im still trying to figure out why he has a beard
im still trying to figure out why he has a beard
Bacause BaraOriginally Posted by jennajayfeather
here is a list of my servant sheets(new and improved format for my servant sheets)
Come explore the White Library, and reach the bottom of this Abyss
Fate / White Memoria
And because he's not Faker.
My stance has always been that was Urobutchi's low-key stroke of genius, having the most jolly & likeable character in the series possibly being the biggest monster. He definitely is inspiring, and there is something to his rhetoric of people having a leader they can look up to. It's not as if having a character flaw cancels out your strengths, or vice versa.
FGO Supports
I wouldn't say he's the biggest monster, or really even a monster, but he is unnerving precisely because he's super jolly, yet also embodies the worst of human avarice. Not any monstrous traits, just human excess.
Gilgamesh is more of a monster because his frame of view is less human IMO.
Zero is a critique of SN that ends in reconciliation because Urobuchi loves SN.
Iskander exemplifies that.
Kiritsugu's condemnation of Saber in vol 3 is also a condemnation of Iskander.
Last edited by You; April 26th, 2020 at 06:45 PM.
Though abandoned, forgotten, and scorned as out-of-date dolls, they continue to carry out their mission, unchanged from the time they were designed.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.
Ah, I see now. Thanks You.
consider only the following, if nothing else:
- the fz argument was never about which king was "right" in any ethical, moral, or pragmatic sense of the word
- the fz argument was about what each of the three characters believed the ideal of kingship encompassed - what a "king" should be
- conventional morality charges all three characters with tyrannical rules embroiled in constant war and/or rife with the suffering of the common people, whose ironclad sense of righteousness alienated their subjects and consigned their kingdoms to ruin after their passing
- there was no right or wrong answer to kingship between them because the fact that they're enshrined as heroic paragons and humanity's exemplars validated their actions and ideals in the logic of the setting - heroic spirits are sublimations of "goodness" and "rightness" and no one who fails in these requirements can qualify
- their noble phantasms, crystallisations of their essential qualities, were in this specific instance emblematic of their beliefs regarding kingship - their manifestation was in itself a validation, an "argument" that their way of thinking had a factual basis
- aionioi hetairoi proved that the king who leads conquers and lives more fully than anyone can create unbreakable bonds with his subjects, ea demonstrated the might of an inimitable king who stands above all and whose word is universal law, excalibur embodied the idea of a king who can take upon themselves the burden of their subjects' hopes and dreams and sacrifice themselves for them - they were all "proof" that each of these ways of kingship is valid
- the way that urobuchi "bullies" sabre is what in the case of literature we call character development; she started out with regrets over the results of her actions and after being confronted with situations that challenged her ideals - the banquet, the dark mirror of kiritsugu's idealism, diarmuid's downfall from honour, lancelot's hatred and madness towards her - these regrets became doubts and spread to the core of her beliefs - no longer a matter of ceding kingship to someone who could avert britain's ruin but of her own way of kingship being fundamentally mistaken
- narita, scholar that he is, has this to say to you, the reader:
Spoiler:
- from the above, take this: a hero isn't someone who did everything right, succeeded in all things and was loved by everyone; a hero is someone whose stories, their actions and ideals, reflect fundamental human values and inspire admiration and emulation - even if by those very same actions and ideals they eventually fell to ruin, failed miserably and died
- there are both textual and metatextual nuances that preclude absolute moral judgments from being made in a vacuum, who woulda thunk
- the fate of the three kings in their capacity as characters derived quite neatly from the philosophies they espoused: altria was driven to despair by her ideals (wow, same as kerry, what did uro mean by this), alexander's timeless bonds were severed along with his life (amazing, almost like a dream that disappears when the dreamer awakens) and gilgamesh remained entirely static and unaffected because the perversion of his immutable nature happens in the context of fsn
- the "bashing", "edge", and "grimderp" in fz derive from a disinclination to the author's themes, but the events and characters in it are perfectly in line with nasu's worldview and in some cases undergo necessary developments in order to align with their representation in fsn
- characters aren't people, they're props in a story, vehicles of theme and actors of creative vision, for the love of god
man, how do I put this, it's a useful thought exercise to maybe sometimes consider the characters within the context of the work itself, you'll find that things start making more sense when examined as elements of a story rather than as decontextualised subjects of black-and-white moralising, yeah?
Last edited by Leftovers; June 8th, 2020 at 07:46 PM.
