Manga News: Check out these new manga (5/18/15 - 5/24/15).
New Forums: Visit the new forums for Boku no Hero Academia!
Forum News: Cast your votes to determine the best parent in the Anime Showdown.
Coming Soon, Please Participate!
2. Well, during this arc I meant.
3. Not really. Either he was able to do so because his half of the Kyuubi is nice, in which case there is no accomplishment in doing so, or he was able to do just because, in which case it completely makes all of Naruto's effort to do so meaningless.
4. That really doesn't equal what you said.
5. But it was Naruto's plan, and it was Naruto's power that connected everyone together so that they could be teleported in the first place. Without that, Minato would have been incapable of saving anyone.
6. "Using" senjutsu isn't a piece of cake. Learning it is simple.
No, it's not merely my opinion. Even Minato himself considers himself a failure, though not for the same reasons. How does Kishi not, after what we have seen? Heck, even in the current chapter, Gai was allowed to not only dodge Madara's attack but push him back. If Gai was capable of doing all that with just his physical seed, Minato should have been capable of better with his teleportation. At the very least, he should have been capable of dodging Madara by teleporting away.
I shouldn't have to Name them, but okay.
- Toad Flatness — Shadow Manipulation Technique
- Toad Oil Bullet
- Turning into a Frog Technique
- Summoning: Toad Mouth Bind
There's four. And like I have already stated it would have been more sensible to believe that he knew these based purely on the fact that he has the summoning contract as well.
I assure you, it's not a joke. I even linked you the page. It also does make sense within context because right next to him, you see Orochimaru, and his student, Hiruzen and his students, and finally Minato and his. But if you want to write them off as imaginary, even though they are on the page in front of you, then that's on you. I only made the joke of them knowing Sage mode simply because you stated that Minato should know it purely because he is the "Savior of the world" and Jiraiya's student. You also made the claim that it was the only thing, or excuse me only amazing thing Jiraiya had to offer. So by that logic, those two "imaginary" students should know Sage mode as well. However, that was the point, he had two other students we know Nothing about so making the assumption that Minato should know sage mode by virtue of being Jiraiya's student is incorrect, because in your own words, it was the only amazing thing Jiraiya had to offer, so those two would know it as well by that logic. but coming to that conclusion would be silly because, as stated we know jack all about them.
And finally, if you paid more attention to what I posted, Which you apparently did not, you'll see that I was talking about team seven specifically. As in, Naruto, Sasuke, Sakura, and Kakashi. I even said, "out of all of team seven." But it seems as though you put more effort into trying to belittle what I was saying.
Once again, the point still stands.
Last edited by KiSwordsman; March 19, 2014 at 11:41 AM.
I've been reading and watching the anime of the Zabuza arc. What I found really strange is how fast Naruto and Sasuke advanced during that mission. When naruto and Sasuke first went up against a Zabuza water clone, they had no chance of defeating him. After three days of tree climbing, Sasuke ways able to defeat 6 clones in 5 seconds.
Later Zabuza went on to say no one can match Haku's speed and that Haku was even stronger than him. When Sasuke fought Haku, he'd not only beat him, but was faster. Of course this was all before Haku used crystal ice mirrors.
This may sound strange but am I the only one that think Sasuke would've beaten Haku if he could activate his sharingan at the beginning of the match. And that naruto and Sasuke as a team could've beaten Zabuza if he don't use hidden mist jutsu?
I guess my point is: Zabuza and Haku are probably the most overrated shinobi in the manga... Any thoughts?
Last edited by Prince Sasuke; March 24, 2014 at 01:51 PM.
I think Kishi has always had some difficulties when it comes to keeping power levels in perspective. In an effort to make Naruto and Sasuke's opponent look more fearsome, he might've oversold Haku quite a bit, although I think much of the comments about Haku probably should be considered as potential more than anything else, mixed in with some of Zabuza's personal feelings. At the same time, he wanted to be able to show Sasuke's improvement, particularly in comparison to Naruto, who needed a bit of a boost, and likely wanted to avoid a situation where he was fodder for some other kid. It was a balancing act that produced some strange results when one looks back and puts it in context. This wouldn't be the only example of something like this when looking back, sometimes the hype is just laughable.
