Dismissing the fantastic elements because of their fantasy is also dumb. Joan of Arc has an invincible magic shield flag and was empowered by either God or a sentient entity of the planet, her close lieutenant has a Cthulhu spellbook, and in turn his best friend is a 600 year old body jumping loli.
And all three are well-documented individuals who existed, and came from France even. Why, then are these explicitly not called unreal fantasies that shouldn't exist?
Originally Posted by Sandstorm77
Sakurai said in an interview that she kept discussong with other authors when she was writing Fragments. She did mention while writing Brynhildr that she had talked with Higashide to know more about how Sigurd is supposed to be like. We also already know tidbits of him like that he wears glasses for example. Volsung certainly isn't being ignored, if anything it's coming sooner or later, all the more since datamined voicelines included mentions of Sigurd.
Also, regarding Charlemagne and Karl thing, it isn't like they are the first case. I mean, look at Vlad. It's said since Tsukihime that Dracula is completely fictional and that Vlad is completely historical. You summon him and he gains fictional powers from a version that didn't exist and the same would have applies to Karl if not for plot-related reasons in Link. They are both heroes that could have been written in Type-Moon as if the fictional selves completely existed in canon, but they just chose to make their fictional side be separate.
They aren't ignoring the Norse version it's pretty clear he's coming up next Lostbelt. Siegfried ain't Shirou, sure their goal and ideals are alike but there completely different characters. Whether it's behavior, personality, whatever. Is Siegfried a meme, sure he has a meme associated with him that gets played up in joke events, but that's it. It's not like they don't ramp up the joke qualities of other Servants in events also. His character ain't what the meme has him as, there's more to him then just that. If you find his personality that's on you, nothing I can say to change that. But to me Siegfried does have a character and personality which I find appealing and quite awesome, I can personally tell you why I feel like but i doubt it change your mind . As for complaints of him exiting the story. If the rumor I heard about Siegfrieds original creator fall out with TM that's probably not just on Higa's shoulders.
Yeah Wagner is the most popular retelling of the legend, but that isn't an original character they can take off. Unlike cases of Frankenstein and Phantom of the Opera where you can make them Servants by saying that there the inspiration that there books took from, we know where Wagner's stuff came from. The Volsung saga and the Nibelungenlied.Also, I am pretty sure Wagner's version is much more famous (people even thought that Siegfried was actually Servant Wagner in disguise).
Can anyone raise there hands if they think Charles and Karl's characters are the work of 3rd grade fan-fiction? Anyone? Please keep honest.I am not under obligation to adapt to Higashide's writing. If can't keep things consisent and without clashing with both source material and previous Fate-related works, he should IMO stick to his own stuff.
Even the mess he makes isn't all that original. It is on the level of 3rd grade fanfiction.
Anyway the point is not consistency, let me say it again. The fucking point ain't consistency. TM doesn't write stories to tell the same fucking thing over and over again, no matter how many Holy fucking grails wars they do. What they do is add twists to make it interesting. They all do it. There is nothing in Charles case that contradicts any rules, because they explained what those rules are and how they were broken. Things change, but they don't contradict.
The peers existed or at least they lived. Even if something was fiction doesn't mean it didn't happen. In Karl's flashbacks Astolfo was there, and an item from Astolfo's tale. One that is fictional, showed up as a catalyst.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah, exactly. King Arthu and his merry folks from Round Table existed, but not Twelve Peers. Ecen typing this felt dumb.
"Only in my company, will you not be a monster"
anywhere than here
Because those all did exist in-universe, but Charlemagne's adventures...well to say Charlemagne's adventures straight up didn't exist is untrue, since we have Astolfo in Karl's flashbacks and Astolfo himself giving an account of how Karl changed. So I'll use the term exaggerated, I suppose. The paladins were exaggerated in-universe, unlike the examples you listed which plain existed.
Arashi's Kiritsugu analogy is a good one, I think. Charlemagne is the heroic, Arthur-esque ideal dreamt up in exaggerated stories and songs like Shirou's ideal hero of justice Kiritsugu.
Charlemagne says something like, well, at the stage you see me now, I had dreams and goals that I was aiming for and a path I was set on, and so storytellers ran with that, but obviously, I ended up on a different path, which is that other guy.
It's pretty much the same thing as any other thing we've talked about with Heroic Spirits and NPs and routes and such. It existed, even if it isn't true.
Localizationing stuff
Because that's not the point. In real life Karl didn't have a mechanic, a flying city, or a holy sword that explodes in light. But these are stuff that's added as part of being a Servant in Fate. To be legends embodied. Karl certainly has fictional elements, for being a fictional character in a fictional game. That's not what there doing. There making a separation between the actual fictional elements Karl has IRL as a different thing
"Only in my company, will you not be a monster"
anywhere than here
hey, i like Siegfried's personality.
his inner monologues and post mortem flashbacks made me really feel for the guy and respect his relationship with other heroes, respect for others, morals and thrill of combat.
the problem with Siegfried is that he doesnt emote much so you have to go inside his head.
for example, Achilles' outlook on combat seems to tick him off in particular
And I'm saying it seems rather arbitrary to do it for him and literally no-one else (except Dracula)
This starting sound like she just didn't want to have anything to do with Higashide's version...Sakurai said in an interview that she kept discussong with other authors when she was writing Fragments
On more serious note, I was talking about Apocrypha (didn't play GO).
