[Xander]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The problem with your definition is that you fail to realize that Ragnarok went beyond just a shared consciousness. It had physical effects as well which is why all the thought elevators were glowing, the land around them cracking and Charles tells Schneizel he can have what's left of the world to rule.
Marianne even tells Suzaku that he can be with Euphie again.
Yeah! Because they'll all be friggin dead!

Ragnarok was a metaphysical phenomenon with physical effects though, so it can be argued that the difference between "life" and "death" would be irrelevant from the perspective of those involved if the plan had actually succeeded, regardless of the resulting apocalyptic state of the world, precisely because a collective consciousness had been created. In a similar sense, there wouldn't be any visible difference between the "past" and the "present", essentially removing the possibility of a distinct future or a "tomorrow" as it were.

Lelouch's opposition to the plan, for better or for worse, wasn't primarily based on wanting to prevent the loss of life but on its other implications.

What kind of democracy is there in a collective?
That's a bunch of Charles Furrier/Marxian pie-in-the-sky peter-pannery.
Only a socialist fool believes that kind of Kumbai-ya-by-the-fire bullshit.
Individualism IS HUMANTITY.
Without it we are either all slaves or we cease to exist.

You realize that all of this remains a matter of debate in the fields of philosophy and ideology? There is no single objective definition of democracy nor of humanity. Thousands of books have been written on the subject, hundreds of ideologies have come and gone, and there will never be a final answer that is superior to all the others combined.

This larger debate barely matters in the context of the series, in and of itself, but it does mean that calling certain interpretations of the story "foolish" for that particular reason isn't really going to get us anywhere. What's more, the actual story of Code Geass is based on a huge amount of moral ambiguity and relativity to begin with. It's absolutely natural that not all of us will agree about this.

Then you didn't understand it one bit, or you're an idealist whose projecting your own fantasies into the story.

Is that not what every single one of us does, however, both consciously and otherwise? We all bring our own concepts of idealism and cynicism to whatever works of fiction we consume. Different people have different interpretations of the same story and this isn't exactly a "bad" thing. The same set of facts can be perceived through distinct angles and this doesn't make for inherently inferior or superior interpretations.

All the same, it could also be argued that you're projecting your own expectations and preferences into the story. It ultimately failed to meet them, for the reasons you've discussed, but others have the right to argue otherwise and engage in a debate. Hopefully without resorting to unnecessary personal attacks.

Okouchi himself, if this even mattered, would probably come here and tell us that nobody understood it "one bit" either. The author's intentions and interpretations aren't necessarily going to come through his work nor will they match those of his audience...nor should they be expected to do so. The story and its characters can always be evaluated independently by different critics who all have the right to speak and present their opinions.

Again, you're making idiotic assumptions based on what you want to believe.

See above.

NO actually Okouchi--in continue #42--says that "some people may see it as a tragedy, but I see it as a happy ending (yeah if this is your idea of a happy ending) because of the peaceful world he left behind."

It's a bittersweet ending, more than anything else, which is precisely why it's entirely possible to focus on either the "happy" or "tragic" side of it depending on what one wishes to prioritize. And, just as well, you can either accept or reject the result.

I know you're paraphrasing and there's little need to literally dump a bunch of quotes here in order to nitpick such statements to death....but the thing is, Okouchi doesn't deny that the ending can be considered as a tragedy because of Lelouch's fate. He's actually admitting it.

Neither he nor Taniguchi himself, for that matter, are saying that the viewers are forced to share their interpretation of the story and whether or not the ending was a "happy" or "tragic" one. In fact, Taniguchi is quite explicit about leaving this up to the audience.

You think that's a bunch of BS and they are both incompetent? That's alright, but others can and will disagree.

NO, Lelouch as a character didn't deserve it.

You think that he didn't deserve it and that the writer forced the ending on Lelouch. That's fine.

Some people agree with you, some don't. Others are somewhere between both positions. That's also fine.

Regardless of this, what Lelouch did or didn't deserve remains up in the air for people like us to debate.