Last edited by Impossibility; March 24, 2014 at 01:12 PM.
I will have to go a long way with you...
Edit: I wasn't specific enough. Why do you think that writing should be related to the reader? My whole point is that it doesn't.
Edit2: Not just writing but any kind of art, I thought I said it before. I obviously acknowledge EVERY single one of the "rules" you posted and what their importance, you missed my point completely. But just answer my new question (it is in fact the same as before)
Last edited by raoniluna; March 24, 2014 at 04:51 PM.
As a bit of housekeeping, first - I'm going to abbreviate the above plot conventions at "CCESD" for simplicity's sake. I don't want to type the terms over and over again. So when I say "CCESD" I am referring to Continuity, Consistency, Emotion, Structure, and Devices.Quote:
Second - I'm going to rewrite your question into something less biased...
"Why should Continuity, Consistency, Emotion Creating Events, Structure, and Devices be used to evaluate all writing?"
You will notice I dumped the loaded word "useless", and replaced "rate" with "evaluate". The reason for dropping "useless" is self-evident. And as a statistician, the word "rate" implies you are making at least a ordinal level scoring of the writing using CCESD as a mathematical mechanism. I.E. you could look at a chapter of Naruto and say "this chapter scored a 4 on plot, where last week the chapter was only a 3." I wouldn't go that far with it. Certainly you could apply a nominal level evaluation where one chapter was arguably "better" than another, but appending a "rating" score? Not so much. So I would say, "EVALUATE all writing" - which is a more generic term that says a person is sifting the writing's adherence to CCESD without requiring them to give some sort of score or figure.
Now we have an acceptable question from which to proceed... I'd quibble a bit over your use of the absolute "all" as well, but that's nit-picking.
Why should the element of plot in writing be evaluated with CCESD? Because Plot is an essential component of any work of fictional writing, and without Plot any piece of writing is missing one of its key features. Therefore any writing that has no plot (or in which the plot is very bad) detracts from the work as a whole. Much in the same way as if you are evaluating the music of a band and find that the drummer is off-beat and poor at his job. The band may have a good lead singer, bass, etc.... But if the drummer is lousy your experience is still going to be effected. Replace that bad drummer with a good one and you have something you can enjoy without reservation. Because CCESD are the essential components of a good plot you can (and must) judge the writer's performance regarding plot by how well he handles the CCESD elements. If writer comes up as failing or doing poorly with those elements, then it impacts the work as a whole negatively. Good characters, setting, theme, and other elements may still be present - but they become cumbered by the negative experience with the plot.
But your question may be more existential, more along the lines of "Why are we using THESE plot elements (CCESD) and not some other set of entirely different ones?" If that is your approach, then you would need to supply the elements of plot that you feel are being overlooked or that you feel should replace the standard CCESD elements.
Another perspective you may be using is one of the relative valuation of plot versus other writing elements. I.E. You may be saying, "OK - Naruto may be currently doing a bad job of adhering to CCESD plot conventions - BUT the fact that it is doing badly in "plot" doesn't mean that Naruto is bad writing because the elements of Characterization, Setting, and Theme are so strong that any detriment caused by poor plot is hidden by the strength in these other things." This is - I think - what you're really trying to say. In essence, you're wondering why people could possibly complain about lousy plot when everything else is so fantastic. I.E. You are valuating "plot" as being far below other writing convention. If this is the case, then you would have to supply the reasoning as to why you feel that plot should be ignored here. It is established that competent writing for plot is a basic requirement. Why should we be ignoring that in this case?
That's why I told you that you did not understand. My question remains.
I could explain all that I already explained here before, the main argument is that we know almost nothing of Kishimoto's world and mechanics so a lot of "asspull" or "deus ex machina" is completely reasonable, but, I don't want to do that because that's not what I believe in. Another guy asked me: Do you seriously believe that we should accept whatever Kishimoto wants to write? And yes, that is my stance about art. It is not up to us or anyone to judge.
So, let's pretend someone hits a drum, with no rythm at all and cals it music. Of course musicians will say it is not music, and they will have ALL the reasons to do so, they can talk about temppo and music theory and prove (as you did) that this person is not doing music. However, what exectly give people the right to call something music? Or drawing? Or painting? And so on.
