General & Others Next Straw Hat Crew Members and the Grand Fleet
- Thread starter Uncle Van
- Start date
- Tags #c4ng2g carrot fans are still losers carrot haters are real losers seethe at the rabbit carrot is doing nothing because she doesn't matter carrot will never join the straw hats carrot's story never even began cry about carrot everyone else in the verse neg diffs the bunny imagine thinking stussy won't join its over furry bros keep the bunny on zou nobody else needs her let it go furry bros momo is breeding yamato no character is less relevant than carrot oden larper fans can't read stussy > carrot & yamato stussy supremacy who will be the next nakama of the week? yamato always had a better chance than carrot yamato story is over
Ok then...
First:
No. Oda NEVER fucked up with the audience. Unless, not like you might think. What he did with Yamato is only letting her express what her character in this situation would naturally express: which is to join the crew of Luffy. But Oda never said or promised that Yamato would join (you never had the foreshadow of a tiny hint of Yamato joining the crew) no.. Oda while letting Yamato express her desires actually showed up the opposite:
- He made Yamato stands with Momo
- He made Luffy missname Yamato
- He made Yamato have a conflict with Luffy just after the expression of the desire
- He made Jinbe question the joining of Yamato
- He made Yamato literally a reverse portrayal of Oden (which should have hinted clearly to the readers that Yamato is actually depicted as the opposite of Oden)
- He even hinted the fact that Yamato would become the guardian deity of Wano through the words of Kaido and his wish to make Yamato the shogun ruling over Wano.
But more that EVERYTHING else.. he created something that author uses OFTEN and that you guys are still oblivious too : the subversive affirmations.
In short, by corrupting a premisse of Yamato wanting to join the crew, Oda actually hinted in plain sight the fact that Yamato would actually NEVER join.
Subversive affirmations is something that author uses ALL THE TIME to create an inception into our readers minds that something might not happen the way we are told it will happen. Its a way to subconsciouly prepare the reader to the reality of an upcoming event.
So no, Oda never lied to you, or rather, yes he did. But Yamato ALWAYS was meant and technically depicted as not joining the crew.
SECOND..
Actually yes I CAN.
Its called the 5 golden rules and the 10 pillars.
5 Golden Rules being:
All of this to say that yes, we can say what constitute a Strawhat Nakama in the end of the day.
Now...
While I think that this model explain perfectly what constitute a good strawhat... and despite what I've been saying. Its not the best to predict. The reason is actually extremely simple and something I didn't even cared to think about since I wasn't thinking in the right order to begin with:
This system is NOT a prediction system, its a road map !
This means that EVERY strawhats will pass through one of those points, but the tricky part is that Oda being Oda, those point might not appear in the same order. And sometimes, those will appear just before the actual recruitment.
For example if we take Robin's example: she has an antagonistic introduction followed by multi layered characterization toward the end of Alabasta. There are also hints of symbolic reach and the hint of a tragedy and but there is not trace of other data. Now, if we take the moment Robin joins the crew for the first time, we can add 4 potential more points.. but at this time, Robin already joined, just not officially, so do we still need to search for clues ? Not really.
Other example, for Franky: Franky had the antagonistic introduction, some fair multi layared characterization, a good symbolic reach. based on those data, we can't really predict Franky as a future crewmate, unless we remembers taht Luffy drew him clearly at the beginning of the arc. We can therefore deduce that the story will focus on him and that he will have a tragedy and a character arc etc.. but again, that's not enough.. We can of course predict the majority of the pillar once the flashback of Franky ends (because of the elements of the flashback), but at this points its pretty obvious that Franky will join or is the best placed to join so the system is not relevant anymore..
The other simple example is Zoro. In reality every points here about Zoro appeared very rapidely, we didn't really had time to predict anything. Unless if we remembered the fact that Luffy predicted to recruit Zoro..
So in anyway.. the points don't really have a prediction value at least not in the way I intended them to have one. In that sence, people here were right. BUT its STILL relevant as a road map, meaning that now we can say that every POTENTIAL candidate will path through ALL those steps.
Now... If this system can't really predict anything, CAN WE predict anything ?
Well... Yes I still think so.. But I think that we are looking at the problem the wrong way. Instead for trying to confirm a candidate and therefore confirm a bias, we should do the opposite
I mean that instead of saying "how can we say that Bonney will join", the thing we should really ask ourself is rather: "How can we get rid of any possible other candidate ?"
While I tried to do that at first with the 5 golden rules. In reality, I discovered only what the strawhats had in common at the end of the line, not what they needed to have to be good potential candidate.
And here is why my story with Carrot is important:
I think that instead of looking at the post or a dream or anything like that, we should look at one core principle:
THE NARRATIVE POTENTIAL
--
What do I mean by narrative potential ? Well.. I mean by that ALL the little clues that could indicate that a character could be developping the 5 golden Rules and the 10 Pillars. And all of this can fall under one parameter :
THE PRESENCE OF PATTERNS
I've come to understand that One Piece is written by someone with clear narrative patterns in mind. Those pattern are repeated in situations and in the characters. Most of the times, those pattern serves narrative purposes. For example:
- At the beginning of an arc, the strawhats will most likely be separated. This will allow the story to adopt multiple point of view and to enhance the different thematics.
- The way battle are structured in One Piece is always going from the outside to the inside and from the less relevant battles for the story at the time to the most revelant one (being Luffy's one), this is why the battle of the strawhats will finish mostly first, then the two commanders (Sanji and Zoro will have their times) and then Luffy will have the finishing move sometimes in tandem with the fight of the arc main protagonist or equivalent. Its important as it creates a form of countdown toward the end of the arc and a way to keep things exciting yet predictive enough for the reader to expect the following of the fights.
- In stories were Luffy is supposed to have a clear end goal, there is a narrative pattern in the way Luffy is presented in the arc : at first he will be in the discovering phase, to him is presented the reason why he will fight to the death (most of the time because of an act of kindness from the native population) and the character he will fight for, then Luffy faces a series of challenges and he is progressively cut from the narration.. this is were the story progress on the characterization and the story of the main protagonists of said arc. (Nami, Vivi, Conis/Kyros, Ace, Shiraoshi, Rebecca, Momo), then.. when everything seems lost and we arrive to the point of the narration were everything needs to feels like there is no tomorrow, when its the end for those character and their vision or when they are at their lowest, then Luffy appears.. You should CLEARLY remember those moments, the way Oda structures his narration here (Lack of Luffy (either from the readers or the main antagonist) > characterization > hope lost > reappearance of Luffy) is very simple, but extremely efficient to create amazing emotional moments and this is what transform Luffy more and more into a real hero:
So.. patterns are important in One Piece, they shape a LOT the final story so I think we should look for them or RATHER... the impossibilities of such pattern in some characters.
For example, we can't expect a character like Raizo to have the same emotionnal range as a character like Momonosuke, the reason because Raizo has a lot of attribute of a secondary character that tends - in One Piece - not to evolve too much.. BUT its not the case for a character like Yamato when we first meet them..
In reality character like Yamato have an latent "narrative potential" meaning that they do not fit into any real categories and are therefore movable in the spectra of character.
Another example of that is Bonney, we can't expect Bonney to have the secondary characterization or the same characterization as character that have pattern of characterization closer to rivals (smoker / kids / Law ) so we know that she has a narrative potential in the arc and the question is therefore: "does this potential can lead toward the crew ?
