Claymore Chapter 82

[Valduran]

From reading your post it seems we are just looking at different things. I agree that at the moment things are how you pointed them out for the most part. I guess I am just looking at what patterns are surfacing to see where things are going. Claymore is so consistent that you can do it pretty reliably, even if there are incredibly plot twists that keep us on our toes.

That's pretty much spot on. Other than my first post stating the possibilities I saw for Clare and Priscilla's reunion, I've never been attempting to comment on what I believe WILL happen, rather what logically should happen if this were to take place in real life. Emotions are an easier way to predict the course of events in reality than patterns, but in a story the opposite is true.
I'm just the kind of person that engages in a story emotionally, not intellectually, so I rarely bother consciously looking for such a patterns. But yes, with Claymore it is pretty easy even if you aren't trying, thanks to the consistency.

The only problem here is that a discussion can never meet it's full potential is if the participants are not on the same page.
Simply put, in the future, if I happen to say things that you disagree with, first consider whether what I am saying is an argument, or a completely different perspective. Alot of confusion could be avoided in this manner.
And I'll try to do the same. God knows I'm as guilty as anyone of misunderstanding others by being too eager to make assumptions about what they are saying.

Because as you said, you basically agree with my words based on a perspective focusing only on the current point in the story, in turn I agree with most everything you said if my perspective were that of someone attempting to use patterns to predict future events in the story.

Now on to the real discussion. (The parts we don't completely agree on. )

Would I hate people for trying to kill my invulnerable superman friend? Yes I would. I know a man who was targeted by a bomb that never made it to him. The attacker failed. Had he succeeded there would be a lot more emotions rising up in me, especially with the complications of loss. Hate may be the wrong word, as I have been surprised as I have watched interviews with murderers and they seem very ... human. I hate what this man did, and believe absolutely that even though he failed he must be punished. The serious intent to kill someone undeserving and innocent is enough for me. And yes, I do want to know who those gymnastics judges are so I can get in touch with the governing body to tell them it is crap and everyone knows it. Although the rules of the governing body do not help either as the new ones are very stupid (for instance, no country with competitors can have a judge so most of the judges come from inexperienced amature judges whose countries have never produced Olympic gymnasts. Also there is bribery and an unwillingness to enforce rules, like age limits). But their crime is not one that people deserve to die for.

I can understand what you are saying here, but it doesn't quite feel like you responded with complete fidelity to the questions posed.
First let me make it clear that I am not you, nor can I pretend to make any claims about your own feelings.
But, if you know a man in reality who had an attempt made on his life, can you be so sure that the hate or anger you might feel towards his attacker isn't partly motivated out of fear? If you were to feel no fear for your friend, wouldn't that greatly lessen the level of your anger towards his assailant? If they no longer have the power to take him away from you, it seems at least half of the reason for anger ceases to exist.
Think about this for a moment. Try to seriously imagine how you really would feel in such a situation.

And concerning your other comments on murderers and misc. villains that you see on TV, etc... You may see the need for them to be punished, as we all do(hopefully), but you cannot honestly say you have a great personal hatred for them similar to Clare's. There cannot be personal hatred without a personal stake in the matter.

Basically, I'm not saying that Clare felt no anger towards Irene, just that it was little enough that it faded in time and along with the understanding of Irene's duty as a soldier, she held no permanent grudge.

Now would I hate him if it were a war? Totally different, especially in the intent even if the result is the same. I had older friends from both sides of WW2 who taught me valuable lessons about life. Teresa was not killed by the decision of the top 4, she was killed by the order of the organization and a new soldier who believed in their cause zealously. Priscilla was a product of the organization. One who had not yet developed Irene nor Teresa's sense of cynicism. Yet Clare joined that same organization willingly.

Yes, it could indeed be said that the primary reason for any lack of animosity towards Irene on Clare's part stemmed from the fact that Irene was only following orders. But I do know from a human perspective that that is not enough to entirely blot out the memories. It's not a perfect relation to real war, because you have to look at it from a perspective of a civilian(Clare), not a soldier(Teresa). Which is why I've been exploring the "no-threat, no-grudge" possibility.
If you look at the civilians from World War 2, you will find a HUGE amount of hate and anger. It meant nothing to them that the enemy soldiers were just following orders as bombs rained from the sky and obliterated their loved ones.
As Clare became a soldier herself, I imagine she would have developed a bit of perspective in the end, but her immediate reaction to Irene showed no hint of anger at all that I could see. Which hints that she had already mostly forgiven Irene before she ever met her.

One the other side of the soldier coin, Priscilla was a soldier JUST THE SAME as Irene. Sure, she went wild and took it much farther than Irene would have, but she was still staying true to her duty and personal beliefs, nothing more. Yet Clare ended up hating her with a passion.
From that perspective, it seems the only defining difference between Priscilla and Irene in Clare's eyes is the fact that Priscilla succeeded in killing the one she loved, and Irene was never any threat in the first place.

What Clare really hates is not so much the creature Priscilla, it is that she lost Teresa and didn't have the strength to go on living without her. At least until she found Raki. Now Clare has another reason to live. Just like Teresa discovered a reason to live in Clare. It may seem that Clare is obsessed with Priscilla, but it takes a back seat to more pressing matters at hand and even shown to be quite willing to die without accomplishing this goal.

I'm somewhat ashamed to admit, this is never really something that I've factored into my thoughts on the matter. If Clare's hate really is so strong as I've been assuming, then I am correct in that none of the reasons that she has been given to live on are enough to diminish her hate. But on the other hand, if a great deal of her hate is actually directed at herself, then I've been operating on a false assumption and a great deal of my ideas concerning Clare and Priscilla kinda lose their basis.

