Kaworu - The Origins

[Mr. Tines [ANF]]

Hmm, yeah, I'm sure Toji would have had a fun time synchronzing with THAT...

And would leave the situation with Eva-00 even more confused (if that is indeed possible).

Originally posted on: 24-Dec-2004, 15:42 GMT

[Shin-seiki [ANF]]

And would leave the situation with Eva-00 even more confused (if that is indeed possible).

I think that was most likely a matter of something getting lost or confused in translation (i.e. EVA-00 vs EVA-03). The #25 script spells out unambiguously that Rei I was in Zerogouki (not to mention numerous visual hints and verbal insinuations to support that notion that crop up at various points throughout the series...)

Originally posted on: 24-Dec-2004, 15:49 GMT

[Soluzar [ANF]]

And would leave the situation with Eva-00 even more confused (if that is indeed possible).

::groan:: That reminds me - I was browsing Wikipedia yesterday, and I wondered if they had a NGE page, since they seem to include just about everything. They do indeed have a Neon Genesis Evangelion page, but they have included the Zerogouki/Naoki theory, as well as so much other misinformation, incomplete information, and contentious theories. These erroneous theories still seem to have a lot of credibility 'out there'.

Originally posted on: 24-Dec-2004, 15:49 GMT

[Brendan Brown [ANF]]

::groan:: That reminds me - I was browsing Wikipedia yesterday, and I wondered if they had a NGE page, since they seem to include just about everything. They do indeed have a Neon Genesis Evangelion page, but they have included the Zerogouki/Naoki theory, as well as so much other misinformation. The 'Shogouki is a clone of Lileth' theory, for one. These erroneous theories still seem to have a lot of credibility 'out there'.

Then edit it, that's how Wikipedia works.

Originally posted on: 24-Dec-2004, 15:57 GMT

[Soluzar [ANF]]

Then edit it, that's how Wikipedia works.

Well, I did, but since it is somebody else's work, I feel a bit awkward about it, so I just added: "This theory is not universally accepted by fans, and has been the subject of heated debate." on the end of the point about Zero/Naoko.

Plus there's the fact that I can still make mistakes myself. I don't want to correct the misinformation that is there with new misinformation.

Originally posted on: 24-Dec-2004, 16:37 GMT

[Sudou [ANF]]

I think that was most likely a matter of something getting lost or confused in translation (i.e. EVA-00 vs EVA-03). The #25 script spells out unambiguously that Rei I was in Zerogouki (not to mention numerous visual hints and verbal insinuations to support that notion that crop up at various points throughout the series...)

Indeed, this was posted by Brendan Jamieson a few months ago on the Eva ML:

> The 'Eva-00 has Rei I's soul' argument is
> incongruent with the outcome of
> the two failed synchronization tests.

I think this answer, and the identity of the soul in
Eva-00, isn't really the point of this issue. But
rahter the circumstances under which this answer was
revealed.

This explanation came from Kazuya Tsurumaki at Otakon
2001. Towards the end of the panel, they were asking
if there was any more questions and someone yelled in
the back "What soul is in Eva-00?!"

There was some confusion and chuckles, and the
translator asked "Are you talking about Evangelion?"
then turned to Tsurumaki and asked the question.
Tsurumaki asked the translator something, then paused.
He looked confused, then counted off Yui in Eva-01 and
Asuka's mum in Eva-02. Paused again, and then said
he supposed it was a clone of Rei, and might as well
have shrugged his shoulders. And in the end it was
kind of an awkward moment.

That's pretty much how it went, because the guy who
asked the question emailed me after the con to ask me
what I thought about the whole thing.

The big point here - is that Tsurumaki was confused by
the question and prattled off Rei off the top of his
head.

Meaning - there was never really anyone in mind for
Eva-00, imho. And the issue is moot and superfluous -
imho. The creators obviously didn't think it was an
issue, so why should we?

:-\

-brendan
--
Evangelion mailing list - To unsubscribe, visit
http://eva.onegeek.org/cgi-bin/mail...info/evangelion

Originally posted on: 25-Dec-2004, 03:02 GMT

[Shin-seiki [ANF]]

Brendan must not be following this forum very closely; that Rei 01's soul (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) ended up in Zerogouki is taken for granted as an obvious and uncontroversial fact by almost everyone here.

