2006-04-19, 00:30 | Link #61 | ||
I desire Tomorrow!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: As far away from reality as possible
Age: 42
|
Quote:
Quote:
Edit: spotted a wrong connector
__________________
Last edited by npal; 2006-04-19 at 05:02. |
||
2006-04-19, 04:32 | Link #62 |
Senior Member
|
Yes lying would be wrong under categorical imperative, the thing is lying under ANY circumstance would be wrong under categorical imperative, as a dutch boat captain lying to a german captian in WWII that there are no jews aboard, that would also be considered wrong under categorical imperative eventhough it will save everyone's lives. Hence categorical imperative is flawed, because under it any lying any killing even in self defense would be wrong and we never used cateogorical imperative in real life so why dissucse a philosophy that was, is and never will be used?
And yes you can do other wise, but is doing other wise in your best interest? of course not, humans watch out for their own interest, thats a proven fact, it happens everyday. I fail to see how you can condemn Mistuki for watching out for her interest when you are doing it all the time as well, thats call hypocrisy
__________________
|
2006-04-19, 05:24 | Link #63 | |
I desire Tomorrow!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: As far away from reality as possible
Age: 42
|
Quote:
The difference between you and me is that I am perfectly aware of the morality of any action I do (to the fault of being guilty). I am perfectly aware that my rules condemn many selfish actions as morally wrong, but that also means I can a) refrain from doing it or b) regret and seek to atone, if I am forced to act for whatever reason. Unlike you, I am not stuck with certain actions being "inevitable", "necessary","human" and therefore claim that any further justification is invalid. Does that make me more immoral because I am aware of what I am doing instead of claiming ignorance or refuse responsibility altogether? And of course, I will condemn myself first before others condemn me. Mitsuki is right in that aspect, I think she knows that she outright betrayed her best friend, and she is to be commended for acknowledging that she wronged someone. It's her fanbase that tries to justify the unjustifiable. And no, not ALL people look only after themselves, and I can point you to all martyrs and heroes who gave their lives so that everyone else may live. I don't believe that it's in anyone's best interest to die, so I suggest you don't go out degrading human nature, because it has shone more than countless times.
__________________
|
|
2006-04-19, 11:38 | Link #64 |
Senior Member
|
There is a very good phrase I believe its called "We are not the best judge of our own character" and just what is "Unjustifieable" did anyone die because of her? Did she committe any wrong doing according to the LAW we live by set fourth by social contract? Well I'm glad you are living by such an out dated model of philosophy, saying its wrong to lie and the only reason backing it up is Kants arbitrary categorical imperative? He, one person simply put lying as unacceptable under any circumstance and the only reason is because Kant thinks its bad and the whole mass follows? I'm glad that humans are not so stupid as that. If a philosophy cannot be applied across the board in every circumstance then it is a flawed and usless philosophy, thats simple philosophy class 101 for you.
You will condemn yoursef first? Ha! BS. Not everyone look after themselfs? more BS. Know why? Because even those Martyrs would be long dead even before they can accomplish anything if they don't look after themselves. even their death, their called martyrs because they died for what they believed in, notice the THEY believe in part, thats selfishness right there. Why don't you donate your heart and lungs? After all your very selfless no? You look after only the good of others no? Then you ought to donate your interal organs because others need it no? Me degrading human nature? We do that very well already, read any history book and you can see how base we can become. For you to say you can judge yourself perfectly is the same as me saying that I am a God among men. In otherwords impossible.
__________________
|
2006-04-19, 11:53 | Link #65 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Take it easy guys, getting a little heated here. The point of my argument was that there was no real, identifiable legitimacy of a specific moral position over any other. The reasoning against this was that for humanity to be sustainable there absolutely NEEDS to be at least some semblance of belief in that the moral code that gives us the greatest degree of survivability is the best. Regardless of whether human beings are selfish or not, or regardless of whether or not we have some inevitably and inextricably ingrained predetermination towards behaviour towards the selfish, the argument is that BECAUSE we are capable of behaving otherwise, and capable of recognising the selfish against the selfless, that the mere capacity, or rather capability to act in such a way that contradicts that which is expected of us as creatures of a selfish nature, is what defines our morality. A Hobbes style social contract recognises (or rather, assumes) otherwise, and was not the argument that myself and npal was having.