Another thing I kind of disagree with (in essence) is that the only emotions you can understand are your own. Well, it is a foggy statement so I should clarify what I mean. The only emotions you can feel are your own (though heavily effected by others) but story can GIVE me experiences which evoke emotions. I have never watched someone I love get killed in front of me (nor do I ever wish to), and if I had I am sure the Teresa incident would be quite a stirring reminder. But notwithstanding, that hurt to watch. Did that emotion come from my own experience? Yes, the experience of watching Claymore. Story is a powerful form of communication which can evoke emotions that someone has never had before in some cases.

I don't understand how this is disagreeing with me. Care to elaborate?
True, the only emotions you can feel are your own, but as every human feels the same emotions, it really isn't that hard to empathize and imagine what another person might be feeling. And having it be in a story form, where you truly are able to get a hint of those emotions you may have never felt in real life, only makes it easier to align your heart with that of a character and feel what they are feeling.


As to Clare killing an undeserving Priscilla, I don't really see that happening either, but mostly because of the patterns in this story. Though partly due to that nobility you mentioned.
However, I was trying to view things from a perspective completely detached(or you might say, completely immersed) from the story. Imagining how things might go in a life situation where the characters and emotions were real. In that case, sometimes even nobility is not enough to overcome hatred. It all depends on how emotionally strong you are. And Clare has proven, at least early on that she is fairly weak in that area.

For Priscilla's development I don't know if it is any more extreme than Ophelia's development, which happened in an instant after looking in the lake and seeing her own reflection. Personally I look at character development mostly by what a character does, not their personality. Teresa's flamboyant and abrasive personality never really changed, but she still developed as a character. Galatea is still recognizably the same carrying her sense of humor, as was Irene in her almost cold harsh demeanor. An AB not eating people for years and hunting down youma is pretty solid development for me, even if we do not know Priscilla's personality beyond her love for Raki. If anything she still seems rather violent and direct as she was walking forward to kill Rene. She seems even more violent than in the extra chapter where she just wanted to eat and be left alone. It just so happens that Raki is her morale compass and the source of her apparently regained humanity.

In terms of her development in terms of what actions she will take in the course of the story, sure, we've had a fair amount of that. But as you may have already noticed, that isn't the kind of character development I am referring to.
Usually when I say character development, I mean coming to know and understand the character better in both motivation and personality.

I'm not sure why people around here always assume that when you say "character development" you always are referring to character growth/change.
A character can never change even slightly through the course of an entire story and yet there can still be a ton of character development for them. It's the kind that reveals them to the reader, allowing the reader to get to know them better.
As you can see, there are multiple definitions of 'character development', and the one that I just stated is usually the one I am using when I use the term.

One thing to keep in mind about me is I'm usually far more interested in relating to a character in a real life fashion then how they are connected to the plot. So alot of times I may say things that sound similar to what other people might say, but with completely different meaning and perspective.

[yezhanquan]

@chibamonster: What I'm very satisfied with are the past arcs of Hellsing, not the newer chapters which is basically the endgame of the series, since Alucard has disappeared.

Basically, behind Alucard's attitude, he actually wants someone to defeat him, a human. As he puts it, only humans can defeat monsters. In his eyes, there are basically three tiers of beings: dogs/lackeys (the humans who serve their vampire masters in return for "immortality"), monsters (humans who accepted supernatural powers; this includes himself), and humans (100% humans who has the strong will to stand up against monsters and defeat them, an example being van Helsing and his gang who hunted Dracula).

Also, Montona Max, the Nazi major who's the main antagonist to Alucard, considers himself human, even though he has cybernetics fitted onto himself. He rejected the offer of being a vampire during WWII (As he was lying in a pool of blood, the liquid beckoned to him, as if tempting him to become a vampire. He refused).

Going back to Claymore, I always thought that it was the human side of the Claymores which gave them increased strength. Those who deny that they have a human side often gets messed up pretty badly. That said, I kinda wished that Jean had awakened to keep herself alive to fight another day.

[chibamonster]

@Valduran: I guess the difficulty in me seeing the characters as detached from the plot in an emotional fashion is that they will never be that to me. Plot development is character development in my mind. The two cannot be separated. When fictional characters are taken into an entirely hypothetical realm of what I think they would do without the plot from a singular moment it is like wondering what the Olympics would be like without the pressure of spectators, journalists, or medals. It would cease to be what it is and become something entirely different. And then it must have a new plot or context to make sense. We only get to know the characters, as per your preferred choice of character development, because of what they do in reaction to the plot. Character growth/change is what lets us know a characters personality more as they react to the events of a story. Even for aspects of a character that do not change, like Galatea's sense of humor, when we see it in a new situation it still develops them and even grows their character. Galatea's smile on her face after she loses her arm and is facing impossible odds shows us more of who she really is, and grows her character in places that have not been explored yet.

Even in real life I look for patterns as emotions do not exist in a vacuum. Emotions happen in a moment or in an experience. Characters and people are much more than just the singular experiences that they have as their experiences interact within the memories of each person, creating what we could call the plot line of their life. There absolutely are patterns to peoples lives, my own included, some of which are more general and can be observed and predicted; like the grief cycle, or how people get addicted to substances, or similarities in people that fall in love even if they cannot describe it to one another. There are also patterns that are unique to each person, like a pet phrase, a habit, a favorite food, etc. Each person is unique, but there are things we can easily relate to with one another that are also the same. So maybe it is just that I have an inability to see emotions as detached from the series events that led to them or the subsequent experiences that will influence them. One story that comes to mind which does put every event in a vacuum is Momento, but even then the patterns and plot development are so integral it shows more importance on plot and character interaction for development. I am thinking of the question, "When I close my eyes, is the world still here?"

