[MANGA] Bleach Weekly Chapter 500+ Discussion

[DerGilga]

^That definition is stupid because that would make any form of non linear story telling a retcon. Giving new information, which effect past events, would be a retcon. Any form of flashback would be a retcon.
Is the relavation of 'shikai' a retcon because Renji used it before?
Is 'turn back the pendelum' one huge retcon because it explain the past?
Is 'getsuga tensho' a retcon because we only learn later what it was?
Is Grand Fisher killing Masaki a retcon because we already knew she is dead?
Is a movie like Pulp Fiction just full of retcons?

[itachi-san314]

Originally Posted by DerGilga

^That definition is stupid because that would make any form of non linear story telling a retcon.

Complain to the dictionary What you're saying isn't true either. Non-linear storytelling doesn't mean that facts need to be re-interpreted.

Any form of flashback would be a retcon.

No. A flashback is it's own thing.

[DerGilga]

^So are the examples I given retcons? I'm asking because under the definition they would be. Also how is a flashback not a retcon, if it would provide new information which alter the status quo aka we would need to re-interpret character relationships or events in the overall story?

[itachi-san314]

Originally Posted by DerGilga

^So are the examples I given retcons? I'm asking because under the definition they would be. Also how is a flashback not a retcon, if it would provide new information which alter the status quo aka we would need to re-interpret character relationships or events in the overall story?

My understanding is that retcons have to involve fact reinterpretation. So if we didn't know something and then find something out, it's not a retcon. That is why flashbacks don't necessarily have to be them.

A good example of a retcon from bleach is Zangetsu. We always thought he was Ichigo's sword, now we know he was a fragment of Ywach so when we reread the story we have to reinterpret all those scenes (assuming they work. I haven't gone back and done so myself).

The only one of your examples that I definitely think fits is the Masaki vs. Grand Fisher one since we found out she was a Quincy who had her powers stolen that does change the story of Ichigo's mother simply being killed by a hollow.

The current retcon involves Shunsui's swords not being a true dual wielding weapon from his own soul since we were already told about it and now it's different.

[DerGilga]

Originally Posted by itachi-san314

My understanding is that retcons have to involve fact reinterpretation. So if we didn't know something and then find something out, it's not a retcon. That is why flashbacks don't necessarily have to be them.

Why? If we read a chapter we have to make an interpretation of it to understand what happened. So if new information is available we have to make a reinterpretation of it. Granted, this is so trivial that we do it all the time to even think about it, but we do it and normaly it adds up to a coherent picture. If it doesn't add up people start to wonder. To give an example, Ikkaku having bankai and losing to Ichigo which people consider a plothole. To add, the fact that we have to make an interpretation, an author can use it to mislead the reader by deliberately drawing a sceen in a particular way or focusing on something else e.g. red herring.

I understand that it is kind of nitpicking of the meaning of 'reinterpretion' but a) a definition should be clear on something like that and not open for interpretations *bad pun* and b) see below:

A good example of a retcon from bleach is Zangetsu. We always thought he was Ichigo's sword, now we know he was a fragment of Ywach so when we reread the story we have to reinterpret all those scenes (assuming they work. I haven't gone back and done so myself).

And people would call this one of Bleach best plot twists. If I subscibe to that definition any plot twist by definition has to be a retcon. I pretty sure most people would not call plot twist retcons. Also at least one person on the internet agrees with me on that:

Originally Posted by Tvtropes

As the number of twists and misdirections in a story becomes higher, it becomes more difficult to tell whether an event actually is a retcon (which implies that the writers changed their minds), or a misdirection (which implies that the writers intended the "retconned" version all along, and had been deliberately misleading the audience before). In some cases, it is impossible to tell, short of reading the author's mind (even then, it might not helped, as it's entirely possible for an author to be on the fence about what they're planning to do).

Retcon
Also, since when does the intention of the author play a role in this, if it fulfils the definition of retcon it is a retcon, by definition!

The only one of your examples that I definitely think fits is the Masaki vs. Grand Fisher one since we found out she was a Quincy who had her powers stolen that does change the story of Ichigo's mother simply being killed by a hollow.

Why? Masaski was killed by a hollow before we knew she was a Quincy. And after it was reveal she was a Quincy, she still was simply killed by hollow. Also would that be a retcon or a plot twist?

The current retcon involves Shunsui's swords not being a true dual wielding weapon from his own soul since we were already told about it and now it's different.

If your refer to Kyoukotsu being Nanao's zanpakuto, that was wrong. Kyoukotsu was hidding Nanao's zanpakuto, but she belonged to Shunsui all along. The actuall retcon would be that Katen Kyoukotsu was not a dual zanpakuto from the start but turned into one. But then again it was never said that she was one from the very beginning so this would not be a retcon.

[itachi-san314]

You're all over the place so I'm going to bow out of this one. I'll just quickly add that saying something is a retcon doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad. If there aren't plot holes, it shouldn't be a problem in a long running series.

