Hanasaku Iroha - Character Discussion - Matsumae Satsuki

[Pellissier]

The purpose of this thread is to provide a place to discuss all things Matsumae Satsuki related.

To keep the discussion enjoyable for all Hanasaku Iroha fans, please follow the guidelines below and stay on-topic!

Note: Please don't use this for the specifics (i.e. episode, chapter, game, etc. discussion) there are other threads for that stuff.

Thread Guidelines

• No campaigning!
  No "hate" or "xyz must die" posts. Discuss why you do or don't like characters without whinging and whining or blatantly campaigning for your favourite.
  
  
• Be polite to your fellow forum members.
  Do not insult or harass other members for their likes and dislikes. Do not take it so seriously that you end up in an argument with another forum member because they express a fondness for a character you loathe. Discussion and good spirited banter are always welcome, but harassing people will not be tolerated.
  
  
• Discuss, don't chat.
  Please remember that AnimeSuki is a discussion forum, not a chat room, there is a difference. If you wish to chat, then please make use of our IRC channel.
  
  
• Have fun, but post intelligently.
  It's great to have fun, but please try your best to add substance to what you post and make your thoughts interesting for the generation of fans that will follow after you’re long gone and on to watching some other series.
  
  
• Use Spoiler tags!
  Spoilers are allowed, but they must be enclosed in spoiler tags clearly marked with a proper title. Failure to do this can result in a BAN.
  
  
  • Adding a Spoiler tag:
    

    Just highlight your spoiler and click the button found on the "Quick Reply" and "Reply to Thread" forms. Make sure that you include a title for the spoiler!

    
    
  • Please use the Report button if you see any spoilers:
    

    Click the button found to the left of the post, just under the poster's avatar. Using the Report button is anonymous and helps the Moderators to locate and deal with problems quickly.

    
    
  • Posting prohibited spoilers may result in a ban.
    Note: Reporting a post does not mean the poster will be banned instantly. The Moderators will use bans if warnings are repeatedly ignored.

[Irisiel]

So, does anyone think that Satsuki took quite a gamble? Because now she stands there with a bunch of false reviews that can easily be disproved by a whole host of inns who lost business because of her.

If it gets out that the reviews are false and bought with bribes, then the magazine will lose integrity and readership. Which means that they will not be able to sustain as many journalists. One way to get back some integrity would be to fire the journalist "responsible" for the bogus reviews, which means that Satsuki would be out of a job.

And she would be without a job, and with a tarnished reputation of writing false reviews. Even worse, the whole story about her dropping Ohana on her mother, and then smearing their livelihood on a national level, could follow her as well.

Journalism is really a trade of trust between journalist and reader, and Satsuki abused that trust, and showed that not even if it threatens her family AND possibly her professional future, she wont say no and do at least the neutral thing (asking that another journalist should write the bogus reviews instead).

Furthermore, I've pointed out in the Episode 11 thread the possible ramifications falsely smearing ALL inns in the area just before a major tourist draw event. Weaker inns who counted on this festival to tide them over will crash and burn. Young people without secure jobs now cannot jump in as waiters/cashiers/whatever to compensate the inflation of people during tourist season.

Had it only been one or two inns out of ten or more, then sure, it wont do much except hurting one or two inns and all their staff without them deserving it. But what Satsuki did was basically hitting the tourism of the entire area under the belt.

AND she influenced people to change their vacations on false grounds.

Which suggests that the magazine is not a sleazy magazine known for selling out. In fact, long-time inn owners, who undoubtedly would have figured out by now which magazines are reliable and which are not, if only through the grapevine, did not expect it. Or if they did, they did nothing to limit any damages (such as forewarning the staff so that they wont be disappointed and/or discouraged).

[Jonothon]

Perhaps a new metric should be considered in this whole what makes some behavior as professional or not.

Reputation has a lot to do with if you are professional or not. Satsuki sounds like a hired gun to me and in that subgroup where she is employed believes she is excellent at her job, she would indeed be considered professional, perhaps even an outstanding one.