I am reminded of Sleepy Speculators theories which involved cell biology to explain the claymore universe. At first I could not understand where he was coming up with the theory and it made little sense to me because none of his terms appeared within the context of the story world. When I asked him how he was coming up with what he was he said his goal was to describe the Claymore world in a way that made sense from our modern scientific point of view, sort of making the story his own to get involved with two things he loved; cell biology and Claymore. When I realized he was extrapolating the story to something akin to a fan fiction (or should I say fan science?) it made sense to me why he was doing what he was doing, and I realized that it was not something that was up for debate or critique from my point of view unless I jumped onto it from a biological stand point. In this case, I can see what you mean from looking at the characters from Claymore in a singluar moment, but I cannot see them the way you do independent and free from their character/plot development in a real life setting, especially one using my own emotions as the foundation.

For the super man example I still have difficulty with that. Someone willing and desiring to kill even an invulnerable friend is something I cannot look at indifferently. I have to look at it in context of more than the moment to make it real for me, and the first thing that comes to mind is someone who fails to kill someone else. Really I cannot think of any truly invulnerable characters even in a fictional world; Teresa, Superman, and Highlander included. In watchmen there is a character who is almost a deity, but someone still exploits his growing detachment from humanity to get him out of the way and the god like guy can even see the future. I cannot see the situation as just an event. Why are people shooting at my bullet proof friend in the first place? What are they willing to do to hurt him/her after they realize bullets do not work? Will they look for my friends Kryptonite or their Achilles Heel? Would they be content with hurting those close to my friend instead? When it comes down to it, Batman has beaten Superman and made him suffer just to show that he can. Maybe in the moment I would laugh at the misfortune of the bad guys running up against a bullet proof man (like in X-men 2 when the special forces team shoots at Colossus) but there is so much more to look at when intents are involved that it cannot be an end of the matter. Even with an invulnerable friend there is a fear factor. Were there not there would be no story.

Looking through the posts I am not sure what the point was about our own emotions in relation to story etc was really about, so I am just going to dodge that one as I am not sure where we agree or disagree as both of our statements ended up being very general and separate from the discussion at hand.

I really liked Sci-Fi's point that Irene really aided in Priscilla's eventual awakening, even if it was by mistake. She was the one who told Prissy to use her youki which she had never done before. It was a mistake to misjudge Priscilla's personality, but it was still Irene's mistake. It was Priscilla's mistake to misjudge her limits, but as Teresa said, she did not even know her limits as she had never used her youki before. The fact Prissy had never used her youki made her the perfect ambush weapon for Teresa but also resulted in her inability to control or know her limits when fear engulfed her.

Maybe we just have nonnegotiable stand points in looking at the story this way because I cannot see a character, especially in a real life fashion as separate from the plot that created their character. In order to do that I would still need a new plot as reference for exploring who they are. Without a plot there cannot be character development or character exploration. We could take one character from their original plot and put them into a different story, but there still must be a foundation on which to really explore any character. There is no character without context.

@yezhanquan: Alucard is a strange character to me. He is jealous of those who can die, yet he is not really against immortality as he forces it onto Seras Victoria and offers it to others. He wants a worthy adversary yet he does not want them to become what he has become as seen with Anderson. Alucard is a very complex and even mysterious monster.

I do like that he is a rather unique character, even if he obviously is not a really good guy.

[Ryuken]

Originally Posted by chibamonster

@yezhanquan: Alucard is a strange character to me. He is jealous of those who can die, yet he is not really against immortality as he forces it onto Seras Victoria and offers it to others. He wants a worthy adversary yet he does not want them to become what he has become as seen with Anderson. Alucard is a very complex and even mysterious monster.

I do like that he is a rather unique character, even if he obviously is not a really good guy.

Well @chiba, I really like Alucard, maybe not the hellsing one but definitely the castlevania one. Also the fact that he is the son of the king of the vampires Dracula. And all the games of the castlevania series especially castlevania (symphony of the night) my personal fav.

[Valduran]

Hmm, very interesting post Chiba. And thought-provoking, as it comes from a completely different perspective... I just wish you were able to understand mine as well as I understand yours.
You say we might have nonnegotiable viewpoints, but unfortunately, the problem is that only yours seems to be nonnegotiable. I have no trouble understanding where you are coming from and I don't disagree with it, what I do disagree with is that you seem unable to change perspectives at will and consider the world(or in this case, the story) from a different angle.

First, again, you've misunderstood me on a major point. My meaning was not to view the characters completely detached from the plot. When I said

Originally Posted by Valduran

However, I was trying to view things from a perspective completely detached(or you might say, completely immersed) from the story. Imagining how things might go in a life situation where the characters and emotions were real.

Note the "completely immersed" in parentheses. My meaning is "to not look at the story as 'just a story', with patterns, a predictable outcome, a consistent author, etc." When I said story, I was referring to "Claymore as a work of fiction", not the events that have taken place inside the story so far. (The plot)
Take it as if the events that have happened so far actually took place, and the emotions the characters are feeling are completely real. That is the perspective I approach every story with, and that is how I approach my analysis of character emotions. Looking at them in the context of the story as a work of fiction is basically "cheating", since you are not viewing them as pure emotions, but rather as 'pieces of the plot', looking to see how they will be shaped by the future events of the plot ahead.

And if you can't understand what the point is about our emotions related to the story is, then let me refresh your memory.
All along I've been trying help you imagine the situation Clare was in, so you can try to properly understand the emotions she would have felt towards Irene and Priscilla respectively. You apparently didn't pay attention to my response to your "world war 2" analogy, in which I pointed out how Clare's understanding of Irene's duty as a soldier IS NOT enough to explain her lack of anger towards Irene, and thus the answer must be buried in her original emotional reaction towards Irene.