Even if you are the most pessimistic, angry, self-loathing empty hearted loner with black holes for eyes, you must still recognise the CAPACITY for behaviour to the contrary - even if that is for the most selfish of reasons, we are capable of at least the recognition of selfless behaviour. I would argue that choosing that path is no more right or wrong than any other - however, someone with an eye on the survival of the human race would contend otherwise. |
2006-04-19, 12:00 | Link #66 | |
otaku-hikikomori
|
Quote:
I haven't read the enormous amounts of "theories" you and your debate partners have put up, with Kant and theories on human nature, but I'm very sure, from what I have read, that it mostly pertains to each other's unhappniess with each other. For me I view like this. There are two kinds of love. One is the Jesus' kind of love. Unconditional, all-encompassing and ever-forgiving. (I apologise for using such an example, but its the ultimate and the easiest to relate to). The other kind of love is the love between couples. It is exclusive, it is mutual, and yes, it is selfish. If love between couples can be argued not selfish, then why are we not legalising polygamy? The fact remains that the couple kind of love is selfish. In KGNE, we see Haruka and Mitsuki fighting for Takayuki. To me, I believe Takayuki and Mitsuki's affections for each other was mutual. However, Mitsuki chose instead to give up her love in favour of retaining her friendship. To me, Haruka was still insecure, and tried to rush the relationship by tricking him into bed after the festival. It was foiled by Akane. Soon after (and even before), Mitsuki starts having second thoughts, and displays insecurity by trying to spend more time with Takayuki. No overt gestures, just trying to grab whatever she could. We next witness the accident of Haruka. Consequently, she ends up in a coma, and no one KNOWS when she will wake up. Takayuki and Mitsuki are both distraught; Mitsuki more so, wrecked by her guilt of stealing the "spoils" (i.e. what little time Takayuki could spare her). Nevertheless, she pulls herself together, and cares for an effectively "dead" Takayuki, partly because she likes him, partly out of duty. She continues to do this for one year, confident that maybe, Haruka will wake up one day and everything will return to a semblence of normalcy. However, Takayuki, who supposedly has gotten better, suddenly does a dumb thing again, and she really is at a loss of what to do. Here, in front of her, was a broken man, unable to move on with his life without Haruka. On the other hand, was her best friend Haruka, who loved this broken man so much. Essentially, it was a decision whether to fulfill a promise of friendship, or succumb to her emotions and express her love for him, hoping it would help him move on. She chose the latter. Selfish? Yes, there was some selfishness, after all, she benefitted from it. Takayuki indeed moved on, and life, for him and her at least, went back to normal. Betrayal? What betrayal was there? I do not see any betrayal there, I'm sorry to say. Its love in action in this instance, and unfortunately, the Jesus kind of love had been tried out for one year and did not help things at all. People who perceive Mitsuki as betraying Haruka view it from the angle that since Haruka was going out with Takayuki before the accident, therefore Takayuki should continue to wait. Well, I agree, if Takayuki was able to pull himself out of the rut he was in and continue life, on behalf of Haruka. Mitsuki trying to steal him then would definitely be an act of outright betrayal. However, in this case, one year after the incident, and Takayuki showed no signs on improving, of moving on. It debatable whether offering herself to Takayuki was the best way to help him, but to a desperate Mitsuki, it was the only way she could think of. (Which makes you wonder, where were Takayuki's parents all this while? And Shinji?) I'm also very sure Haruka was angry at Mitsuki not for snatching Takayuki (she knew very well 3 years had passed, nothing would ever be the same again, evidently. People move on, the world continues to revolve even if you don't move.), but because Mitsuki, when visiting her alone later on, tried to downplay her relationship with Takayuki, and instead made it sound as if she was toying with takayuki, which irked Haruka to no end. The act of offering herself to Takayuki that fateful night was one of desperation, one of love, albeit the selfish kind. Betrayal? Not from where I stand. In addition, when people say that it was a selfish act of betrayal, they are standing from the viewpoint of Haruka. That Haruka deserved him because of the status quo before, and breaking the status quo because of an accident which was not her fault at all was not correct. However, lets change perspective: What if Mitsuki had honoured that friendship, and had not done that on that fateful night, but instead continued to support him quietly? Would it have made Takayuki better? Or would Takayuki continue to rot? He would, I'm very sure of it. In this case, by honouring a supposed "promise", she would have ruined another person, Takayuki. Fair? I would think definitely not, not from Takayuki's perspective. And of course, the big loser here would be Mitsuki again. The theme about KGNE to me, is also about moving on. Mitsuki might have made a mistake of getting Takayuki to buy her a present (even this is debatable), does that mean that from then on we vilify her? All she wanted to do was to prevent further hurt to those still awake, still living around her, especially Takayuki. All she wanted was closure, was to move on. And I stick by her decision to declare her love to Takayuki. I get the feeling we are drifting from the topic at hand. If you all want to debate about such stuff mostly irrelevant to the topic (i did not see anything on KGNE at all in the later posts), please do so elsewhere.
__________________
|
|
2006-04-19, 14:02 | Link #67 | ||||||||||
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
2006-04-19, 14:57 | Link #68 |
I desire Tomorrow!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: As far away from reality as possible
Age: 42
|
Nice posts. Besides the points noted, it seems we have reached some kind of understanding about various issues of the series.
Oh yeah, about the Mitsuki fan comment, ok that was generalization, I have to take it back Although, using induction, it DOES appear as a huge percentage of Mitsuki fans try to justify Mitsuki's actions in everyway. But still, it's indeed a generalization, so it doesn't necessary stand. It's nice that attempts to totally degrade the discussion were disregarded. I think I agree with most of Perishthethought's above post, and certainly with his post before that. It's not a matter of WHAT happened, we all know and agree on the cold facts, as I see. I still think Mitsuki acted morally wrong but I have got a glipse of where Perishthethought comes from and it was enlightening indeed. It's nice to see we can reach a mutual understanding without resorting to idiotic, personal attacks.
__________________
|
2006-04-19, 17:01 | Link #69 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
As for Mistuki treating Haruka like a fool, I would say its partly because Mistuki probably didn't think that Haruka was full "there" yet, since Haruaka didn't realize how much time has lapsed from the length of her hair, her hands, her siter growing a few years older when she first woke up. Her though process still hasn't returned to normal levels yet so Mistuki thought she could get away with her horrible acting/lying. As for categorical imperative, like utilitarianism I'm merely pointing out the most obvious of flaws in npal's argument of using it against lying, it was not meant as an personal attack.
__________________
|
|
2006-04-20, 10:37 | Link #70 |
otaku-hikikomori
|
Thank you all of you, at least for acknowledging the slight points I've borught up here and there. Well, at least we have reached some sort of a broad understanding. We're back on track and discussing about the topic at hand for real.
Let me first attempt to elaborate further on certain points I have made. Firstly, with regard to my view that love is selfish, Perish I do agree with the notion that the majority is never correct all the time. However, the notion that love between a couple has to be "exclusive" does bring about the point that it is, essentially selfish. Of course, as you pointed out, there are various societies that condone polygamy. However, how many of those polygamous (if there is such a word) couples actually attain the level of what we call "love"? To the man, of course, having many wives would be good, but how many wives truly desire to be with that man in the first place, considering the fact that most societies practising polygamy also carry out a practice called betrothal of marriage. How many of such polygamous couples are done out of their own free will? I dare say almost none. The very action of sharing something "exclusive" and "unique" between a couple seems quite contradictory. Of course, when argued from a biological point of view, that what we term and define as love essentially come from our feelings of lust and the need to satisfy that biological lust, then it would be a different case. But that is a debate for another day. As for my point on Mitsuki caring for Taka, you can see that I word my statements very carefully. Note that I said she cared for him partly out of her feelings for him, and out of "duty". Whether this duty due to her guilt for her part in Haruka's accident, or because somewhere inside of her she believes she should not steal Taka, thats up to speculation. I believe your quotation of Mitsuki was done in a different perspective. If I am not wrong, in that scene, an increasingly desperate Mitsuki is trying to decipher once again, if Taka really likes her or not. And in this desperation she says this. Heartfelt words? Maybe, but the issue still stands that this statement cannot be used to support the earlier scenes where Mitsuki was caring for Taka, and hoping he'll turn to her. Which leads me to the next point on friendship. What exactly is friendship? Yes, in a close friendship, there exists what you call "loyalty". But what if two close friends fall in love with the same guy, aka Mitsuki and Haruka? Mitsuki had seriously thought on chasing Taka, but realised that it was through trying to fulfill Haruka's wishes that she had the privilege of getting to know Taka. As such, she gives Taka up to Haruka, as per "loyalty" in friendship dictates. She feels empty though, and is somewhat still unable to forget Taka, which leads to her "stealing the spoils" of any spare time Taka has, hoping to catch a glimpse of hope (or what could have been). From here, we see Mitsuki as someone who stills values "friendship loyalty" over love. Fast forward to the period after the accident, and Haruka is in a coma. Right in front of her is her best friend, unconscious possibly for the rest of her life. Right in front of her also, is the man she loves. Now the situation is more ambiguous; should she wait for Haruka to awake, and let the couple reunite? Or should she fancy her chances and try to forge something out of the tragedy? She chose the latter; after all, who could guarantee Haruka would ever wake up. In this instance, valuing loyalty would lead to a life of regret, reflecting over what could have been should Haruka never wake up. In this case, she offers herself to Taka with 2 purposes; hopefully he recovers from his depression, and hopefully he goes with her. I guess I've laid the situation quite clear; of course, in the strictest sense, this would constitute as "betrayal" as what Perish said, but would it be fair to say Mitsuki was totally wrong to choose that path? Lastly, I have to say that Perish, you are right to say that just because Haruka was his partner first, means she automatically has the rights to him. People may argue that well, Haruka liked him first and actually let Mitsuki get the chance to know him better. On the other hand, without Mitsuki's help, Haruka would probably never have gotten Taka, a crush being just what it is: infatuation. I also agree, that Mitsuki probably should have declared her liking for Taka much, much earlier; while her friendship with Haruka might have been strained, I guess Haruka's not that immature to know that friendship should transcend issues of love. However, of course, as stated earlier, there was this "sense" of loyalty. Tough decisions to make, but it is because we have the benefit of hindsight that we are able to say that Mitsuki probably made the wrong decision not to confess earlier. However, I disagree with you, Perish, that Taka's feelings for Mitsuki was superceded by his loyalty to Shinji. I remember this iconic scene, after Mitsuki and Shinji confronts Taka for not asking ehr out to a movie, where after repeated pesterings by Mitsuki asking if he really likes her, Taka loses his cool and utters "You don't understand......I know that she's your...!" (I'm rewatching the scene as I type this) He stops short, then runs away. Apparently, he went out with Haruka because Mitsuki told him to, and hopefully he could get closer to her. Which makes me wonder (this is cynical and very radical) if he finally started liking Haruka because Mitsuki told him not to hurt her friend. Debatable. I dare say Shinji was never on his mind, evident from the fact he uttered that in front of Shinji, and the later conversations that transpired between them. Its been almost half a year since I last watched this series, this debate makes me itch to watch it again. Oh well, now we're back on track, lets hope this debate goes on. I enjoyed it, until it started to go OOT.... Hopefully there won't be any deviations from now on.