If she had apologized to Ohana for what she had done, if she was guilt ridden and ashamed of her work, how could she possibly be "professional" in her particular area of her skillset, if that is her skillset to begin with? Her not apologizing might be because she has a job that she does well, whether right or wrong in your view. That rather makes her a professional in my view.

[hanashi]

That's the thing about reviews. They're all someone's opinion. I'm sure no one has ever called her out before. (How many people would actually pull an Ohana and storm the magazine's office?) I skimmed the ep while I was at work, but I don't remember them reading the text of the review. It's probably all generalizations and they could easily spin it as one bad experience if someone tried to make a case for libel.

I wonder if Sui knows what Satsuki does and if that had any bearing on their fallout? I can't imagine someone that scrupulously fair and honest would take well to Satsuki's job.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Irisiel

So, does anyone think that Satsuki took quite a gamble? Because now she stands there with a bunch of false reviews that can easily be disproved by a whole host of inns who lost business because of her.

How do you disprove a subjective review? How do you prove Satsuki wrote them, rather than some other "mystery guest"? You'd have to get all the smeared inn to ally and pay money to trash a magazine that trashed them. That would be equally suspect, wouldn't prove a thing, and wouldn't, ultimately, bring back customers.

If it gets out that the reviews are false and bought with bribes, then the magazine will lose integrity and readership.

I doubt it was something as crass as bribes. Too illegal, not worth it. It was probably simply purchases of advertising space. That, or the same company that owns the new hotel also owns the magazine.

Which means that they will not be able to sustain as many journalists. One way to get back some integrity would be to fire the journalist "responsible" for the bogus reviews, which means that Satsuki would be out of a job.

And she would be without a job, and with a tarnished reputation of writing false reviews. Even worse, the whole story about her dropping Ohana on her mother, and then smearing their livelihood on a national level, could follow her as well.

Journalism is really a trade of trust between journalist and reader, and Satsuki abused that trust, and showed that not even if it threatens her family AND possibly her professional future, she wont say no and do at least the neutral thing (asking that another journalist should write the bogus reviews instead).

Furthermore, I've pointed out in the Episode 11 thread the possible ramifications falsely smearing ALL inns in the area just before a major tourist draw event. Weaker inns who counted on this festival to tide them over will crash and burn. Young people without secure jobs now cannot jump in as waiters/cashiers/whatever to compensate the inflation of people during tourist season.

Had it only been one or two inns out of ten or more, then sure, it wont do much except hurting one or two inns and all their staff without them deserving it. But what Satsuki did was basically hitting the tourism of the entire area under the belt.

AND she influenced people to change their vacations on false grounds.

Which suggests that the magazine is not a sleazy magazine known for selling out. In fact, long-time inn owners, who undoubtedly would have figured out by now which magazines are reliable and which are not, if only through the grapevine, did not expect it. Or if they did, they did nothing to limit any damages (such as forewarning the staff so that they wont be disappointed and/or discouraged).

I don't think anything's going to come of it. Aside from the fact it's not doubt been going on for years, people just don't care enough. It involved no politician, no celebrity, no huge amount of money... (Yes, I know it's already had an economical impact on Kissuiso. But we're not talking about a multi-billion of dollars company floundering, here.)

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by hanashi

That's the thing about reviews. They're all someone's opinion. I'm sure no one has ever called her out before. (How many people would actually pull an Ohana and storm the magazine's office?) I skimmed the ep while I was at work, but I don't remember them reading the text of the review. It's probably all generalizations and they could easily spin it as one bad experience if someone tried to make a case for libel.

Rather coincidental for her to just happen to have "one bad experience" with every Inn in the community, don't you think?

Not to mention that if her name (or an obvious alias for her) doesn't show up on any guest records, that could also be very telling.


As for Jonothon's points, Satsuki's official job is not "hired gun to dishonestly disparage Inn establishments".

Her official job is to sincerely review those Inns, and her readership presumably expects those reviews to be honest and knowledgeable.

As a professional reviewer, Satsuki is very unprofessional.

I very much see eye-to-eye with Irisiel on the points raised in her post.

[Irisiel]

Um, I'm a girl..

