Romance in Code Geass (take 4)

[yvj]

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

Seriously, if I ever see Okouchi or Taniguchi I'm gonna kick 'em in the nuts.

And give them one more for forcing us to waste our lives in this thread XD

[Lolipopo]

*signs that*
Also, Nunally and Kallen are the only of Lelouch's "most important people" who are really able to appreciate the world he created. C.C. seems much more interested in the memories Lelouch gave her and the fact that he got his wish, and Suzaku... well.

The point of CC's promise is to have become human again, to be able to enjoy her life as an human as well; Not to live in the past, about her memories of Lulu <_<"
So basically, she is able to appreciate this new word, even more than anyone since she lived a few hundreds of years and certainly saw horrible things.

Okouchi simply likes to emphasize on Nunally and Kallen, even though, just like you said, even though Suzaku is important, with his cursed existence, it wouldn't have make a lot of sense to name him.

Mngafan : Please. Lulu/CC = Not lovers; Lulu didn't saw C.C. as a lover but as an "equal". Final point. The end. It's not something bad at all, it doesn't weaken her importance, it wasn't about romance that's it.

Originally Posted by Yvj

And give them one more for forcing us to waste our lives in this thread XD

Touché
But you know we love it

[Haku-Men]

Not this crap again, I really haven't been here long enough

[Nobodyman9]

Originally Posted by Lolipopo

Touché
But you know we love it

Oh yeah, we love it. But I think a lot of us don't like what they did with the series.

But yeah, can and will do yvj

[azul120]

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

Fine "casual statement". Whatever. Point is, she wasn't antagonizing him nor was she instigating anything (not intetionally anyway). Quite honestly, I don't see why Shirley knowing about Nunnally was such a big deal to Rolo. I mean Lelouch knew about her too and Rolo must've known that. What difference would Shirley make?

I think it is mainly that before then, Rolo had nothing to do with Shirley and her problems.

As for Rolo, he had been biased against Nunnally since at least episode 7, and had kept it hidden inside for the most part. He killed Shirley because he was both insecure in his position as one true sibling to Lelouch upon the mention of Nunnally, and above all, downright insane. Apparently he saw her desire to help Lulu get back together with Nunnally as a threat to his bond with Lulu.

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

And really, Shirley's cause of death was not nearly as "random" as Euphie's. I mean, dying from a joke is kind of sad. xD

I'm not sure why it's called a joke, when it was really Lelouch trying to explain to Euphie that even if she were to be told to do something she found repulsive, she would do it. He just picked the worst possible kind of example at the worst possible time.

[Haku-Men]

Originally Posted by azul120

I'm not sure why it's called a joke, when it was really Lelouch trying to explain to Euphie that even if she were to be told to do something she found repulsive, she would do it. He just picked the worst possible kind of example at the worst possible time.

Yes because anyone twisted enough to think of a random thought like killing a mass audience of spectators to prove a point can never be taken as a joke Hell an alternative would be to strip infront of everyone that seems more humane at least they'll think she was more of an exhibitionist than A CRAZED MURDERING PSYCHO!

[incorrupts]

I've been missing for 3 days and the romance thread, turned not to romance thread?
I preferred the days when Kallen+Lelouch prevailed around these places, at least that was on topic.

[azul120]

Originally Posted by Haku-Men

Yes because anyone twisted enough to think of a random thought like killing a mass audience of spectators to prove a point can never be taken as a joke

No, seriously. Given how off-hand it was in the manner he came up with it, it was entirely possible for something so extreme to come up.

And please stop with the rolling eyes.

[Haku-Men]

Originally Posted by azul120

No, seriously. Given how off-hand it was in the manner he came up with it, it was entirely possible for something so extreme to come up.

And please stop with the rolling eyes.

Well if you say so......

[azul120]

Really, please. In general posting on the web, it can be considered obnoxious.

[demon_god04]

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

Fine "casual statement". Whatever. Point is, she wasn't antagonizing him nor was she instigating anything (not intetionally anyway). Quite honestly, I don't see why Shirley knowing about Nunnally was such a big deal to Rolo. I mean Lelouch knew about her too and Rolo must've known that. What difference would Shirley make?

It was no casual either, Shirley obviously put a lot of thoughts into her feelings about the matter of Lelouch being Zero and being the murderer of her father and where she stands on that as I mentioned already. What she said represented her feelings about everything that Lelouch has done and what he meant to her.

See the big deal about Shirley knowing about Nunally is that she is bringing Nunally into the equation again as Lelouch's little sister. It threatened his position as Lelouch's little brother because it was a role he was assigned initially. But he had grown attached to that role. Shirley represented the very thing that threatened the kind of like that Rolo had never experienced before until that point and she was killed because of it. THAT is the difference.

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

Fine, so we agree that what Shirley represented was wasted and that constituted a loss. I'd like to bring up a quote if I may.

"When does a person truly die? It is when they are forgotten!"

So anyway, did Rolo deserve to die for killing Shirley. Well, I'm sure there a quite a few people who think so (Lelouch included). But whether he deserved it or not, he did die in the end. And I'm not gonna try to delude myself, I know the ones who really killed Shirley were Okouchi and Taniguchi (grr...) The only thing else I'm gonna say is, as I've said before, we all have to be held accountable for, and answer to, our actions.

Also, I'll disagree with you somewhat on Shirley's death being a loss. I know it may seem hyporcritical with the quote I just posted, but I think a death is always a loss in some way. After all, a living person can usually do more than a dead person. I still agree with you though that the message or what the person symbolizes is the most important aspect. But it is true that we all have our time.

Seriously, if I ever see Okouchi or Taniguchi I'm gonna kick 'em in the nuts.

I made it very clear that I found Shirley to be a wasted character in my first reply to you because the themes she represented was wasted.

Dieing and being held accountable for your actions are two very different things. The question becomes: "do you believe death is a punishment for sins or is it an escape?" Julius Caesar believed that death was an escape from your crimes and that living means having the chance to atone and make up for them as well as carrying the burdens of what you have done. You yourself mentioned that dieing just means the end and is that a living perosn can do more then a dead person. The same would apply here logically as Rolo being alive means he can atone throughout the rest of his life by making a positive difference.

Now that being said, there is another thing we have to take into account, and this is something that is oft ignored in these threads. This is a work of fiction where scenes and events are played up by literary devices to leave an impact on the viewers. Death in literature is not an end but very often a device used to propel the plot, give an important character a driving force for development and often leaves a lasting impact on the character's actions and thoughts. In a case like this, a character in literature, especially for side characters like Shirley, they can actually accomplish more in death then living.

[linkinstreet]

Originally Posted by demon_god04

Now that being said, there is another thing we have to take into account, and this is something that is oft ignored in these threads. This is a work of fiction where scenes and events are played up by literary devices to leave an impact on the viewers. Death in literature is not an end but very often a device used to propel the plot, give an important character a driving force for development and often leaves a lasting impact on the character's actions and thoughts. In a case like this, a character in literature, especially for side characters like Shirley, they can actually accomplish more in death then living.

True. I feel that she was not that important till she died. It's like this annoying sidekick that you liek to hate that you realised you cared for when he died protecting you

[Nobodyman9]

Originally Posted by demon_god04

It was no casual either, Shirley obviously put a lot of thoughts into her feelings about the matter of Lelouch being Zero and being the murderer of her father and where she stands on that as I mentioned already. What she said represented her feelings about everything that Lelouch has done and what he meant to her.

See the big deal about Shirley knowing about Nunally is that she is bringing Nunally into the equation again as Lelouch's little sister. It threatened his position as Lelouch's little brother because it was a role he was assigned initially. But he had grown attached to that role. Shirley represented the very thing that threatened the kind of like that Rolo had never experienced before until that point and she was killed because of it. THAT is the difference.

Well, getting back to the core of this discussion, the thing is that Shirley thought she was in no danger at the time. Yes, she told Rolo her true feelings but she did not see him as a threat and did not think he would "snap" at anything she said. It's kind of a shame that she would meet her end due to something like that, rather than...oh I don't know. I guess we all can't have a hero's death. It's just seems like there's any number of things that could've been better than Rolo just snapping and killing her so suddenly, as if it was some kind of fluke.

And yeah. Rolo is a psychotic little troll. I understand.

I made it very clear that I found Shirley to be a wasted character in my first reply to you because the themes she represented was wasted.

Yes. Good. We agree. Let's drop it.

Dieing and being held accountable for your actions are two very different things. The question becomes: "do you believe death is a punishment for sins or is it an escape?" Julius Caesar believed that death was an escape from your crimes and that living means having the chance to atone and make up for them as well as carrying the burdens of what you have done. You yourself mentioned that dieing just means the end and is that a living perosn can do more then a dead person. The same would apply here logically as Rolo being alive means he can atone throughout the rest of his life by making a positive difference.

That is true, and truth be told I would much prefer that a person lives and pays for their crimes and maybe even "sees the light", which is one of the reasons I didn't like the end of CG. But it doesn't always happen that way and there are many villains who have died in other anime/TV shows/movies/etc., leaving the audience satisfied, usually because they cannot be saved and do not want to change. I mean really, do you think the Joker or Lex Luthor or Hannibal Lector are ever going to change their ways?

Now does Rolo fit into this category? Well, I wouldn't go that far. Before he died he did demonstrate a desire for independence and self-realization, though he still had no moral compass. Had he lived longer would he have ever apologized for killing Shirley? Well, I don't know and who can say? I've compared Rolo to Pinocchio, being a "tool" or a "not-real" boy seeking to become a real boy. The problem is that Rolo never had a Jiminy Cricket.

Now that being said, there is another thing we have to take into account, and this is something that is oft ignored in these threads. This is a work of fiction where scenes and events are played up by literary devices to leave an impact on the viewers. Death in literature is not an end but very often a device used to propel the plot, give an important character a driving force for development and often leaves a lasting impact on the character's actions and thoughts. In a case like this, a character in literature, especially for side characters like Shirley, they can actually accomplish more in death then living.

Yes, this is true. There are many character's whose sole purpose is pretty much to die and be a driving force, plot point, for one of the character(s). But Shirley was alive for 3/4 of the series and, as you've said before, it seems like her death just didn't live up to everything that had come before (her theme was ignored).

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

So anyway, did Rolo deserve to die for killing Shirley. Well, I'm sure there a quite a few people who think so (Lelouch included).

I doubt Lelouch thought that Rolo deserved to die, not really. He hated him for a long time, yes, and he wanted to make him pay, but that was mainly Leleouch being irrational - usually, he's not that much of a hypocrite.
It's clear to me that after accepting Rolo as his little brother, Lelouch didn't hold anything against him anymore. He was never very judgmental of his precious people.

Originally Posted by Lolipopo

The point of CC's promise is to have become human again, to be able to enjoy her life as an human as well; Not to live in the past, about her memories of Lulu <_<"

Nah, that's not what I meant.
When I said "memories", I was really talking about everything Lelouch gave her. But C.C. just doesn't seem to have all that much interest in world peace, except that it's what Lelouch wanted. C.C. is still immortal, and peace a fragile, fleeting thing that won't last forever.
She will enjoy it while it lasts, but it's by far not the most important thing Lelouch gave her.

Originally Posted by azul120

I'm not sure why it's called a joke, when it was really Lelouch trying to explain to Euphie that even if she were to be told to do something she found repulsive, she would do it. He just picked the worst possible kind of example at the worst possible time.

Agreed, but his tone was very light, so... as if he was joking, then.
Still, it was a very random example for him to use. xD

[demon_god04]

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

Well, getting back to the core of this discussion, the thing is that Shirley thought she was in no danger at the time. Yes, she told Rolo her true feelings but she did not see him as a threat and did not think he would "snap" at anything she said. It's kind of a shame that she would meet her end due to something like that, rather than...oh I don't know. I guess we all can't have a hero's death. It's just seems like there's any number of things that could've been better than Rolo just snapping and killing her so suddenly, as if it was some kind of fluke.

And yeah. Rolo is a psychotic little troll. I understand.

The core of the discussion is in regards to Shirley being killed by Rolo whether or not Rolo deserves all that flak he gets for it for simply being the one to carry out what we all saw was foreshadowed anyways. What Shirley thought in regards to her own percieved safety had nothing to do with this as we the viewers were given an ample amount of hints that something very bad was going to happen to her. Again, What Shirley thought in regards to Rolo bears little relevence in regards to Rolo's reaction, as Shirley is not someone that has the major impact on his character. Shirley could have worshipped Rolo as a god but if she even hinted at the slightest of Nunally and the danger to Rolo's position as Lelouch's only real family then she would still die. It was not some kind of fluke as you make it out to be, it was the kind of person that Rolo had been portrayed. His upbringing as a souless assassin and tool by the geass cult turned him into a sociopath and Lelouch and his position as Lelouch's little brother brought him out of that life and into something that is akin to what must have been paradise for him. Rolo killed Shirley to protect that.

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

Yes. Good. We agree. Let's drop it.


That is true, and truth be told I would much prefer that a person lives and pays for their crimes and maybe even "sees the light", which is one of the reasons I didn't like the end of CG. But it doesn't always happen that way and there are many villains who have died in other anime/TV shows/movies/etc., leaving the audience satisfied, usually because they cannot be saved and do not want to change. I mean really, do you think the Joker or Lex Luthor or Hannibal Lector are ever going to change their ways?

Now does Rolo fit into this category? Well, I wouldn't go that far. Before he died he did demonstrate a desire for independence and self-realization, though he still had no moral compass. Had he lived longer would he have ever apologized for killing Shirley? Well, I don't know and who can say? I've compared Rolo to Pinocchio, being a "tool" or a "not-real" boy seeking to become a real boy. The problem is that Rolo never had a Jiminy Cricket.


Yes, this is true. There are many character's whose sole purpose is pretty much to die and be a driving force, plot point, for one of the character(s). But Shirley was alive for 3/4 of the series and, as you've said before, it seems like her death just didn't live up to everything that had come before (her theme was ignored).

You brought it up I merely replied to clarify that my position on that was already stated in my first reply.

Again the likes of Joker and Lex Luthor are fictional characters, they are not written in a manner that would change their ways, infact the Joker is portrayed the way he is for a very specific reason in relations to Batman.

How does this relate to Rolo again? Well it is because simply that Rolo has been shown to be changing, I'd agree about how he did not have a moral compass with which to judge his actions upon and that, again, is the result of his upbringing. But the matter of fact is that he has been shown to slowly change from that because of Lelouch, whether it was intentional or not.

Back to Character death, as I have stated it was a reply to your assertion that death is the end and that a living character can acomplish more then a dead one. I was asserting that in literature, if done well, the result is far from what you make it out to be. Did I say Shirley was handled well? Obviously not considering that I kept saying so. I was stating the fact that had it been handled well then her death would not have been a loss but a gain for her character.

[Nobodyman9]

Originally Posted by demon_god04

The core of the discussion is in regards to Shirley being killed by Rolo whether or not Rolo deserves all that flak he gets for it for simply being the one to carry out what we all saw was foreshadowed anyways. What Shirley thought in regards to her own percieved safety had nothing to do with this as we the viewers were given an ample amount of hints that something very bad was going to happen to her. Again, What Shirley thought in regards to Rolo bears little relevence in regards to Rolo's reaction, as Shirley is not someone that has the major impact on his character. Shirley could have worshipped Rolo as a god but if she even hinted at the slightest of Nunally and the danger to Rolo's position as Lelouch's only real family then she would still die. It was not some kind of fluke as you make it out to be, it was the kind of person that Rolo had been portrayed. His upbringing as a souless assassin and tool by the geass cult turned him into a sociopath and Lelouch and his position as Lelouch's little brother brought him out of that life and into something that is akin to what must have been paradise for him. Rolo killed Shirley to protect that.

Well, looking back this whole thing started with my "staff killed Rolo to appeal Shirley fans" line. What I was trying to refer to in my last post though, was Shirley's dignified ending, or lack thereof.

But in regard to what you posted. You know what, I don't care if it was foreshadowed. And I'll also disagree with you that it was amply foreshadowed. Yes, we knew Shirley was going to play an important part in the story, but I don't think it necessarily meant she was going to die. I've seen much stronger hints of oncoming death in other literature. And even if it was foreshadowed to some degree the fact remains that Rolo f*cking killed her. And I don't care if you are a psychotic imp who can't be blamed because it was "how you were raised", you kill a character like that and your opinion is gonna go down. It's just inevitable. I mean really, O&T could have done any number of things so that it could've been nobody's fault (not directly anyway). Shirley could have been caught up in a KMF blast or accidentally shot at thinking to have been someone else. Instead they chose Rolo. God only knows why.

Again the likes of Joker and Lex Luthor are fictional characters, they are not written in a manner that would change their ways, infact the Joker is portrayed the way he is for a very specific reason in relations to Batman.

Rolo is a fictional character as well. Just a different kind. I was simply explaining that living for redemption is not always the case. Of course Lex and Joker stay alive pretty much just so Superman and Batman will have someone to fight. Also to remind the audience that evil will always exist.

How does this relate to Rolo again? Well it is because simply that Rolo has been shown to be changing, I'd agree about how he did not have a moral compass with which to judge his actions upon and that, again, is the result of his upbringing. But the matter of fact is that he has been shown to slowly change from that because of Lelouch, whether it was intentional or not.

Agreed.

Back to Character death, as I have stated it was a reply to your assertion that death is the end and that a living character can acomplish more then a dead one. I was asserting that in literature, if done well, the result is far from what you make it out to be. Did I say Shirley was handled well? Obviously not considering that I kept saying so. I was stating the fact that had it been handled well then her death would not have been a loss but a gain for her character.

Hmm, now that's an interesting idea. Death as a gain for the character. Sadly you're correct though in it being more of a loss.

[Nogitsune]

Hm... I still think that R2 was simply too rushed, and that that's the only reason Shirley seemed to have been "forgotten" during the last few episodes. And even though I was rather fond of her myself, she's not the only character who had to put up with that. One of the more important ones, yes, but still one of many.

And I agree with the "death can be a gain for a character" thing, but it can be really hard to say when it's a gain and when it's a loss.
Take Clovis, for example (yes, I'm indeed hopeless xD). He died so soon that many people missed the fact that he was supposed to have quite some depth. But at the same time, the irony and tragedy of it all becomes perfectly clear in the Sound Drama, and if you are a fangirl, you might very well have trouble to decide if you wish you'd seen more of him or if you are deliriously happy with what you got.
It's more obvious with Lelouch (in my opinion). Or with Rolo - I adore him, but there was no way he could have stayed around for Zero Requiem.

And just to make this a little less Off Topic... I guess a death will almost always be a loss when it comes to pairings. I mean, even if a character dies in his or her lover's arms, it's not exactly satisfying if it isn't Romeo and Juliet.
And that reminds me of that one thing I always found curious about Clovis... he really seems like a ladies' man, but I don't see any woman in Code Geass that would go well with him. Maybe it's because deep in my heart, I believe that depending on the circumstances, he would always be too busy either being an indifferent bastard or annyoing his favourite little brother to do more than flirt casually with anyone.
Oh well. xD

[demon_god04]

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

Well, looking back this whole thing started with my "staff killed Rolo to appeal Shirley fans" line. What I was trying to refer to in my last post though, was Shirley's dignified ending, or lack thereof.

But in regard to what you posted. You know what, I don't care if it was foreshadowed. And I'll also disagree with you that it was amply foreshadowed. Yes, we knew Shirley was going to play an important part in the story, but I don't think it necessarily meant she was going to die. I've seen much stronger hints of oncoming death in other literature. And even if it was foreshadowed to some degree the fact remains that Rolo f*cking killed her. And I don't care if you are a psychotic imp who can't be blamed because it was "how you were raised", you kill a character like that and your opinion is gonna go down. It's just inevitable. I mean really, O&T could have done any number of things so that it could've been nobody's fault (not directly anyway). Shirley could have been caught up in a KMF blast or accidentally shot at thinking to have been someone else. Instead they chose Rolo. God only knows why.

Well Shirley's death, as I explained already, was very much dignified and even more so then the majority of the character deaths barring only Lelouch in the series.

As I said before, she died metaphorically a number of times for Lelouch and because of Lelouch, either directly or indirectly. That was the way they practically set up her tragedy in relation to her feelings for Lelouch. The foreshadowing is still there, you can argue about whether or not it was as strong as something else you have read. Sure it does not hit you in the face like a ton of bricks but it lets you have that nagging feeling in the back of your mind as you watch it that it is likely to happen. Which is what foreshadowing does, it gives you an impression of a very real possibility but does not lock it into place.

Back to Rolo, no, it is not justification to use your past as an excuse for the things you have done, nowhere did I say that. What is important is understanding the why and how of something. In Rolo's case, understanding why he does what he does and by extension understanding the role he was meant to play. There was a specific reason why he was used to kill Shirley. If you actually look at how his character was portrayed it should be fairly obvious. Shirley's death was meant to drive the plot to the next stage and by extension to drive Lelouch farther down the dark path. Her death was the device to farther Lelouch's development, Rolo was chosen because of the reasons I listed in my last post, as well as for the fact that Lelouch was the one that brought Rolo into his inner circle, therefore the choice puts more emotional stress onto Lelouch. With how they used Rolo in her death it linked several character points together as well as furthered the plot so it was for a very specific reason that they used Rolo and not just as on a whim as you make it out to be.

Originally Posted by Nobodyman9

Rolo is a fictional character as well. Just a different kind. I was simply explaining that living for redemption is not always the case. Of course Lex and Joker stay alive pretty much just so Superman and Batman will have someone to fight. Also to remind the audience that evil will always exist.


Agreed.


Hmm, now that's an interesting idea. Death as a gain for the character. Sadly you're correct though in it being more of a loss.