And the issue is moot and superfluous -
imho. The creators obviously didn't think it was an
issue, so why should we?

That seems to be Brendan's take on a lot of Eva-related issues lately...

Originally posted on: 25-Dec-2004, 03:31 GMT

[Soluzar [ANF]]

Brendan must not be following this forum very closely; that Rei 01's soul (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) ended up in Zerogouki is taken for granted as an obvious and uncontroversial fact by almost everyone here.That seems to be Brendan's take on a lot of Eva-related issues lately...

It's a view espoused by a fairly large number of NGE fans, but to take this view is to ignore one of the fundamental concepts inherent in modern literary and cultural theory, which states that the intentions of the author/creator are unimportant. The 'text' is all that counts. If there is a valid and consistent interpretation which can be drawn out of the text, then it does not matter even if the author had the opposite intention.

Originally posted on: 25-Dec-2004, 04:03 GMT

[Reichu [ANF]]

It's a view espoused by a fairly large number of NGE fans, but to take this view is to ignore one of the fundamental concepts inherent in modern literary and cultural theory, which states that the intentions of the author/creator are unimportant. The 'text' is all that counts. If there is a valid and consistent interpretation which can be drawn out of the text, then it does not matter even if the author had the opposite intention.

Hmm... Sort of reminds me of when we read "A Doll House" in composition class. One would get the impression from the text that the author was 'rooting' for women's rights and feminist issues, when in reality he thought all women belonged in the kitchen.

Originally posted on: 25-Dec-2004, 04:10 GMT

[Soluzar [ANF]]

Hmm... Sort of reminds me of when we read "A Doll House" in composition class. One would get the impression from the text that the author was 'rooting' for women's rights and feminist issues, when in reality he thought all women belonged in the kitchen.

Ibsen? I did that in my freshman year. That's a good example. Whyever Ibsent thought he wrote that play, it actually came off as a salutatory text for independant women. The author is only important until the last full-stop hits the page. From that point onwards, they are no longer affecting the story. It's the way it's read, not the way it's written that is important. As such, it can be interpreted in many different ways, since each reader brings different elements with him/her into their reading of the book. It's the sort of theory that's wise to bear in mind when confronting those who would say "...but Anno said...", because what is on the screen is all that we can really work from. Co-texts, such as the RCB and Anno's interviews should never be considered to be above doubt, or even outright rejection, in my view.

::Climbs down from soapbox::

Originally posted on: 25-Dec-2004, 04:19 GMT

[Reichu [ANF]]

I do agree that if something, even from a 'canon' sources, doesn't seem to fit the facts in the work itself, it can be a matter of contention. Being an idealist, though, my preference is to reconcile as much of the data as possible... Rejecting words from the horse's mouth -- like Anno or Tsurumaki -- isn't preferable, but in some cases it's necessary, like the quote MDWigs posted in the most recent Rei thread, where Anno said "Rei was born to be an Eva pilot" (a statement blatantly inconsistent with Rei's "true purpose" as apparent by the ending).

EDIT: Although honestly, the whole idea of the 'work speaking louder than its creator' kind of creeps me out, in the event -I- should ever make something that gets reasonably talked-about. Usually, when looking at someone else's work, I think that the intention of the creator is primary to whatever 'other people think', or, at least, that's the way I would prefer my own work to be viewed... That the moment I declare something "finished", none of my own intentions or the feelings I put into the piece really matter anymore feels very uncomfortable to me.

Originally posted on: 25-Dec-2004, 04:35 GMT

[Soluzar [ANF]]

EDIT: Although honestly, the whole idea of the 'work speaking louder than its creator' kind of creeps me out, in the event -I- should ever make something that gets reasonably talked-about. Usually, when looking at someone else's work, I think that the intention of the creator is primary to whatever 'other people think', or, at least, that's the way I would prefer my own work to be viewed... That the moment I declare something "finished", none of my own intentions or the feelings I put into the piece really matter anymore feels very uncomfortable to me.

The view that I would take, is that for the most part, such intentions as an artist (of any branch of the arts) has, will be fully embodied within the finished work. It's certainly true to say that in the case of NGE, what I perceive from his interviews to have been his primary intentions have found loud voices within the finished work.

I think that I oversimplified quite dramatically, due to trying to condense down a set of concepts that I'm still grappling with into a single short paragraph. Allow me to clarify. To give a worked example, which will provide a clearer picture, suppose that Anno had intended from the start to not resolve the question of the soul contained within Zerogouki. The point that I was trying to make is that if there can be found a theory, which takes into account all of the 'facts' which are contained within the narrative, and successfully identifies which soul would most likely have been contained within Zerogouki, then it is of no consequence whether or not Anno had intended to place that evidence within the story. The fact is that can be drawn out of the 'text' as it stands.

Naturally, the intentions of an Author shape the story, and it was not strictly correct of me to put it in such simplistic terms. It would have been better to state that the author's intentions do not constrain the text, and they are not the first and final port of call in regards of seeking an interpretation. My choice of words in my first post was based upon a (hypothetical) situation where the authorial intent seems to be either at odds with the finished work, or has gaps where the 'reader' can (and in my opinion, must) work with the 'text' to complete the story in his own mind. I hope I've made my own views a little clearer. Certainly, my phrase here:

The author is only important until the last full-stop hits the page. From that point onwards, they are no longer affecting the story. It's the way it's read, not the way it's written that is important.

Was a little overstated, and not the usual state of affairs. I perhaps should have phrased it to suggest that this should only be held to be true where a 'conventional' reading does not yield positive results. Indeed, it is a usefull technique when dealing with parts of a text which refuse to submit to standard textual analysis, but it is far from universally applicable.

Originally posted on: 25-Dec-2004, 05:01 GMT

[thewayneiac [ANF]]

It's a view espoused by a fairly large number of NGE fans, but to take this view is to ignore one of the fundamental concepts inherent in modern literary and cultural theory, which states that the intentions of the author/creator are unimportant. The 'text' is all that counts. If there is a valid and consistent interpretation which can be drawn out of the text, then it does not matter even if the author had the opposite intention.

This theory is crap, concocted by elitist and self-important critics who want the world to think that they know more than the author. Modern literary theory is built upon a falsehood. If the story seems to be conveying some message other than the one its creator intended, it is beacuse the story is a failure, not because it somehow has some meaning appart from its author's intent. Also, of course, many of the works interpreted in this fashion aren't failures, the critics are just superimposing their views upon them even when the author's intent is clear from the text. This whole idea is just arrogant people saying "It means what we say it means so shut up".

I hope this doesn't sound too harsh, but this is one of my pet peeves.

The point that I was trying to make is that if there can be found a theory, which takes into account all of the 'facts' which are contained within the narrative, and successfully identifies which soul would most likely have been contained within Zerogouki, then it is of no consequence whether or not Anno had intended to place that evidence within the story. The fact is that can be drawn out of the 'text' as it stands.

Does this mean that if there are what logically seem to be "Paul is dead" clues in Beatles songs, then these songs are saying that he's dead even if The Beatles had no such intent?

Originally posted on: 25-Dec-2004, 19:24 GMT

[Soluzar [ANF]]

I hope this doesn't sound too harsh, but this is one of my pet peeves.

Nah... Like I said, in my later post, it's a theory which is only even applicable in relatively extreme cases, even when you believe in it. Me, I have to believe in it to a certain extent to get good grades in classes.

It's not quite as radicial as I made it sound, and certainly not as radical as the responses indicate that I made it sound as though I was saying. It doesn't suggest that the author is 'wrong' or that the critic knows more than the author, but it does suggest that there are meanings and interpretations which can be valid even when they go against the authors original intent. Not all the time, of course, and I suppose that the skill is in knowing when there are extra meanings, and when what is being done is just over-analysis. I didn't mean to offend anyone with my post, and I wish I'd stated my thinking a little more carefully in my original post on the subject.

Originally posted on: 25-Dec-2004, 23:52 GMT