed to be the bearer of his will but also to be the child that will not do like the one that were previously here.
No. Of course not. I'm just a storytelling analyst. I don't really care for literature that much, I just like storycrafting. I might seems obnoxious but this is only because I say things with assurance. In reality, you will never see anyone with a more open mind that me on this forum. (trust me on this)
The concept I named "subversive affirmation" is something that has never been (at least not in my knowledge) conceptualized and explained properly. The explanation is not refined and could still need work, but its the best explanation there is (again, in my knowledge).
If you have a better explanation for this storytelling tool, go for it. I'm not here to be the best, I'm here to understanding the story as much as I can.
I choosed the word "subversive affirmation" because its what describe the best the concept, before that it was "subversion dialogue" but it didn't convey enough the fact that this tool always uses "affirmation". The fact that the name already exist in another discipline doesn't negate the importance of this term.
This is not what dramatic irony is.
Dramatic irony is a method through which the reader will (usually) know more informations about the situation that the character.
Here, its not that process that is playing, its something different.
A "subversive affirmation" in storytelling (as I called it), is a tool to subvert the expectations of a reader while signaling him inconsciously that said thing will not happen.
I made a post about this on my blog to explain the tool clearly:
https://carrotfornakama.wixsite.com/anyonefornakama/post/concept-subversion-dialogues
Indeed, not the definition simply because the definition you took is not about the field of storytelling but philosophy.
We are talking about storytelling here, different discipline.
But I guess this is not your fault but mine, I should have linked my definition directly.
No. The subversion of expectation is not a technique, its a result. The result of the usage of different storytelling tools and plot.
What I'm talking about is a storytelling TOOL. Literally.
Again, I'm not blaming you for being lost on this concept, you would need to know about me and my blog, read this article please:
https://carrotfornakama.wixsite.com/anyonefornakama/post/concept-subversion-dialogues
Indeed. I thought you were already familiar with the concept but since you are new with me here, you can see the examples here:
https://carrotfornakama.wixsite.com/anyonefornakama/post/concept-subversion-dialogues
Again, no, its just a result of the usage of different tools. And no, he did not f*cked with us. He did played with us, but just like any author should.
I consider the term "f*cking" as pejorative in that context.
Nop. He just subverted it. Which is logical thing for an author to do. It was perfectly logical for Yamato's character.
Its not different that what he usually does. The only difference here is that it touch a new potential member and that some of you took that a little too seriously. This shouldn't be the case. Oda never promised you anything.
No.
Actually, the audience is divided. There are those who choosed to ignored the hint Oda gave to manage the expectations of the reader and remind them that nothing was promised and those like me, who understood clearly what Yamato's journey was about from day one.
Sorry mate.. but again, nothing was promised to you.
Yes you can, you just need to understand why he did what he did in the first place. Something Yamato fan or you seems to have hard time doing.
The subversion of expectation is not here for nothing. Its literally Yamato subverting their OWN expectations. It a simple narrative device.
No its not. Not in narration. There are no lie in storytelling unless there is a promisse than is not fullfiled.
Subversion of expectation are results of narrative tools beings used to enhance the characters journeys or the plot. And in storytelling, subversion of expectation never arrive out of nowhere, they are always announced. Sometimes through the characterization of the characters, sometimes because of the situation or the plot etc.
Meaning that, a good reader could theorically always predict the subversion of expectation.
For example, a good reader could predict the fact that Ace is not Luffy's brother but Gold Rogers's son just before the announcement of the marines. A good reader could predict that Vivi will not join the crew. A good reader could predict that Raizo is safe. And a good reader can predict that Yamato is not supposed to join right at the moment she makes her speach to Luffy.
Why ? Because Oda, like every good writer, leaves narrative clues along the ways to make the story organic.
No. If you want you can try to give your own criterias and narrative parameters that all the strawhats have in common.
Chances are, you will ended up with a similar list, just with other names.
