Jump to content

Banzai's Archetypes


General Banzai
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oscar, Alva... Sain even is only the sub-commander, while Kent himself is the true commander.

How, precisely, does that make these characters outsiders?

Note how it is JUNO who spends the rest of HER life with Zealot. Zealot's ending doesn't even mention Juno. Not once. It mentions his country, not his wife, not his child.

I could say the same about any of Roy's paired endings. I suppose it was probably written that way to cover the possibility of Yuno being dead...

You're right to contest my claims, but you cannot say that your claims are inarguable. Because I'm willing to argue them.

So are you saying that Zealot doesn't love Yuno?

And look at how everything is being said here. "Oh, you haven't seen her yet, have you." Under what circumstances would someone be compelled to say that? Not only has Zealot not seen his own daughter, but Juno doesn't even know at first whether he has or not. That is how detached and transitory Zealot is in his family's life. Just someone drifting back in and out without explanation, unanchored by standard notions of time.

Yeah, we get it, Zealot spends a lot of time away from home. That is what the support is trying to say.

And look how Zealot hesitates when he says "Yes... we shall." No enthusiasm whatsoever. I am again reminded of the end of A support--Juno says that they will live together as a family, and then what? Nothing. Zealot says nothing. The conversation ends.

I don't see any hesitation there. He says yes immediately, then pauses, then says "we shall". If he were to say "Yes we shall", that would sound kind of weird. Again, you are reading too much into an ellipsis.

Noah: I honestly thought it was a miracle when we met again on that island. And... Although I've still been keeping it in until now, I won't hesitate any more. I have to tell you.

Fir: S-Sir Noah...

Noah: Fir, I... I love you.

Noah hesitates, therefore he doesn't love Fir.

And these are all frequent features of FE6 supports. Maybe it's an issue with how they're translated or how they were written in the first place, but this happens with other supports, such as Roy/Thany:

Thany: Probably. That's all you need to enjoy life, right?

Roy: Well...maybe.

Thany: I think you're thinking too deeply. Well, probably you have to because you're in such a position... Anyway, I don't think it's as complicated as you think.

And then the support ends.

When I thought of the Ogma of FE4 my mind first jumped to Holyn. He fits some characteristics (former pitfighter, mysterious past), but mostly he's just nothing. I mean, I suppose I could put him on with a notation explaining which of the common archetypal elements he just doesn't conform to, not by any explicit contradiction but rather by simply barely existing. But I don't see the point.

Beowolf would be a better fit. After all, canonically we know that Beowolf/Lachesis can't have ended well, since Fin is Nanna's father...

Edited by Anouleth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Glad somebody brought this up. Look how Zealot phrases everything. "You should go back home and take care of her..." "But you're her mother."

Good point, I was wondering why Zealot wasn't addressing his wife as Yuno-san.

Edited by dondon151
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thany: I think you're thinking too deeply. Well, probably you have to because you're in such a position... Anyway, I don't think it's as complicated as you think.

This applies SO WELL to this discussion as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You're looking too much into this" is not a valid argument. You can't tell me "oh ellipses mean nothing FE6 supports do them all the time, here's an example" and then show me examples of another instance where someone uses ellipses to indicate hesitation. That's not helping your point.

Furthermore I'm not saying "ellipses automaticaly equal untrue". You have to look at the context. Noah is hesitating in telling Fir he loves her because, as he says just before, he's had trouble saying it. He's been keeping it back, hesitating all throughout the support conversation. Roy hesitates because he doesn't want to admit to himself that Tate is right. Zealot hesitates because he lacks conviction in his words.

The ellipses DO mean something, every time they are put down. Somebody wrote this support (somebody named Maeda, actually) and they made a conscience decision to put an ellipses or Japanese-equivalent at that spot. You say "Yes we shall" sounds weird. So why not just put a comma? "Yes, we shall." Doesn't that look like Zealot is more convinced about himself than "Yes... we shall."? With the comma the pause is briefer, the thought more cohesive and unified. With an ellipses there is the impression of a trailing-off, a much stronger break between the first and second halves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not it is possible for straight people to enjoy having buttsex.