That's why my question is philosophical. As far as I am concerned we can only rate or evaluate something according to it's purpose, and when it comes to art (and everything that comes from subjectivity) only the author knows its purpose. The "rules" of writing suppose a common purpose to all writing, and it is a big mistake.
A good example of this is the Bible: When you take the four Gospel there are a lot of contradictions, the intent however is not to deliver precise historical facts but the core message of christianity. So, surprise, if you read it you will see a lot of "plotholes", because they couldn't care less, they just want you to know "Christ was the son of God, lived, performed miracles, sacrificed himself and saved everyone".
That's exactly how I see Naruto. And I could not care less if Kishimoto is not coherent, among me and my real life friends Kishimoto became a verb, like "you kishimoto'd", we used it to refer to when someone said something and then completely contradicted himself, and it's been years since we've been using this expression.
I knew from the start you would not comprehend me, because from the first post I understood you believe art follows rules, that art "belong" to the people (or better, group of people) that defined it. For me art doesn't belong to anyone but the author and only him can define what he did. A childs drawing for me is the same as a Picasso, as much as random drum beating is the same as the 3rd Movement of Moonlight Sonata.
I tried to explain, art for me is an expression of someone's internal world, there are no rules for this. I would love to argue with Sasori and Deidara about how Moegi's Hair is as much art as their masterpieces if she says so herself. If you call it art, it is art. I don't even believe you can evaluate or rate it, but if you use the author's parameters, why not? But using predefined paramaters, no. Not for what I call art.
I like your discussion about what makes a work of art - in this case a manga - good. I agree with Invader's CCESD points and that they are essential for a good story but I also see what raoniluna is trying to say. I would simplify it as objective vs. subjective criticism.
Let's take a drawing as an example for further explanations. Some people are able to make an exact copy of the real object with nothing more than a pencil. Of course, you would consider such a drawing, e.g. a portrait of a person, an artwork. But it might not be a very individual artwork because anyone who possesses the skills and technique could draw a very similar exact portrait as well. But the thing that can't really be copied or replicated is artistic expressiveness, which has more to do with individual emotions, preferences and aims of the artist than the technique.
Now imagine being an art teacher and having to rate something that only has one of these features: The artistic skill and technique or the artistic expressivenes. Of course, the technique can be (relatively objectively) measured by how accurate the drawing is, but the expressiveness can not really be measured on the same level since this is a very subjective point of view whether you personally like it or not. Without a good technique, the work becomes less convincing and artistically pleasing, without expressiveness it may become unoriginal and boring.
Now what I'm trying to say is this: We can measure a writer's or artist's skill by objective criticism but we can dispute over how much we like or dislike something. A story is always better when it is convincing, has consistency and continuity, but the best story is not worth anything when it does not respond emotionally to the reader. But nothing can assure that the emotional response is the same for everyone. And for some, the emotional response, no matter how it is achieved (e.g. attachment to a character), is more important than the technique - so that when the technique is flawed, it does not matter the same to them than to someone who values the overall plot (e.g. clever connection of story elements).
(In the case of Naruto, or any other manga, you could also put the actual drawn art into those categories, but that's a different story.)
It's not really easy to explain, but let's agree that everyone has different preferences. Personally, I am more of a character-oriented person and when I like the characters I like the story a lot more as well. But there are exceptions of course and I don't always like everything just because of the characters. But as long as I like a story, be it written, drawn or acted, I don't want to over-criticise and just enjoy it.
Btw, concerning the chapter: I think Gai's power is reasonable, glad to see that he does kick ass now. What I generally don't like too much is the god-like powers we have gotten to. And I don't mean Gai, I mean the Juubi Jinchuuriki + Madara power. Even though it is somewhat logical that he is such a beast with all that Bijuu Power concentrated inside of him, I've always liked Naruto more when it was on a smaller scale. The Land of Waves Arc is still my favourite. That's why it was nice to see some classic clever teamwork again.
Last edited by Ryouka; March 24, 2014 at 07:42 PM.