Character growth/change is what lets us know a characters personality more as they react to the events of a story. Even for aspects of a character that do not change, like Galatea's sense of humor, when we see it in a new situation it still develops them and even grows their character. Galatea's smile on her face after she loses her arm and is facing impossible odds shows us more of who she really is, and grows her character in places that have not been explored yet.

This is somewhat true, but is also missing my point concerning character development.
Even if a character never changes or grows in any significant way throughout the course of an entire story, as long as their current personality and motivations are revealed to us along the way, there has been character development.
I agree that seeing in their actions in a new situation allows us to understand their character more fully, but that in no way means that the character itself is changing.

And unfortunately in the rest of your post you were carried away with the idea that I am viewing characters and emotions "in a vacuum", which I am not. That makes it a little hard for me to reply properly, because it is completely missing the mark. It's making things kinda difficult for me, because I don't really feel like you are actually seriously trying to understand what I am saying, even after my words in my previous post.
Where did you get the idea that I am trying to take the characters out of context? Geez man, I feel a little insulted by that.
What kind of stupid reader tries to take characters and events out of the context of the plot?

You also used that idea to yet again miss the point of my 'superman example'.
The whole idea is to imagine yourself WITHOUT fear for your friend. And yet you centered your entire point around the fact that fear always exists. But what if it didn't? From what I can see, after Teresa's sound defeat of Irene's hitsquad, Clare's fear for Teresa's life faded away from her newfound confidence in Teresa's power and will to survive. She's a young girl! She isn't always gonna put things in context of the grand scheme of things! She is going to to do her best to trust in her 'mother-figure' with all her heart, because that's what children do.

[yezhanquan]

@chibamonster: Alucard feels that immortality had to be "earned", not stolen. He saw himself and Anderson as "stealing" immortality, along with Walter later. As for Victoria, he sees himself as granting her request to be able to live to see another night.

He had a human in mind when he saw Anderson. When the priest resorted to using the relic, he was disappointed and angry. Still, he did a good job beating up Walter, who abused Anderson's remains.

[chibamonster]

I feel like I am getting mixed messages

Originally Posted by Valduran

I think, overall, even though I myself don't really hate Priscilla anymore, I would feel very cheated if somehow her and Clare ended up in some form of permanent truce. That would be a betrayal...
I think, no matter who Priscilla is or has become, either her or Clare needs to die in this story for there to be satisfaction.

If Claymore is truly as dark and realistic as it claims to be, then Clare will in the end be destroyed by her own hatred, and probably only find redemption at the very end after it is too late to reclaim her life. It is the fact that Claymore does not compromise it's realism of character for the sake of mercy and redemption that it is such a powerful story. If that ever changes, I will lose a tremendous amount of respect for it.

Sure looks to me like there was an analysis of what will happen in the future of the story here. This was the initial post that got it all started. You can see why with this foundation how one could be very confused when you later post that

Originally Posted by Valduran

Looking at them in the context of the story as a work of fiction is basically "cheating", since you are not viewing them as pure emotions, but rather as 'pieces of the plot', looking to see how they will be shaped by the future events of the plot ahead.

The way I take it is that there are some people I know so well that I can predict what they will do, what they will say, and how they will act in given situations. That is really the best you can know anyone, real or imaginary. I don't see why well developed characters cannot be seen this way, their patterns and personalities included. To me that is going beyond experiencing the emotions of the story; it is getting to know the characters themselves as opposed to putting my own mind into them and running a simulation. I do not see them as pieces of plot in some complex game of sudoku, but people I really know interacting with one another. Looking at only a character's emotional state from a moment feels like I am losing something valuble from someone I have gotten to know so well.

It is difficult for me to separate Clare's hate and obsession from her nobility and willingness to sacrifice herself for her friends. We have seen her approach death to defend even people she casually knows throwing away any possibility of revenge without a second thought. The reason I referred to the previous posts as characters emotions in a vacuum is that looking at only Clare's hatred and not all of what really makes up her character. Clare is more concerned about others than herself. By a long shot. She always has been. She cared more for Teresa than her own safety. She cared more for Raki than her own safety. She cared for Cid, Galk, a nameless villaige, etc... Clare lives for others and the memories of others; not herself as it seems almost like her original self died before she met Teresa, much like Miria's original personality died with Hilda. Even Clare's revenge is not for herself but because of the memory of Teresa. Looking at only her hatred, distinct and on its own, is a lot like a vacuum for me because I cannot look at it without really seeing the other aspects that show who Clare really is from what she has done in the past. Clare has a desire to save others at the cost of her own life, and that has been such a major part of her development I struggle to imagine her without that facet as being principle in the decisions she makes. There are more aspects that make her as well that maybe I will go into later. That is what I mean by a vacuum; picking only one emotion when we know that Clare is a sea of emotions. Clare cares little for herself and rages against those who do things to others, not her. That is why Miria sent 2 chaperone's with Clare and blatantly states it.

At the moment Clare absolutely hates Priscilla for what was taken away from her even if it is not her predominant character trait. We agree on that. I just don't see how we can talk about anything beyond that without predicting the future of the story. When I look at what will happen with a character I have to look at the pattern of their actions because that is part of how well I feel I know them. It is no different than knowing that when my friend gets frustrated he stutters, or that when my sister is tired she gets a bit quick tongued, or that when one of my friends calls me he is bored... and so on. If Clare has to put the safety of those close to her against her own safety or her agenda what will she chose? We already know.

When I say character development is plot development, I am including your definition as well. "Even if a character never changes or grows in any significant way throughout the course of an entire story, as long as their current personality and motivations are revealed to us along the way, there has been character development." That absolutely can be done But how does it happen? There has to be a story for us to actually find out who these characters are. There must be a context. And for the audience the characters are growing as we learn more and more about them even though they are not actually changing. Without a plot there cannot be character development even if the characters do not change. As I said before, plot development is character development. It does not matter if the characters actually change or not. Characterization must have context.

