AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Kimi ga Nozomu Eien

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2006-04-19, 00:30   Link #61
npal
I desire Tomorrow!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: As far from reality as possible
Age: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by idofgrahf
Me think if you guys are going to argue philosophy at least argue on the ones that is in use, mainly social contract not Kants categorical imperative. Kants categorical imperative would have said lying no matter under what circumstance would be wrong because you have to use lying as a unverisal maxim. That said, everyone would be a traitor not just Mistuki because very one lies with in his/her life time.
I fail to see the point. OBVIOUSLY lying would be wrong under the categorical imperative. And?

Quote:
Originally Posted by idofgrahf
That said however, I still fail to see how Mistuki is a traitor, may be its just me but being selfish is just as important as being unselfish. Everyone is selfish even the most revered of saints, eveyone watch for their own interest, (other wise you would probably be six feet under by now) and everyone at least once in there life put their interest before that of their friends weither knowingly or not. so does that make everyone traitors? Betrayers? Everyone are ONLY human, to say that you don't have a selfish bone in your body is the same thing as saying that you are a God among men, in other words impossible. All it comes down to is that Mistuki is know watching for her own interest instead of Haruka's, how is it then that Mistuki is a betrayer when all she is doing is watching out for herself? So then watching out for your own interest is wrong then?
Eh, just because someone is human doesn't mean we should disregard ANY behavior that falls under the "human" definition. And the main argument for this is "YES, you CAN do otherwise". Yourself is in your absolute authority and you alone can decide what to do with him. Hiding your interests behind the human argument only serves to degrade you, to show you totally incapable of mastering the only thing that is truly yours. I never said we were saints, but a) we can always try to be better people and b) we shouldn't blame nature when we do or don't do something, we should blame ourselves. The human argument essentially uses nature to justify a behavior or blame nature altogether for the "human factor" of all the woes of self.

Edit: spotted a wrong connector

Last edited by npal; 2006-04-19 at 05:02.
npal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-19, 04:32   Link #62
idofgrahf
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In the fields of elysuim
Send a message via MSN to idofgrahf
Yes lying would be wrong under categorical imperative, the thing is lying under ANY circumstance would be wrong under categorical imperative, as a dutch boat captain lying to a german captian in WWII that there are no jews aboard, that would also be considered wrong under categorical imperative eventhough it will save everyone's lives. Hence categorical imperative is flawed, because under it any lying any killing even in self defense would be wrong and we never used cateogorical imperative in real life so why dissucse a philosophy that was, is and never will be used?

And yes you can do other wise, but is doing other wise in your best interest? of course not, humans watch out for their own interest, thats a proven fact, it happens everyday. I fail to see how you can condemn Mistuki for watching out for her interest when you are doing it all the time as well, thats call hypocrisy
__________________
Even if I go to hell I will live till the end of this world. If the world does not come to an end, then I will destroy it with my own hands!

Lacan/Grahf
idofgrahf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-19, 05:24   Link #63
npal
I desire Tomorrow!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: As far from reality as possible
Age: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by idofgrahf
Yes lying would be wrong under categorical imperative, the thing is lying under ANY circumstance would be wrong under categorical imperative, as a dutch boat captain lying to a german captian in WWII that there are no jews aboard, that would also be considered wrong under categorical imperative eventhough it will save everyone's lives. Hence categorical imperative is flawed, because under it any lying any killing even in self defense would be wrong and we never used cateogorical imperative in real life so why dissucse a philosophy that was, is and never will be used?

And yes you can do other wise, but is doing other wise in your best interest? of course not, humans watch out for their own interest, thats a proven fact, it happens everyday. I fail to see how you can condemn Mistuki for watching out for her interest when you are doing it all the time as well, thats call hypocrisy
And THATS's the main reason my moral is consisted of TWO rules instead of just the categorical imperative. And the categorical imperative is the second rule. The categorical imperative IS right however on its own in a number of cases, but I have found out that I needed to rules complementing and controlling each other for the moral system to be effective. In the above case, the first axiom would point out that telling the truth would cause great harm to people, and that would be further strengthened by the categorical imperative (what if everyone gave away that there are Jews hiding somewhere?) Which of course, results in a huge number of deaths, that my first axiom doesn't comply with.

The difference between you and me is that I am perfectly aware of the morality of any action I do (to the fault of being guilty). I am perfectly aware that my rules condemn many selfish actions as morally wrong, but that also means I can a) refrain from doing it or b) regret and seek to atone, if I am forced to act for whatever reason. Unlike you, I am not stuck with certain actions being "inevitable", "necessary","human" and therefore claim that any further justification is invalid. Does that make me more immoral because I am aware of what I am doing instead of claiming ignorance or refuse responsibility altogether? And of course, I will condemn myself first before others condemn me. Mitsuki is right in that aspect, I think she knows that she outright betrayed her best friend, and she is to be commended for acknowledging that she wronged someone. It's her fanbase that tries to justify the unjustifiable. And no, not ALL people look only after themselves, and I can point you to all martyrs and heroes who gave their lives so that everyone else may live. I don't believe that it's in anyone's best interest to die, so I suggest you don't go out degrading human nature, because it has shone more than countless times.
npal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-19, 11:38   Link #64
idofgrahf
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In the fields of elysuim
Send a message via MSN to idofgrahf
There is a very good phrase I believe its called "We are not the best judge of our own character" and just what is "Unjustifieable" did anyone die because of her? Did she committe any wrong doing according to the LAW we live by set fourth by social contract? Well I'm glad you are living by such an out dated model of philosophy, saying its wrong to lie and the only reason backing it up is Kants arbitrary categorical imperative? He, one person simply put lying as unacceptable under any circumstance and the only reason is because Kant thinks its bad and the whole mass follows? I'm glad that humans are not so stupid as that. If a philosophy cannot be applied across the board in every circumstance then it is a flawed and usless philosophy, thats simple philosophy class 101 for you.

You will condemn yoursef first? Ha! BS. Not everyone look after themselfs? more BS. Know why? Because even those Martyrs would be long dead even before they can accomplish anything if they don't look after themselves. even their death, their called martyrs because they died for what they believed in, notice the THEY believe in part, thats selfishness right there. Why don't you donate your heart and lungs? After all your very selfless no? You look after only the good of others no? Then you ought to donate your interal organs because others need it no? Me degrading human nature? We do that very well already, read any history book and you can see how base we can become. For you to say you can judge yourself perfectly is the same as me saying that I am a God among men. In otherwords impossible.
__________________
Even if I go to hell I will live till the end of this world. If the world does not come to an end, then I will destroy it with my own hands!