Of course. However, keep in mind Banzai's bend towards Zealot being gay. If the only time he mentions any form of sex with his wife in the support conversations is "buttsex", then it seems simple for Banzai to interpret that as "he's so gay the only way he'd have a woman is in the same way", or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. However, keep in mind Banzai's bend towards Zealot being gay. If the only time he mentions any form of sex with his wife in the support conversations is "buttsex", then it seems simple for Banzai to interpret that as "he's so gay the only way he'd have a woman is in the same way", or whatever.

But if he was gay, he wouldn't be married to Juno at all or have sex with her at all. Which would destroy any claims of Banzai claiming Zealot is a homosexual.

In any case, let me ask Banzai this. If Zealot doesn't love Juno then why would he marry her? She isn't some wealthy noblewoman or anything. She is in fact, quite poor so he couldn't have married her out of money. Not only this but you really are reading too much into things. You say he treats a wedding like a gift and is all like "LOL he doesn't love her then" but then if he didn't love her why would he be upset he couldn't give her a better wedding? It's pretty obvious he cares about Juno and loves her deeply.

Glad somebody brought this up. Look how Zealot phrases everything. "You should go back home and take care of her..."

Because she's their child's mother and he doesn't want to see her die in battle.

"But you're her mother."

Well yeah, Zealot isn't their child's mother!

You look at this and say "aw, he cares about his daughter" but look closer and really you see just how detached he is. He says someone should take care of a newborn--but not him, not the father, it's always you, you Juno, you mother, not me, not the man.

So are you saying Zealot doesn't care about his child? Why are you so eager to trash his character?

Maybe it's just me but this whole thing strikes me as Eternal Bond 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Edited by Dark Sage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so time for a semi-serious post.

Glad somebody brought this up. Look how Zealot phrases everything. "You should go back home and take care of her..." "But you're her mother." You look at this and say "aw, he cares about his daughter" but look closer and really you see just how detached he is. He says someone should take care of a newborn--but not him, not the father, it's always you, you Juno, you mother, not me, not the man.

I didn't know that the game bolded these words! But this is not a surprising instance given that the game was made in Japan, where there is a strong tradition of the wife staying home and looking after the family while the husband earns his bread.

And look at how everything is being said here. "Oh, you haven't seen her yet, have you." Under what circumstances would someone be compelled to say that? Not only has Zealot not seen his own daughter, but Juno doesn't even know at first whether he has or not.

I don't know how you are getting this interpretation. Juno is not asking this question because she doesn't know whether Zealot has seen this child; stating something using a question is a common method employed to sound more endearing and less accusatory. What else would she have said? "Oh, you haven't seen her yet." That just sounds like Zealot is a terrible and maliciously neglectful father.

Let's consult the original Japanese text:

あら そういえば

まだ 顔を見ていないのですね

Which roughly translates to "Ah, now that you speak of it, you haven't seen her face yet" (with some grammatical nuances that are hard to capture in English). This is partially due to the way most women speak in Japanese, but Yuno does not have an accusatory tone, nor is she legitimately wondering if Zealot has seen their daughter yet (emphasized by the のですね copula).

And look how Zealot hesitates when he says "Yes... we shall." No enthusiasm whatsoever.

Negatory on this one as well based on the Japanese text:

そうだな・・・

This is a (very commonly used) phrase of affirmation, which is difficult to translate directly into English (hence the translation choice of "Yes... we shall."). In practice it's more like "Ah, yes..." because there is no statement of commitment in the original Japanese. I also strongly disagree with your appraisal of Zealot's lack of enthusiasm because the entire conversation is somewhat subdued, and it would be out of place for Zealot to suddenly and enthusiastically exclaim that he will see his child.