What context are you thinking of where I have no fear for my friend's safety? What story or real life person are you thinking of here? Or is this a complete hypothetical situation? I really need a context as without it I am lost. I can think of situations where I would not fear for people are are mortals and ones where I would fear for people who are invulnerable. I just need a starting ground.

I agree Clare trusted in Teresa as a child and feared for her life and hoped for her. I also think Clare grew up quite a bit even if she shows many of the same personality tendencies. Much like Miria grew up. Or Clarice having to come to face facts. In Claymore characters grow.

[Valduran]

Ahhh, that's a bit better. Now you've shown that you actually do have some valid reasons for saying the things you did.
It's true, my posts started out as an analysis of the future of the story, even before the quote you mentioned. I can't really blame you for not realizing that what I was focusing was more the reasons for my coming to the conclusions, rather than the conclusions themselves. I didn't really make that clear in any way.
I guess I should apologize for the fact that I often veer off what at first glance appears to be the primary topic for discussion. In that light, I am just as guilty as you for the misunderstandings.

To clarify, I have been pushing 2 major points in this discussion:

#1: To more fully understand the nature of Clare's emotions, and what effect they will have on her actions

#2: To show the possibility that Clare's reasons for not hating Irene may very well stem from her lack of extreme anger towards Irene more than her understanding of Irene's duty as a soldier.


In response to your exposition on being able to predict the actions of a character based on an intimate knowledge of their personality and behavior, I have to say, that is very much true, and as you can see I've never made any definite predictions that have disagreed with yours. However, on further reflection, I suppose what I have been attempting in this discussion possibly is unsuitable for comparison with Claymore as it expects too great a degree of realism from the author. Basically, what I have been doing all this time is trying to get people to consider the following: "Emotions are a powerful thing, what if, a character who is unable to exert proper control over their emotions is placed in a situation which forces from them the very strongest of these feelings. Will their nobility and selflessness be enough to overcome that emotion?" In real life, this is THE most common challenge. Overcoming our emotions to make the right decision. Basically, you are assuming that since Clare has developed into a selfless and somewhat noble character, that she will automatically make the right decision in the end, because always in the past she has show a tendency to try and do so.
My point has been, is it not possible for an emotion to be so strong that it overrides what action you might normally expect a person in reality to take?
If you've never seen a character in the most extreme circumstances of that particular emotion, then can you really predict with complete accuracy how they will respond if such a circumstance does come to pass?
(Does that make any sense to you? )

Basically, that's why I believe real life is harder to predict than a story, because people often times take actions that you would never expect them to based on observations of their past behavior. With lovers, spouses or family, like in your example, your sister, being able to predict their actions with accuracy is MUCH more likely because you have likely shared with them almost every possible circumstance of every emotion and action.
With a character in a story, it is much easier, and requires a less intimate knowledge of the character, because you can often trust the author to keep the character consistent with what he has shown us so far.

All in all, I'm not trying to make any definite statement about Clare or the actions she will take in the future, merely trying to get you to consider the possibility that emotions can create very unpredictable outcomes if they are strong enough. It seems that you place a great deal of trust in a character to always behave according to their patterns of development, there is nothing wrong with that, but I would just like you to CONSIDER the fact that in reality, a strong emotion can utterly defeat all predictions. I've admitted in some of my posts that Claymore is not reality, and I cannot expect the characters to behave with absolute realism, so this for me, is more of a philosophical musing on what the true nature of Clare's emotions would be if she were a real person instead of merely a character in a story, and what their true effect on her actions would be.
Because you must have noticed, when feeling a strong emotion that is OPPOSITE of what is right, good, just and noble, VERY often a real human being will give into the emotion even if they are the type that would try to do the right thing under other circumstances.

Edit: Also, Clare seems to be the type that tends to base all of her actions on her emotions. If she cares more about the lives of her comrades than her own survival, it does not especially mean she is consciously sacrificing her own goals for their survival, but rather that her emotions at that point in time concerning her comrades are stronger than the dormant ones that passively drive her life. We've never been given a good example of how Clare responds when face-to-face with the source of her hatred, and all those supressed emotions rise to the surface in an uncontrollable torrent.

I'm not asking you to agree with my opinion on anything, rather trying to present a new perspective that looks at the characters from outside of the box . I'm not presenting arguments, merely attempting to give you something new to think about. The only thing that has given me cause for frustration here, is that it seems I am failing miserably in my goal.

I must admit, trying to figure out details of characters as they actually relate to the plot is not especially interesting to me. I'd rather just sit back and enjoy watching the plot and characters unfold without expending too much brainpower on them. (I'm a pretty passive story-viewer, I try to turn off my brain and follow with my heart) But when I see an emotion that is powerful enough, I can't help but spend time thinking about it and wondering how closely a characters actions in reaction to that emotion resembles what you would expect a human to do.

You further explained that you felt I was focusing too much only on one of Clare's emotions and not on her character as a whole, in one sense, that is true. But, it is because my goal is not to tell you how that emotion will effect Clare, but rather to consider that emotion deeply, and then allow YOU to have a new perspective when making up your own mind on how that emotion will effect Clare.

I rarely try to tell people what to think, it's much more my style to give them information or concepts to ponder and hope they will give it enough thought to hopefully form a more well-rounded viewpoint. That may be why you are knocking down my words as if they are an incomplete argument, because if they were an argument or a definite statement then indeed they WOULD be incomplete, but that is not their intent.