They can at the very least disprove that Satsuki reviewed Kissuisou since none of the staff there saw her, and they WOULD recognise her (well, maybe not the younger generation, but Minko and Tooru are kitchen staff, and Ohana works closely with Nako and Tomoe, and we know that Jirou did not service her, at least), this then translates to her stays at other inns being suspect. Furthermore, we're talking about thousands in damages to the inns, but possibly millions when it comes to the tourism of the town if they counted on the tourists consuming their services and goods.

Satsuki admitted to Ohana that she wrote it. If taxed, her bosses might decide to make her the scapegoat and agree to fire her in return for not having to face any unpleasantness surrounding libel (falsely smearing the businesses in a way that damages them financially) and bringing the bribing to light.

And we aren't just talking about an opinion piece, we're talking about her reviewing establishments without setting a foot in them. That's hardly a case of subjectivity since she never subjected herself to the services that she claims to review.

In a way, Satsuki runs the highest risk of all in this. She has damaged her relationships with her mother and daughter further. She was the one who wrote the article, and is not high enough on the corporate ladder to not be let go if her bosses starts to feel the heat and want it deflected.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Irisiel

Um, I'm a girl..

Sorry for getting your gender wrong. I fixed that mistake.

They can at the very least disprove that Satsuki reviewed Kissuisou since none of the staff there saw her, and they WOULD recognise her (well, maybe not the younger generation, but Minko and Tooru are kitchen staff, and Ohana works closely with Nako and Tomoe, and we know that Jirou did not service her, at least), this then translates to her stays at other inns being suspect. Furthermore, we're talking about thousands in damages to the inns, but possibly millions when it comes to the tourism of the town if they counted on the tourists consuming their services and goods.

Satsuki admitted to Ohana that she wrote it. If taxed, her bosses might decide to make her the scapegoat and agree to fire her in return for not having to face any unpleasantness surrounding libel (falsely smearing the businesses in a way that damages them financially) and bringing the bribing to light.

And we aren't just talking about an opinion piece, we're talking about her reviewing establishments without setting a foot in them. That's hardly a case of subjectivity since she never subjected herself to the services that she claims to review.

In a way, Satsuki runs the highest risk of all in this. She has damaged her relationships with her mother and daughter further. She was the one who wrote the article, and is not high enough on the corporate ladder to not be let go if her bosses starts to feel the heat and want it deflected.

Those are some very interesting thoughts.

The way you lay it out, it's kind of "Perfect Storm" esque. So perfect, in fact, that I have to wonder if Okada might go this way. It would create incredible drama.

[ipodi]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Her official job is to sincerely review those Inns

There is no support for such assumption.

Originally Posted by Irisiel

Journalism is really a trade of trust between journalist and reader, and Satsuki abused that trust, and showed that not even if it threatens her family AND possibly her professional future, she wont say no and do at least the neutral thing (asking that another journalist should write the bogus reviews instead).

Satsuki writes reviews on spa resorts. There is little "journalism" involved.

Furthermore, I've pointed out in the Episode 11 thread the possible ramifications falsely smearing ALL inns in the area just before a major tourist draw event. Weaker inns who counted on this festival to tide them over will crash and burn. Young people without secure jobs now cannot jump in as waiters/cashiers/whatever to compensate the inflation of people during tourist season.

There is no indication that Satuski herself wrote all the reviews.

AND she influenced people to change their vacations on false grounds.

Which suggests that the magazine is not a sleazy magazine known for selling out. In fact, long-time inn owners, who undoubtedly would have figured out by now which magazines are reliable and which are not, if only through the grapevine, did not expect it. Or if they did, they did nothing to limit any damages (such as forewarning the staff so that they wont be disappointed and/or discouraged).

I don't follow this logic at all. How would they be able to figure out that the publication is sleazy? Because they got bad reviews?

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by ipodi

There is no indication for making such assumption.

Oh come now.

If Satsuki listed her current occupation on a resume, what would she call it?

Would it be "hired gun", or "professional reviewer"? If neither, which would it be closer too?

I think that the answer to this question is patently obvious.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Irisiel

Um, I'm a girl..