[DerGilga]

Ok, but one last question. If there are not the same, could you explain what the difference between a 'retcon' and a 'plot twist' is according to this definition:

the strict definition of 'retcon' is that old facts are left the same, they are just re-interpreted to account for new information.

[itachi-san314]

Originally Posted by DerGilga

Ok, but one last question. If there are not the same, could you explain what the difference between a 'retcon' and a 'plot twist' is according to this definition:

Like flashbacks, a plot twist involves unknown information (mysteries or surprises), but a retcon involves re-interpretation of known information to account for new information.

Like you said, it also has to do with intent and setup. Since Shunsui's swords were never described as being anything but his own dual swords, the setup just isn't there for a plot twist. Instead we have to reinterpret someone having dual swords to mean that they can come from anywhere, not just the wielder of the swords.

[DerGilga]

Originally Posted by itachi-san314

Like flashbacks, a plot twist involves unknown information (mysteries or surprises), but a retcon involves re-interpretation of known information to account for new information.

So is 'Zangetsu' a retcon because we have to reinterpret all previous sceens for the new information that he isn't the true Zangetsu or is it a plot twist because we have to reinterpret all previous sceens because of the previous unknow information and big surprise that he isn't the true Zangetsu?
I'm asking because I don't see the difference.

Like you said, it also has to do with intent and setup. Since Shunsui's swords were never described as being anything but his own dual swords, the setup just isn't there for a plot twist. Instead we have to reinterpret someone having dual swords to mean that they can come from anywhere, not just the wielder of the swords.

But I described why it isn't a retcon...

[quigonkenny]

Look at the TV Tropes line quoted above. A retcon requires a change in mind (or at least a settling of indecision) on the part of the author or authors. In order for any of this to be a retcon, Kubo has to have originally had a different idea of how it would go. The term itself is a concatenation of "Retroactive Continuity". It's the meta version of going back in time and changing history. We've seen enough foreshadowing to suggest that Kubo had at least some of these plot developments in mind from the beginning. Given how well it was written (how much it felt like the initial, executive meddling-free Soul Society Arc), the reveal of Masaki's Quincy nature was probably not a retcon. This development with Nanao and Shunsui feels the same, and has been well foreshadowed (Nanao and Lisa's similar appearances hinting at a former Shunsui love interest, Shunsui's flowered kimono hinting the same, Nanao's pointed lack of a Zanpakuto suggesting a special situation, and even Shunsui's often inconsistent Zanpakuto ability).

[itachi-san314]

^I don't know if there's a term for it, but sometimes authors will just make random choices with the intent of explaining it later. There's obviously no way to know for sure, but for example: "I'll draw Shunsui with a woman's kimono. Why? Who knows. I'll write about it 10 years from now."

[DerGilga]

wow, guess I got this totally wrong..

Spoiler for 652:

How old is Nanao during turn back the pendelum?

[quigonkenny]

Originally Posted by DerGilga

Spoiler for 652:

How old is Nanao during turn back the pendelum?

Not very, but clearly older than the child we see in those spoiler pics. Nanao in TBtP has gained her glasses, and has become a Shinigami (Kyouraku calls her the youngest in his division).

[necrolyte]

I always thought that bleach timeline is a mess so for me nothing changes with current chapters

On a different note I think that Nanao having this holy sword and Kyoraku hiding it for centuries is really an asspull and KT just thought of it on the spot. Even if he had it in his mind for a long time and foreshadowed it this Quincy is way out of her league and just some magic sword isn't enough to beat him(he should be way too fast for her to even hit him)

[The Green One]

Feels more like a "Crap I made the Quincy too invincible! I better give Nanao something to beat him with. I know, a sword out of nowhere! GENIUS!"

[itachi-san314]

Originally Posted by necrolyte

he should be way too fast for her to even hit him

That's the part that gets me the most. Even if her sword is the perfect weapon against him, she shouldn't be able to compete with his speed.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by itachi-san314

That's the part that gets me the most. Even if her sword is the perfect weapon against him, she shouldn't be able to compete with his speed.

Why not? He considers her to be even weaker than his previous opponent, he considers himself a god, and she's holding a blade that is shiny and irritating but it doesn't look like it can harm him. Even then, he still parries that attack and goes immediately into an overkill attack to prevent her from getting a second chance.

I certainly don't disagree that Kubo sucks at foreshadowing, though.

[DerGilga]

Not directly related to the chapter, but given that we have a litte more info on how old Shunsui is during turn back the pendelum, Yamamoto aged really badly:

One the other hand even 900 years can't tarnish true beauty:

Oh Yachiru, you died far to young!

[MCAL]

It seems that no matter how mediocre your shounen series can become you will always have a nicely done flashback.

EDIT: By the way, this is where Kubo probably got the Ise Family idea from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise_Grand_Shrine

[SeanQ]

vice captain > 0 squad > gotei 13???