Concerning your view on character development as inseparable from plot development, I completely agree. What I was arguing against is the fact that in earlier posts concerning Priscilla's personality, you appeared to believe that I was referring to character growth and change when I used the term "character development"

And finally to the issue of greatest misunderstanding. I thought I had explained it clear enough in my last post.
But keep in mind, the whole point of this example is to help you understand my theory of why Clare felt no lasting anger towards Irene.

Originally Posted by Valduran

The whole idea is to imagine yourself WITHOUT fear for your friend. And yet you centered your entire point around the fact that fear always exists. But what if it didn't? From what I can see, after Teresa's sound defeat of Irene's hitsquad, Clare's fear for Teresa's life faded away from her newfound confidence in Teresa's power and will to survive. She's a young girl! She isn't always gonna put things in context of the grand scheme of things! She is going to to do her best to trust in her 'mother-figure' with all her heart, because that's what children do.

The only reason I used Superman as an example, is to show you one of the most ridiculously overpowered and invincible heroes from any story. To help you imagine a situation where you felt no fear for your friend. Unfortunately I suppose too many weaknesses are associated with Superman in your mind. >.>
The point is to consider it from the perspective of a young child. If a young child sees Superman attacked, and also sees that nothing can harm Superman, aren't they going to develop absolute faith in Superman's ability to survive?
So if the child has no fear for Superman, then are they really going to hate each and every person that attacks Superman? Or will they be more focused on their love and admiration for Superman? Obviously, it does slightly depend on the personality of the child in question, but someone like Clare as a young girl was far more interested in love than hate. As long as her reason to live still existed, she had no interest in hating anyone. She didn't even seem to exhibit any real hate for Yoma, even though she had obviously suffered massively at their hands.

I'm considering that from a child's perspective, Priscilla was the only one Clare had any cause to hate as she was the only one who gave her any cause to fear for Teresa, and was the one who took Teresa's life with her own sword. It was a simple and associated hate. Not a logical hate. I felt that in your earlier posts you were too much trying to justify that Clare's hatred for Priscilla should be little more than that she had for Irene or Ophelia and that it would not be extremely difficult for her to forgive Priscilla if she was able to forgive Irene and Ophelia so easily.

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by chibamonster

We even saw Raphaela, who was obsessed with killing her sister (in the same way Clare is obsessed, if not more so) approach Luciella with a sword in hand, and then lose her resolve and drop it in a moment of weakness as she saw not a monster, but her sister saying her name with opened arms. Raphaela eventually went through with her sister's execution, but her years of obsession were complicated by other feelings she had and we saw the result in the last chapter. It was not even Raphaela's intention to do what she did. Things just got complicated from her emotion.

What makes you think Raphaela never intended it? Riful's little speech alone?
I don't know about you, but I have never seen someone having a strong grip and even stronger feelings ever producing an effect like that before. I'm convinced that what Raphaela did was intentional - despite maybe not turning out exact how she pictured. She didn't do a youki release for all those years so that she could accomplish exactly this - it was no accident. Riful, despite knowing way more than she should about the matter (like Raphaela's name for starters), I doubt understands everything that went on in Raphaela's head [which could very well cost her dearly].

Originally Posted by Sci-Fi

It is unlikely, but how many thought Luciela was still around?

*cough* *cough*
(I feel so incredibly smug right now...)

----

BTW gents, thanks for all the tagless Hellsing spoilers - no need for me to spend all the time and effort into reading it now.

[delay]

maybe if awakened, two new abyssal forms will be formed...
all in all, six abyssal youma will be hunted by the warriors of the north is the season finale

and Raki, Raki is already dead... Easley is hiding in the form of Raki
' joking '

[Shizuka Hiou]

How come raki has a face of a 8 year old? when hes body is fully matured. like i found his grown up state really awkward like those horrible photoshop work where you paste heads on to a random bodies.

i really hope clare doesnt interrupt riful's fun again. i luv riful~

and did priscilla really shrink?
i didn't get that sentence much. she like became younger? or she grows like smaller like a midget? lol ... -_-;

[chibamonster]

@Valduran: I guess I just struggle with a passive view of a story, especially after I have seen it the first time. My mind immediately jumps into analysis to break down the story to component pieces to help me understand the story telling method in a way that I hope I can replicate some day in my own stories. I look at people in a simmilar way and look for their unique patterns so it might just be part of my personality.

It seems the superman analogy is more dependent on the view point of a child than it is on any characters invulnerability. I remember when I thought my parents were super humans and invincible. It is still a surprise to me to hear what my parents really were going through during my childhood that I was blissfully ignorant of. While I certainly can see what you are getting at from Clare as a child, I can't help but look at how she researched everything she could find about that day as an adult. More than that, she looked at that day from the view point of a Claymore herself as that is what the story presented in Clare's development as a character. It is probably just a habit of mine to look at things this way.

@Cyclone: Hmmm. Why do I think Raphaela did not intend to do what she did? Well, Riful's information certainly adds to it. Brushing her narrative under the rug is a bit harsh me thinks, especially when Riful has such a handle on what happened and no one else can get us readers up to date. But I mostly think of Raphaela's game plan when she appeared before Luciella. Raphaela had a sword in hand when she got there. There is even an entire panel devoted to showing Raphaela squeezing the handle of her sword as her sister tears up. Luciella was the one who initiated the hug, not Raphaela. Had this been Raphaela's original plan I can't help but think that Raphaela would have gone for it instead of spending so much time apologizing or approaching with her sword out.

It also seems strange that if Raphaela wanted to die with her sister there would be easier ways to do it. As they are now they will not respond to anything external and will probably stay that way until they eventually die. I see this more of an exploration of the soul link, and its possible (terrifying) side effects than something Raphaela planned to do. Where does the idea that Raphaela planned this all along come from in the story? It is possible, but at the moment it seems to me that the narrative is looking a different way. Though I could be wrong. What am I missing?