Correction: Shirou is a character, Siegfried is waste of space (in Apocrypha).Siegfried ain't Shirou, sure their goal and ideals are alike but there completely different characters
Look, when there are several works set in the same setting, expecting them being consistent in with each other is not a ctime against mankind.Anyway the point is not consistency, let me say it again
But here it is "Matter of Britain is true to a T", but "Matter of France is fictitious because reasons".
Fragments isn't Apocrypha, it's another novel. And the same statement applied to her talk with Nasu and Urobuchi. Does that mean for you that Sakurai wanted nothing to do with them as well?
It's honestly not that different from Saber Alter and how within her existence there's the possibility of going to the extreme
Or Shirou/Emiya/Demiya in that they're at base the same person but different possibilities to a given existence
Or Lartoria or Bedivere or such in that they're "if" possibilities
it's just expressed slightly differently
Localizationing stuff
I am also not fond of Dracula, since this case contradicts TWO well established in previous works rules, but at least can get the idea behind it. It is genre-defining work, which is responsible for pretty much entirety of vampire fiction. And we also can tell thst there are no roots for it what is known about Vlad Tepes (since there is 0 evidence of him labeled as vampire in folklore).
So it kinda sorta works
Siegfried and Charlemagne? Give me a break.
Sounds like to me you didn't even bother to read those previous works that are "contradicted" here.
Exactly. Much better written I might add.
We're discussing the possible reasons for splitting Siegfried/Sigurd. Iceblade argued it was done to show Siegfried as chivalrious knight. I countered that Siegfried is poorly represented in Apocrypha, so it can't be a reason.
wich would be these two rules that Vlad contradicts?
OK, I'll try to outline my problem properly here.
The issue with this whole fiction vs reality thing is how arbitrary it is. Suddenly you have a whole section of myths that are just myths, despite Fate generally running with the premise that all these myths actually happened before now. A whole folklore of a country is suddenly relegated into 'didn't happen', and that rankles me something fierce.
If this, plus Holmes's comments, is building up to the reveal that mythological Servants aren't actually real and simply exist because of human belief, Charlie standing out because he was also a real person, well, you run into issues here too, because quite a lot of Servants differ from their myths, in all magnitude of degrees.
Ultimately, it just feels like the writers are trying (badly) to have their cake and eat it too.
Wouldn't it just have been easier to say Charlie is the younger version of himself, and he can't be summoned normally because he's eclipsed by his older, more kingly, self.
Throne is supposed to be outside space and time, its records made once and kept unchanged fot eternity.
Dracula was written long after Vlad Tepes died.
How can it affected something that is unchanging?
There are multiple examples of Servants being unaffected by their legends: Artoria is a woman, Medusa is a fallen goddess as opposed to a pure monster (also her gaze doesn't turn to stone, it's looking at her what it does - and this discrepancy to the legend is discuased in the novel), Sasaki Kojirou is some nameless farmer etc.
Last edited by Blastedspider; June 12th, 2018 at 07:51 PM.
Also there's the issue of Astolfo (ostensibly real), when talking about Charlie, is very clearly describing the (again, ostensibly) unreal version of him.
They did the same with Carmilla. Vampire elements added to Elizabeth.
Actually looking at it anyone who has Innocent monster qualifies, I mean the situation with Karl is exactly why Hans has the skill. Salieri would be a good example of the opposite that happened with Karl, where fictional portrayals of the guy overwhelms his original self. Note they did give a reason why this doesn't happen with Karl. That is his original self is to great that it overwhelms the fiction then just be overwhelmed. Karl still has traces from those stories tho, but his original self overtakes it.
"Only in my company, will you not be a monster"
anywhere than here
Because in reality, we know that the Matter of France is a fictional account of Karl, a historical person.
It's not about the fantastical elements of the story that make it fictional.
It's the fact that this is an accepted fictional account of a historical figure.
In TM they really like putting the cart before the horse. The fact that we know it's a fictional account and there is evidence that it's a fictional account of a historical person makes it a fictional account of a historical person.
It's not because it didn't happen that makes it a fictional account.
That's the reason why Charlie doesn't mix into Karl that much, only a bit.
This doesn't happen to say King Arthur because we don't know the historical person it may or may not be a fictional account of. And therefore the fiction and "reality" are really mixed.
Though abandoned, forgotten, and scorned as out-of-date dolls, they continue to carry out their mission, unchanged from the time they were designed.
Machines do not lose their worth when a newer model appears.
Their worth (life) ends when humans can no longer bear that purity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote