Knives wrote:... "That is quite ridiculous"
That's what I was getting at.
The thought is ridiculous.
that the comparison is ridiculous, not the suggestion. I'm more than willing to consider Gendo's spectacles as the vehicle for a metaphor, and I'm even willing to consider that they might not exist, assuming of course that there is a compelling reason to do so.
Knives wrote:"There's no need for such a metaphor."
I can say the same in regards to your argument. Everything you stated in this quoted text is exactly my response to this so-called "theory" of "visual-representation."
You could say that there's no need for such a metaphor, but I would say that to do so is to ignore the mult-layered nature of NGE. Also, I would take issue with your use of the phrase 'so-called "theory"'. It is a theory, nothing more. If I can prove it, then it becomes accepted. If it is disproved, it becomes discredited. But it is still a theory.
Knives wrote:I'll be the first to admit (exaggerating) that it's difficult to "discredit" a "theory" that based entirely on personal speculation in regards to a fictional character's stamina.
Since it's based solely on how you and others feel about how much the pilot can handle, and based not on any scientific, series-specific or otherwise measurable evidence, then there's no way to "discredit" it because it's all based in imagination, personal preference and blind-eyes to what's being shown.
To my mind, it is your eyes which are blind to the fact that visual media presentations often use non-literal representation of a subjective reality, in order to add an extra narrative dimension to a show. Hence, why should we blindly trust what is shown upon the screen, without examination. I appreciate that some of the indicators in this matter are subjective in nature, and cannot be proved, but the primary test of a theory is that it take all the evidence into account. It does, whether you agree with it or not.
When did I say that?
Oh, that's right. I didn't
Knives wrote:My "view" is based on what we see in the show
Knives wrote:I don't think you should be one to start talking about or asking for proof when it's right there in front of your eyes
Oh didn't you? I suppose that you never did say it right out, but your entire argument so far has
been predicated on the assumption that in the scenes under discussion are literal visual representation of what is actually happening to the character. Sophistry. You have based your entire argument upon this notion, and I believe those two 'sound bites' above give a fairly clear indication of your general opinion on this matter. They aren't as clear as I'd like, they are the best I can get.
If these two quotes, and the context that surrounds them in the thread do not
add up to the summary of your views that I made, then I apologise for misrepresenting you, as it was not my intention.
Knives wrote:The difference between these episodes (the scenes therein) and the scenes under particular discussion, is that it's clear what we're looking at is either reality or "unreality" (whatever you want to call it). Point to a scene in which it is clear that these two lines cross (that is to say, where the "unreality" crosses into the reality).
Well, I would say that any scene where we are presented with the view from the entry plug, but that only works in accordance with the theory.
Knives wrote:If you want to argue that the distinct differences between "unreality" and reality aren't present, then we can examine that (though it would take a lot of effort). Simply put "unreality" is often (if not always) commented as being such by one of the characters (usually by Shinji). And so the distinction between the two is clear.
I'm game if you are. I'm doing a run-through of the DVDs right now, at any rate, so while it might take me a while to find what I need, if anything that prooves my case is there, then I'll find it soon enough.
Knives wrote:I argue the distinction in the case of this scene is a clear case of reality.
If you wish to argue that the lines between unreality and reality cross here, you'll have to provide some damn good evidence.
That's not strictly speaking what I have argued. I merely argue that in any[/u] it is possible to insert non-literal visual representations, in order to smooth the narrative flow. It is a narrative device, commonly used, and it does not mean that the line between 'reality' and 'unreality has been breached. It merely means that sometimes when you see something, what you see is not really there, but it is presented in order to help you understand what is going on in the scene. It's a common enough technique. It's harldy limited to NGE.
Knives wrote:... Talk about "in the interests of accuracy" (quoted Soluzar) ...
Ok, now you're apparently misrepresenting me. That quote of mine is taken out of context, and has been used to give a somewhat false impression of my posts thus far. I was merely attempting to disclaim any authorship of the theory, in the belief that someone else had come up with it. That is all I intended it to mean. Kindly do not misrepresent me.
Knives wrote:I can be satisfied with theories that the earth is flat ... doesn't mean it's right.
And beyond that, when evidence starts coming my way to prove it may be otherwise, I have two options:
A.) Listen to it (in the interests of accuracy and understanding).
B.) Ignore it (in the interests of being relatively satisfied).
You missed C.) Listen, and fail to be convinced. That's the option I'm taking on your interpretations of these scenes.
Knives wrote:And I agree with you. But again, those scenes which are not to be taken literally are always clear and distinct as "unreality."
That's your assumption. That's all it is. An assumption, that there are no scenes not intended to be taken 100% literally that are not clearly and distincly signposted as such. As an assumption, it can have no more validity than the equal and opposite one on my side or the argument.
Knives wrote:Again .. simply put, I never said this. But this scene is clear as reality.
No offence meant, hopefully none taken. I was merely hoping to put you in mind of the types of imagery, and differeng visual representation styles that Anno has employed, in the hope that it might shed some light on what I am trying to get across.
Knives wrote:It's only an impasse if one of us is too close-minded to the other's defense.
Or if both of us are close-minded! I would suggest that in as much as I have rejected your views out of hand, you have equally rejected mine. We each have what we perceive as valid reasons. Is that really close-mindedness?
Knives wrote:I'm open to hearing a defense.
Very well. Assuming you are still
open to hearing a defense, then given time to review the relevant information, I will take up the challenge, if you will continue to present the counter-argument. Expect to see more from me later.
Oh, Knives... I don't know which one of us started it, but can we please tune down the personal hostility towards each other a notch, starting with our next posts. I had no intention of misrepresenting you, whatever you might think. I'm passionate about this theory, though, and I won't let it go so easily. You didn't have to call the theory ridiculous, even if it does turn out to be unproveable.Originally posted on: 14-Nov-2004, 23:48 GMT