I am again reminded of the end of A support--Juno says that they will live together as a family, and then what? Nothing. Zealot says nothing. The conversation ends. He can't even formulate a response to the prospect of living together as a family.

This is because Yuno was responding to Zealot, not the other way around. Please notice that Ilia being able to sustain itself on agriculture implies that Zealot gets to stay home at Edessa. With his family.

For him no such life exists; could possibly exist. He will die on the battlefield, not in a peaceful bed. Note, of course, the symbolism behind the specific use of the word "bed," a word which brings to the fore images of sex and matrimony; the bed is a typical symbol of marriage. Yes, maybe he means it as a symbol of rest. But these alternative meanings are not to be ignored.

There is no use of the word "bed." I find this statement exceedingly hilarious because you are performing a literary analysis of your choice of words in your own literary analysis.

This is also not Richard III. This is a collection of a few sentences spoken between 2 fictional characters in a video game. You are looking into this too deeply.

Edited by dondon151
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zealot: Neither of us will be able to meet our deaths peacefully in bed. The letters are essential to us. Noah, don't you have anyone you want to send a letter to?

From ZealotxNoah, what I was referring to. And not a random reference, as I have brought up this conversation (indeed this very line) in this discussion before.

Also, "looking into it too deeply" is not an actual response. This is a forum where people prattle on and on debating stats and specific turncount based strategies. This is looking at the game no more deeply than, say, an LTC run is looking at the game. It's simply that LTC looks at the game deeply from a different perspective, looking to squeeze out of the game the most possible efficiency in gameplay; well, I am merely looking to squeeze out of the game the most possible meaning from its story. Saying "it's a video game story, it doesn't mean anything" is not a proper response either. If Marcel Duchamp can make meaning out of a toilet and call it art, than a video game can very well have all the nuances that I am describing. Saying some form of medium is too low or simplistic to mean anything is bullshit. If you prescribe to that philosophy, you might as well just leave the thread.

Furthermore, you introduction of the original Japanese and your calling-into-question the quality of the fan translation brings up a good point. I am now tempted to disqualify all Japanese-only games from the discussion as we have no way of knowing just how accurate any of the translations we have to go on are. If the FE6 fan translators misconstrued Zealot and Juno's dialogue, then it's quite likely they misconstrued many other points, also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, you introduction of the original Japanese and your calling-into-question the quality of the fan translation brings up a good point. I am now tempted to disqualify all Japanese-only games from the discussion as we have no way of knowing just how accurate any of the translations we have to go on are. If the FE6 fan translators misconstrued Zealot and Juno's dialogue, then it's quite likely they misconstrued many other points, also.

You should rather disqualify all localized versions because of the partiality to misinterpret statements due to someone else's translation. If you really want to discuss what sort of person a character is, in-depth, you need to verify from the original source their mannerisms and dialogues. Not through secondary texts which can skew how the character is portrayed. NoE and NoA are not exempt from the trend of having to localize text because there's no alternatives available in English, or because they feel it doesn't match with content normally "portrayed" in Western areas.

Otherwise, accept that there is no end-all attribute of a character, but that there are avenues of discussion and exploration. They just aren't end-all navigations of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should rather disqualify all localized versions because of the partiality to misinterpret statements due to someone else's translation. If you really want to discuss what sort of person a character is, in-depth, you need to verify from the original source their mannerisms and dialogues. Not through secondary texts which can skew how the character is portrayed. NoE and NoA are not exempt from the trend of having to localize text because there's no alternatives available in English, or because they feel it doesn't match with content normally "portrayed" in Western areas.

Otherwise, accept that there is no end-all attribute of a character, but that there are avenues of discussion and exploration. They just aren't end-all navigations of discussion.

Rather, NoA and NoE's official localizations thus become the source material because of their official sanction.