I think Luciella really did die in the same way Teresa did. But the problem is that in this universe death is not necessarily the end, especially when it comes to the strange experiments the organization conducts; like Clare or the Soul Link. We know Teresa died, yet Clare has manifested Teresa's youki sensing ability as if reviving it from the dead. How far will this theme be developed with the upcoming chapters as we explore Raciella? Youki deals with the very soul of a claymore and things have gotten very strange in dealing with it.

Looking back it seems that neither of us have really changed our minds from our initial stand points about Raphaela's hug of doom even with this new chapter. Things ended up being more complicated and surprising than any of us speculated even if we did nab bits and pieces. Heh, who would have thought?

[Rolyn]

Originally Posted by Sci-Fi

Well...Raki may have influenced or connected with the human side of Prissy enough to start her down the road of redemption. That she genuinely cares about and protects Raki is going to pose a major problem to Clare when they meet. If Clare can get over that, the G7 may have their own 'controllable' AO to help battle the Org, Isley, Riful, and anybody else that gets in the way. Prissy's weakened condition may have dropped her power levels somewhat, but she still should be a major force. Can see her sacrificing herself in the end. Remember, before she awakened, Prissy hated yomas with a passion and wanted to keep humans from the suffering her fate when a yoma posed as her father and killed/ate her family. And if she realizes/accepts the Org was making them...it would be natural for her to help the G7 and protect humans.

Clare didn't have a grudge against Irene and she was the one that told Prissy to use the full extent of her power against Teresa. Irene is a much to blame for not stopping Prissy from going over her limits or warning her that she was a newbie and not to over use her yoki powers.

Yagi is constantly surprising us, so anything can and probably will happen. Not all is what it seems in the Claymore universe. Who knows, maybe Clare can use her powers to bring Prissy all the way back like she did with Jean. It is unlikely, but how many thought Luciela was still around?

i like your idea

[Valduran]

@Chiba: Fair enough. Changing perspectives isn't easy if your current one is ingrained into every aspect of your personality(I know that from personal experience -.-), I just hope I gave you at least SOMETHING new to think about with all those words. (together we totaled over 16,000 )
It certainly was an interesting exchange, and my own point of view was broadened slightly, which is a good thing. I just feel like discussions are a horrible waste if they are merely people standing around stating their own opinions until they are blue in the face.

Also good point about the child perspective, I guess I should have included that from the very beginning. Because yes, an adult is much more likely to feel anger and fear over even a failed attack. Just to point out though, even if Clare researched and considered the events as an adult, doesn't mean her emotions still aren't the original one's she felt as a child. Emotions often times have a strange way of lingering like that.

@New Topic: Chiba, are you able to give me a romaji or literal english translation of Riful's "I suppose she didn't do it on purpose, but in the end, this is how it turned out."? I neither have access to Claymore raws nor the ability to read kanji.
If that is a relatively accurate translation, wouldn't you say it's really nothing more than a pretty vague guess from Riful? Honestly I would be inclined to agree with you, except that if Luciella were MY sister I would have spent all that time trying to think of a way to save her instead of killing her. Approaching with sword in hand could have been nothing more than caution/common sense on Rafaela's part. But that's not to say your take on it doesn't make sense. It's not easy to tell what really happened with such little information.

[chibamonster]

The romanji for it is "Ito shite yatta wake de wa nai deshou kedo kekka kou nattate wake" The translation seems pretty good to me (but I am no expert). I just think Riful has more information than the conclusions she has come to. For instance, she knows Raphaela's name, history, failed soul link, and intention of killing her sister. Riful even knows Raphaela's internal struggle between obligation, responsibility and love. How did Riful figure that accurate information out? It is not like she could have asked the sisters. Most of this information is not something she could have guessed on. If it is a vague guess about what happened, then Riful at least has a good point to start from as she knows quite a bit about Raphaela. She knows more about her than anyone in the organization except maybe a few MiB's. Probably more than they do now as she knows Raphaela's current state. Maybe Luciella told Riful all about Raphaela over the annual Abyssal brunch.

Riful is good at getting information. She also figures things out insanely fast when there is little information presented to her. She may have been deceived by Isley, but Riful's ability to find gossip is unparalleled in the Claymore world. The sheer amount of accurate info she has about Raphaela is staggering. So while I agree there is a possibility Riful is just being vague and taking guesses, she has so much accurate information that I have difficulty picking and choosing at the moment. I am just not sure where Raphaela premeditating this appears in the story at the time being. It certainly is a possibility. It seems more like a crime of passion to me than a premeditated merging. Riful thinks so as well, and she knows all about Raphaela.

[Valduran]

Good points there. Like I said, the only real reason I have to believe otherwise is that any normal sister would spend more time thinking about saving her sister than killing her.
Also, it does seem somewhat odd that something like that would happen by accident, kinda like Cyclone said, but I don't really know enough to comment properly on the matter.

[yezhanquan]

In the brains department, Riful is indeed evenly matched with Isley. But, since Isley was the first no. 1, I'll presume that he has that little bit more info than Riful.

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by chibamonster

@Cyclone: Hmmm. Why do I think Raphaela did not intend to do what she did? Well, Riful's information certainly adds to it. Brushing her narrative under the rug is a bit harsh me thinks, especially when Riful has such a handle on what happened and no one else can get us readers up to date. But I mostly think of Raphaela's game plan when she appeared before Luciella. Raphaela had a sword in hand when she got there. There is even an entire panel devoted to showing Raphaela squeezing the handle of her sword as her sister tears up. Luciella was the one who initiated the hug, not Raphaela. Had this been Raphaela's original plan I can't help but think that Raphaela would have gone for it instead of spending so much time apologizing or approaching with her sword out.

