[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Xander

I feel the same. As usual, I can agree with that much. Consider what I wrote to be little more than a summary of my previous positions. Given that this is the C.C. thread, after all, I'll remain relatively quiet about the whole topic of what Zero Requiem did or didn't need to accomplish, and whether or not it needed to be the most logical and rational choice. The common complaints.

We've all gone through that same old routine more than a few times, so the only thing I'd add is that I still share some of the same concerns you and azul120 have pointed out, but my opinion remains: there are a few alternative explanations and possible interpretations for many of them. They don't turn R2 into a masterpiece, by any means, but they do elevate it a few meters above failure from both a personal and critical perspective. Which is, of course, only my opinion.

Fair enough, we'll leave that for another thread/time.

Spoiler:

But alas, this is precisely one of the areas where we start to differ. It seems that, both as a skilled writer and as someone who wants to follow orthodox storytelling norms, you tend to classify as mistakes many things that, from a more liberal, skeptical and postmodernist approach, aren't necessarily condemned to be interpreted as such. Sometimes those norms are worth breaking or bending, even if that it is considered unpopular, technically incorrect or simply against tradition. Sometimes you don't win the bet, but it's worth taking that risk.

I'm no fan of anything postmodern and actual skepticism is dead, what passes as skepticism is so politicized as to become useless in analysis anymore.
I find both to be a huge step backwards when attempting to analyze modern literature, so yes, we certainly disagree on that point.

However, I do take the more liberal road with my writing and certainly do not follow orthodox rules for science fiction.
For example, the United Nations (and socialism in general) are NOT the future of mankind in my writing, and in fact are treated with hardcore realism (using Professor R.J. Rummel's book on Democide in the 20th Century) that many SF fans view with disdain.

It was a gamble on my part, but it has paid off (literally).

The problem with Code Geass is that there is a point where the limits are pushed too far.
Take for example the relationship between C.C. and Lelouch.
Considering the whole of how both are portrayed, why is it that the writer chose to not solidify their relationship when the situations that Okouchi and Taniguichi put them in would almost certainly cause a romantic relationship to blossom.
The reason given by Okouchi (that Lelouch's rebellion was all encompassing) rings hollow and is thus not believable.

And, once again, I firmly believe that none of us can ever completely escape from subjectivity. It's part of what makes us human, among other things. You could program an advanced artificial intelligence that only writes flawless stories, according to the traditional standards of storytelling and screenwriting, but wouldn't that get boring after a while? It's an example full of hyperbole, yes, only meant for illustrating the point. In the end, I simply enjoy the sheer variety of fiction that our inherently flawed nature provides.

In the entertainment world (be it movies, music, fiction writing, or anime) there is no way to ever be completely objective.

I firmly enjoy films that are far from conventional.
Eraser Head, Equilibrium, The 5th Element, The 9th Gate, Old Boy, etc. are among the many films I find amazing.
All of them break the rules of traditional storytelling.
However, it is not so much a matter of following conventional story telling "rules" it is, as I said prior, the breaking of the rules the writer sets in the begining of his/her own story at the end of the story that ruins it.

That is what happened to Code Geass in my opinion.

It's true that Lelouch was already broken, in a way, but not nearly to the same extent. At the beginning of the story, it's more like he saw little or no purpose in living if he couldn't do anything to change the world, so to speak, but Lelouch was still calm enough to wait for his chance to start his revenge. Essentially, C.C. and Geass only helped him speed that schedule up.

I can agree that C.C. greatly accelerated Lelouch's plan of revenge against Charles/Britannia, and that was the primary emotion driving him forward in S1.
Nunnally was another element, but the loss of his mother and the seeming indifference by Charles was portrayed as the major force in his rebellion.

But that's little compared to his post-Euphemia suffering (which he only superficially recovered from, IMHO) and the various types of traumatic events during R2.

No doubt that every death of his personal friends and loved ones was one more push towards his desire to escape the world.
However, if we are to believe that Lelouch was the genius that Okouchi attempts to portray him as, then Lelouch should have known that C.C. was the only person that would be safe from the curse of Geass/Code.

Lelouch also says quite clearly in episode 15 of R2 that he views a code as a "hell" and/or "curse."
For him to kill himself off and leave C.C. behind to live in what he considered to be a "hell" alone is not being unconventional or edgy/original, it is being irresponsible as a writer.
You don't fuck over the main characters of your story if you want to keep people reading/watching it.
Therefore, in my opinion, since Lelouch died, he basically backstabbed C.C. by not taking her with him and/or by him leaving her behind to live alone all by herself again for eternity.

Spoiler:

David Lynch can be too extreme, even for me, but yes...I wouldn't be explicitly opposed to explaining more. It just bothers me less when that doesn't happen.

I love Lynch, the only film of his I did not like was Muholland Drive.
The reason that film failed was because David went too far, and explained so little as to turn that movie into a trainwreck.
Which is exactly what happened with the ZR in my assessment.

I definitely like both types of stories, as evidenced by my absolute and continued appreciation for the Legend of the Galactic Heroes.

I love Legend of the Galactic Heroes, and it is a tragedy IMHO, but a damn good one.

That would be an interesting way to go out, wouldn't it?

Yes it would, as long as they all "did their BEST!"

As always Xander, it is a pleasure to have these conversations with you.