They can at the very least disprove that Satsuki reviewed Kissuisou since none of the staff there saw her, and they WOULD recognise her (well, maybe not the younger generation, but Minko and Tooru are kitchen staff, and Ohana works closely with Nako and Tomoe, and we know that Jirou did not service her, at least), this then translates to her stays at other inns being suspect. Furthermore, we're talking about thousands in damages to the inns, but possibly millions when it comes to the tourism of the town if they counted on the tourists consuming their services and goods.

Satsuki admitted to Ohana that she wrote it. If taxed, her bosses might decide to make her the scapegoat and agree to fire her in return for not having to face any unpleasantness surrounding libel (falsely smearing the businesses in a way that damages them financially) and bringing the bribing to light.

And we aren't just talking about an opinion piece, we're talking about her reviewing establishments without setting a foot in them. That's hardly a case of subjectivity since she never subjected herself to the services that she claims to review.

In a way, Satsuki runs the highest risk of all in this. She has damaged her relationships with her mother and daughter further. She was the one who wrote the article, and is not high enough on the corporate ladder to not be let go if her bosses starts to feel the heat and want it deflected.

Or they could just deny Satsuki had anything to do with writing the reviews, and refuse to reveal the identity of their actual reviewers saying it'd compromise their work.

They can afford to be publicly pressured by those they review even less than they can afford a trial against what I guess they could term "sore losers". It's one thing to be discreetly leaned on by those who give you boatloads of cash. It's another to publicly show you'll bend and spread for those you're supposed to judge. (Not to mention the devastating effect it would have on morale. They can't ask their employees to do a sleazy job and then be fired in infamy for it.)

[ipodi]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Oh come now.

If Satsuki listed her current occupation on a resume, what would she call it?

Would it be "hired gun", or "professional reviewer"? If neither, which would it be closer too?

I think that the answer to this question is patently obvious.

I would say, as most Americans would agree, that she would be known as "a critic." And I don't even know what your point is. Many people hold job titles that do not describe exactly what they do. In addition, you can be hired as a "professional reviewer" by a disreputable publication and be asked to write bad articles.


P.S. I am still interested in hearing about your readings on how cold manners are considered a parental failure by "child developmental psychologists." I presume you have real research to back up this claim and if you do, would you mind sharing them with me as I would like to hear more about it. Thanks.

[Irisiel]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Or they could just deny Satsuki had anything to do with writing the reviews, and refuse to reveal the identity of their actual reviewers saying it'd compromise their work.

She already admitted it to her daughter. Plus, she's not that great of an employee to have around (you know, eloping for a few months and all that, she's not a freelancer, so they expect her to show up at work even if she does most of it through computer and internet), so it's possible that she's now being used up for all her worth to be thrown aside later.

But sure, they could go that route. And the inns could point out how suspicious it is that despite coming in several different flavours (Kissuisou, traditional cosiness. Fukuya, modern grandeur.) none seemed get a good score.

Instead of going through the trouble of lying about it, Satsuki's bosses could agree to fire her, and does so but cites her elopement as the reason instead, and presto! They get integrity back. They get to keep their bribes. They make the slighted inns happy. They don't have a flaky journalist who eloped on them on their staff.

And Satsuki would be without a job, with abominable reputation, no way to pay rent, and possibly having to move back into Kissuisou and have to deal with her damaged family relations. For melodrama.

I just don't think that the bosses will go up to bat for Satsuki if they risk having the bribes come to light. The magazine would barely survive widespread suspicion of libel, if they present themselves as a professional reviewing magazine.

[ipodi]

Originally Posted by Irisiel

Plus, she's not that great of an employee to have around (you know, eloping for a few months and all that, she's not a freelancer, so they expect her to show up at work even if she does most of it through computer and internet), so it's possible that she's now being used up for all her worth to be thrown aside later.

Why? Has that affected her job in any way? There is no mentioning that she has disappeared from her work or has failed to meet her deadlines.

I think the world has progressed enough and we have become liberal enough (even in Japan) to a point where our marriages and our private lives no longer have to follow the traditions observed by our parents and grandparents. And we have also become more understanding and tolerant of those who chose not follow the tradition.