Sorry, I - again - thought that you were familiar with that list and this thread:
Here are the concept. (scratch the parts were I explain that those are the best way to predict the next strawhat, its not the case anymore.)
https://carrotfornakama.wixsite.com/anyonefornakama
In reality those criterias do fits Yamato AND Carrot more than any other characters. Which is the reason why there was a war during multiple years again Yamato and Carrot stans.
It depends:
- If Oda never intended Carrot to join, yes, she never had a chance (but was still a good candidate from our point of view)
- If Oda scratch her story midway through, then yes, Carrot did had a chance.
Right now, there is no answer.
Well yes.. I did lol
And don't worry, there is no inconsistancy. You can find the 5 golden rules and the 10 pillars in every strawhats without question.
I did, too much in fact, but it seems you were not there on this thread when it happened. If you want more information about this previous road map check my blog:
https://carrotfornakama.wixsite.com/anyonefornakama
Actually yes it was needed.
What I'm doing here, is explaining why my previous model (the 5golden rule+10Pillar) is FLAWED as a prediction system. The reason is simple, you can't really predict anything with it unless its really too obvious for the reader. Thus defeating the purpose of the model in the first place.
For the rest, you need to understand what those points means. Check the blog. Here antagonistic doesn't necessarally means "as a villain", it also means antagonistic in front of the readers. For example, when a character is being shaded in a menacing manner or imposing manner, this is a "antagonistic introduction". You could also switch the term with "cinematic introduction".
No, you didn't understand. Zoro do follow all the point. But the point only arrive in one swoop, making us unable to predict anything based on the fact that we have one or more points. In other words : The arc of Zoro is very rapid, so all the "pillars" are close to each others so there is really no way to make a prediction model about Zoro based on those point.
Same with the majority of the strawhats, those points arrives too late and usually in a moment where we already know that the strawhat will join so they are not relevant anymore to predict anything.
Therefore those points can't help us predict (and I was wrong about that), but they can help us understand how a strawhat is constructed as each strawhats will follow all those points at one moment or another. Hence why I used the term "road map"
Yup, my point exactly.
No, you just showed me that you didn't understand the model to begin with lol
I disagree
Actually, there were (and still are) hints that Carrot could fit the entire set of pillars. And like I said, it meant to be a road map, meaning that if a character checks all the boxe, they will already be a strawhat.
Not in the first model indeed. Only in the 5 golden rules.
Again, read the blog. Right now, you don't understand what I'm talking about.
Nothing is "contrive" when I speak about storytelling mate. I'm always basing my reasonning on storytelling fact. The fact that you don't understand those point doesn't make them less true in the realm of the story.
Read before you post mate, its ridicule....
Indeed, sometimes Oda uses this pattern multiple time in his stories
This:
Is yet another example of this pattern. Even tho this time its not meant to have the same relevancy in term of emotion delivering, its far slower and meant to have more gravity attached to it. The story focuses on Ace and Yamato, Luffy is being slowly forgotten and the hype rises up again once he appears with his rivals and Zoro.
If you like music, this moment is like the "minor" equivalent the "major" moments that I listed above.
Pretty much yea. The point is to rules out as many character as possible. And since most character follow non strawhat patterns, we need to see who is left once we clear the field. And in the last decade, only 1 (alive) characters is MAINLY fitting a non regular pattern as of today:
Carrot
I'm not only writing for you, I'm also writing for me. Laying off my thoughts is also a way for me to adjust my model and my reasonning.
Yes, since people like you are still failing to understand on the first explanation..
Again, this is the words of someone that don't really analyse the story.