That is preposterous on its face. You are stating that no viewer of any form of artistic expression has any grounds upon which to criticize it. You are claiming that all art is perfect and it is not possible to either improve it, to point out any weaknesses it may have, or to question the abilities & judgement of the author - no matter what context. In essence, you are declaring that artistic criticism has no place and that all artistic expression is inviolate the moment it is presented. Nonsense.Quote:
If what you claim had any truth to it, then no writer would ever put out corrections of their work. No director would ever put out a "remastered" version of a movie - or ever have a "director's cut". No painter would ever retouch an image, or throw it away and start all over. No musician would ever re-perform a song or do a dance mix of it, or make any change of any kind.
But the reality is that artists in any medium do this ALL the time. They correct mistakes, they issue updates, they carefully edit, they print new editions, and otherwise improve and fix their work quite frequently. According to your logic, any person who ever pointed out, "Hey - this work here had flaws and could be improved..." should do nothing but shut their yap and bask in the Holy Perfection that was whatever the artist happened to crap out that particular moment - even if that work was done when they were totally drunk, or under pressure from a patron, or frustrated to the point of distraction, or (as in Kishi's case) just tired of the whole thing and trying to crank it out. Any criticism or notation of the mistakes would be something that person would have "no right" to do. As I said before - such a position is utter nonsense.
It is interesting that you see this truth, admit it is correct, and yet still say it is wrong for anyone to do exactly that. Not quite sure what to make of this inconsistency. We are having a conversation where I am saying, "Math is done with numbers, and if you try to do Math without numbers then you're doing it wrong". Your response is, "That is correct, but you have no right to tell someone who isn't doing Math with numbers that they're wrong." Then you cop the baffling position that you get everything I'm saying, and I understand nothing you're saying. Frankly, as I see it you are making a huge reach and scrambling at straws to justify what is an inherently poor argumentative position.Quote:
So you can stop there there. YOU do not care. Your use of the singular pronoun in this case is appropriate. You (singular) do not care. WE (multiple) do care. To people such as myself and others, plot matters and to routinely see the bad management of plot elements is a galling aspect to have to endure. And - frankly - to tell people that they should NOT care (when they do) is rather arrogant. Particularly when you couple it with impatient demands that people who disagree with your point of view should just shut up and go read something else. I'm not telling you to care about plot. If you couldn't care less about the plot then more power to you. So don't cop the cheek to tell others what they should or shouldn't be doing.Quote:
Disagree completely. Artists don't make things for themselves or they'd create a work and then never show it to anyone. Artist create works to earn money, because they were commissioned by someone they believed in, because they have something they want to share with others. That makes their work their creation, but the WORLD'S possession. The world can't (and shouldn't) remake that work without his permission, but it can certainly level valid criticisms and have their own opinions. And CERTAINLY art does not mean "only what the created intended". Art has many meanings, and everyone sees it differently. To say otherwise is to say that all persons should react to all art in exactly the same way. And that - again - is nonsense. It's beyond selfish to claim that all people who look at the the Mona Lisa should feel that the smile is "only" exactly whatever Da Vinci thought it meant the moment he painted it. Da Vinci was a great enough artist to know that such a limited and constricting point of view was silly to impose and that his mysterious smile would mean any number of different things to different people. To claim there's only "one true" interpretation of art and that it is always perfect and never a mistake or subject to change? Yeesh.Quote:
Last edited by Invader; March 24, 2014 at 08:30 PM.
I have even suggested alternative threads dedicated to these kinds of posts. No avail.
He will continue regardless of the fact that everyone has their individual opinion on the matter, that his own personal preferences are not the law of good writing, and that despite this site being called Manga Helpers bashing the writer doesn't really help anyone who comes here for the positives.
He doesn't have nice things to say, He says them all lol.
It's part of his charm hahaha
Nah - it's just that some people don't seem to be able to make a differentiation between legitimate criticism of clearly flawed writing, and "negativity". If I was doing nothing but bashing Kishi without providing any underlying logic, reasoning, or explanation then you would have a point. I am not just dumping with no reason. At the same time, I'm not just blowing sunshine either. I'm putting up a real world, honest, and justified series of criticisms.
And it's just eating you up inside, apparently.
Maybe we have different standards that constitute good writing. All I know is, if I don't like something I'm reading and I know it's a free choice, I wouldn't freaking read it Lol.. But I do so I do.
Just different people man