Lacan/Grahf
idofgrahf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-19, 11:53   Link #65
Perishthethought
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Take it easy guys, getting a little heated here. The point of my argument was that there was no real, identifiable legitimacy of a specific moral position over any other. The reasoning against this was that for humanity to be sustainable there absolutely NEEDS to be at least some semblance of belief in that the moral code that gives us the greatest degree of survivability is the best. Regardless of whether human beings are selfish or not, or regardless of whether or not we have some inevitably and inextricably ingrained predetermination towards behaviour towards the selfish, the argument is that BECAUSE we are capable of behaving otherwise, and capable of recognising the selfish against the selfless, that the mere capacity, or rather capability to act in such a way that contradicts that which is expected of us as creatures of a selfish nature, is what defines our morality. A Hobbes style social contract recognises (or rather, assumes) otherwise, and was not the argument that myself and npal was having.

Even if you are the most pessimistic, angry, self-loathing empty hearted loner with black holes for eyes, you must still recognise the CAPACITY for behaviour to the contrary - even if that is for the most selfish of reasons, we are capable of at least the recognition of selfless behaviour. I would argue that choosing that path is no more right or wrong than any other - however, someone with an eye on the survival of the human race would contend otherwise.
Perishthethought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-19, 12:00   Link #66
kokanaden
otaku-hikikomori
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 28
Send a message via ICQ to kokanaden Send a message via MSN to kokanaden
Quote:
Originally Posted by npal
And THATS's the main reason my moral is consisted of TWO rules instead of just the categorical imperative. And the categorical imperative is the second rule. The categorical imperative IS right however on its own in a number of cases, but I have found out that I needed to rules complementing and controlling each other for the moral system to be effective. In the above case, the first axiom would point out that telling the truth would cause great harm to people, and that would be further strengthened by the categorical imperative (what if everyone gave away that there are Jews hiding somewhere?) Which of course, results in a huge number of deaths, that my first axiom doesn't comply with.

The difference between you and me is that I am perfectly aware of the morality of any action I do (to the fault of being guilty). I am perfectly aware that my rules condemn many selfish actions as morally wrong, but that also means I can a) refrain from doing it or b) regret and seek to atone, if I am forced to act for whatever reason. Unlike you, I am not stuck with certain actions being "inevitable", "necessary","human" and therefore claim that any further justification is invalid. Does that make me more immoral because I am aware of what I am doing instead of claiming ignorance or refuse responsibility altogether? And of course, I will condemn myself first before others condemn me. Mitsuki is right in that aspect, I think she knows that she outright betrayed her best friend, and she is to be commended for acknowledging that she wronged someone. It's her fanbase that tries to justify the unjustifiable. And no, not ALL people look only after themselves, and I can point you to all martyrs and heroes who gave their lives so that everyone else may live. I don't believe that it's in anyone's best interest to die, so I suggest you don't go out degrading human nature, because it has shone more than countless times.
i am entering the argument yet again because you are generalising all Mitsuki fans out there are trying to justify the unjustifiable. Thats stereotypical.

I haven't read the enormous amounts of "theories" you and your debate partners have put up, with Kant and theories on human nature, but I'm very sure, from what I have read, that it mostly pertains to each other's unhappniess with each other.

For me I view like this. There are two kinds of love. One is the Jesus' kind of love. Unconditional, all-encompassing and ever-forgiving. (I apologise for using such an example, but its the ultimate and the easiest to relate to). The other kind of love is the love between couples. It is exclusive, it is mutual, and yes, it is selfish. If love between couples can be argued not selfish, then why are we not legalising polygamy? The fact remains that the couple kind of love is selfish.

In KGNE, we see Haruka and Mitsuki fighting for Takayuki. To me, I believe Takayuki and Mitsuki's affections for each other was mutual. However, Mitsuki chose instead to give up her love in favour of retaining her friendship. To me, Haruka was still insecure, and tried to rush the relationship by tricking him into bed after the festival. It was foiled by Akane. Soon after (and even before), Mitsuki starts having second thoughts, and displays insecurity by trying to spend more time with Takayuki. No overt gestures, just trying to grab whatever she could.

We next witness the accident of Haruka. Consequently, she ends up in a coma, and no one KNOWS when she will wake up. Takayuki and Mitsuki are both distraught; Mitsuki more so, wrecked by her guilt of stealing the "spoils" (i.e. what little time Takayuki could spare her). Nevertheless, she pulls herself together, and cares for an effectively "dead" Takayuki, partly because she likes him, partly out of duty. She continues to do this for one year, confident that maybe, Haruka will wake up one day and everything will return to a semblence of normalcy. However, Takayuki, who supposedly has gotten better, suddenly does a dumb thing again, and she really is at a loss of what to do. Here, in front of her, was a broken man, unable to move on with his life without Haruka. On the other hand, was her best friend Haruka, who loved this broken man so much. Essentially, it was a decision whether to fulfill a promise of friendship, or succumb to her emotions and express her love for him, hoping it would help him move on. She chose the latter. Selfish? Yes, there was some selfishness, after all, she benefitted from it. Takayuki indeed moved on, and life, for him and her at least, went back to normal. Betrayal? What betrayal was there? I do not see any betrayal there, I'm sorry to say. Its love in action in this instance, and unfortunately, the Jesus kind of love had been tried out for one year and did not help things at all.

People who perceive Mitsuki as betraying Haruka view it from the angle that since Haruka was going out with Takayuki before the accident, therefore Takayuki should continue to wait. Well, I agree, if Takayuki was able to pull himself out of the rut he was in and continue life, on behalf of Haruka. Mitsuki trying to steal him then would definitely be an act of outright betrayal. However, in this case, one year after the incident, and Takayuki showed no signs on improving, of moving on. It debatable whether offering herself to Takayuki was the best way to help him, but to a desperate Mitsuki, it was the only way she could think of. (Which makes you wonder, where were Takayuki's parents all this while? And Shinji?) I'm also very sure Haruka was angry at Mitsuki not for snatching Takayuki (she knew very well 3 years had passed, nothing would ever be the same again, evidently. People move on, the world continues to revolve even if you don't move.), but because Mitsuki, when visiting her alone later on, tried to downplay her relationship with Takayuki, and instead made it sound as if she was toying with takayuki, which irked Haruka to no end. The act of offering herself to Takayuki that fateful night was one of desperation, one of love, albeit the selfish kind. Betrayal? Not from where I stand.

In addition, when people say that it was a selfish act of betrayal, they are standing from the viewpoint of Haruka. That Haruka deserved him because of the status quo before, and breaking the status quo because of an accident which was not her fault at all was not correct. However, lets change perspective: What if Mitsuki had honoured that friendship, and had not done that on that fateful night, but instead continued to support him quietly? Would it have made Takayuki better? Or would Takayuki continue to rot? He would, I'm very sure of it. In this case, by honouring a supposed "promise", she would have ruined another person, Takayuki. Fair? I would think definitely not, not from Takayuki's perspective. And of course, the big loser here would be Mitsuki again.

The theme about KGNE to me, is also about moving on. Mitsuki might have made a mistake of getting Takayuki to buy her a present (even this is debatable), does that mean that from then on we vilify her? All she wanted to do was to prevent further hurt to those still awake, still living around her, especially Takayuki. All she wanted was closure, was to move on. And I stick by her decision to declare her love to Takayuki.