In reality, not so much as Bonney also shares a lot of characterization patterns with the "princess" characters of One Piece (Momo / Vivi / Rebecca) as they all have big external struggles that do not really have something to do with the strawhats per say and more with their environment or situations. (which is different with Nami and Robin or Sanji as their internal conflict was directly connected to their relationship with the Strawhats and Luffy)
So....
To sum up a little bit, if we want to predict a character, we must look at their NARRATIVE POTENTIAL. Its not something that is evident and will in fact be something that will jump in your face or not. This is the potential for the development of the 5 golden rules and the 10 PIllars in the characters and this can be predicted if we look a bit closer to the pattern of the character.
What we must therefore do, is rule out every characters that have very similar pattern with:
- Tiersary character: they are the character that accompagny the secondary characters or the strawhats. Most of the time not implicated emotionnally in the story, there are characterized by a quirky personnality and a few emotions.
- Secondary characters (most of the times characterized by a few emotion pattern and one funny character trait), they can have a few good impactfull moments and they are related to the prince or princess by blood or friendship
- Rivals and ally (most of the time characterized by a deep "edgy" characterization material, those are the character that you will have hard time to find in funny characterization for example)
- Strong antagonist(s) (most of the times characterized by their oppressive traits and actions)
- The funny antagonist/Antagonist allies: Those are the allies of the antagonist(s), characterized mostly by a funny cahracter traits or physical traits.
- The treasure character: This is the character that will act nicely with Luffy and will be the reason why he fight. It will be most of the time an innocent character that will face a very hard reality
- The helper of the princes and princesses and ally: Those are the character that acts as the helper of the "prince and princesses", they will most of the time sacrifice themself for the sake of the cause or help Luffy or the strawhat move forward in the adventure
- The guide of the will: This will be one type of character that will help either the strawhats or have an effect on the prince and princesses and the Kings and hidden rulers to the point that they the conflict of the story is most of the type a result of their actions. They are characterized by a the fact that they are a vessel to deliver STRONG moral values.
- The Kings and hidden rulers : The characters that are usually characterized through their status and the fact that they will most often be incapable of acting, they will most often distribute key information at the end of the arc or be a way through which key information will be delivered.
- The "prince and princesses": Sometime the treasure cahracter also, its the character that Luffy will need to save in the arc and around which the theme of the arc will be developped. Its often the character with the best range of emotion and the character that will completely change.
- The members of the fleet: Those are specifically the captains of the fleets: They are characterized by their strong will and their complete absence of fear in front of danger and most of all, their independance. The two main characters of the fleet (Bartholomeo and Cavendish) have strong character arc as well.
As you can see... a character like Yamato is not obvious at the start of their journey, so they fit COMPLETELY the description of a character with huge narrative potential. Another character that fits this description right now are Vegapunk and Stussy. They both have immension narrative potential left, their story could go in a vast number of directions.
And... what this post made me finally realize is WHY I clearly choosed to focus on Carrot's character on the first place. I knew that she had a narrative potential, but I didn't really put word on it.
Its now done. Just like Yamato, you can see that Carrot ALSO have an amazing NARRATIVE POTENTIAL.
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.
Carrot is literally an alien in the story of One Piece
And that's what I'm screaming and trying to tell people since the beginning of my journey here and on Twitter. Her story is simply not normal in One Piece.. Its like Oda suddenly changed his entire process just to make Carrot.
And my explanation at the time is that it can only be explain because Carrot is destined to be a strawhat as only the strawhats are characterized that way.
But Oda prove me (for the moment) wrong.. so... WTF ???
What HAPPENED ??
Why this character (actually set of + Pedro) in the first place ??
This is an enigma and the reason why...............
.... This is wrong from beginning to end.
Not only is it untrue in theory or in the narrative but it also untrue in practice just as I explained previously.
The simple fact that a fanbase was created the moment Carrot appeared is significant enough to graps just how impactfull her character was. I STILL believe that her story was (or is ???) supposed to be much more.
Carrot has the most attribute to be a candidate and there were all the reason to believe that she would become a strawhat at the time. Its simply undeniable..
Or story slowed down - granted - but you can't act like the years during whole cake and the hype surrounding Carrot's was not present.
And just like I explained, this wasn't present because of no reason. There was an actual purpose behind this character...
And it was most likely a purpose having something to do with the fact of becoming a potential strawhat... an idea that seems to have disappear over time.
Carrot was narratively the best candidate in the last decade. From a narrative standpoint its simply undeniable.
-
Oh but you can lay down the laws if you are feeling brave... but you never EVER tells me the Rules !
I tell you what... its gonna be a whoppper !!
You want this thread back ?
THEN COME AND GET IT !!
First:
No. Oda NEVER fucked up with the audience. Unless, not like you might think. What he did with Yamato is only letting her express what her character in this situation would naturally express: which is to join the crew of Luffy. But Oda never said or promised that Yamato would join (you never had the foreshadow of a tiny hint of Yamato joining the crew) no.. Oda while letting Yamato express her desires actually showed up the opposite:
- He made Yamato stands with Momo
- He made Luffy missname Yamato
- He made Yamato have a conflict with Luffy just after the expression of the desire
- He made Jinbe question the joining of Yamato
- He made Yamato literally a reverse portrayal of Oden (which should have hinted clearly to the readers that Yamato is actually depicted as the opposite of Oden)
- He even hinted the fact that Yamato would become the guardian deity of Wano through the words of Kaido and his wish to make Yamato the shogun ruling over Wano.
But more that EVERYTHING else.. he created something that author uses OFTEN and that you guys are still oblivious too : the subversive affirmations.
In short, by corrupting a premisse of Yamato wanting to join the crew, Oda actually hinted in plain sight the fact that Yamato would actually NEVER join.
Subversive affirmations is something that author uses ALL THE TIME to create an inception into our readers minds that something might not happen the way we are told it will happen. Its a way to subconsciouly prepare the reader to the reality of an upcoming event.
So no, Oda never lied to you, or rather, yes he did. But Yamato ALWAYS was meant and technically depicted as not joining the crew.
SECOND..
Actually yes I CAN.
Its called the 5 golden rules and the 10 pillars.
5 Golden Rules being:
- Be alive
- Be relevant to the story
- Be unique and have a unique ability
- Be a friend or a false adversary
- Have a guide of the will
- The Antagonistic introduction.
- The Multi layered characterization.
- The Symbolic reach.
- A Strong character arc.
- Hint of the 2 driving forces.
- The Rescue.
- A Tragedy.
- The Double Nakama link.
- The Post.
- The Shining Nakama Action.
All of this to say that yes, we can say what constitute a Strawhat Nakama in the end of the day.
Now...
While I think that this model explain perfectly what constitute a good strawhat... and despite what I've been saying. Its not the best to predict. The reason is actually extremely simple and something I didn't even cared to think about since I wasn't thinking in the right order to begin with:
This system is NOT a prediction system, its a road map !
This means that EVERY strawhats will pass through one of those points, but the tricky part is that Oda being Oda, those point might not appear in the same order. And sometimes, those will appear just before the actual recruitment.
For example if we take Robin's example: she has an antagonistic introduction followed by multi layered characterization toward the end of Alabasta. There are also hints of symbolic reach and the hint of a tragedy and but there is not trace of other data. Now, if we take the moment Robin joins the crew for the first time, we can add 4 potential more points.. but at this time, Robin already joined, just not officially, so do we still need to search for clues ? Not really.