Instead of going through the trouble of lying about it, Satsuki's bosses could agree to fire her, and does so but cites her elopement as the reason instead, and presto! They get integrity back. They get to keep their bribes. They make the slighted inns happy. They don't have a flaky journalist who eloped on them on their staff.

What???
Elopement leads to false reviews?

[Irisiel]

Originally Posted by ipodi

Why? Has that affected her job in any way? There is no mentioning that she has disappeared from her work or has failed to meet her deadlines.




What???
Elopement leads to false reviews?

Regular journalists (as opposed to freelance) are expected to show up at work at least a few times a week. When she eloped, she didn't live in her own apartment, which was why Ohana had to move, which suggests that she wasn't in the city (if she had been simply been reviewing inns with her boyfriend, I don't think she would have sent Ohana away, since she presumably did the same work before). Plus, she did so on a short notice.

I also pointed out that they could use it as a validation for firing her in order to cover up the bribing and libel.

[ipodi]

Originally Posted by Irisiel

Regular journalists (as opposed to freelance) are expected to show up at work at least a few times a week. When she eloped, she didn't live in her own apartment, which was why Ohana had to move, which suggests that she wasn't in the city (if she had been simply been reviewing inns with her boyfriend, I don't think she would have sent Ohana away, since she presumably did the same work before). Plus, she did so on a short notice.

I also pointed out that they could use it as a validation for firing her in order to cover up the bribing and libel.

Since, as you said, she is only expected to show up only "few times a week," her elopement may or may not pose conflict with her work. Since there is no mentioning of this, and she still have a job, how "poorly" she has done can only be left to our speculations.

Again, I mentioned that we likely have come to a point where elopement is no longer a justifiable ground for dismissal (even in Japan), and I do believe that most will be shocked to hear that people today can be fired for eloping, even if it is depicted in an anime series. If you have heard of such instances, then I'd like to know more about it. I'll likely to remain incredulous though.

[Irisiel]

Well, she didn't just elope, she eloped with her debt ridden boyfriend and dumped her daughter on her mother, then she returned on yet another whim seemingly without ever having intended to marry the guy. So to the bosses, they might think her flaky and be a bit miffed.

But they wouldn't fire her for that. Their real reason for firing her would be to cover up the bribe and libel. But they would say that they fired her because they suddenly had to change around schedules or something when she first eloped, which caused trouble. (Or rather using the excuse that she suddenly took out some vacation time and changed a lot of her work, forcing co-workers to pick up on the work she usually would do around the office.)

And most regular journalists that I know work nine-to-five, five days a week at the work place, and only leaving while on work assignments, so I was being generous with the checking in a few days each week (usually reserved for journalists who live several hours away from work). Both my parents and most of their work-mates and colleagues on a rival newspaper do. Magazines are slightly different because of their different schedules, but it's possibly that Satsuki's job does more than one magazine (considering that they have a decently sized office in the city and several employees).

You can see then why I'm slightly wondering about what her bosses thought about her suddenly disappearing on them. And slightly suspicious why they choose just her to do it (if it wasn't merely for plot reasons).

Anyway, I just put forward why I thought that Satsuki took a gamble, considering that now when Ohana knows, she can probably count on damaging her relations with her mother, brother and daughter, and considering how many inns they pissed off at the same time, and that her bosses already have a reason (contrived, yes, but a reason) to fire her without bribes and libel ever entering legal courts.

I'm more interested in how childish she is. It is as if she refuses to grow up out defiance of her mother and her own motherhood. She makes Ohana take care of her instead of the other way round. She elopes on a whim, and on another whim, changes her mind and comes home, without telling Ohana, possibly even revelling in the freedom without a child.

It's as if she feels a huge resentment towards responsibility itself, the way she refuses to apologise when it wont cost her anything, and the way she acts altogether.

[ZODDGUTS]

Mother of the year, folks. lol

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by ipodi

I would say, as most Americans would agree, that she would be known as "a critic."

That's fine. I myself compared her to a movie critic in our discussions on the Episode 11 thread.

And I don't even know what your point is.