I get the feeling we are drifting from the topic at hand. If you all want to debate about such stuff mostly irrelevant to the topic (i did not see anything on KGNE at all in the later posts), please do so elsewhere.
__________________
I'm an otaku-hikikomori!

I love <insert name of girl with blue hair, is sporty, is about 1.78m tall, has character, has shapely legs.>*

*sounds suspiciously like Mitsuki Hayase again
kokanaden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-19, 14:02   Link #67
Perishthethought
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
i am entering the argument yet again because you are generalising all Mitsuki fans out there are trying to justify the unjustifiable. Thats stereotypical.
I would argue that it is unjustifiable just as it is justifiable i.e. No ground exists for the legitimacy of the opinion of either wrong or right - unless you count survivability as legitimate (and most people would!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
I haven't read the enormous amounts of "theories" you and your debate partners have put up, with Kant and theories on human nature, but I'm very sure, from what I have read, that it mostly pertains to each other's unhappniess with each other.
I don't know whether this refers to me or not (partners) but I can assure you this type of debate I enjoy and find endlessly fascinating. Not only that, but I harbour absolutely no animosity towards any of the people I debate with. I am neither unhappy nor do I have score to settle. While I cannot speak for the others, I do not find my continued participation in this thread stemming from one-upmanship, anger with the other participants or anything else of that nature but rather a desire to flesh out and discuss some of the moral implications of the series. There are also really 3 main theories in debate here - Hobbesian social contract, a derivative of the Categorical Imperative (with some modification) and the one I am using, which I'll leave you with the fun of discerning its origin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
If love between couples can be argued not selfish, then why are we not legalising polygamy? The fact remains that the couple kind of love is selfish.
Legal grounds for what constitutes the accepted version of what is essentially an emotion are remarkably spurious and if I may say so, on very dangerous ground. The best you've got when using a legal example is that the judiciary of a certain nation/nations agrees with you. A large number of people agreeing with you is not necessarily a good argument for definition (although it is one of the only ones we've got). Let's not forget that the legal equivalent of a black person was less than, in terms of liberty, of a white person. This was within the last 100 years. Times change, laws change, attitudes change INCLUDING those towards love. Furthermore, there are a great many societies that consider polygamy acceptable - although they are usually much smaller than that which 'we' are used to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
In KGNE, we see Haruka and Mitsuki fighting for Takayuki. To me, I believe Takayuki and Mitsuki's affections for each other was mutual. However, Mitsuki chose instead to give up her love in favour of retaining her friendship. To me, Haruka was still insecure, and tried to rush the relationship by tricking him into bed after the festival. It was foiled by Akane. Soon after (and even before), Mitsuki starts having second thoughts, and displays insecurity by trying to spend more time with Takayuki. No overt gestures, just trying to grab whatever she could.
I would agree with you in the perception that Taka liked Mitsuki and Mitsuki liked Taka (although he didn't really *get* it until he was under the tree as he waits for (unwittingly) Haruka). "Could Mitsuki be interested in me?" he ponders. However, I would wildly disagree with you in making the statement that Haruka was tricking Taka into sleeping with her. That I think is a bit of a leap. I'll admit that it is VERY ambigious ("I still want to talk to you") although for the most part she does actually entertain Taka 'cleanly' - but the situation inevitably arises where they are alone in a room with a bed. If you can bear to watch the scene, it is Taka who puts Haruka on the bed - they're both embarassed (as you'd expect), but it seems Taka is taking the lead on this one (if you excuse the expression) and Haruka is seemingly somewhat submissive. She's not stopping it ("Yes", she says as he says her name while putting her on the bed) but they don't actually do the deed - partly due to the arrival of her parents, but also partly due to Haruka's frigidity delaying things somewhat. It probably would have happened, but whether this was by design is VERY ambigious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
We next witness the accident of Haruka. Consequently, she ends up in a coma, and no one KNOWS when she will wake up. Takayuki and Mitsuki are both distraught; Mitsuki more so, wrecked by her guilt of stealing the "spoils" (i.e. what little time Takayuki could spare her). Nevertheless, she pulls herself together, and cares for an effectively "dead" Takayuki, partly because she likes him, partly out of duty. She continues to do this for one year, confident that maybe, Haruka will wake up one day and everything will return to a semblence of normalcy.
You're forgetting that Mitsuki says, in a candid moment with Taka, that she was pleased Haruka ended up in the accident so she could date Taka. It is not worded like this (because putting it like that makes it sound horrific), but it is nontheless true. She feels bad for Haruka, of course, but also the glimmer of hope is that Taka will one day be with her. She takes care of him for all the reasons mentioned above sans one day giving him back to Haruka. Mitsuki also says in the very same scene that everyday Taka never left Haruka's side (in the time he was grieving and, some would say, beyond that) - and that's why she couldn't get close. If he moved away from Haruka enough - Mitsuki would be in there like a rat up a drainpipe. That didn't happen 'naturally' so she threw herself at him, for a combination of the factors mentioned above. Mitsuki is certainly not taking care of Taka JUST so that he could go back to Haruka - if she would have woken up soon enough, she probably would have let him go back, that much is true, however as time went on, she was banking on the possibility of him forgetting about Haruka. By that, I mean she always had it in mind that she COULD date Taka, but only once he had forgotten about Haruka, which she thought was increasingly probable as time went on. Unfortunately, it never happened (or rather, it happened 'artificially').

