[FFML] dredging up the old (reply to an ancient letter)

[DB Sommer]

Heh. In going through the old emails from *years* ago I realized I never 
replied to this missive from. I doubt there's enough interest to create 
any controversy, hopefully. But despite the years gone by I should have 
responded and am doing it now so it's not something I feel I left undone.

Nick Leifker:orm
[FFML] [critiques and other stuff] A most interesting day...
From: Nicholas Leifker <nightelf at thekeep.org>
Date: 2002-04-30 09:27:22+00:00
View Raw

Well. That was fun...

Let's see. DB accuses me of bashing;

% Actually I should have said 'the actions were identical to those of 
someone bashing a character'. Yes, there actually is a difference. And 
no, I was unable to discern the difference initially. Now I do. I would 
not call it bashing: just very poor writing when you're capable of better.

moreover, he does so in such a way
that I cannot honorably defend myself at first.

% I always kind of wondered about that 'honorable' part, since Nick did 
a fine job of defending himself. I disagreed with nearly everything, but 
he did defend himself in an articulate manner. It could be I'm just not 
seeing something about it, though, so I'll concede him that.

  And people wonder why I
get upset...

% No more than people wonder why i get upset :) I think we simply upset 
one another.


(sigh) Oh, well. I don't care anymore. I've seen similar petty
tactics used by Ukyouphiles and Akanephiles back in the days of Thy
Inward Love, Bitter End, and Iris; it's just their form of little
censorship, trying to get their versions of characters up regardless of
canon.

% Now this is... insulting. Very. I read the canon too. Your 
interpetation is stretched to say the least, in outright contrast to the 
source material in many places. Will get to your 'points' below that you 
mention. nice try though with the  'I have proof and you don't' tactic.

  I'm just saddened to see it from a group of fans that I'd held
in some esteem for not stooping to the tactics used then.

% I also love the victimization here on your part. 'People disagree with 
me. In fact whole groups are out to get me. I'm a victim of them. Boo 
Hoo.'. I don't think I've ever resorted to that sort of tactic about 
groups, though there are individuals who quite gleefully disagree with 
me vehemently. Ask Don Granberry for details :)

Just as an aside, the Knights of the Black Rose and the Church of Ranko
and Ryouga still haven't found reason to be upset with me. Give me a
few weeks; I'll find something. ^_^

Now, for those who demand explanation... I apologize if this comes in
one letter; there's too much to answer everyone one letter at a time.

Yes, it is canon.

% No, it isn't. (See below)

The extremism of Amazon law comes glaring through
from Shampoo's first appearance;

% I can't ever recall it taken seriously in the series, though. I guess 
you can say it sort of is in Shampoo's first story arc, but after that 
no one acts like its glaringly extreme after it, especially the Amazons 
in question. And yes, this is after reading the series. None of the R1/2 
characters act like its anything to worry about (you think Cologne would 
have tried *something* to force the issue if it was so deadly important) 
Outside of the her first appearance and the Reversal Jewel arc, (which 
was Ranma putting a noose around his own neck) she doesn't, and actually 
helps him at times. And it was never depicted that the law has people 
going on the homicidal rampage Nick describes (this is in reference to 
'No Dominion' BTW.)

  Shampoo's potential for demolition
comes through both at the beginning and at the end.

% Well, demolition, sure. But all of the fighting characters are like 
that. So I agree.

The idea that
Cologne dunked Shampoo as punishment is simple: the ghoul had to have
known about Jusenkyo's properties. Sending her there for retraining
could mean only one thing.


% That she didn't know what the cursed springs actually did. That is 
also easily interpeted from the source material. So while I actually am 
more inclined to agree with Nick that it was outright punishment, I 
disagree with there being more than one interpetation.