__________________
|
2006-04-23, 07:33 | Link #71 | ||||||
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As you're watching the series through again, and I recommend anybody who hasn't for a long time do so again (as in light of these discussions certain parts of the dialogue or sequencing of events can take on quite a deal more significance!), it's great fun. In particular, watch the scene where Mitsuki comes up to see Takayuki on the hill, under the tree, following the assembly scene (where Haruka is upset and Shinji and Mistuki are stood in the school hall, getting the pre-summer address from the headmaster) in episode 1. There is a section of the dialogue, and I believe that this is one of the only times in the anime where this happens, where the music, the backing track, actually hints at something that, if you've been attentive, should already be evident and in light of the events of the rest of the series, is blatantly obvious. Listen to the low, ominous synthesiser pulse at the point of dialogue at which Mitsuki says "But before I knew it, I forgot about that goal", when she's talking about getting to know Takayuki for Haruka's benefit. It is completely in contrast with the light, upbeat electric piano notes prior to it. At that point, you're unsure of whether or not she's going to say "because I like you as well" but instead she says "because I had so much fun with you and Shinji". THIS is the point she should have confessed, but didn't. The piano notes continue when she says it's because she's such 'good friends' with them. The status quo is resumed, nobody rocks the boat, everything's ok. You'd barely notice it first time through - it's things like these that make watching the series through again so much fun. |
||||||
2006-04-27, 09:22 | Link #72 |
otaku-hikikomori
|
Perish, I agree with you that the issues I raised with regard to polygamy and love is very much a western conception. However, I would like to point out that such a mindset would not have such far reaching effects and be adopted in so many societies today if there wasn't some truth in the logic/reasons behind such a trend of thought in the first place. After all, love, like morals, is just a system/logic thought up by us to allow society to function better, and of course, its general meaning (the one that is somehow pervasive globally today) was more of a compromise among various other differing thoughts, and also a consequence of our ever-changing society (like how most of us today cannot support a polygamous family, given the high costs of living, especially in first world countries, just for an example). As such, this concept of "love", is actually accepted almost globally. It may boil down to the influx of culture, a spin-off effect of American/European domination over global events the past 2 centuries, yet it is undeniable that generally, that is the accepted version of what one terms as "love".
I'm actually struggling to find points to continue this discourse with you Perish, after all, I wholly agreed with your POV right from the start; I jumped in only when I saw the thread deviating and the Mitsuki bashing starting. I guess i should rest my case temporarily for now. You'll see me again when the Mitsuki bashing starts again though..... As for now, would urge all who have watched KGNE once to rewatch it again. Its nuances really have been cleverly disguised, ans its much more intelligent than the normal run-of-the-mill romance and dorama-like anime series. Truth to be told, I've watched it approximately 4-5 times already (not counting the various scene rewatches when I listed down certain arguments and examples in this sub-forum), and will gladly do so, if I find the time to.
__________________
|
2006-05-17, 23:27 | Link #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
|
Wow, had I known a psychological/relational/moral debate of this level would creep out of an anime forum on KgNE, I would've watched this series long ago.
I'll get to it eventually, but I must be morally set for this. I guess I'm a romantic fool that wants moral perfection on a silver platter. All I wanted to say was thanks for showing me such elaborate arguments!
__________________
|
2006-05-20, 00:38 | Link #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
|
It was touching when they met at the tree at the end. Although I would've liked to see at least another scene with them in their new future instead of making that their last appearance. Happily ever after like. Also Mitsuki should've grown her hair back. In fact that stands out as more important than anything else--in the whole series!
Actually I think the ideal ending would've been Mitsuki going on vacation for a bit to regrow the hair, and meanwhile everyone back home got nuculared (small nucular maybe to avoid too much damage). It really would've tied up all the loose ends.
__________________
|
2006-05-29, 20:18 | Link #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
|
Finally watched the series in a marathon run and getting the whole strength of it. Finally read the monster-sized posts of this thread. Great read!