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
However, Takayuki, who supposedly has gotten better, suddenly does a dumb thing again, and she really is at a loss of what to do. Here, in front of her, was a broken man, unable to move on with his life without Haruka. On the other hand, was her best friend Haruka, who loved this broken man so much. Essentially, it was a decision whether to fulfill a promise of friendship, or succumb to her emotions and express her love for him, hoping it would help him move on. She chose the latter. Selfish? Yes, there was some selfishness, after all, she benefitted from it. Takayuki indeed moved on, and life, for him and her at least, went back to normal. Betrayal? What betrayal was there?
The 'betrayal' stems from the notion that the first thing Haruka would probably have wanted when she woke up was to see Taka - and it turns out, it was. For the most part, people concieve of Taka as being 'with' Haruka. The reality of the situation is that Haruka is braindead at that point and Taka is wallowing in depression. Nevertheless, it is a situation that has had no resolution at that point. Taka still behaves in a way to suggest that he is committed to Haruka (for whatever reason) and Haruka cannot reciprocate because she is in a coma - she would if she could (and she tries to, later on, and even more so when she decides to get her legs working!). In that sense, Mitsuki is the interloper into a very one-sided but still persisting relationship that has had no termination. It is also a fact that Mitsuki KNOWS Haruka wants Taka with her and that in taking Taka away from Haruka (in the sense that Taka will be in a relationship with her instead of Haruka), she is denying Haruka of something she has expressed a desire for, and what's more, before Mitsuki did. Not that this makes Mitsuki's desire for Taka any less legitimate, but it does constitute betrayal in its very strictest sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
However, in this case, one year after the incident, and Takayuki showed no signs on improving, of moving on. It debatable whether offering herself to Takayuki was the best way to help him, but to a desperate Mitsuki, it was the only way she could think of. (Which makes you wonder, where were Takayuki's parents all this while? And Shinji?) I'm also very sure Haruka was angry at Mitsuki not for snatching Takayuki (she knew very well 3 years had passed, nothing would ever be the same again, evidently. People move on, the world continues to revolve even if you don't move.), but because Mitsuki, when visiting her alone later on, tried to downplay her relationship with Takayuki, and instead made it sound as if she was toying with takayuki, which irked Haruka to no end. The act of offering herself to Takayuki that fateful night was one of desperation, one of love, albeit the selfish kind. Betrayal? Not from where I stand.
Yes, I am with you on this one. Haruka's anger stems from her having her intelligence insulted by Mitsuki, who does an incredibly bad job of lying. Whether she discerns Mitsuki's lie from her tell-tale lying behaviour, or perhaps Haruka BEFORE the coma having worked out Mitsuki wanted Taka (this is impossible to work out, though, without combing the dialogue again and making some creative inferences - she does say, with regard to the meeting on the hill that makes Taka late for the festival 'I probably would have done the same', so she's rationalised Mitsuki's actions as that of a friend on that day). She's operating under the assumption that Haruka is an idiot, and will sit idly by while Mitsuki denies her feelings for Taka and acts like a needy slut, denigrating both herself and her love of Taka. She requires a slap at that point - if only to make her realise that she did what she did out of love for Taka and not her lack of motivation. Haruka recognises at this point that Mitsuki has done things for Taka out of love and devotion, and she has to do the same to stand a chance of keeping him. Of course, the slap also occurs out of some understandable anger that Mitsuki has 'taken' a Taka who was up to that point, at least to Haruka, free of other women (notice that the slap does not occur at the point at which Mitsuki confesses - it is only after she lies). So she hits the gym! To remove the obligation Taka has for her, and to show him that she can do things for him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
In addition, when people say that it was a selfish act of betrayal, they are standing from the viewpoint of Haruka. That Haruka deserved him because of the status quo before, and breaking the status quo because of an accident which was not her fault at all was not correct. However, lets change perspective: What if Mitsuki had honoured that friendship, and had not done that on that fateful night, but instead continued to support him quietly? Would it have made Takayuki better? Or would Takayuki continue to rot? He would, I'm very sure of it. In this case, by honouring a supposed "promise", she would have ruined another person, Takayuki. Fair? I would think definitely not, not from Takayuki's perspective. And of course, the big loser here would be Mitsuki again.
As far as Takayuki sees it, he insinuates (and this is quite ambigious) he would not have been 'here' if Mitsuki would not have gotten involved with him. The ambiguity stems from whether he means in a position to come and see Haruka to tell her he loves Mitsuki instead, or rather that he might not have gone on living. Considering that he says this directly after making reference to the help Mitsuki gave him in his period of depression, it is just as ambigious. I think Taka would PROBABLY have JUST about got himself out of it, although it is not a sure thing. Taka is such a coaster in his life up to that point (and after it), there is little to suggest he would have made an effort to get his life in check, although being disallowed from seeing Haruka might have been the catalyst he needed. It just so happens that the sex occured on that same night, and as such we'll never know which of the two was better for Taka, if not a combination of the two. Mitsuki certainly does not INTEND any malice, and as far as she is concerned, Haruka IS out of the picture. Whether that is true or not is completely up in the air, and hence the notion of betrayal. Some people think she betrayed Haruka, others don't. I think she did, but whether that was right or wrong matters not to me. I have mentioned numerous times that I think both women have an equal right to Taka, and that the circumstances that surround who is with him at what point are exactly that - circumstantial. Haruka does not automatically deserve Taka just because she was there first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
The theme about KGNE to me, is also about moving on. Mitsuki might have made a mistake of getting Takayuki to buy her a present (even this is debatable), does that mean that from then on we vilify her? All she wanted to do was to prevent further hurt to those still awake, still living around her, especially Takayuki. All she wanted was closure, was to move on. And I stick by her decision to declare her love to Takayuki.
As do I. As a matter of fact, I think she should have confessed her feelings to Haruka as soon as she began to feel the way she did about Taka, as should Taka. It is also clear that Taka, at least in the early stages of their relationship, gets on much better in conversation with Mitsuki than Haruka (although this inverses in the later stages of the anime). Their conversation flows much more naturally (although you could attribute this to Mitsuki's outgoing nature and Haruka's shyness). Let's not forget that Taka is in a similar situation to Mitsuki and cannot confess his feelings for fear of upsetting a friend - Shinji is after Mitsuki (overtly) for the most part of the first two episodes. Any feelings Taka might have for Mitsuki are superceeded by his loyalty to Shinji, and lack of overt reciprocation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
I get the feeling we are drifting from the topic at hand. If you all want to debate about such stuff mostly irrelevant to the topic (i did not see anything on KGNE at all in the later posts), please do so elsewhere.
Duly noted.
Perishthethought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-19, 14:57   Link #68
npal
I desire Tomorrow!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: As far from reality as possible
Age: 32
Nice posts. Besides the points noted, it seems we have reached some kind of understanding about various issues of the series.

Oh yeah, about the Mitsuki fan comment, ok that was generalization, I have to take it back Although, using induction, it DOES appear as a huge percentage of Mitsuki fans try to justify Mitsuki's actions in everyway. But still, it's indeed a generalization, so it doesn't necessary stand.

It's nice that attempts to totally degrade the discussion were disregarded. I think I agree with most of Perishthethought's above post, and certainly with his post before that. It's not a matter of WHAT happened, we all know and agree on the cold facts, as I see. I still think Mitsuki acted morally wrong but I have got a glipse of where Perishthethought comes from and it was enlightening indeed. It's nice to see we can reach a mutual understanding without resorting to idiotic, personal attacks.
npal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-19, 17:01   Link #69
idofgrahf
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In the fields of elysuim
Send a message via MSN to idofgrahf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perishthethought


The 'betrayal' stems from the notion that the first thing Haruka would probably have wanted when she woke up was to see Taka - and it turns out, it was. For the most part, people concieve of Taka as being 'with' Haruka. The reality of the situation is that Haruka is braindead at that point and Taka is wallowing in depression. Nevertheless, it is a situation that has had no resolution at that point. Taka still behaves in a way to suggest that he is committed to Haruka (for whatever reason) and Haruka cannot reciprocate because she is in a coma - she would if she could (and she tries to, later on, and even more so when she decides to get her legs working!). In that sense, Mitsuki is the interloper into a very one-sided but still persisting relationship that has had no termination. It is also a fact that Mitsuki KNOWS Haruka wants Taka with her and that in taking Taka away from Haruka (in the sense that Taka will be in a relationship with her instead of Haruka), she is denying Haruka of something she has expressed a desire for, and what's more, before Mitsuki did. Not that this makes Mitsuki's desire for Taka any less legitimate, but it does constitute betrayal in its very strictest sense.