Other example, for Franky: Franky had the antagonistic introduction, some fair multi layared characterization, a good symbolic reach. based on those data, we can't really predict Franky as a future crewmate, unless we remembers taht Luffy drew him clearly at the beginning of the arc. We can therefore deduce that the story will focus on him and that he will have a tragedy and a character arc etc.. but again, that's not enough.. We can of course predict the majority of the pillar once the flashback of Franky ends (because of the elements of the flashback), but at this points its pretty obvious that Franky will join or is the best placed to join so the system is not relevant anymore..
The other simple example is Zoro. In reality every points here about Zoro appeared very rapidely, we didn't really had time to predict anything. Unless if we remembered the fact that Luffy predicted to recruit Zoro..
So in anyway.. the points don't really have a prediction value at least not in the way I intended them to have one. In that sence, people here were right. BUT its STILL relevant as a road map, meaning that now we can say that every POTENTIAL candidate will path through ALL those steps.
Now... If this system can't really predict anything, CAN WE predict anything ?
Well... Yes I still think so.. But I think that we are looking at the problem the wrong way. Instead for trying to confirm a candidate and therefore confirm a bias, we should do the opposite
I mean that instead of saying "how can we say that Bonney will join", the thing we should really ask ourself is rather: "How can we get rid of any possible other candidate ?"
While I tried to do that at first with the 5 golden rules. In reality, I discovered only what the strawhats had in common at the end of the line, not what they needed to have to be good potential candidate.
And here is why my story with Carrot is important:
I think that instead of looking at the post or a dream or anything like that, we should look at one core principle:
THE NARRATIVE POTENTIAL
--
What do I mean by narrative potential ? Well.. I mean by that ALL the little clues that could indicate that a character could be developping the 5 golden Rules and the 10 Pillars. And all of this can fall under one parameter :
THE PRESENCE OF PATTERNS
I've come to understand that One Piece is written by someone with clear narrative patterns in mind. Those pattern are repeated in situations and in the characters. Most of the times, those pattern serves narrative purposes. For example:
- At the beginning of an arc, the strawhats will most likely be separated. This will allow the story to adopt multiple point of view and to enhance the different thematics.
- The way battle are structured in One Piece is always going from the outside to the inside and from the less relevant battles for the story at the time to the most revelant one (being Luffy's one), this is why the battle of the strawhats will finish mostly first, then the two commanders (Sanji and Zoro will have their times) and then Luffy will have the finishing move sometimes in tandem with the fight of the arc main protagonist or equivalent. Its important as it creates a form of countdown toward the end of the arc and a way to keep things exciting yet predictive enough for the reader to expect the following of the fights.
- In stories were Luffy is supposed to have a clear end goal, there is a narrative pattern in the way Luffy is presented in the arc : at first he will be in the discovering phase, to him is presented the reason why he will fight to the death (most of the time because of an act of kindness from the native population) and the character he will fight for, then Luffy faces a series of challenges and he is progressively cut from the narration.. this is were the story progress on the characterization and the story of the main protagonists of said arc. (Nami, Vivi, Conis/Kyros, Ace, Shiraoshi, Rebecca, Momo), then.. when everything seems lost and we arrive to the point of the narration were everything needs to feels like there is no tomorrow, when its the end for those character and their vision or when they are at their lowest, then Luffy appears.. You should CLEARLY remember those moments, the way Oda structures his narration here (Lack of Luffy (either from the readers or the main antagonist) > characterization > hope lost > reappearance of Luffy) is very simple, but extremely efficient to create amazing emotional moments and this is what transform Luffy more and more into a real hero:
So.. patterns are important in One Piece, they shape a LOT the final story so I think we should look for them or RATHER... the impossibilities of such pattern in some characters.
For example, we can't expect a character like Raizo to have the same emotionnal range as a character like Momonosuke, the reason because Raizo has a lot of attribute of a secondary character that tends - in One Piece - not to evolve too much.. BUT its not the case for a character like Yamato when we first meet them..
In reality character like Yamato have an latent "narrative potential" meaning that they do not fit into any real categories and are therefore movable in the spectra of character.
Another example of that is Bonney, we can't expect Bonney to have the secondary characterization or the same characterization as character that have pattern of characterization closer to rivals (smoker / kids / Law ) so we know that she has a narrative potential in the arc and the question is therefore: "does this potential can lead toward the crew ?
In reality, not so much as Bonney also shares a lot of characterization patterns with the "princess" characters of One Piece (Momo / Vivi / Rebecca) as they all have big external struggles that do not really have something to do with the strawhats per say and more with their environment or situations. (which is different with Nami and Robin or Sanji as their internal conflict was directly connected to their relationship with the Strawhats and Luffy)
So....
To sum up a little bit, if we want to predict a character, we must look at their NARRATIVE POTENTIAL. Its not something that is evident and will in fact be something that will jump in your face or not. This is the potential for the development of the 5 golden rules and the 10 PIllars in the characters and this can be predicted if we look a bit closer to the pattern of the character.
What we must therefore do, is rule out every characters that have very similar pattern with:
- Tiersary character: they are the character that accompagny the secondary characters or the strawhats. Most of the time not implicated emotionnally in the story, there are characterized by a quirky personnality and a few emotions.
- Secondary characters (most of the times characterized by a few emotion pattern and one funny character trait), they can have a few good impactfull moments and they are related to the prince or princess by blood or friendship
- Rivals and ally (most of the time characterized by a deep "edgy" characterization material, those are the character that you will have hard time to find in funny characterization for example)
- Strong antagonist(s) (most of the times characterized by their oppressive traits and actions)
- The funny antagonist/Antagonist allies: Those are the allies of the antagonist(s), characterized mostly by a funny cahracter traits or physical traits.
- The treasure character: This is the character that will act nicely with Luffy and will be the reason why he fight. It will be most of the time an innocent character that will face a very hard reality
- The helper of the princes and princesses and ally: Those are the character that acts as the helper of the "prince and princesses", they will most of the time sacrifice themself for the sake of the cause or help Luffy or the strawhat move forward in the adventure
- The guide of the will: This will be one type of character that will help either the strawhats or have an effect on the prince and princesses and the Kings and hidden rulers to the point that they the conflict of the story is most of the type a result of their actions. They are characterized by a the fact that they are a vessel to deliver STRONG moral values.
- The Kings and hidden rulers : The characters that are usually characterized through their status and the fact that they will most often be incapable of acting, they will most often distribute key information at the end of the arc or be a way through which key information will be delivered.
- The "prince and princesses": Sometime the treasure cahracter also, its the character that Luffy will need to save in the arc and around which the theme of the arc will be developped. Its often the character with the best range of emotion and the character that will completely change.
- The members of the fleet: Those are specifically the captains of the fleets: They are characterized by their strong will and their complete absence of fear in front of danger and most of all, their independance. The two main characters of the fleet (Bartholomeo and Cavendish) have strong character arc as well.
As you can see... a character like Yamato is not obvious at the start of their journey, so they fit COMPLETELY the description of a character with huge narrative potential. Another character that fits this description right now are Vegapunk and Stussy. They both have immension narrative potential left, their story could go in a vast number of directions.
And... what this post made me finally realize is WHY I clearly choosed to focus on Carrot's character on the first place. I knew that she had a narrative potential, but I didn't really put word on it.
Its now done. Just like Yamato, you can see that Carrot ALSO have an amazing NARRATIVE POTENTIAL.
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.
Carrot is literally an alien in the story of One Piece
And that's what I'm screaming and trying to tell people since the beginning of my journey here and on Twitter. Her story is simply not normal in One Piece.. Its like Oda suddenly changed his entire process just to make Carrot.