Overall I also agree with Perishthethought's and kokanaden's posts on most of the major points and that is also how I interpret the series. First of all I blame both Mitsuki and Takayuki of prioritizing the stability of their friendship over the risk of exposing their love and ending up in a awkward dead-end should that love end up unrequited. As far as Mitsuki goes I think she's the overall victim of this series, and definitely the weakest person (which isn't the same as the weakest character, in fact, she's probably the strongest, closely followed by Haruka). As soon as Takayuki agreed to Haruka's affections you can clearly see that Mitsuki's already starting to break down. In fact, she's the only character to suffer before the accident. On the betrayal point, I think it was betrayal, but only as far as the definition goes. I see no moral faux-pas on Mitsuki's part. As it was pointed out, Haruka was out of the picture completely, highlighted by the fact that the parents did not even want Takayuki to see her anymore. He was in the process of collapsing, and basically Mitsuki was his life support. He had the will to go to the fridge, but I question his will to fill that fridge up, since he didn't even bother to do anything else but the bare necessities, and cleaning himself wasn't even one of them. At that point Mitsuki was also striving for survival (out of love) since he was the only thing she had left. Of course, one could argue that it is because I am biased, which I am as a Mitsuki fan. Haruka on the other hand is the character that has most evolved in this series (closely followed by Mitsuki) and it's clear as daylight. Just compare her from eps 1-2 with herself from ep 13-14. Takayuki is one seriously broken character. I truely believe that the accident took away his humanity. I personally state that the only love he had was for Mitsuki before the festival. I don't believe his move on Haruka right after the festival to be much more than sealing his friendship with Mitsuki (don't create an incident, go with the flow of the current relationship). After the accident he definitely lost any and all love and was just an empty shell drifting towards the one that needed it the most. After the accident he never expresses himself initially: all his emotional comments were triggered by the one he was speaking to. Not only that but all the emotions he expressed were what he thought they wanted to hear, and not his own. Effectively speaking, after his attempt at waking up Haruka by taking her out to the expo, he was just a walking, reactionary, emotionless entity. I don't believe the end where he declares his love to Mitsuki simply because he wants to heal her wounds "even if we have to be together" (I got this from Keep's version). Now that is definitely simply derived from obligation; if he had any love for her that sentence shouldn't have appeared. If you notice, on every occasion he held himself from saying what he wanted to, the text he omitted were the ones that would end the series right there (non-verbatim) "I'm only doing this because..." "Could she be...?" and "I'm only with her by obligation, you're my girlfriend (or something like that, when he was on the phone with her from the restaurant)" are notable examples. I personally need to add that as far as I can remember, Takayuki's the one most annoying male-lead character without a backbone. Even the most pathetic losers of the simplest harem anime had at least one redeeming quality. Takayuki simply did not have any; his kindness was definitely not one. On an irritation scale from 1 to 20 he scores a 25. As much as Mitsuki/Haruka contained what Haruka/Mitsuki lacked, I believe that Shinji had all the elements Takayuki needed to be human. He was Mitsuki's protector, person of comfort, and moral support (though the two last parts failed because he was not Takayuki himself). He was clearly Taka's conscience and 'safe-guy' for Taka to park Mitsuki with. As far as Mitsuki lying to Haruka, I think it was a double-edged sword. To me Mitsuki was not only trying to give moral victory to Haruka, effectively cutting the last chain to let him loose, but she was again trying to hide/erase her own feelings, even if that task was impossible. Visually, she seemed to be talking to herself as much as lying to Haruka. Speaking of ending, I agree on the ambiguous aspect of the conclusion. When Akane checks the cover of the book, isn't Haruka's last name different? Does it imply that she's married? Also, we never actually see Takayuki and Mitsuki together, but simply implied by the fact that she's wearing the ring. The lack of the scene with the kids seems rather deliberate as opposed to a lack of time to fit it in. Overall KgNE is a series I am glad to not have missed but at the same time it's definitely not a series that I want to watch completely again, even though I'd be more than willing to revisit the various scenes. It has been an excruciating long ride, as the pace doesn't totally suit me (way too slow in many occasions) but one that I far from regret taking. Well, I think I said everything I wanted to. Edit: got Takayuki's name wrong
__________________
Last edited by Decel; 2006-05-29 at 20:31. |
2006-05-29, 23:58 | Link #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
|
Ah, it's funny how posts made immediately after watching a series, particularly marathon style, tend to be so long and all-encompassing. I do it too to get everything out and cover every single point. Kids? Which kids? I would've liked to see a scene showing Mitsuki and Takayuki's new life together but that was left to the imagination. I was really disturbed in this series by the love hotel scene, it was one part that stuck with me.
You're right that the male lead in this was probably the least likeable one I've ever seen. It just blew my mind how Mitsuki doted over him--I guess she had her faults too, not physically but mentally yes. |
2006-05-30, 08:16 | Link #78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
|
Quote:
The fact that such detail was left out is suspicious.
__________________
|
|
2006-05-30, 15:13 | Link #79 | |
Blue Dawn
Join Date: Jun 2004
Age: 44
|
Quote:
The reason that was left out was because it was part of Mitsuki's best ending path, something they didn't use much at all during the series. It would've also created issues during the latter portions of the series and wouldn't have made for the typical anime ending.
__________________
|
|
|
|