Yes, I am with you on this one. Haruka's anger stems from her having her intelligence insulted by Mitsuki, who does an incredibly bad job of lying. Whether she discerns Mitsuki's lie from her tell-tale lying behaviour, or perhaps Haruka BEFORE the coma having worked out Mitsuki wanted Taka (this is impossible to work out, though, without combing the dialogue again and making some creative inferences - she does say, with regard to the meeting on the hill that makes Taka late for the festival 'I probably would have done the same', so she's rationalised Mitsuki's actions as that of a friend on that day). She's operating under the assumption that Haruka is an idiot, and will sit idly by while Mitsuki denies her feelings for Taka and acts like a needy slut, denigrating both herself and her love of Taka. She requires a slap at that point - if only to make her realise that she did what she did out of love for Taka and not her lack of motivation. Haruka recognises at this point that Mitsuki has done things for Taka out of love and devotion, and she has to do the same to stand a chance of keeping him. Of course, the slap also occurs out of some understandable anger that Mitsuki has 'taken' a Taka who was up to that point, at least to Haruka, free of other women (notice that the slap does not occur at the point at which Mitsuki confesses - it is only after she lies). So she hits the gym! To remove the obligation Taka has for her, and to show him that she can do things for him.



As far as Takayuki sees it, he insinuates (and this is quite ambigious) he would not have been 'here' if Mitsuki would not have gotten involved with him. The ambiguity stems from whether he means in a position to come and see Haruka to tell her he loves Mitsuki instead, or rather that he might not have gone on living. Considering that he says this directly after making reference to the help Mitsuki gave him in his period of depression, it is just as ambigious. I think Taka would PROBABLY have JUST about got himself out of it, although it is not a sure thing. Taka is such a coaster in his life up to that point (and after it), there is little to suggest he would have made an effort to get his life in check, although being disallowed from seeing Haruka might have been the catalyst he needed. It just so happens that the sex occured on that same night, and as such we'll never know which of the two was better for Taka, if not a combination of the two. Mitsuki certainly does not INTEND any malice, and as far as she is concerned, Haruka IS out of the picture. Whether that is true or not is completely up in the air, and hence the notion of betrayal. Some people think she betrayed Haruka, others don't. I think she did, but whether that was right or wrong matters not to me. I have mentioned numerous times that I think both women have an equal right to Taka, and that the circumstances that surround who is with him at what point are exactly that - circumstantial. Haruka does not automatically deserve Taka just because she was there first.



As do I. As a matter of fact, I think she should have confessed her feelings to Haruka as soon as she began to feel the way she did about Taka, as should Taka. It is also clear that Taka, at least in the early stages of their relationship, gets on much better in conversation with Mitsuki than Haruka (although this inverses in the later stages of the anime). Their conversation flows much more naturally (although you could attribute this to Mitsuki's outgoing nature and Haruka's shyness). Let's not forget that Taka is in a similar situation to Mitsuki and cannot confess his feelings for fear of upsetting a friend - Shinji is after Mitsuki (overtly) for the most part of the first two episodes. Any feelings Taka might have for Mitsuki are superceeded by his loyalty to Shinji, and lack of overt reciprocation.



Duly noted.
I guess each person takes the idea of betrayal differently, to me betryal only applies when you say turned traitor to your own country, anything that doesn't break the law I don't see it as betrayal. I simply see the situation between the three as competition, not a friendly one but no one broke any laws or was killed. Call me the ultimate captalist if you will. So long as you win, no laws broken and no one was killed, all is fine.

As for Mistuki treating Haruka like a fool, I would say its partly because Mistuki probably didn't think that Haruka was full "there" yet, since Haruaka didn't realize how much time has lapsed from the length of her hair, her hands, her siter growing a few years older when she first woke up. Her though process still hasn't returned to normal levels yet so Mistuki thought she could get away with her horrible acting/lying.

As for categorical imperative, like utilitarianism I'm merely pointing out the most obvious of flaws in npal's argument of using it against lying, it was not meant as an personal attack.
__________________
Even if I go to hell I will live till the end of this world. If the world does not come to an end, then I will destroy it with my own hands!

Lacan/Grahf
idofgrahf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-20, 10:37   Link #70
kokanaden
otaku-hikikomori
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 28
Send a message via ICQ to kokanaden Send a message via MSN to kokanaden
Thank you all of you, at least for acknowledging the slight points I've borught up here and there. Well, at least we have reached some sort of a broad understanding. We're back on track and discussing about the topic at hand for real.

Let me first attempt to elaborate further on certain points I have made. Firstly, with regard to my view that love is selfish, Perish I do agree with the notion that the majority is never correct all the time. However, the notion that love between a couple has to be "exclusive" does bring about the point that it is, essentially selfish. Of course, as you pointed out, there are various societies that condone polygamy. However, how many of those polygamous (if there is such a word) couples actually attain the level of what we call "love"? To the man, of course, having many wives would be good, but how many wives truly desire to be with that man in the first place, considering the fact that most societies practising polygamy also carry out a practice called betrothal of marriage. How many of such polygamous couples are done out of their own free will? I dare say almost none. The very action of sharing something "exclusive" and "unique" between a couple seems quite contradictory. Of course, when argued from a biological point of view, that what we term and define as love essentially come from our feelings of lust and the need to satisfy that biological lust, then it would be a different case. But that is a debate for another day.

As for my point on Mitsuki caring for Taka, you can see that I word my statements very carefully. Note that I said she cared for him partly out of her feelings for him, and out of "duty". Whether this duty due to her guilt for her part in Haruka's accident, or because somewhere inside of her she believes she should not steal Taka, thats up to speculation. I believe your quotation of Mitsuki was done in a different perspective. If I am not wrong, in that scene, an increasingly desperate Mitsuki is trying to decipher once again, if Taka really likes her or not. And in this desperation she says this. Heartfelt words? Maybe, but the issue still stands that this statement cannot be used to support the earlier scenes where Mitsuki was caring for Taka, and hoping he'll turn to her.

Which leads me to the next point on friendship. What exactly is friendship? Yes, in a close friendship, there exists what you call "loyalty". But what if two close friends fall in love with the same guy, aka Mitsuki and Haruka? Mitsuki had seriously thought on chasing Taka, but realised that it was through trying to fulfill Haruka's wishes that she had the privilege of getting to know Taka. As such, she gives Taka up to Haruka, as per "loyalty" in friendship dictates. She feels empty though, and is somewhat still unable to forget Taka, which leads to her "stealing the spoils" of any spare time Taka has, hoping to catch a glimpse of hope (or what could have been). From here, we see Mitsuki as someone who stills values "friendship loyalty" over love. Fast forward to the period after the accident, and Haruka is in a coma. Right in front of her is her best friend, unconscious possibly for the rest of her life. Right in front of her also, is the man she loves. Now the situation is more ambiguous; should she wait for Haruka to awake, and let the couple reunite? Or should she fancy her chances and try to forge something out of the tragedy? She chose the latter; after all, who could guarantee Haruka would ever wake up. In this instance, valuing loyalty would lead to a life of regret, reflecting over what could have been should Haruka never wake up. In this case, she offers herself to Taka with 2 purposes; hopefully he recovers from his depression, and hopefully he goes with her. I guess I've laid the situation quite clear; of course, in the strictest sense, this would constitute as "betrayal" as what Perish said, but would it be fair to say Mitsuki was totally wrong to choose that path?