Yes, everything I said here is based on the story. I'm not saying that there are pattern because I want to see pattern, I'm explananing that they exist because I noticed that the story is formed around patterns. Those patterns as I explained are as much important in situation that they are in the characterizations. So those 10 categories are relevant. You are just not noticing them. (which is wy i'm explaining them in the first place)
Actually the fact that I choosed to focus on Carrot because of her potential as a character is something that I'm saying since 2016. I was already saying that back on my twitter days mate
Carrot doesn't fit the regular patterns of Oda.. In fact she is one of the only character in the story to this day not to fit those patterns. Carrot could be called a secondary character, yes, but NO, she had in fact MAJOR influence on the story, MAJOR moments, MAJOR emotional relevancy (proportionnaly to her characterization of course) and had A MAJOR presence in the story that NO character ever had without falling into one of those 11 categories.
Major moment and influence
Major emotional relevancy
And a major presence during the entire whole cake arc.
The point is, this types of patterns are not regular for a secondary character. So, Carrot can't be called "a secondary character" in fact even less so since she became the ruler of Zou. Carrot has :
- The attribute of a princess
- The attribute of a strawhats
- The attribute of a helper
All at once. Which is not normal when we look at the way characters are written in One Piece. Oda is somewhat constant and homogenus when it comes to the cahracterization of his characters. For Carrot to have such a weird development is not logical.
Hence why I was interested in her story.
An alien in the sence, "characterization"
I did, you just ignored them mate
Meaning that non regular character writing is something that is specific to the strawhats. For example:
- Keeping a character close to the strawhat while this character has no strong relevancy with the arc beside a thematic one.
- Giving a non strawhat a post on the crew, which is something that is unprecedented before Carrot and Pedro.
- Creating a sub story between a mentor and a child when such a story is not relevant to the plot (aside from a thematic point of view)
- Creating a cinematic introduction for Carrot and giving her not one but TWO different introductions both representing two side of her personnality
- Deepening the symbolic thematic of Carrot so much that its somewhat better than some strawhats..
Again, those are just example of narrative non regular pattern that are usually only given to specific characters and strawhats. Not simple secondary characters.
Carrot is a literal narrative enigma.
Yes, but this doesn't explain the narrative irregularity.
You completely missed the explanation mate
You were too focused on debunking me and not focusing enough on listening to me.
:cheers:
That's why people like you always failed to prove me wrong in those threads
Its not about what her attribute are, its about what her attribute are not or SHOULD BE.
Carrot should be a simple secondary character yet she was portrayed with a form of deep emotional relevancy.
Carrot is supposed to be just a secondary character and yet she was given a post on the sunny which is more than any character were given in the story.
Those things are not normal and if you think they are, you simply do not understand how One Piece is constructed.
I said "in the last decade". Jinbe was the best candidate in the previous decade, we already knew that he was going to join the moment Luffy asked him to join. It was a certainty.
And for you, a sentence for sentence reply to show me that you don't understand a single thing to what I'm talking about.
No, just a little bit of showing off, knowing that people like you would try to debunk what I have to say. And thus...
Reviving the thread a little bit
Hehe, you guys are too predictive
No, you just choosed to missunderstand what I'm saying. All of what I said is meaningfull.
I might not always be right, but I always have a coherent reasonning mate.
<< this one didn't understand what I said it seems
Anti intellectualism is not really the tool of the brights
The reason is simple:
You start talking to me on the principle that I'm wrong because I defend Carrot. So, obviously, anything that I will say will be seen under a bias. But the reality is that I lways say thing very clearly and I always explains my point deeply.
I might not be right all the time (for example, I was wrong on the fact that my model was a prediction system rather than a road map) but what I say is always coherent and is always based on the story.
I can't really make you see that, and i've done everything I could to be as pedagogic as possible. So now, its your job to get rid of the biases you have against me
When those were clearly defined in two article on my blog and multiple times on this threads..........
Its not me being incoherent or not explaning things clearly, its you choosing not to understand and aknowledge those concept as legitimate ones.
No one really did that but me.
What I saw are people telling me that my system was not working not using the system to predict anything.. but again... its not relevant anymore as this system is proven to be wrong as a predictive system either way. So you guys were right on this, not just for the reasons you might think... lol
:cheers:
😎