For instance, there are authors such as Nabokov and Beckett who translated their own works into English (or out of English). When looking at those works do we go by the original, even if it's in another language, or the "officially-sanctioned" translation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather, NoA and NoE's official localizations thus become the source material because of their official sanction.

For instance, there are authors such as Nabokov and Beckett who translated their own works into English (or out of English). When looking at those works do we go by the original, even if it's in another language, or the "officially-sanctioned" translation?

Even though the scripts between the three can create conflicts, as you've been able to see here?

You're examples don't quite work because the original authors, as far as their intent allows, can retain what they meant to explicate. NoA and NoE don't exactly stay in direct contact with the minds which created the dialogue scripts and character personalities, yeah?

and I prefer Beckett in French so you know

Edited by Celice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, "looking into it too deeply" is not an actual response. This is a forum where people prattle on and on debating stats and specific turncount based strategies. This is looking at the game no more deeply than, say, an LTC run is looking at the game. It's simply that LTC looks at the game deeply from a different perspective, looking to squeeze out of the game the most possible efficiency in gameplay; well, I am merely looking to squeeze out of the game the most possible meaning from its story. Saying "it's a video game story, it doesn't mean anything" is not a proper response either. If Marcel Duchamp can make meaning out of a toilet and call it art, than a video game can very well have all the nuances that I am describing. Saying some form of medium is too low or simplistic to mean anything is bullshit. If you prescribe to that philosophy, you might as well just leave the thread.
It's one point of many.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You're looking too much into this" is not a valid argument. You can't tell me "oh ellipses mean nothing FE6 supports do them all the time, here's an example" and then show me examples of another instance where someone uses ellipses to indicate hesitation. That's not helping your point.

Furthermore I'm not saying "ellipses automaticaly equal untrue". You have to look at the context. Noah is hesitating in telling Fir he loves her because, as he says just before, he's had trouble saying it. He's been keeping it back, hesitating all throughout the support conversation. Roy hesitates because he doesn't want to admit to himself that Tate is right. Zealot hesitates because he lacks conviction in his words.

You think he hesitates because he lacks conviction. You are so eager to hammer Zealot's round peg into the triangle hole of your archetype, that you interpret every hesitation and pause as evidence that he doesn't love Yuno. What's the point is discussing anything with someone who's already made up his mind what the truth is and interprets all evidence to support that conclusion?

The ellipses DO mean something, every time they are put down. Somebody wrote this support (somebody named Maeda, actually) and they made a conscience decision to put an ellipses or Japanese-equivalent at that spot. You say "Yes we shall" sounds weird. So why not just put a comma? "Yes, we shall." Doesn't that look like Zealot is more convinced about himself than "Yes... we shall."? With the comma the pause is briefer, the thought more cohesive and unified. With an ellipses there is the impression of a trailing-off, a much stronger break between the first and second halves.

And what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Perhaps Zealot is fondly considering such a possibility. Maybe he's gazing Defiantly into the middle distance and puts the ellipsis in for Dramatic Effect (sunset in background). Maybe he's wondering if Tate would be interested in a threesome.

And how do you know that Maeda intended this pause or ellipsis to have some greater implication? Forgive me if I'm wrong (being a lowly student of mathematics), but isn't the point of analysis not to play guessing games with what the author "intended", but just to analyse the work as it appears?

Zealot: Neither of us will be able to meet our deaths peacefully in bed. The letters are essential to us. Noah, don't you have anyone you want to send a letter to?

From ZealotxNoah, what I was referring to. And not a random reference, as I have brought up this conversation (indeed this very line) in this discussion before.

Also, "looking into it too deeply" is not an actual response. This is a forum where people prattle on and on debating stats and specific turncount based strategies. This is looking at the game no more deeply than, say, an LTC run is looking at the game. It's simply that LTC looks at the game deeply from a different perspective, looking to squeeze out of the game the most possible efficiency in gameplay; well, I am merely looking to squeeze out of the game the most possible meaning from its story. Saying "it's a video game story, it doesn't mean anything" is not a proper response either.