Lastly, I have to say that Perish, you are right to say that just because Haruka was his partner first, means she automatically has the rights to him. People may argue that well, Haruka liked him first and actually let Mitsuki get the chance to know him better. On the other hand, without Mitsuki's help, Haruka would probably never have gotten Taka, a crush being just what it is: infatuation. I also agree, that Mitsuki probably should have declared her liking for Taka much, much earlier; while her friendship with Haruka might have been strained, I guess Haruka's not that immature to know that friendship should transcend issues of love. However, of course, as stated earlier, there was this "sense" of loyalty. Tough decisions to make, but it is because we have the benefit of hindsight that we are able to say that Mitsuki probably made the wrong decision not to confess earlier. However, I disagree with you, Perish, that Taka's feelings for Mitsuki was superceded by his loyalty to Shinji. I remember this iconic scene, after Mitsuki and Shinji confronts Taka for not asking ehr out to a movie, where after repeated pesterings by Mitsuki asking if he really likes her, Taka loses his cool and utters "You don't understand......I know that she's your...!" (I'm rewatching the scene as I type this) He stops short, then runs away. Apparently, he went out with Haruka because Mitsuki told him to, and hopefully he could get closer to her. Which makes me wonder (this is cynical and very radical) if he finally started liking Haruka because Mitsuki told him not to hurt her friend. Debatable. I dare say Shinji was never on his mind, evident from the fact he uttered that in front of Shinji, and the later conversations that transpired between them.

Its been almost half a year since I last watched this series, this debate makes me itch to watch it again. Oh well, now we're back on track, lets hope this debate goes on. I enjoyed it, until it started to go OOT.... Hopefully there won't be any deviations from now on.
__________________
I'm an otaku-hikikomori!

I love <insert name of girl with blue hair, is sporty, is about 1.78m tall, has character, has shapely legs.>*

*sounds suspiciously like Mitsuki Hayase again
kokanaden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-23, 07:33   Link #71
Perishthethought
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
However, how many of those polygamous (if there is such a word) couples actually attain the level of what we call "love"? To the man, of course, having many wives would be good, but how many wives truly desire to be with that man in the first place, considering the fact that most societies practising polygamy also carry out a practice called betrothal of marriage. How many of such polygamous couples are done out of their own free will? I dare say almost none. The very action of sharing something "exclusive" and "unique" between a couple seems quite contradictory.
If you've read some of my other posts concerning this issue, or rather what I consider Taka's motivations to be in the anime, I have argued much along the same lines - that love requires some level of commitment and exclusivity. It was using this argument that I contended that Taka didn't actually love either of the women - that his conception of what 'love' is, is in fact his ability to please his partner, the only thing he loves being making his girl happy (whoever that may be at whatever time). Under this conception, Taka doesn't love them. However, this is my conception of love. It is somewhat exclusive to me. Taka probably thinks that he loves the women. In that respect, who am I to disagree with him? While the vast majority of people in the Western world (and otherwise) would agree with me in the assertion that love means commitment, it does not necessarily contradict Taka's idea of love. All I have is people agreeing with me on what the boundaries are of an emotion I feel. It doesn't necessarily make me more 'correct' or 'right' in that regard. I'd also be remarkably careful about making such assertions like people being in polygamous relationships against their will - remember, you're arguing from a very particular mindset. I happen to agree with you to a certain extent, meaning that women in these relationships tend to lack the ability to be self-actualised and that being in a polygamous relationship betrays your self-respect and self-esteem to a certain extent... However, this is my Western mindset. I'm judging by my standards, which are about as far removed from understanding why women stay in such relationships (not to mention the capability of men to propogate them) as you can get. As you say yourself, what 'we' call love.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
I believe your quotation of Mitsuki was done in a different perspective. If I am not wrong, in that scene, an increasingly desperate Mitsuki is trying to decipher once again, if Taka really likes her or not. And in this desperation she says this. Heartfelt words? Maybe, but the issue still stands that this statement cannot be used to support the earlier scenes where Mitsuki was caring for Taka, and hoping he'll turn to her.
Really? This is Mitsuki's assessment of the situation. This is her, for the first time, being really brutally honest with Takayuki. While you're right, there is some attempt to work out Taka's feelings for her (in the sense that this is the same series of events that resulted in her confessing about Shinji, 'throwing the pebble', if you like), this is also an attempt to take stock of what has happened thus far, lay it on the line, and see whether there is any future in carrying on as they are. You're right in saying that because this exchange occurs quite some time after the original event in discussion has occured (the period of 'caring'), that we have to treat the dialogue with some suspicion as the characters' interpretation of such history may have changed in the intervening period. However, Mitsuki has literally no reason to lie here, or change her perspective. If anything, quite the opposite. While she is trying to get Taka to demonstrate he loves her, she HAS to do this in a way in which she is not burdening him with emotional baggage or forcing him to go to her out of some sense of obligation. She recognises that to do so would be false and would only result in further heartache. Unfortunately, she gets Takayuki on his 'down-cycle' with regards to her - they've barely communicated in the period since their last exchange, Taka has grown closer to Haruka, and he's closer to Haruka than her. In this spirit, he lets her walk out (with some degree of 'protest').