My point is that the "professional reviewer" or "critic" profession is one in which sincerity of critiques is valued, and seen as a sign of professionalism.

Many people hold job titles that do not describe exactly what they do.

Even if so, those job titles are still suggestive. The job title "critic" carries with it the implicit understanding of "honest opinion".

Indeed, isn't that the whole point why people turn to critics? For their honest opinion?

Simon Cowell is held in such high esteem by audiences and many fellow critics because he has the reputation of giving totally honest opinions and reviews, never sugarcoating what he has to say, but also being willing to give credit where credit is due.

In addition, you can be hired as a "professional reviewer" by a disreputable publication and be asked to write bad articles.

Yes, and professionals tend to try to avoid disreputable employers, precisely because they value the integrity of their profession.

P.S. I am still interested in hearing about your readings on how cold manners are considered a parental failure by "child developmental psychologists." I presume you have real research to back up this claim and if you do, would you mind sharing them with me as I would like to hear more about it. Thanks.

This is a complex topic, of course, which could derail this thread if we delve too far into it.

However, what's wrote here is probably limited enough in scope to be worth bringing in to the discussion.

Now, looking over those four styles of parenting, which one does Satsuki (and a parent with consistently cold manners) fall the most into?

I would say she falls the most into the "Uninvolved Parenting" style, although you could argue that she has some touches of "Permissive Parenting".

Now, if you read what this article has to say about "Uninvolved Parenting", it's not exactly flattering.

[ipodi]

Originally Posted by Irisiel

Well, she didn't just elope, she eloped with her debt ridden boyfriend and dumped her daughter on her mother, then she returned on yet another whim seemingly without ever having intended to marry the guy. So to the bosses, they might think her flaky and be a bit miffed.

I wish not to expound this any further since I have said it twice already, so I will not return to this after this post.

Has there been any cases that you know of where people are fired for not marrying a man whom they wanted to be marrying to in the first place? In the 21st century, I find that anyone can be fired for this to be shocking and frankly, intrusion upon women's privacy that should lead to a discrimination lawsuit.

How I raise my kids and how I deal with my romantic partner says nothing about how I can perform my job. I am genuinely curious now: who here has heard that people have been fired because they eloped with a guy but didn't end up marrying him? Any boss who would consider doing this should be hit with a lawsuit.

I must say that any boss who would use such an excuse in the Western world (maybe Japan is okay with this - I don't know) would and should be hit with a lawsuit immediately. Not only are you firing a woman for a ridiculous reason, you are also announcing her private romantic life to others? Doesn't this show what kind of a douch3b@g company it is? How could any company come out unscathed for doing this?


=========================================

Originally Posted by Triple_R

My point is that the "professional reviewer" or "critic" profession is one in which sincerity of critiques is valued, and seen as a sign of professionalism.

No. If you are a professional in a certain field, it means you are getting paid. It does not mean you are being valued.

Many employees are fired at whim and they are not being valued in the modern world. They are hired to do what the bosses tell them to do. But they are professionals nonetheless.

Unless we can stick to the actual definition for the word "professional," I see little point in furthering this conversation.

Even if so, those job titles are still suggestive. The job title "critic" carries with it the implicit understanding of "honest opinion".

I have checked both dictionary.com and Oxford American Dictionary Online. Where can I find the phrase "honest opinion" under "critic?"

So far, you have attributed your ideals when trying to define "professional," "professionalism," and "critic." Admirable, I admit. The world would be a better place if all professionals must follow a certain creed or live up to certain standards. However, whether your ideals ought to be incorporated is, however, separate from the current discussion.

Yes, and professionals tend to try to avoid disreputable employers, precisely because they value the integrity of their profession.

So the engineers and CPAs who worked at Enron, BP, and Arther Andersen were not professionals then? And any engineers who try to join BP right now would, according to you, not be a professional?

This is a complex topic, of course, which could derail this thread if we delve too far into it.

No need to delve into it. Give me one or two actual research papers published in peer-reviewed research journals that said "being cold" is a "parental failure."

I just need the references (since I have access to all published research by academics). No summary necessary. Thanks.