Douglas A. Reeves wrote:
!#$%. I hate wasting my time having to back up my point since there are a
lot of other things to do, but I have to refute most of this:
I'm sorry that you consider it a waste of time to deal with a legitimate
counter-argument.
I will note here that your decision to include a private e-mail onto the
FFML is not earning you any respect from me right off the bat. This is a
touchy subject, and your decision to post this message the way you have
makes you come across as nothing more than vindictive, which is only
underscored by the comments that follow.
On the contrary. He's perpetuated a tired old fanfic cliche unneccesarily
that I've had to put up with for years now. It is fanfic convention, and one
you have to stretch to use, yet everyone does it effortlessly and without
batting an eye. After all this time, he should be better than that.
Espcially since
As you know, we already disagree on that last count. However, my point here
is that Nick has been writing long enough and has demonstrated enough
ability to use widely variant interpretations of characters that it is worth
considering that he might have thought through these events much more deeply
than you have considered.
This is not a cohesive argument. You said, "Well, he's been writing a
long time, so it's not really cliche." He might have considered the
implications, certainly. There could be a wealth of backstory that makes
everything crystal clear. There could be.
But I most certainly can't see it.
As his own explanations for Shampoo's behavior (now that she's been named in
other posts) bear out.
I haven't seen them in the fic itself, and I'm afraid that until I _do_,
I can grant them no credence, Mr. Reeves. If Mr. Leifker revises his
story enough to make them more visible, then that changes things -- I
wouldn't suggest botherting, as it would only slow the story down --
but.... Those changes do not exist at the time, so I'm afraid I have to
completely disregard your comment.
Again, I point out that the story is viewed through the eyes of Tendou
Akane, who is not likely to be giving Shampoo much in the way of benefit of
the doubt under the circumstances.
The most forgiving character in the manga. Of course.
I feel I've adressed this issue publically -- you can read my C&C of Mr.
Leifker's fic, if you wish.
This is not to say that this character would behave that way under normal
circumstances, or even a significant percentage of the time...
Ah ha! Yet, we are assailed with this idea in virtually every continutaiton
fic there is, especially the 'notable' ones. So why is it something you
admit is not normal behavior is treated as such (including here where it
serves even less purpose than in others?)
How is it treated as normal behavior in the 'fic?
Probably the excessively casual way that Akane thinks of Shampoo's
actions as though they were routine.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. ONE incident is NEVER enough to
establish a pattern of behavior for a character. Just because a character
does something ONE time in a story does *not* indicate the author believes
that this is 'normal' behavior for this character.
It begins to become clear to me that you simply want to believe that Mr.
Sommer is in the wrong, and you are in the right. Please try to be a
touch more open minded about this things -- there can be no meaningful
discussions otherwise.
If she had behaved in his manner repeatedly throughout the story, I might
see this argument... but as it stands, I don't.
I have to agree with Mr. Sommer on this one -- while it's not stated,
there is a suggestion there that it's all happened before. Often, in
fact. Yes, during _one_ instance Akane lumps Kuno into the mess as a
transgressor, but.... It's almost all Shampoo, only made worse by
Ranma's comments that Cologne and Mousse (of all people!) are just as bad.
Except that Shampoo has also shown that when pressed on the other side, she
can be pushed to coming right back. It's not just the interpretation of
Shampoo that matters here, it's the interpretation of Cologne and the Amazon
Village in general.
If you've read much of Nick's prior work, then you know that Nick has used a
number of different interpretations of the Amazons in different stories.
Far from one-dimensional, he's depicted them with several different brushes
from several different angles... some highly flattering, some not. (Hardly
the work of a character-basher, I might add, and one of the reasons I've
indicated that Nick deserves more respect than you've given him here!) For
this one, I'm inclined to think he's used an interpretation similar to that
in his story "Borrowed Time".
It is unfair (and unreasonable) to assume that everyone has this
familiarity with his other fics _and_ that they are valid backstory for
this same fic. If they were, then Mr. Leifker would have included that
information as a note in the foreward, or at the very least, the
author's notes.
And he did not.
Under such circumstances, Shampoo's behavior in this story makes a great
deal of sense.