And my explanation at the time is that it can only be explain because Carrot is destined to be a strawhat as only the strawhats are characterized that way.
But Oda prove me (for the moment) wrong.. so... WTF ???
What HAPPENED ??
Why this character (actually set of + Pedro) in the first place ??
This is an enigma and the reason why...............
.... This is wrong from beginning to end.
Not only is it untrue in theory or in the narrative but it also untrue in practice just as I explained previously.
The simple fact that a fanbase was created the moment Carrot appeared is significant enough to graps just how impactfull her character was. I STILL believe that her story was (or is ???) supposed to be much more.
Carrot has the most attribute to be a candidate and there were all the reason to believe that she would become a strawhat at the time. Its simply undeniable..
Or story slowed down - granted - but you can't act like the years during whole cake and the hype surrounding Carrot's was not present.
And just like I explained, this wasn't present because of no reason. There was an actual purpose behind this character...
And it was most likely a purpose having something to do with the fact of becoming a potential strawhat... an idea that seems to have disappear over time.
Carrot was narratively the best candidate in the last decade. From a narrative standpoint its simply undeniable.
-
Oh but you can lay down the laws if you are feeling brave... but you never EVER tells me the Rules !
I tell you what... its gonna be a whoppper !!
You want this thread back ?
THEN COME AND GET IT !!
Post automatically merged:
If this is your best post, or one of them, then your posts very clearly don't have much weight. You're not convincing anybody of anything, and if I can be bothered come the end of work today, I'll grace this ridiculous diatribe with a point by point response. But unlike you, I'll actually make it digestible to people who read it.
Okay just wasted pretty much my entire lunchbreak here - you owe me a meal @Logiko
He did
Two things can be synonymous i.e. dual functional or achieving two ends through one means
Made it pretty crystal clear given several things which I am sure will be mentioned further below. Anyway without getting too into it, she was a foil of Oden, she said she would join, Luffy said she would join, the Crew was informed she would join. So if that's not Oda making it clear then I need to ask you what is?
This isn't showing the opposite. Standing next to characters means nothing. Giving Yamabro a nickname is not misnaming, and also meaningless. Conflicting with Luffy is also ultimately meaningless given it was a small squabble. Jinbe is a sceptic, so also meaningless. A foil to another character is far from the opposite of said character. Guardian deity is the only fair point you've made here.
Are you going to pretend to be a a Literature professor below? Feels like that's the tone we're going with. Okay...
Well, so in summary, the use of dramatic irony through making the contradictory truth self-evident. I am going to assess the below with this definition in mind.
Not the definition, but not far off - well done I guess, but let's see where you take this
And you've already lost me. Firstly, this is a technique called 'subversion of expectations', not 'subvesive affirmations' which achieve the same ends through different means. Secondly, you have provided no examples to back up your point. What Oda did was a subversion of expectations which is for all intents and purposes across all of literary history the same thing as "fucking with the audience". What Oda did was set up expectations and then trash them. What you're talking about is Oda making something that is really obviously not going to happen the commonly accepted truth amongst his characters and then having this truth trashed in-story, while we the audience always knew it. My entire point is Oda subverted expectations with Yamato and because he did this (something you yourself literally just said he did), we cannot invest in any specific characters anymore.
He did though. He subverted expectations, which is a form of lying.
You can't end an argument on the italicised portion without evidence and expect me to see it as a well-made point.
So you're now making arbitrary criteria and expecting we'll just accept these to be accurate without stress-testing them? Weird way to go about things but if you want to come across as any less convincing you really couldn't if you tried. At face-value, all of those criteria (apart from those you literally haven't even defined - just made a random statement and dipped) fit Yamato and only about half fit Carrot. So:
1. My point about Yamato still stands
2. Carrot never had a chance, as I had said - now chill with the Furry wank, for everyone's sake.
No we can't. If there is even one inconsistency with the 5 golden pillars, 10 schmeckleberries and 57 bloobleyanks or whatever else you want to completely make up then uh, no we can't.
You still haven't even explained what the model is or how you derived these conclusions in the first place.
Didn't need to add this to your essay as the point was already made
So you provide an example here when you repeated yourself but not when it really matters? But already there's a huge flaw. What's all this stuff about Jinbe being a Villain when his first mention was ambiguous and he never posed a threat to Luffy to begin with. Same with Sanji, same with Usopp, same with Chopper, same with Brook. That's just one point and I didn't even have to think about it.
So to paraphrase, "Zoro doesn't follow the 'road map' I made up, so here's an excuse as to why", got it.
Well, this "system" can't and doesn't predict anything. You've provided highly arbitrary examples (and excuses) and I've already pointed out a massive flaw without having to look into things at all. As for whether we can predict anything - other than the One Piece being found at some point in the future, we literally cannot. We can only hypothesise and speculate. This is the point I made yonks ago.
So hurry up and practice what you preach and rule Carrot out. She falls foul of "Rule 3", and "Pillars" 1, 2, 3 (? You haven't even defined this so can't be certain), 4,5,6,8 and 10.
This is logically sound but you certainly haven't implemented it into your own practices.
So now we're attaching qualifiers to arbitrary and unsupported rules? This is looking reaallllly promising... ffs.
Yet another arbitrary thing where anyone can move the goalposts based on their own imagination.
Let me guess, these are also going to be really contrived?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
But I want to zoom in here:
Isn't this like, the whole goddamn Raid/Kaido fight?
If this is the scope then you're ruling in every character, rather than ruling any out which if I recall was your initial argument for what would be an appropriate methodology. You can't have it both ways
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
Could've just not written then and the essay would've said the exact same thing. You REALLY need to work on reducing word count because this is ridiculous.
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
No need for a summary, just stop bulking out your essays with meaningless moot-points and repetition.
So now we're not even applying the whacky rules and pillars but setting up EVEN MORE contrived criteria which has no real baring on the story. Got it.
You never made this clear anywhere previously other than your incessant obsession and wankbank of Judy Hopps from Zootopia and rabbit furries
Wut?
Very open to interpretation. No specific point actually made, 0 marks.
Meaning...?
If you had brought a specific example here your point might have had some value.
No, not It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
This literally means nothing. Like, having wasted my time reading above, there is nothing here that makes any sort of sense in English. You even claim to have explained something(?). All you've done is explain a 5-10% portion of your 'road map' model and that we should work by rule of elimination, albeit on misguided criteria.
Except i deny it because you still haven't made it clear what these attributes are, nor qualified your point with supporting evidence other than "because I said so"
Uh, maybe the guy who literally joined the crew in 2020 (Jinbe) was the best "narrative" candidate, since, you know, he literally did join the crew.
So 2000-3000 words for you to say you know the rules, briefly name the rules, not explain the rules or provide evidence for the rules? Right.
Was this meant to be really badass or something?
I can't believe i wasted an hour of my life reading and replying
It's funny because Logiko's just come up with something that sounds smart, and applied a different definition to it, then hasn't utilised said affirmations in their own assessments/arguments, then preaching we should all do it.
Speaking of which, doesn't Gaimon fit all the pillars and rules?
He did
Two things can be synonymous i.e. dual functional or achieving two ends through one means
Made it pretty crystal clear given several things which I am sure will be mentioned further below. Anyway without getting too into it, she was a foil of Oden, she said she would join, Luffy said she would join, the Crew was informed she would join. So if that's not Oda making it clear then I need to ask you what is?