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
She feels empty though, and is somewhat still unable to forget Taka, which leads to her "stealing the spoils" of any spare time Taka has, hoping to catch a glimpse of hope (or what could have been).
Absolutely. She is seeking some validation of her feelings, feelings she thinks are legitimate. Remember the scene by the pool, where Mitsuki says "You'll listen to me?". She is seeking some form of signal or sign that Takayuki is interested romantically. He replies with "Anyone would after leaving 3 messages" (or words to that effect), effectively denying that his concern for her is anything out of the ordinary or stemming from romantic interest - even though he DOES like her! Mitsuki's continued involvement with Taka comes from two reasons - the first being that she likes him and wants to be around him, the second being she hopes to catch a glimpse, like you said, of some romantic interest to sustain and legitimise her involvement with him. The buying of the ring, despite the fact that Taka then races straight off to see Haruka, is the most clear example we have of this. She sees this as remarkably significant, and Taka races off to Haruka the moment he has got her the gift. Mitsuki is left clutching her hand - pondering what this means for her. To Taka, at that point, it is merely a gesture. A gesture that goes far and above what is normally considered 'kind' (even though he does want paying back!), although not outside of Takayuki's normal limits!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
I guess I've laid the situation quite clear; of course, in the strictest sense, this would constitute as "betrayal" as what Perish said, but would it be fair to say Mitsuki was totally wrong to choose that path?
Shades of grey, as ever with this series. I refer you to the argument we were having on the previous page to try and discern an answer to this. Different perspectives! An impasse! A friendly (lack of a) conclusion! It's all there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
On the other hand, without Mitsuki's help, Haruka would probably never have gotten Taka, a crush being just what it is: infatuation.
Haruka's 'love' of Takayuki has all the hallmarks of infatuation, or rather, obsession. 'Fascination' is the word used in the ending song while the book is scrolling by, which is a bit of a kind word for what it actually is. Haruka barely KNOWS Takayuki in the sense of having communicated with him, but she knows all about him from his friends (likes/dislikes, hobbies (which she doesn't share, like gaming!), favourite hangout etc.). She has liked him since she was a 'freshman', according to Mitsuki, which is a considerable amount of time. Haruka also says herself that she liked him since way before he got her the book from the shelf. We're talking a long term 'fascination' here. They barely have anything in common, either. Their conversation, for the most part, is awkward and stilted. Difficult to imagine the two of them hitting it off naturally (in fact, they don't!) - but they DO actually make a relationship out of it. As awkward and as difficult as their conversation is, they DO make a go of it... And the more comfortable they get with one another, the more the conversation flows (although Takayuki, in the later scenes in the hospital, does seem to be doing most of the talking!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokanaden
I remember this iconic scene, after Mitsuki and Shinji confronts Taka for not asking ehr out to a movie, where after repeated pesterings by Mitsuki asking if he really likes her, Taka loses his cool and utters "You don't understand......I know that she's your...!" (I'm rewatching the scene as I type this) He stops short, then runs away. Apparently, he went out with Haruka because Mitsuki told him to, and hopefully he could get closer to her. Which makes me wonder (this is cynical and very radical) if he finally started liking Haruka because Mitsuki told him not to hurt her friend. Debatable. I dare say Shinji was never on his mind, evident from the fact he uttered that in front of Shinji, and the later conversations that transpired between them.
My impression of the continuation of the relationship with Haruka, despite Takayuki's protests, is mainly threefold - the first part being that he has been burdened with Haruka's feelings (she IS infatuated with him) and to ignore or treat her merely as a friend after her heartfelt confession (he feels) would be cruel and show a lack of respect for the courage it took to confess her feelings to him, the second part being that she is Mitsuki's friend and Mitsuki has deliberately got herself into a position to facilitate their meeting and budding relationship, so in that respect he feels he owes something to Mitsuki's efforts and determination in getting them together, and thirdly he likes Mitsuki (more than a little!) and wants to do whatever he can to make her happy, even if that means going out with her 'special friend'. Really, Taka's early relationship with Haruka is less to do with Haruka and more to do with the interplay between Taka and Mitsuki - i.e., He is guilted into saying 'yes' to their relationship, feels bad for not telling Haruka he 'likes her' (in the nightime phonecall), and ends up going overboard and saying 'I love you' to make her feel better and appease Mitsuki. That a relationship develops out of such a rocky beginning is testament to Haruka's determination in making it happen and Mitsuki and Shinji's meddling, not to mention Taka's overly kind (to the point of being detrimental) nature. I do think Shinji figures into the equation somewhere, but you are right, it is not very obvious and more of a tertiary concern than a major motivator in any of Taka's actions. Still, we must recognise that Taka IS aware of Shinji's feelings toward Mitsuki and that it would be rubbing Shinji up the wrong way to express any desire for her.

As you're watching the series through again, and I recommend anybody who hasn't for a long time do so again (as in light of these discussions certain parts of the dialogue or sequencing of events can take on quite a deal more significance!), it's great fun. In particular, watch the scene where Mitsuki comes up to see Takayuki on the hill, under the tree, following the assembly scene (where Haruka is upset and Shinji and Mistuki are stood in the school hall, getting the pre-summer address from the headmaster) in episode 1. There is a section of the dialogue, and I believe that this is one of the only times in the anime where this happens, where the music, the backing track, actually hints at something that, if you've been attentive, should already be evident and in light of the events of the rest of the series, is blatantly obvious. Listen to the low, ominous synthesiser pulse at the point of dialogue at which Mitsuki says "But before I knew it, I forgot about that goal", when she's talking about getting to know Takayuki for Haruka's benefit. It is completely in contrast with the light, upbeat electric piano notes prior to it. At that point, you're unsure of whether or not she's going to say "because I like you as well" but instead she says "because I had so much fun with you and Shinji". THIS is the point she should have confessed, but didn't. The piano notes continue when she says it's because she's such 'good friends' with them. The status quo is resumed, nobody rocks the boat, everything's ok. You'd barely notice it first time through - it's things like these that make watching the series through again so much fun.
Perishthethought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-04-27, 09:22   Link #72
kokanaden
otaku-hikikomori
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 28
Send a message via ICQ to kokanaden Send a message via MSN to kokanaden
Perish, I agree with you that the issues I raised with regard to polygamy and love is very much a western conception. However, I would like to point out that such a mindset would not have such far reaching effects and be adopted in so many societies today if there wasn't some truth in the logic/reasons behind such a trend of thought in the first place. After all, love, like morals, is just a system/logic thought up by us to allow society to function better, and of course, its general meaning (the one that is somehow pervasive globally today) was more of a compromise among various other differing thoughts, and also a consequence of our ever-changing society (like how most of us today cannot support a polygamous family, given the high costs of living, especially in first world countries, just for an example). As such, this concept of "love", is actually accepted almost globally. It may boil down to the influx of culture, a spin-off effect of American/European domination over global events the past 2 centuries, yet it is undeniable that generally, that is the accepted version of what one terms as "love".

I'm actually struggling to find points to continue this discourse with you Perish, after all, I wholly agreed with your POV right from the start; I jumped in only when I saw the thread deviating and the Mitsuki bashing starting. I guess i should rest my case temporarily for now. You'll see me again when the Mitsuki bashing starts again though.....

As for now, would urge all who have watched KGNE once to rewatch it again. Its nuances really have been cleverly disguised, ans its much more intelligent than the normal run-of-the-mill romance and dorama-like anime series. Truth to be told, I've watched it approximately 4-5 times already (not counting the various scene rewatches when I listed down certain arguments and examples in this sub-forum), and will gladly do so, if I find the time to.
__________________
I'm an otaku-hikikomori!

I love <insert name of girl with blue hair, is sporty, is about 1.78m tall, has character, has shapely legs.>*

*sounds suspiciously like Mitsuki Hayase again
kokanaden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-17, 23:27   Link #73
Decel
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Wow, had I known a psychological/relational/moral debate of this level would creep out of an anime forum on KgNE, I would've watched this series long ago.

I'll get to it eventually, but I must be morally set for this. I guess I'm a romantic fool that wants moral perfection on a silver platter.