That won't necessarily stop.
The indignation over offended moral sensibility. That itself I understand.
It's just missing the point. I'm smiling a little on how you are detailed explanation and You is the tl;dr.
You must understand, a decade of bad Zero takes is a decade taken out of my lifespan.
man, bad takes is what fuels this industry
I'd say that for the most part he already did. Although SIN still has the Koyanskaya torture scene for no real reason.
As far as I know, the only thing that always stays the same with Urobuchi is every single one of his stories being "Utilitarism is stupid and here's why".
The Tayunskapon torture scene was the best part of SIN though.
The author persona always struck me as a bitter man that can't let go of hope
That afterword perfectly encapsulates everything Urobuchi wants to do.
The point of the entire discussion is not to profess the righteousness of a supposed "universal morality", but to argue that the work's own chosen moral compass is rather immature. In other words, it is a criticism of the "creative vision" itself, not of the characters in a vacuum - an argument about whether the characters were capably written within that moral framework the text chose for itself. Regardless of judgments on how "correct" a moral view is (I can't emphasize this enough), Urobochi's (and Nasu's, for that matter) approach to this subject is narrow and uninteresting - that's the point of all these complaints about the Banquet of Kings (speaking for myself here - don't know if all those dissatisfied with the scene will say the same).
I feel I should clarify something here: as far as morality goes, I am a post-modern. Within the context of a fictional work, however, I tend to like it when anything that enters that realm and decides takes a clear stance on it tries to remain remotely consistent, which I can't for the life of me say has happened here. In fact, the "validation" you speak of is another issue entirely, since using it to defend a character's standing on anything (not saying that's what you are doing, because you obviously aren't) paints a dangerous road towards turning that character into a mere archetype - which, given the limitations of the works we are discussing, would render them utterly bland.
With that in mind, approach Iskandar again and apply his discourse to the reality surrounding the characters. That point of view comes with clear consequences that, if properly explored, would render him a much more interesting character. The way he is portrayed, though, all those elements are simply glossed over in favor of allowing him to voice his views almost completely unchallenged, and the consequences you speak of are almost nonexistent in the text itself; in fact, you could say he was the only one of the 3 kings whose convictions were never really trampled on. The text itself grants the character a veneer of wisdom that shatters under proper examination.
To sum it up, Uro's goal might have been larger than just showcasing Iskandar's beliefs, but arguing that entails taking a macro approach when it is simply not needed. Regardless of anything else, Iskandar's discourse was just poorly written.
I can't speak for the whole segment with Ayaka, since that comes from Fate/Strange Fake, which poses two problems:
1 - I haven't read it yet
2 - It isn't actually Urobochi's work. I agree that it is an interesting INTERPRETATION of the whole scene, but as you put it, the "scholar" here is Narita. If nothing else, it seems to be enriching the text with things that were simply not there originally.
I have no objections whatsoever to your other points - especially the whole thing with Kerry/Sabre/whatever. Those were much better written, especially Kerry. And, interestingly enough, I actually believe Saber's REACTION to the Banquet of Kings was interesting (could have been better, but meh, what's good is good). Urobochi did a good job there.
Last edited by Benderesco; April 27th, 2020 at 02:28 AM.
100 faced Hassan won the banquet of kings. made a stand against tyranny on pure principle. no i will not explain this. fuck off
かん汗ぎゅう牛じゅう充とう棟
Expresses the exceeding size of one's library.
Books are extremely many, loaded on an oxcart the ox will sweat.
At home piled to the ridgepole of the house, from this meaning.
Read out as 「Ushi ni ase shi, munagi ni mitsu.」
Source: 柳宗元「其為書，處則充棟宇，出則汗牛馬。」— Tang Dynasty
No, the win conditions for a banquet are eating and having a good time. Hassan did neither. The real winner of the banquet of kings is Gilgamesh because laughed his ass off 30 minutes uninterrupted.
wine is haram
かん汗ぎゅう牛じゅう充とう棟
Expresses the exceeding size of one's library.
Books are extremely many, loaded on an oxcart the ox will sweat.
At home piled to the ridgepole of the house, from this meaning.
Read out as 「Ushi ni ase shi, munagi ni mitsu.」
Source: 柳宗元「其為書，處則充棟宇，出則汗牛馬。」— Tang Dynasty
I love you for this post
He also provided the drinks. Instant winner.
- - - Updated - - -
No they didn't. They sacrificed themselves on tyranny's altar.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
NA
JP