This isn't showing the opposite. Standing next to characters means nothing. Giving Yamabro a nickname is not misnaming, and also meaningless. Conflicting with Luffy is also ultimately meaningless given it was a small squabble. Jinbe is a sceptic, so also meaningless. A foil to another character is far from the opposite of said character. Guardian deity is the only fair point you've made here.
Are you going to pretend to be a a Literature professor below? Feels like that's the tone we're going with. Okay...
Well, so in summary, the use of dramatic irony through making the contradictory truth self-evident. I am going to assess the below with this definition in mind.
Not the definition, but not far off - well done I guess, but let's see where you take this
And you've already lost me. Firstly, this is a technique called 'subversion of expectations', not 'subvesive affirmations' which achieve the same ends through different means. Secondly, you have provided no examples to back up your point. What Oda did was a subversion of expectations which is for all intents and purposes across all of literary history the same thing as "fucking with the audience". What Oda did was set up expectations and then trash them. What you're talking about is Oda making something that is really obviously not going to happen the commonly accepted truth amongst his characters and then having this truth trashed in-story, while we the audience always knew it. My entire point is Oda subverted expectations with Yamato and because he did this (something you yourself literally just said he did), we cannot invest in any specific characters anymore.
He did though. He subverted expectations, which is a form of lying.
You can't end an argument on the italicised portion without evidence and expect me to see it as a well-made point.
So you're now making arbitrary criteria and expecting we'll just accept these to be accurate without stress-testing them? Weird way to go about things but if you want to come across as any less convincing you really couldn't if you tried. At face-value, all of those criteria (apart from those you literally haven't even defined - just made a random statement and dipped) fit Yamato and only about half fit Carrot. So:
1. My point about Yamato still stands
2. Carrot never had a chance, as I had said - now chill with the Furry wank, for everyone's sake.
No we can't. If there is even one inconsistency with the 5 golden pillars, 10 schmeckleberries and 57 bloobleyanks or whatever else you want to completely make up then uh, no we can't.
You still haven't even explained what the model is or how you derived these conclusions in the first place.
Didn't need to add this to your essay as the point was already made
So you provide an example here when you repeated yourself but not when it really matters? But already there's a huge flaw. What's all this stuff about Jinbe being a Villain when his first mention was ambiguous and he never posed a threat to Luffy to begin with. Same with Sanji, same with Usopp, same with Chopper, same with Brook. That's just one point and I didn't even have to think about it.
So to paraphrase, "Zoro doesn't follow the 'road map' I made up, so here's an excuse as to why", got it.
Well, this "system" can't and doesn't predict anything. You've provided highly arbitrary examples (and excuses) and I've already pointed out a massive flaw without having to look into things at all. As for whether we can predict anything - other than the One Piece being found at some point in the future, we literally cannot. We can only hypothesise and speculate. This is the point I made yonks ago.
So hurry up and practice what you preach and rule Carrot out. She falls foul of "Rule 3", and "Pillars" 1, 2, 3 (? You haven't even defined this so can't be certain), 4,5,6,8 and 10.
This is logically sound but you certainly haven't implemented it into your own practices.
So now we're attaching qualifiers to arbitrary and unsupported rules? This is looking reaallllly promising... ffs.
Yet another arbitrary thing where anyone can move the goalposts based on their own imagination.
Let me guess, these are also going to be really contrived?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
But I want to zoom in here:
Isn't this like, the whole goddamn Raid/Kaido fight?
If this is the scope then you're ruling in every character, rather than ruling any out which if I recall was your initial argument for what would be an appropriate methodology. You can't have it both ways
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
Could've just not written then and the essay would've said the exact same thing. You REALLY need to work on reducing word count because this is ridiculous.
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
No need for a summary, just stop bulking out your essays with meaningless moot-points and repetition.
So now we're not even applying the whacky rules and pillars but setting up EVEN MORE contrived criteria which has no real baring on the story. Got it.
You never made this clear anywhere previously other than your incessant obsession and wankbank of Judy Hopps from Zootopia and rabbit furries
Wut?
Very open to interpretation. No specific point actually made, 0 marks.
Meaning...?
If you had brought a specific example here your point might have had some value.
No, not It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
This literally means nothing. Like, having wasted my time reading above, there is nothing here that makes any sort of sense in English. You even claim to have explained something(?). All you've done is explain a 5-10% portion of your 'road map' model and that we should work by rule of elimination, albeit on misguided criteria.
Except i deny it because you still haven't made it clear what these attributes are, nor qualified your point with supporting evidence other than "because I said so"
Uh, maybe the guy who literally joined the crew in 2020 (Jinbe) was the best "narrative" candidate, since, you know, he literally did join the crew.
So 2000-3000 words for you to say you know the rules, briefly name the rules, not explain the rules or provide evidence for the rules? Right.
I tell you what... its gonna be a whoppper !!
You want this thread back ?
THEN COME AND GET IT !!
You want this thread back ?
THEN COME AND GET IT !!
Post automatically merged:
I can't believe i wasted an hour of my life reading and replying
Post automatically merged:
Nah, that’s just Goda pulling Subversive Affirmation on us once again.
He’s trying to throw us off with the whole Blackbeard thing because it was getting too obvious Caribou was joining the SHs since he fulfills all the Pillars of Shining Nakama Action.
He’s trying to throw us off with the whole Blackbeard thing because it was getting too obvious Caribou was joining the SHs since he fulfills all the Pillars of Shining Nakama Action.
Speaking of which, doesn't Gaimon fit all the pillars and rules?
Last edited:
Okay just wasted pretty much my entire lunchbreak here - you owe me a meal @Logiko
He did
Two things can be synonymous i.e. dual functional or achieving two ends through one means
Made it pretty crystal clear given several things which I am sure will be mentioned further below. Anyway without getting too into it, she was a foil of Oden, she said she would join, Luffy said she would join, the Crew was informed she would join. So if that's not Oda making it clear then I need to ask you what is?
This isn't showing the opposite. Standing next to characters means nothing. Giving Yamabro a nickname is not misnaming, and also meaningless. Conflicting with Luffy is also ultimately meaningless given it was a small squabble. Jinbe is a sceptic, so also meaningless. A foil to another character is far from the opposite of said character. Guardian deity is the only fair point you've made here.
Are you going to pretend to be a a Literature professor below? Feels like that's the tone we're going with. Okay...
Well, so in summary, the use of dramatic irony through making the contradictory truth self-evident. I am going to assess the below with this definition in mind.
Not the definition, but not far off - well done I guess, but let's see where you take this
And you've already lost me. Firstly, this is a technique called 'subversion of expectations', not 'subvesive affirmations' which achieve the same ends through different means. Secondly, you have provided no examples to back up your point. What Oda did was a subversion of expectations which is for all intents and purposes across all of literary history the same thing as "fucking with the audience". What Oda did was set up expectations and then trash them. What you're talking about is Oda making something that is really obviously not going to happen the commonly accepted truth amongst his characters and then having this truth trashed in-story, while we the audience always knew it. My entire point is Oda subverted expectations with Yamato and because he did this (something you yourself literally just said he did), we cannot invest in any specific characters anymore.
He did though. He subverted expectations, which is a form of lying.
You can't end an argument on the italicised portion without evidence and expect me to see it as a well-made point.