All I wanted to say was thanks for showing me such elaborate arguments!
__________________
2006- The year of the invasion of the Suzumiya Haruhi avatars and signature logos
Decel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-20, 00:38   Link #74
Shredder
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
It was touching when they met at the tree at the end. Although I would've liked to see at least another scene with them in their new future instead of making that their last appearance. Happily ever after like. Also Mitsuki should've grown her hair back. In fact that stands out as more important than anything else--in the whole series!

Actually I think the ideal ending would've been Mitsuki going on vacation for a bit to regrow the hair, and meanwhile everyone back home got nuculared (small nucular maybe to avoid too much damage). It really would've tied up all the loose ends.
__________________
Shredder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-27, 14:27   Link #75
ApathyEcstasy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
when you're given the role of an interpreter..you get out as much as you put in
ApathyEcstasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-29, 20:18   Link #76
Decel
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Finally watched the series in a marathon run and getting the whole strength of it. Finally read the monster-sized posts of this thread. Great read!

Overall I also agree with Perishthethought's and kokanaden's posts on most of the major points and that is also how I interpret the series.

First of all I blame both Mitsuki and Takayuki of prioritizing the stability of their friendship over the risk of exposing their love and ending up in a awkward dead-end should that love end up unrequited.

As far as Mitsuki goes I think she's the overall victim of this series, and definitely the weakest person (which isn't the same as the weakest character, in fact, she's probably the strongest, closely followed by Haruka). As soon as Takayuki agreed to Haruka's affections you can clearly see that Mitsuki's already starting to break down. In fact, she's the only character to suffer before the accident.

On the betrayal point, I think it was betrayal, but only as far as the definition goes. I see no moral faux-pas on Mitsuki's part. As it was pointed out, Haruka was out of the picture completely, highlighted by the fact that the parents did not even want Takayuki to see her anymore. He was in the process of collapsing, and basically Mitsuki was his life support. He had the will to go to the fridge, but I question his will to fill that fridge up, since he didn't even bother to do anything else but the bare necessities, and cleaning himself wasn't even one of them. At that point Mitsuki was also striving for survival (out of love) since he was the only thing she had left. Of course, one could argue that it is because I am biased, which I am as a Mitsuki fan.

Haruka on the other hand is the character that has most evolved in this series (closely followed by Mitsuki) and it's clear as daylight. Just compare her from eps 1-2 with herself from ep 13-14.

Takayuki is one seriously broken character. I truely believe that the accident took away his humanity. I personally state that the only love he had was for Mitsuki before the festival. I don't believe his move on Haruka right after the festival to be much more than sealing his friendship with Mitsuki (don't create an incident, go with the flow of the current relationship). After the accident he definitely lost any and all love and was just an empty shell drifting towards the one that needed it the most. After the accident he never expresses himself initially: all his emotional comments were triggered by the one he was speaking to. Not only that but all the emotions he expressed were what he thought they wanted to hear, and not his own.

Effectively speaking, after his attempt at waking up Haruka by taking her out to the expo, he was just a walking, reactionary, emotionless entity.

I don't believe the end where he declares his love to Mitsuki simply because he wants to heal her wounds "even if we have to be together" (I got this from Keep's version). Now that is definitely simply derived from obligation; if he had any love for her that sentence shouldn't have appeared. If you notice, on every occasion he held himself from saying what he wanted to, the text he omitted were the ones that would end the series right there (non-verbatim) "I'm only doing this because..." "Could she be...?" and "I'm only with her by obligation, you're my girlfriend (or something like that, when he was on the phone with her from the restaurant)" are notable examples.

I personally need to add that as far as I can remember, Takayuki's the one most annoying male-lead character without a backbone. Even the most pathetic losers of the simplest harem anime had at least one redeeming quality. Takayuki simply did not have any; his kindness was definitely not one. On an irritation scale from 1 to 20 he scores a 25.

As much as Mitsuki/Haruka contained what Haruka/Mitsuki lacked, I believe that Shinji had all the elements Takayuki needed to be human. He was Mitsuki's protector, person of comfort, and moral support (though the two last parts failed because he was not Takayuki himself). He was clearly Taka's conscience and 'safe-guy' for Taka to park Mitsuki with.

As far as Mitsuki lying to Haruka, I think it was a double-edged sword. To me Mitsuki was not only trying to give moral victory to Haruka, effectively cutting the last chain to let him loose, but she was again trying to hide/erase her own feelings, even if that task was impossible. Visually, she seemed to be talking to herself as much as lying to Haruka.

Speaking of ending, I agree on the ambiguous aspect of the conclusion. When Akane checks the cover of the book, isn't Haruka's last name different? Does it imply that she's married? Also, we never actually see Takayuki and Mitsuki together, but simply implied by the fact that she's wearing the ring. The lack of the scene with the kids seems rather deliberate as opposed to a lack of time to fit it in.

Overall KgNE is a series I am glad to not have missed but at the same time it's definitely not a series that I want to watch completely again, even though I'd be more than willing to revisit the various scenes. It has been an excruciating long ride, as the pace doesn't totally suit me (way too slow in many occasions) but one that I far from regret taking.

Well, I think I said everything I wanted to.

Edit: got Takayuki's name wrong
__________________
2006- The year of the invasion of the Suzumiya Haruhi avatars and signature logos

Last edited by Decel; 2006-05-29 at 20:31.
Decel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-29, 23:58   Link #77
Shredder
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Ah, it's funny how posts made immediately after watching a series, particularly marathon style, tend to be so long and all-encompassing. I do it too to get everything out and cover every single point. Kids? Which kids? I would've liked to see a scene showing Mitsuki and Takayuki's new life together but that was left to the imagination. I was really disturbed in this series by the love hotel scene, it was one part that stuck with me.

You're right that the male lead in this was probably the least likeable one I've ever seen. It just blew my mind how Mitsuki doted over him--I guess she had her faults too, not physically but mentally yes.
Shredder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-30, 08:16   Link #78
Decel
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shredder
Kids? Which kids?
The game's Mitsuki ending showed her reading Haruka's book in front of her children (more than 1 if I recall). I forgot if Take was in the scene too.

The fact that such detail was left out is suspicious.
__________________
2006- The year of the invasion of the Suzumiya Haruhi avatars and signature logos
Decel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-30, 15:13   Link #79
DarkCntry
Blue Dawn
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decel
The game's Mitsuki ending showed her reading Haruka's book in front of her children (more than 1 if I recall). I forgot if Take was in the scene too.

The fact that such detail was left out is suspicious.
One of Mitsuki's endings had an image of her lying in a bed reading Haruka's picture book to her own child. It didn't show Takayuki at all.

The reason that was left out was because it was part of Mitsuki's best ending path, something they didn't use much at all during the series. It would've also created issues during the latter portions of the series and wouldn't have made for the typical anime ending.
__________________
DarkCntry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-30, 20:51   Link #80
Shredder
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
I get it...it's SHINJI'S kid! Wouldn't that be something, truly everyone gets screwed
Shredder is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.