Under those circumstances, perhaps, but _again_, those circumstances were
_never_ made clear to apply to this story.
What pressure? Cologne (who does not apply 'pressure' to Shampoo marrying
Ranma) doesn't push Shampoo into anything. Point of fact she shows a decided
lack of interest in helping Shampoo marry Ranma, save the Reversal arc, and
that was Ranma's fault for letting his ego persue Shampoo and setting
himself up.
This is the person who knocked Shampoo into the cat-spring after the first
time she gave up on Ranma you're talking about. I'm not going to bother to
argue this point.
I'm glad you've conceeded it, then. It _is_ too open to interpetation to
be a basis for an argument here.
Sure it is. She's already demonstrated the ability to let Ranma go when push
comes to shove. What's happened to change things, when she's had more time
than ever to deal with and understand the no win situation? And please don't
feed my some mindless crap about something happening 'off camera' to force
the issue since it's Akane's POV. If you're going to show a character
behaving OOC, then you need to back it up.
"Mindless crap?" Are we descending to insult now? I certainly hope not.
Oh, spare me your righteous indignation, Mr. Reeves. You're trying to
read an insult into this soley for the purposes of giving yourself a
higher moral standpoint in this argument. You're not winning any respect
from me on this one, and you're not even generating a cohesive argument.
Please try remain calm during the course of the discussion, or no
meaningul conclusion can be reached.
Ranma broke Shampoo's bones and left her lying there and it's clearly
indicated that Akane sees this reaction as 'justified'. There is no way
possible Nick considered for one second this is anything other than Shampoo
going nuts and trying to Kill Akane because she wants Ranma, the
consequences be damned. You're trying to imply other motives when there
aren't any.
However, what Akane would fail to notice that another character might is a
certain degree of desperation in Shampoo's actions that would explain a
great many things.
Again, these are NOT visible to the reader, and hence, they don't help
the fic. It's all conjecture on your part.
see the difference between objective and subjective viewpoints..
And the reader can tell when a situaiton has been fabricated to deliberately
cast a character in a negative light. That's not 'necessary storytelling'.
It's bashing. This is an excuse I've seen dozens of times. A writer goes ou
of his way to have a character act in a manner not consistant with previous
behvior by putting them in a certain set of conditions
This is the most ludicrous accusation I've seen levelled at anyone in a
while on this list.
I partially agree with you, Mr. Reeves, but there's no call for you to
cross the bounds of civility in your accusation.
I personally don't expect that Mr. Leifker went out of his way to bash
Shampoo's character in his fic, but he was rather careless with the way
her actions worked into it, which made the judgement for Mr. Sommer easy
to make. Moreover, the only defense that Mr. Leifker (via you, Mr.
Reeves) has offered was, "The explanation is there, it's just not shown
in that fic."
Here, I totally agree with Mr. Sommer that that's really damaging to the
_story_.
If you've read ANY of Nick's work at all, you know this is groundless.
Again, Mr. Reeves, that's not a fair assumption to make. I have read some
of Mr. Leifker's works, but to assume familiarity with all of them is
damaging to the point you're trying to prove.
On the contrary. You don't MIND character bashing so long as it plays into
your own likes or dislikes. This is actually something most people suffer
>from (myself included). They'll site a fic they like. You can point out the
bashing, and the best case scenario you'll get is 'Well, I like it in spite
of it'
This is another insult. And also groundless, because I've taken people to
task for Shampoo-bashing before. In private messages, mind you. It is my
preference to keep negative C&C off the list.
Your argument reads (to me) as:
Mr. Reeves: I've defended Shampoo when her character was bashed before,
therefore, I am the arbiter in what is and is not bashing of Shampoo,
and I judge that this is not bashing.
Unfortunately, that's largely subjective, and it's completely unfair of
you to decide what the limitations are, as they will differ from
person-to-person.
Enough said. If you really want the last word (as your reponse indicated)
it's yours. I'm not going to argue this point any further.
Then you should probably take much more care where you post, Mr. Reeves.
Stormwalker
--determined to keep this OUT of the realm of insults, no matter how angry
he might be.
As I stated, this would be more convincing, had you not decided to post
this to the FFML, instead of privately e-mailing the above referenced.