Benzaiten:

<snip the interesting metaphysical explanations>

Hmmm.... 
Point taken. The way we see a serie depends on the life we've led.
That however means that someone who hasn't a lot of those "wires" 
into his/her subconcient can't appreciate the series.

I suppose it's also depending on upbringing, education, culture, etc.
Someone who's read Freud or others between snacks will tend to see 
most of those "inherent elements", whereas the common anime fan 
(12/25, no offense to anyone older) will have to retaliate with his 
own life.

To bring a personnal example that illustrates both our points (or so 
I think), let's look at Maison Ikkoku.
I saw it first when I was... 7 or 8. The only things that mattered to 
me at the time were the musics, and the end.
Then... well, life happens. At the age of 16, I get to see the anime 
once again; it most definetely transformed me. 

That doesn't mean that Takahashi wrote the story with the goal to 
teach us how to react or what exactly is a love story; she just drew 
one, in such a way that it were as realistic as possible. And dammit, 
she succeded.
Look at all her characters, whether it's in MI or any other series: 
you could say they are alive. You could almost expect to meet them.
However absurd the situations may be, however fantastic the creatures 
may look, the outcomes of the situation, and the interactions between 
the characters seem natural.
Takahashi succeeds in showing us the dephts of her characters, for 
most of them have some. It doesn't mean she intended every detail to 
interact between each others.

Another example, but for the "mechanical, perfectly oiled" dephtness 
would be found by Adachi Mitsuru.
That guy, who inspired Takahashi in many ways, really means every 
detail he's drawing. Heck, he even points out his own errors when he 
discovers some. If you read H2, you'll see what I mean. 
The fact is, he can create a 3d character in four pages (see 
"magnitude 4" in his "Short Program"); he can depress you with a 
single look, he can show how much means silence when it's well used, 
or misused. The pervert thing is, once you've discovered this 
mechanic, you feel betrayed, but can't help but asking for more.
The guy's evil. Reaaaaaaal evil. But it's so good....


The original point was "do we overanalyse", and I'd say that 
everything the author said not to be seen or contained in his/her 
work shouldn't be forced out. 
When we ask : "how would Ranma react to his first period?"
Takahashi says she doesn't want us to think about it, because she 
herself never made an issue out of it.
So the "official" answer would be : "imagine it", or "whatever you 
want it to be".

The point is, no one knows; maybe Takahashi wanted to draw it, but 
feared to fall into some typical preconception (just forgot the 
right word and can't remember it); that explanation satisfies me 
actually better. 
But we don't and can't know either; guys can't imagine what having a 
period is, because they never had even one; girls can't know how guys 
would react to having a period, because of the "hidden hints" they 
get through their sexual education and own body, that guys don't get. 
The only possible being who could answer that one would be a girl who 
firmly, almost blindly believed she was a boy until her first period; 
and damn, just imagine how often it might be the case. We can wait 
some more before finding someone like that.

"How would a guy react to having a period?" is hence not a question 
that Ranma 1/2 is supposed to answer. Trying to find that out would 
be overanalysing. Sure, it can be lead to interesting debates, but 
Takahashi never meant to have us think about it.

It's an example between tons of others, but I hope you all understand 
the process; I don't mean anything more, but probably not anything 
less either.


More replies to come.... later. 


	Pierre

Nan no tsumi mo nai hazu na no ni
Nanraka no batsu wo uketeru...