It also seems strange that if Raphaela wanted to die with her sister there would be easier ways to do it. As they are now they will not respond to anything external and will probably stay that way until they eventually die. I see this more of an exploration of the soul link, and its possible (terrifying) side effects than something Raphaela planned to do. Where does the idea that Raphaela planned this all along come from in the story? It is possible, but at the moment it seems to me that the narrative is looking a different way. Though I could be wrong. What am I missing?

I think Luciella really did die in the same way Teresa did. But the problem is that in this universe death is not necessarily the end, especially when it comes to the strange experiments the organization conducts; like Clare or the Soul Link. We know Teresa died, yet Clare has manifested Teresa's youki sensing ability as if reviving it from the dead. How far will this theme be developed with the upcoming chapters as we explore Raciella? Youki deals with the very soul of a claymore and things have gotten very strange in dealing with it.

What are you missing... hmm... everything you want to miss, in order to continue seeing it the way you want to, of course.

The most compelling evidence is Raphaella's scar. If all she wanted to do was to kill her sister, then she'd have fixed her eye long ago. The second eye would be useful to fighting the AO Luciella, and any youki suppression stealth needed could easily be done in the many years following the incident.

I speculate now that she probably knew that from the failed soul link she did not have enough of Luciella's soul left in her to bring her back normally, but devised this method that could work with the amount of soul she had left in her. If she'd have released youki to heal or do anythign else however, even this technique that she ended up using would have been impossible. Hence she did not fix her eye in order to use this technique.

As for her gripping her sword, since it seems like Raphaella's goal was to become a weird coffee table base along with her sister, it's not like Luciella would be needing any arms and legs with which she'd be able to fight back or run away with, would she (sorta like Lune now)? As for initiating the hug, you will find you are wrong. Luciella does indeed spread her arms out, but it's Raphaella who jumps into them. Luciella does not move from where she was.

I am dissappointed that you continue to emphasize the "killing" over the "saving" aspect of Riful's statement. I'm frankly baffled as to how you can think that this weird sort of fusion could possible happen by accident - and with a dead body no less. The expression of both of Raciella's heads are that of contentment. If it was an accident, don't you believe there might be a little surprise on Raphaella's face? That if Luciella was dead, then the shocked expression of the "death hug" would have presisted after death. Do you really see Raphaella - or anybody - attaching themselves to a dead body for no good reason what so ever (especially in a story like Claymore where characters don't tend to do stupid things)? It's perfectly obvious to me at least that some bits of Luciella conciousness are alive in Raciella and I don't know why you are not seeing it.

Blanketly accepting Riful's current statements all at face value is also a bit naive. If they are all true, then Riful's conclusions are also true - a new AO around her power level will be born. If Yagi wished to create a new simple AO, he'd simply have just awakened Raphaela - she has power enough for that. Seems clear enough to me that Yagi's aim with Raciella is to make a character that can fight level with (and ultimately probably kill) Pricilla. In order for this to happen, Riful must mis-calculate right now, else she would not open this Pandora's box. That means that some of her conclusions at least are wrong. Not understanding that she's about to stir up a fused pair of former #1 Claymores (instead of just one) is high on my list of suspects on what those screw ups could be.

As to how Riful is well informed, I wouldn't be too shocked if she had some connection to the Organization and it's info network. Sorta like the connectiton the 6 armed AB seemed to posess. I see no other way that Riful could know so much information on Raphaela. It really makes me think that the Abyssals, Raphaella and the Organization are going to end up fighting the ghosts and Pricilla. If she is being fed info from the Org, it's also logical that she came to the faulty conclusion as the Org and is just rattling off to us what someone like Rubel told her.

Looking back it seems that neither of us have really changed our minds from our initial stand points about Raphaela's hug of doom even with this new chapter. Things ended up being more complicated and surprising than any of us speculated even if we did nab bits and pieces. Heh, who would have thought?

Stubborn, aintcha?
Well, no matter - the matter should be cleared up in the next chapter when Lune dives into Raciella's mind. We'll understand more then.

[Valduran]

@Cyclone: I guess I have to agree that alot of compelling evidence is on your side of the argument, though Chiba does have a few interesting points as well.
But one thing I've been thinking about, while not especially relevant to the cause for the hug of death, is something that it seems like people have been overlooking.

Obviously Riful APPEARS to be making a rather huge mistake. So the question is, why the sudden drop in intelligence? I thought Riful was suppose to be one of the more intelligent characters in the story, but yet only a simple fool would count on a combination of TWO #1 Class warriors awakening into something slightly less powerful than the form of a single awakened #1. Doesn't the very fact that Riful is obviously mis-calculating seem a bit suspicious?

Have we considered that she might possibly not be telling Renee exactly what she knows? I agree that blanketly accepting all Riful's current statements at face value is a bit naive, but I think that assuming that her comments are accurate indications of her current level of knowledge is also rather naive.

I for one will be compelled to give an epic /facepalm if Rafaela awakens in a massive burst of Yoki and simply runs wild or kills Riful. Something as lamely predictable as that just doesn't fit with the story. And as you said, something as simple as adding a new AO to the mix also doesn't fit with the current circumstances.
So if one outcome is too predictable, and the other is too simple and weak, shouldn't we consider the possibility of a third, unknown outcome?

[yezhanquan]

Riful prides herself on being correct. The only time where she appears to be angry (in human disguise) is when she saw Priscilla with the injured Isley. Yet, even she didn't quite get that part right as well. We know that Isley did have the upper hand in the fight.

I'm thinking that the sisters will wake up with Rene's help, and they argue among themselves if they should follow Riful's leadership. I'm guessing that Rafaela just wants to live peacefully, but Lucy still has that desire to take over the world. Maybe, she might submit to Riful now and kill her later.