As to whether Shampoo threatens Ranma in 38
for her own purpose or on Kiima's orders is a matter of debate;

% True. I lean toward the idea that while you are under someone's mind 
control, and once released from it your actions immidiately change, that 
you probably weren't operating in your right mind before that. It might 
have also have been free will. So I don't argue that.

personally, I don't care, as long as both possibilities are there.
Sure, the portrayal in this work isn't flattering to Shampoo;

% In the same sense decapitation is 'sort of a wound'. She's solely 
depicted as a source of pure unadulterated evil who deserves the fate of 
being left in a heap of broken bones. Yes, the fact this is all done 
from Akane's POV is a limiting factor. Nonetheless we are given no other 
possibility that Akane's POV is anything other than correct, so the 
reader is forced to assume it is. There is nothing to imply 'reading 
between the lines' needs to be happening.

given
what's gone before, could you ever see Akane seeing Shampoo in a totally
favorable light?

% Let's see, Mousse tried to turn her into a duck in his first 
appearance, yet she  bore no grudge. She's been kidnapped, drugged, 
attacked, held hostage, embrarresed, humiliated, and a host of other bad 
things happen to her at nearly every adversarial characters hands 
multiple times throughout the series. Held grudges against any of them? 
No. Her forgiving nature is one of her most favorable character traits. 
So absolutely: it's what she does. It's almost as much a part of her as 
Ranma's competitive streak is to him. The idea that you find her ability 
to forgive Shampoo in a favorable light after Mount Phoenix astounding 
makes me wonder how close you actually read the series yourself. It's 
absolutely in her character and the pattern she's followed to date.

% Now let me add if Nick wants to say the bombed wedding was the straw 
that broke the camel's back on Akane forgiving everyone all the time, I 
can believe that with very little  character twisting. But citing her 
holding a grudge as part of a 'canon' argument? Ah, no. I don't buy it.


The argument has come up from those who concede the canon argument that
'wouldn't it be better if it wasn't in, or if J. Random Character did
it?' My answer is, simply, no. Conflict happens; it what develops
characters. No conflict means shallow characters.

% One of the points I raised is that this is not conflict. There is no 
tension. Everything is pointed out after the fact. It's has all the 
conflict of a passing remark. It does not deepen Akane in the slightest. 
Every bit of Shampoo could have been cut (just as Kodachi is never 
mentioned in the entire piece), and no one would have felt anything was 
missing from the fic.

  Besides, some sort
of climax must be reached with the fiancees regardless. That's the
powderkeg the characters are dancing on; once Ranma makes up his mind,
it's going to explode.
And, with the ingredients listed above, the
possibility of Shampoo seeking Akane's life is quite possible.

% Except, (and here's the most damning part of your whole 'but it's 
canon' argument which you rely so heavily upon.) We know *exactly * what 
would happen if Ranma tried to marry Akane: It's called vol 38. Yes, 
Takahashi wrote it out (albeit, an unsuccessful attempt at a wedding) 
but  an attempt nontheless. So we know how the characters react to the 
situation, having  you know, gone through it once already. What you 
wrote was not remotely it. Shampoo did not turn into the homicidal 
maniac trying to decapitate Akane right in front of Ranma  you depicted. 
She bombed it, right alongside the curiously absent Ukyou from your 
story, with a decided lack of fatalities or even maimings. Damaged 
Ranma, but  Ukyou was helping Shampoo with it, and combined they still 
didn't do any more damage to him than when Ryouga  learns a new technique.