It's not that it's a video game story. It's that it's a fucking ellipsis. If your girlfriend hesitates when speaking to you, does that mean she doesn't love you? Of course not. And you would be insane to think so.

Edited by Anouleth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People not agreeing (with you)=/=Waste of time.

It would be awfully hard for anyone to agree with me, as I haven't taken a side here in this dispute.

Arguments are fun, but not when the subject lacks enough substance for an interesting dispute.

Edited by Othin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(sighs) You people. What I can see here is that Banzai defines archetypes differently, and that he's not going to change his mind no matter how much everyone else argues with him. That's fine. If you guys disagree with the way he sees archetypes and Zealot and Juno's marriage, then just leave it that way. Banzai, you probably won't be swayed by the others' arguments, but they won't be swayed by yours either. We all pretty much have our interpretations of the characters. And in a way, that is part of what makes FE so interesting. Yes, we can argue with people whom you think are missing a key point in the character's personality (or past, or background), but if you're all going to be obstinate and not change each other's minds, can't you guys just agree to disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me trying to find anything interesting in FE6's story and characters is generally a waste of time.

I was genuinely interested in a couple supports involving Niime and other characters, especially with Hugh. But that might be mostly because I haven't seen almost any supports in the GBA games ._. (who the hell plays with units standing butt-to-butt all the time?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be awfully hard for anyone to agree with me, as I haven't taken a side here in this dispute.

Don't know how I could have thought you were on Banzai's side, when you only made this point after Banzai had been strongly refuted, or after people claim he's misinterpreting the dialogue. Insane, I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know how I could have thought you were on Banzai's side, when you only made this point after Banzai had been strongly refuted, or after people claim he's misinterpreting the dialogue. Insane, I know.

Ah, because I was telling dondon he was expecting too much substance out of FE6's dialogue, right?

Yes, you're quite insane.

Edited by Othin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, because I was telling dondon he was expecting too much substance out of FE6's dialogue, right?

Yes, you're quite insane.

One person is expecting too much from the dialogue. The fact that you only call the discussion pointless after that person gets his argument refuted is telling.

This discussion can show a lot about characters, just because you don't find a loveless marriage doesn't make it uninteresting, pointless, or lacking substance. If anything a lot about Zealot's character has been shown here, it just isn't what Banzai originally believed it to be or interpreted it to be.

Edited by Aethereal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been strongly refuted? What? Most of the points have been either "Banzai is stubborn, only thinks what he wants" or "Banzai is looking too much into an ellipses" or "Banzai the different translations contradict each other".

Meanwhile, Othin, by looking this close at Zealot's supports, I've found them much more interesting than a previously thought. Of course, that's not to say I may not feel the same about anything I look more closely at, but it has given Zealot at least a little more life to his character. His constant morose statements, his lack of any strongly-defined emotions except when speaking of high-minded topics such as THE GOOD OF ILIA and DEATH ON THE BATTLEFIELD, his feelings towards Juno... I mean, even look at their names. Juno, goddess of marriage. Zealot, a high-minded, single-sighted individual. It seems to fit, doesn't it? A man who can only look forward, in one direction, leaving behind his family--and the wife he has left behind, in desperate love with her husband despite his aloof nature.

It's quite compelling, if you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you look at names like Lot and Ward, and all of a sudden, the creativity of names argument is easily dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been strongly refuted? What? Most of the points have been either "Banzai is stubborn, only thinks what he wants" or "Banzai is looking too much into an ellipses" or "Banzai the different translations contradict each other".

Yeah man, if you like, ignore mine, dondon's, and Anouleth's posts regarding the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a dispute, people always think their side is ironclad truth. It's human nature. When one will assume that whether it's true or not, building different arguments based on the assertion that the previous one must be true is simply idiotic.

Edited by Othin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...