So you're now making arbitrary criteria and expecting we'll just accept these to be accurate without stress-testing them? Weird way to go about things but if you want to come across as any less convincing you really couldn't if you tried. At face-value, all of those criteria (apart from those you literally haven't even defined - just made a random statement and dipped) fit Yamato and only about half fit Carrot. So:
1. My point about Yamato still stands
2. Carrot never had a chance, as I had said - now chill with the Furry wank, for everyone's sake.
No we can't. If there is even one inconsistency with the 5 golden pillars, 10 schmeckleberries and 57 bloobleyanks or whatever else you want to completely make up then uh, no we can't.
You still haven't even explained what the model is or how you derived these conclusions in the first place.
Didn't need to add this to your essay as the point was already made
So you provide an example here when you repeated yourself but not when it really matters? But already there's a huge flaw. What's all this stuff about Jinbe being a Villain when his first mention was ambiguous and he never posed a threat to Luffy to begin with. Same with Sanji, same with Usopp, same with Chopper, same with Brook. That's just one point and I didn't even have to think about it.
So to paraphrase, "Zoro doesn't follow the 'road map' I made up, so here's an excuse as to why", got it.
Well, this "system" can't and doesn't predict anything. You've provided highly arbitrary examples (and excuses) and I've already pointed out a massive flaw without having to look into things at all. As for whether we can predict anything - other than the One Piece being found at some point in the future, we literally cannot. We can only hypothesise and speculate. This is the point I made yonks ago.
So hurry up and practice what you preach and rule Carrot out. She falls foul of "Rule 3", and "Pillars" 1, 2, 3 (? You haven't even defined this so can't be certain), 4,5,6,8 and 10.
This is logically sound but you certainly haven't implemented it into your own practices.
So now we're attaching qualifiers to arbitrary and unsupported rules? This is looking reaallllly promising... ffs.
Yet another arbitrary thing where anyone can move the goalposts based on their own imagination.
Let me guess, these are also going to be really contrived?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
But I want to zoom in here:
Isn't this like, the whole goddamn Raid/Kaido fight?
If this is the scope then you're ruling in every character, rather than ruling any out which if I recall was your initial argument for what would be an appropriate methodology. You can't have it both ways
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
Could've just not written then and the essay would've said the exact same thing. You REALLY need to work on reducing word count because this is ridiculous.
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
No need for a summary, just stop bulking out your essays with meaningless moot-points and repetition.
So now we're not even applying the whacky rules and pillars but setting up EVEN MORE contrived criteria which has no real baring on the story. Got it.
You never made this clear anywhere previously other than your incessant obsession and wankbank of Judy Hopps from Zootopia and rabbit furries
Wut?
Very open to interpretation. No specific point actually made, 0 marks.
Meaning...?
If you had brought a specific example here your point might have had some value.
No, not
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
This literally means nothing. Like, having wasted my time reading above, there is nothing here that makes any sort of sense in English. You even claim to have explained something(?). All you've done is explain a 5-10% portion of your 'road map' model and that we should work by rule of elimination, albeit on misguided criteria.
Except i deny it because you still haven't made it clear what these attributes are, nor qualified your point with supporting evidence other than "because I said so"
Uh, maybe the guy who literally joined the crew in 2020 (Jinbe) was the best "narrative" candidate, since, you know, he literally did join the crew.
So 2000-3000 words for you to say you know the rules, briefly name the rules, not explain the rules or provide evidence for the rules? Right.
Was this meant to be really badass or something?
I can't believe i wasted an hour of my life reading and replying
It's funny because Logiko's just come up with something that sounds smart, and applied a different definition to it, then hasn't utilised said affirmations in their own assessments/arguments, then preaching we should all do it.
He did
Two things can be synonymous i.e. dual functional or achieving two ends through one means
Made it pretty crystal clear given several things which I am sure will be mentioned further below. Anyway without getting too into it, she was a foil of Oden, she said she would join, Luffy said she would join, the Crew was informed she would join. So if that's not Oda making it clear then I need to ask you what is?
This isn't showing the opposite. Standing next to characters means nothing. Giving Yamabro a nickname is not misnaming, and also meaningless. Conflicting with Luffy is also ultimately meaningless given it was a small squabble. Jinbe is a sceptic, so also meaningless. A foil to another character is far from the opposite of said character. Guardian deity is the only fair point you've made here.
Are you going to pretend to be a a Literature professor below? Feels like that's the tone we're going with. Okay...
Well, so in summary, the use of dramatic irony through making the contradictory truth self-evident. I am going to assess the below with this definition in mind.
Not the definition, but not far off - well done I guess, but let's see where you take this
And you've already lost me. Firstly, this is a technique called 'subversion of expectations', not 'subvesive affirmations' which achieve the same ends through different means. Secondly, you have provided no examples to back up your point. What Oda did was a subversion of expectations which is for all intents and purposes across all of literary history the same thing as "fucking with the audience". What Oda did was set up expectations and then trash them. What you're talking about is Oda making something that is really obviously not going to happen the commonly accepted truth amongst his characters and then having this truth trashed in-story, while we the audience always knew it. My entire point is Oda subverted expectations with Yamato and because he did this (something you yourself literally just said he did), we cannot invest in any specific characters anymore.
He did though. He subverted expectations, which is a form of lying.
You can't end an argument on the italicised portion without evidence and expect me to see it as a well-made point.
So you're now making arbitrary criteria and expecting we'll just accept these to be accurate without stress-testing them? Weird way to go about things but if you want to come across as any less convincing you really couldn't if you tried. At face-value, all of those criteria (apart from those you literally haven't even defined - just made a random statement and dipped) fit Yamato and only about half fit Carrot. So:
1. My point about Yamato still stands
2. Carrot never had a chance, as I had said - now chill with the Furry wank, for everyone's sake.
No we can't. If there is even one inconsistency with the 5 golden pillars, 10 schmeckleberries and 57 bloobleyanks or whatever else you want to completely make up then uh, no we can't.
You still haven't even explained what the model is or how you derived these conclusions in the first place.
Didn't need to add this to your essay as the point was already made
So you provide an example here when you repeated yourself but not when it really matters? But already there's a huge flaw. What's all this stuff about Jinbe being a Villain when his first mention was ambiguous and he never posed a threat to Luffy to begin with. Same with Sanji, same with Usopp, same with Chopper, same with Brook. That's just one point and I didn't even have to think about it.
So to paraphrase, "Zoro doesn't follow the 'road map' I made up, so here's an excuse as to why", got it.
Well, this "system" can't and doesn't predict anything. You've provided highly arbitrary examples (and excuses) and I've already pointed out a massive flaw without having to look into things at all. As for whether we can predict anything - other than the One Piece being found at some point in the future, we literally cannot. We can only hypothesise and speculate. This is the point I made yonks ago.
So hurry up and practice what you preach and rule Carrot out. She falls foul of "Rule 3", and "Pillars" 1, 2, 3 (? You haven't even defined this so can't be certain), 4,5,6,8 and 10.
This is logically sound but you certainly haven't implemented it into your own practices.
So now we're attaching qualifiers to arbitrary and unsupported rules? This is looking reaallllly promising... ffs.
Yet another arbitrary thing where anyone can move the goalposts based on their own imagination.
Let me guess, these are also going to be really contrived?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
But I want to zoom in here:
Isn't this like, the whole goddamn Raid/Kaido fight?
If this is the scope then you're ruling in every character, rather than ruling any out which if I recall was your initial argument for what would be an appropriate methodology. You can't have it both ways
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
Could've just not written then and the essay would've said the exact same thing. You REALLY need to work on reducing word count because this is ridiculous.