% So Nick, you changed things drastically from the canon. Of course, 
ooddles of fanfic  does this (boy, have I ever  done it). Hell, it would 
be boring if everyone wrote the same thing over and over again. What one 
of the goals as a writer to do when changing it though is to provide an 
explanation to the reader why these changes occurred. Good writers do 
this (with varying degrees of success at times, myself included) bad 
writers don't, or fail miserably at it. I can see a number or scenarios 
that take Shampoo down the path you want: You used none of them. There 
is no explanation for the changes: she just turns  homicidal and it's 
treated as though it's perfectly normal for her (yes, Akane's tone does  
indicate this, as does her hatred of Shampoo in every instance you use 
her). Yes, the POV you used limits things, but as a writer, a good one, 
you have to at least try to explain it and you seemed astounded anyone 
would feel you need to. And no, saying "there's a really good reason for 
the change, I just can't bother to explain it to you' is not a valid 
technique. It's a cop out. If anything, that could be used for any 
seeming OOC behavior in a story which would make even the worst of 
writers not bother with explaining the personality change. Just assure 
the reader there's an off camera reason and move on with Soun having sex 
with Kunou.

% As to many readers not raising an eyebrow to it. To a large degree 
it's fanfic convention and a lot of bias (Aside: You want to see 
irrational hatred of a character folks? Check out some of the venomous 
bile slung in the archive's earlier days in various Shampoo threads. A 
lot of them are writers that were' big names' at the time, so you can 
see where fanfic convention shaped a lot of biases.), which you followed 
to a 'T'. DNR/DNU was one of the earliest works that established this 
pattern and many writers followed until people use it as a guideline 
more than the actual vol 38. What I would have loved to see was Ukyou in 
that role of homicidal wedding crasher. Of course that would have raised 
a hue and cry, and not just the fans of her. In fact, you could have 
actually provided Akane explaining the behavior with something along the 
lines of:

"Akane looked down at the battered chef. Apparently after living three 
quarters of her life fixating on Ranma and seeing her chance at him 
really and truly lost, she had finally snapped. Akane rubbed her throat 
at what the very sharp blade of that spatula had almost done to her.

% I not only changed the character with no problem, I provided a reason 
for the behavior using Akane's POV in a couple of lines. Some readers 
might not buy it, but at least it's an effort. Hell, it was easy and off 
the cuff

One other thing: never tell me to pull my punches.

% I don't know as anyone did that.

As for it being bashing... DB knows my record; he should know better.

% Clarfied above

I'm generally known for giving flattering portrayals of the China Gang,
especially Shampoo and Cologne.

% Actually if I recall Nick's works that I did  read, no, no they 
weren't. I suppose if the reader comes from the Bader school of 'I like 
Akane just fine, as long as she's treated like the violent gorilla she 
is', it might be. But as someone that does like the characters that was 
not the impression I got.

For him to even insinuate that what I
wrote is bashing is beyond ludicrous. I should possibly ask for the
removal of 'Borrowed Time'

% I believe this is the one that gave her a 'gracious death', because of 
Ranma's actions and nothing bad happened to him (I believe it glossed 
over the fact when he defeated her 'officially' in the Reveral Jewel arc 
he knew exactly what he was doing,)  Umm, yeah, that's really... favorable.

% Actually no, it explains a lot. A whole lot. Even more than the words 
you used earlier.

  from the various archives out there; maybe
then he can convince everyone that I'm actually out to slander Shampoo's
name.

The possibility has come up from Nidoking that I should add some
explanation in my work as to why Shampoo did it. At the risk of
sounding rude, there are times when this tactic is acceptable, and times
when it's not.

% When it's OOC behavior like this, yeah, you do need to or it's poor 
writing.


This definitely falls in the latter,

% Umm. No. It doesn't

due both to
elegance and to continuity of perspective. This is a story where less
is more;

% And cutting it entirely would have been making it less and it turning 
out to be more: it wouldn't stick out like the sore thumb it is.

adding some bit talking about the whys of it would stick out
like an I-beam welded to the side of a Chevy pickup.

% It actually does, hence why I mention it. And I'm not the only one.  
Of course you are under no compulsion to change a word: you're the 
author and its your baby. I just didn't buy your explanations and found 
the writing weak in regards to it. Pity.

% I cut the rest because it was thank you's to others. was just 
responding to these bits because, well, I didn't before. And now a bunch 
of people will probably look up ND. to see what I was talking about. Heh.



-- Nick