Another somewhat delayed response....

A digression: It occurs to me that in this discussion about "honor" there
are actually a couple of related concepts: some confusion may arise if we
are talking about different things:

(1) One's public reputation: even one who is personally amoral may be
concerned about saving face in public.

(2) Having one's behavior regulated and restrained by some internatized
moral principles. This is pretty much the same as having a (effective)
conscence.

(3) Adherance to some _specific_ traditional code of conduct, either in the
sense of (1) or (2).

(I'd personally say Ranma satisfies (1) and (2), and _sometimes_ (3). The
series, and Ranma himself, is rather ambivalent about traditional values:
with folks like Kouno, Ranma's parents, and Happosi as role models, this
doesn't surprise me.)

>Of course I do.  I can prove what ANY Japanese would do.  By honour,
>Ranma has responsibility for Ryouga's curse...enough that he is
>obligated to make up for it in some way.  Ranma does this by keeping the
>secret.  If he breaks this, he has forfeited honour.  Pure and simple.
[...]
>I do.  Just not a great amount where Ryouga is concerned.  Certainly
>Ranma WANTS Akane to find out about P-chan, this is proved on numerous
>occasions.  So why doesn't he tell her?  There is NO explanation except
>that Ranma is constrained from doing so, and there is no reason he could
>be constrained from doing except that he is obligated not to in the way
>I have pointed out.  Like Holmes says, "When you have eliminated the
>impossible, whatever remains, no matter hiow improbable, must be the
>truth."  I don't need to prove anything on Ranma's part, because my
>explanation is the ONLY explanation.

I laid out an alternate explaination in a post "More re Hunter Kid etc"
mailed on 9/29.

What it basically came down to was that Ranma's initial failure to tell
Akane was a reaction from jealousy and frustration. I think this is born
out by the way Ranma is drawn in these scenes and Akane's own suspicion
that Ranma was acting jealous.

But, I'm also rather skeptical that these matters can be reduced to "ONLY"
only possible explaination.  It might be the case (especially analyzed from
Ryouga's viewpoint) that Ranma was an insane sadist, who didn't _care_
about the social consequences of revealing Ryouga's secret, but simply
enjoyed toying with Ryouga.

>>Later, Ranma only gets out the word "Ryouga" because he's being beaten
>>up with a wooden sword for sneaking into Akane's room.
>Why, precisely, would physical violence stop him?  It hasn't on other
>occasions.

Well, there's a comic element that Akane is always able to knock Ranma flat
when she's angry. Another factor is that Ranma is embarassed. Then too,
it's hard to make a rational argument one word at a time between blows.

But, as before Akane went to bed, he doesn't look like someone having a
crisis of conscience, _or_ concerned about what others might think about
his (arguable) role in Ryouga's curse: he just can't get Akane to _listen_
to him.

[...]
>Ryouga knows the oath exists because it HAS to exist.  He doesn't need
>to hear it, it's the only piossible thing Ranma could have done, and
>it's the only possible explanation for why Ranma doesn't reveal his
>curse.

No, as I said above, there are other plausible explainations. This
particular bit of logic is a bit twisted, as you seem to be assuming Ranma
has honor (in some sense) to prove he doesn't. If he's really such an
amoral, self-centered person, one can assume little about his thought
processes. If he's criminally insane, one need not ever assume he is aware
of the true consequences of his actions.

[...]
>I could say that, but they're useless arguments.  Just saying something
>happened "for the plot" or "because it's funny" is to deny ALL
>continuity, ALL logic, ALL consistancy.  If you think Ranma 1/2 is
>totally without that, then by all means do so, but please remove
>yourself from this debate, as it would be impossible to prove anything
>to you.
>
>>This general sort of discussion is as much about say, literary
>criticism,
>>or sociology as anything else.
>>
>>I bring in meta-issues because you seem to be ignoring what seem like
>>relatively simple explanations at that level.
>
>Because they are worthless arguments.  It's like saying "it just is" in
>answer to any scientific question.  Yeah, maybe so, but that doesn't
>help anything, does it?
[...]
>And if somebody says "I don't care about continuity, I just like it
>'cause it's funny", then all power to them.  If you choose to debate
>with me, I assume it's because you see that Ranma 1/2, while funny, is
>supposed to make sense (unlike, say, Urusei Yatsura), and I respond
>accordingly.  If you don't think it's supposed to make sense, why are
>you arguing about it?

I'm not claiming that logic doesn't apply. It's more of a subjective appeal
to something like Occam's razor: I'll appeal to considerations of plot
devices or genre when it seems to be to be a simpler or better supported
explaination than logic purely internal to the story. I suppose these isn't
a foolproof way to demonstrate that one explaination or the other _must_
apply. But the results of completely ignoring the logic of the genre are
sometimes as strained as filing a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of a
clown, because said clown received a pie in the face.

(Actually Urusei Yatsura makes sense, too, as a somewhat different sort of
comedy. I'd agree with the proposition that it has _less_ plot continuity
than Ranma 1/2 (problems are often left unresolved at the end of the
episodes) and the mix of technology, magic, and Japanese folklore brings in
a lot more fantastic elements.)

I think Ranma makes sense, but maybe not in the ways you'd prefer.

I'm arguing because I think you are applying standards inappropriate to the
genre, and because of your surpassing sense of modesty and tact.

But your basic assumptions are sufficently different that I don't know it
can go anywhere in particular.

---
    Albert Lunde                      Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu