Quote:
What I disliked most about this chapter was Miria offering her explanation about reasoning Hysteria's awakened form to explain the traction of the latter to maximize speed without losing it on solid ground.
But, it's more to the fact that she gives the explanation during the flow of the battle watching on as a spectator from the sidelines.
It gives off Claymore becoming more and more like the rest of the mainstream shounen like Naruto, Bleach, or One Piece relying on the protagonists to offer their insights about the techniques of their enemies as they're engaging in mortal combat; it disrupts the flow of the fight.
|
I can see why'd you feel annoyed; people feel the same way about Deneve lately...
At the same time, fair's fair - I feel I need to point out that, in general, this kind of vocal analyzing has
always been around; even in the volume 1 day (the earliest I think was during the Slayers mission against the six-armed AB - the AB himself even analyzed Miria)....the key difference, in my opinion, is splitting the differences.
The differences being the time where, we can take what we hear as given/the truth, and other times where it could end up being false. In some sense, it's easy to tell -- because, particularly with Dr.Deneve, some theories/explanations are more broad and not as foolproof - they are just seemingly tossed out there and it feels like we are expected to take them as truth....which is silly when their could be a mountain of evidence and/or questions that contradict it.
And then their are other times where their is deception or deliberate misinformation -- hearing about Isley's motives and then learning later the truth about his plans.
Really, all things considered, regardless of the situation....the best move is to just take any and all vocal analyzing with a grain of salt -- because, as with the Isley example, their are moments where we hear something that sounds plausible and sensible (especially when their isn't something at the time to contradict it) and even then, something comes along to change it all up....it's even easier when, with Dr.D, some stuff we hear just feels like it's pulled out of the character's rear. They could be right for all we know, and maybe we're expected to take it as truth....but when their is simply so much that says the answer could be otherwise, it's hard simply to accept that - even if the reason is because the answer we hear is simply, well, boring all things considered.
That's not to say we should immediately assume every analysis we hear is false....just potentially false for whatever reason (not enough proof to confirm, may be changed later, etc) - it may seem like an overly excessive stance to take (though it shouldn't be - after all, in real life, do you automatically assume everything you hear is truth?), but that's how I see it: this story is made with deliberate ambiguity and it's difficult to understand when we're being told something infalliable or not, so we really should never take what we hear as such in the first place, but merely keep it in mind as we analyze the subject ourselves.