Yes, Rolo is a fictional character, and as I explained, Rolo's character was evolving and changing from just the assassin killer he was with the influence from Lelouch. I cannot say much about Lex as I am not a fan of Superman, but for Joker, it is completely out of place to use him in a comparison. As I have already previously stated, the way that the Joker was written is not about change for the better and therefore he would not change because the writers would not let him. The Joker was not just someone for Batman to fight, he was a psychological and moral foil for the Batman. There was a very specific literary reason for the way Joker is the way he is which is why he would not change. In Rolo's case, he was already changing and developing. Which puts them into very different categories.

And Death being a "gain" as you put it is not something so new. Many works in literature uses it, many myths uses it as well. But what you have to look at is the big picture and not at that character specifically. A character gain importance in how much he or she influences the plot and characters, specifically the main character. Which as I already stated, for side characters like Shirley, death is almost like a shortcut to gaining more important depending on the ties they had before death and how it was handled.

[Nobodyman9]

Originally Posted by demon_god04

Well Shirley's death, as I explained already, was very much dignified and even more so then the majority of the character deaths barring only Lelouch in the series.

As I said before, she died metaphorically a number of times for Lelouch and because of Lelouch, either directly or indirectly. That was the way they practically set up her tragedy in relation to her feelings for Lelouch. The foreshadowing is still there, you can argue about whether or not it was as strong as something else you have read. Sure it does not hit you in the face like a ton of bricks but it lets you have that nagging feeling in the back of your mind as you watch it that it is likely to happen. Which is what foreshadowing does, it gives you an impression of a very real possibility but does not lock it into place.

Back to Rolo, no, it is not justification to use your past as an excuse for the things you have done, nowhere did I say that. What is important is understanding the why and how of something. In Rolo's case, understanding why he does what he does and by extension understanding the role he was meant to play. There was a specific reason why he was used to kill Shirley. If you actually look at how his character was portrayed it should be fairly obvious. Shirley's death was meant to drive the plot to the next stage and by extension to drive Lelouch farther down the dark path. Her death was the device to farther Lelouch's development, Rolo was chosen because of the reasons I listed in my last post, as well as for the fact that Lelouch was the one that brought Rolo into his inner circle, therefore the choice puts more emotional stress onto Lelouch. With how they used Rolo in her death it linked several character points together as well as furthered the plot so it was for a very specific reason that they used Rolo and not just as on a whim as you make it out to be.



Yes, Rolo is a fictional character, and as I explained, Rolo's character was evolving and changing from just the assassin killer he was with the influence from Lelouch. I cannot say much about Lex as I am not a fan of Superman, but for Joker, it is completely out of place to use him in a comparison. As I have already previously stated, the way that the Joker was written is not about change for the better and therefore he would not change because the writers would not let him. The Joker was not just someone for Batman to fight, he was a psychological and moral foil for the Batman. There was a very specific literary reason for the way Joker is the way he is which is why he would not change. In Rolo's case, he was already changing and developing. Which puts them into very different categories.

And Death being a "gain" as you put it is not something so new. Many works in literature uses it, many myths uses it as well. But what you have to look at is the big picture and not at that character specifically. A character gain importance in how much he or she influences the plot and characters, specifically the main character. Which as I already stated, for side characters like Shirley, death is almost like a shortcut to gaining more important depending on the ties they had before death and how it was handled.

I feel like now would be a good time to wrap up this debate. Lets just agree that Shirley's death was very important, though it wasn't brought out to it's full impact, most likely due to poor/rushed writing. Also, lets agree that Rolo doesn't necessarily have to die for what he did (though he did in the end).

Oh, and I'm the sure the whole "death as a gain" thing isn't new. The thought just never occurred to me.

[Nosauz]

yes many artist use death in the sense of martydom, and heroism is linked to death, but also cowardice is linked to death. Heroic militant dies fighting invading forces, fighting for his freedom, but that same militant can be seen as somebody who can't accept his reality, and knowing that in his death he may escape his fate. The only way to develop a clear picture is through writing, developing the characters, so their actions actually represent heart felt jestures, which the writers of this series neglected in r2, thats why all these supplemental materials are needed, because these guys did a sloppy job, I will tell you right now that episode 18 of clannad was picture perfect, it settled all the issues of the love polygon, through one action, Tomoya smacking some dude whos trying to help nagisa, now with literally 4x the episodes, some of the gestures in the romance are vague, why? Because the characters are not developed enough, the pyschy of the characters are not discussed, plus we have a monomaniacal unreliabale narrator, lelouch. Unfortunately this is not Moby Dick, where the unreliable narrator is intentional, the doubt created by the writers in not from purposely doing so, its through indecisive writing about the characters themselves, and their actions