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
No need for a summary, just stop bulking out your essays with meaningless moot-points and repetition.
So now we're not even applying the whacky rules and pillars but setting up EVEN MORE contrived criteria which has no real baring on the story. Got it.
You never made this clear anywhere previously other than your incessant obsession and wankbank of Judy Hopps from Zootopia and rabbit furries
Wut?
Very open to interpretation. No specific point actually made, 0 marks.
Meaning...?
If you had brought a specific example here your point might have had some value.
No, not
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
This literally means nothing. Like, having wasted my time reading above, there is nothing here that makes any sort of sense in English. You even claim to have explained something(?). All you've done is explain a 5-10% portion of your 'road map' model and that we should work by rule of elimination, albeit on misguided criteria.
Except i deny it because you still haven't made it clear what these attributes are, nor qualified your point with supporting evidence other than "because I said so"
Uh, maybe the guy who literally joined the crew in 2020 (Jinbe) was the best "narrative" candidate, since, you know, he literally did join the crew.
So 2000-3000 words for you to say you know the rules, briefly name the rules, not explain the rules or provide evidence for the rules? Right.
Was this meant to be really badass or something?
Post automatically merged:
I can't believe i wasted an hour of my life reading and replying
Post automatically merged:
It's funny because Logiko's just come up with something that sounds smart, and applied a different definition to it, then hasn't utilised said affirmations in their own assessments/arguments, then preaching we should all do it.
EXCELLENT reply thread here, that was wonderfully put and honestly puts it as clearly as plainly as possible why every single "argument" he's put forward is nonsensical while also keeping every reply really funny. I'm just sorry that you wasted your lunchtime over something that'll fly so high over his bloated head it'll basically reach the stratosphere
Except it doesn't sound smart, it's just a massive word salad with little to no meaning, and a lot of self-serving preaching. This is why basically everyone clowns on him when he opens his mouth on here. It's why so many people, myself included, muted him
Anyway absolutely massive W thread here, you earned yourself a follow my friend :cheers:
Last edited:
Holy shit lmfao
EXCELLENT reply thread here, that was wonderfully put and honestly puts it as clearly as plainly as possible why every single "argument" he's put forward is nonsensical while also keeping every reply really funny. I'm just sorry that you wasted your lunchtime over something that'll fly so high over his bloated head it'll basically reach the stratosphere
Except it doesn't sound smart, it's just a massive word salad with little to no meaning, and a lot of self-serving preaching. This is why basically everyone clowns on him when he opens his mouth on here. It's why so many people, myself included, muted him
Anyway absolutely massive W thread here, you earned yourself a follow my friend :cheers:
EXCELLENT reply thread here, that was wonderfully put and honestly puts it as clearly as plainly as possible why every single "argument" he's put forward is nonsensical while also keeping every reply really funny. I'm just sorry that you wasted your lunchtime over something that'll fly so high over his bloated head it'll basically reach the stratosphere
Except it doesn't sound smart, it's just a massive word salad with little to no meaning, and a lot of self-serving preaching. This is why basically everyone clowns on him when he opens his mouth on here. It's why so many people, myself included, muted him
Anyway absolutely massive W thread here, you earned yourself a follow my friend :cheers:
I think word-salad defines this perfectly. And now I just found out they have a twitter dedicated to #C4N???
F.M.L
High praise! Thanks! I wasn't sure what to actually expect but it definitely lowered the bar for posts on this forum
I think word-salad defines this perfectly. And now I just found out they have a twitter dedicated to #C4N???
F.M.L
I think word-salad defines this perfectly. And now I just found out they have a twitter dedicated to #C4N???
F.M.L
And ultimately I agree with your point regarding Yamato. This thread basically died because since Jimbe, any potential crewmates have been either inconsistent in their chances, or a straight up rug-pull (such as Yamato, as much as C4N denies it). Most people cut their losses and moved on, hence why it's so empty around here lately
Carrot is joining because i like her and whatever i like happens.
You cooked though
Post automatically merged:
Okay just wasted pretty much my entire lunchbreak here - you owe me a meal @Logiko
He did
Two things can be synonymous i.e. dual functional or achieving two ends through one means
Made it pretty crystal clear given several things which I am sure will be mentioned further below. Anyway without getting too into it, she was a foil of Oden, she said she would join, Luffy said she would join, the Crew was informed she would join. So if that's not Oda making it clear then I need to ask you what is?
This isn't showing the opposite. Standing next to characters means nothing. Giving Yamabro a nickname is not misnaming, and also meaningless. Conflicting with Luffy is also ultimately meaningless given it was a small squabble. Jinbe is a sceptic, so also meaningless. A foil to another character is far from the opposite of said character. Guardian deity is the only fair point you've made here.
Are you going to pretend to be a a Literature professor below? Feels like that's the tone we're going with. Okay...
Well, so in summary, the use of dramatic irony through making the contradictory truth self-evident. I am going to assess the below with this definition in mind.
Not the definition, but not far off - well done I guess, but let's see where you take this
And you've already lost me. Firstly, this is a technique called 'subversion of expectations', not 'subvesive affirmations' which achieve the same ends through different means. Secondly, you have provided no examples to back up your point. What Oda did was a subversion of expectations which is for all intents and purposes across all of literary history the same thing as "fucking with the audience". What Oda did was set up expectations and then trash them. What you're talking about is Oda making something that is really obviously not going to happen the commonly accepted truth amongst his characters and then having this truth trashed in-story, while we the audience always knew it. My entire point is Oda subverted expectations with Yamato and because he did this (something you yourself literally just said he did), we cannot invest in any specific characters anymore.
He did though. He subverted expectations, which is a form of lying.
You can't end an argument on the italicised portion without evidence and expect me to see it as a well-made point.
So you're now making arbitrary criteria and expecting we'll just accept these to be accurate without stress-testing them? Weird way to go about things but if you want to come across as any less convincing you really couldn't if you tried. At face-value, all of those criteria (apart from those you literally haven't even defined - just made a random statement and dipped) fit Yamato and only about half fit Carrot. So:
1. My point about Yamato still stands
2. Carrot never had a chance, as I had said - now chill with the Furry wank, for everyone's sake.
No we can't. If there is even one inconsistency with the 5 golden pillars, 10 schmeckleberries and 57 bloobleyanks or whatever else you want to completely make up then uh, no we can't.
You still haven't even explained what the model is or how you derived these conclusions in the first place.
Didn't need to add this to your essay as the point was already made
So you provide an example here when you repeated yourself but not when it really matters? But already there's a huge flaw. What's all this stuff about Jinbe being a Villain when his first mention was ambiguous and he never posed a threat to Luffy to begin with. Same with Sanji, same with Usopp, same with Chopper, same with Brook. That's just one point and I didn't even have to think about it.
So to paraphrase, "Zoro doesn't follow the 'road map' I made up, so here's an excuse as to why", got it.
Well, this "system" can't and doesn't predict anything. You've provided highly arbitrary examples (and excuses) and I've already pointed out a massive flaw without having to look into things at all. As for whether we can predict anything - other than the One Piece being found at some point in the future, we literally cannot. We can only hypothesise and speculate. This is the point I made yonks ago.
So hurry up and practice what you preach and rule Carrot out. She falls foul of "Rule 3", and "Pillars" 1, 2, 3 (? You haven't even defined this so can't be certain), 4,5,6,8 and 10.
This is logically sound but you certainly haven't implemented it into your own practices.
So now we're attaching qualifiers to arbitrary and unsupported rules? This is looking reaallllly promising... ffs.
Yet another arbitrary thing where anyone can move the goalposts based on their own imagination.
Let me guess, these are also going to be really contrived?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
But I want to zoom in here:
Isn't this like, the whole goddamn Raid/Kaido fight?
If this is the scope then you're ruling in every character, rather than ruling any out which if I recall was your initial argument for what would be an appropriate methodology. You can't have it both ways
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
Could've just not written then and the essay would've said the exact same thing. You REALLY need to work on reducing word count because this is ridiculous.
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
No need for a summary, just stop bulking out your essays with meaningless moot-points and repetition.
So now we're not even applying the whacky rules and pillars but setting up EVEN MORE contrived criteria which has no real baring on the story. Got it.
You never made this clear anywhere previously other than your incessant obsession and wankbank of Judy Hopps from Zootopia and rabbit furries
Wut?
Very open to interpretation. No specific point actually made, 0 marks.
Meaning...?
If you had brought a specific example here your point might have had some value.
No, not
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
This literally means nothing. Like, having wasted my time reading above, there is nothing here that makes any sort of sense in English. You even claim to have explained something(?). All you've done is explain a 5-10% portion of your 'road map' model and that we should work by rule of elimination, albeit on misguided criteria.
Except i deny it because you still haven't made it clear what these attributes are, nor qualified your point with supporting evidence other than "because I said so"
Uh, maybe the guy who literally joined the crew in 2020 (Jinbe) was the best "narrative" candidate, since, you know, he literally did join the crew.
So 2000-3000 words for you to say you know the rules, briefly name the rules, not explain the rules or provide evidence for the rules? Right.
Was this meant to be really badass or something?
I can't believe i wasted an hour of my life reading and replying
It's funny because Logiko's just come up with something that sounds smart, and applied a different definition to it, then hasn't utilised said affirmations in their own assessments/arguments, then preaching we should all do it.
Speaking of which, doesn't Gaimon fit all the pillars and rules?
He did
Two things can be synonymous i.e. dual functional or achieving two ends through one means
Made it pretty crystal clear given several things which I am sure will be mentioned further below. Anyway without getting too into it, she was a foil of Oden, she said she would join, Luffy said she would join, the Crew was informed she would join. So if that's not Oda making it clear then I need to ask you what is?
This isn't showing the opposite. Standing next to characters means nothing. Giving Yamabro a nickname is not misnaming, and also meaningless. Conflicting with Luffy is also ultimately meaningless given it was a small squabble. Jinbe is a sceptic, so also meaningless. A foil to another character is far from the opposite of said character. Guardian deity is the only fair point you've made here.
Are you going to pretend to be a a Literature professor below? Feels like that's the tone we're going with. Okay...
Well, so in summary, the use of dramatic irony through making the contradictory truth self-evident. I am going to assess the below with this definition in mind.
Not the definition, but not far off - well done I guess, but let's see where you take this
And you've already lost me. Firstly, this is a technique called 'subversion of expectations', not 'subvesive affirmations' which achieve the same ends through different means. Secondly, you have provided no examples to back up your point. What Oda did was a subversion of expectations which is for all intents and purposes across all of literary history the same thing as "fucking with the audience". What Oda did was set up expectations and then trash them. What you're talking about is Oda making something that is really obviously not going to happen the commonly accepted truth amongst his characters and then having this truth trashed in-story, while we the audience always knew it. My entire point is Oda subverted expectations with Yamato and because he did this (something you yourself literally just said he did), we cannot invest in any specific characters anymore.
He did though. He subverted expectations, which is a form of lying.
You can't end an argument on the italicised portion without evidence and expect me to see it as a well-made point.
So you're now making arbitrary criteria and expecting we'll just accept these to be accurate without stress-testing them? Weird way to go about things but if you want to come across as any less convincing you really couldn't if you tried. At face-value, all of those criteria (apart from those you literally haven't even defined - just made a random statement and dipped) fit Yamato and only about half fit Carrot. So:
1. My point about Yamato still stands
2. Carrot never had a chance, as I had said - now chill with the Furry wank, for everyone's sake.
No we can't. If there is even one inconsistency with the 5 golden pillars, 10 schmeckleberries and 57 bloobleyanks or whatever else you want to completely make up then uh, no we can't.
You still haven't even explained what the model is or how you derived these conclusions in the first place.
Didn't need to add this to your essay as the point was already made
So you provide an example here when you repeated yourself but not when it really matters? But already there's a huge flaw. What's all this stuff about Jinbe being a Villain when his first mention was ambiguous and he never posed a threat to Luffy to begin with. Same with Sanji, same with Usopp, same with Chopper, same with Brook. That's just one point and I didn't even have to think about it.
So to paraphrase, "Zoro doesn't follow the 'road map' I made up, so here's an excuse as to why", got it.
Well, this "system" can't and doesn't predict anything. You've provided highly arbitrary examples (and excuses) and I've already pointed out a massive flaw without having to look into things at all. As for whether we can predict anything - other than the One Piece being found at some point in the future, we literally cannot. We can only hypothesise and speculate. This is the point I made yonks ago.
So hurry up and practice what you preach and rule Carrot out. She falls foul of "Rule 3", and "Pillars" 1, 2, 3 (? You haven't even defined this so can't be certain), 4,5,6,8 and 10.
This is logically sound but you certainly haven't implemented it into your own practices.
So now we're attaching qualifiers to arbitrary and unsupported rules? This is looking reaallllly promising... ffs.
Yet another arbitrary thing where anyone can move the goalposts based on their own imagination.
Let me guess, these are also going to be really contrived?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
But I want to zoom in here:
Isn't this like, the whole goddamn Raid/Kaido fight?
If this is the scope then you're ruling in every character, rather than ruling any out which if I recall was your initial argument for what would be an appropriate methodology. You can't have it both ways
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
Could've just not written then and the essay would've said the exact same thing. You REALLY need to work on reducing word count because this is ridiculous.
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
And this means Carrot will join the Strawhats because...?
No need for a summary, just stop bulking out your essays with meaningless moot-points and repetition.
So now we're not even applying the whacky rules and pillars but setting up EVEN MORE contrived criteria which has no real baring on the story. Got it.
You never made this clear anywhere previously other than your incessant obsession and wankbank of Judy Hopps from Zootopia and rabbit furries
Wut?
Very open to interpretation. No specific point actually made, 0 marks.
Meaning...?
If you had brought a specific example here your point might have had some value.
No, not
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
It's because you're wrong.
This literally means nothing. Like, having wasted my time reading above, there is nothing here that makes any sort of sense in English. You even claim to have explained something(?). All you've done is explain a 5-10% portion of your 'road map' model and that we should work by rule of elimination, albeit on misguided criteria.
Except i deny it because you still haven't made it clear what these attributes are, nor qualified your point with supporting evidence other than "because I said so"
Uh, maybe the guy who literally joined the crew in 2020 (Jinbe) was the best "narrative" candidate, since, you know, he literally did join the crew.
So 2000-3000 words for you to say you know the rules, briefly name the rules, not explain the rules or provide evidence for the rules? Right.
Was this meant to be really badass or something?
Post automatically merged:
I can't believe i wasted an hour of my life reading and replying
Post automatically merged:
It's funny because Logiko's just come up with something that sounds smart, and applied a different definition to it, then hasn't utilised said affirmations in their own assessments/arguments, then preaching we should all do it.
Speaking of which, doesn't Gaimon fit all the pillars and rules?
