#he also had not one but two terrible mentors that enforced the negative parts of his personality | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nanami-says · 3 years

Text

Part III (1/2): chapters 19-25

Vs. Mahito Arc

Chapter 19 (aka why this blog exists)

J:”Yeah, we know that. But we flatter her because she looks easy.”

⇒ ”And the three of them know it as well. But they flatter you exaggeratedly anyway because they think you’ll let them do you”

Actually Junpei’s lines.

J:”I can’t believe people like that go to my school.”

Not incorrect, I just want to point out that Junpei didn’t just say “people”, the word he used is “race” (人種）, which implies he doesn’t see them as the same kind of human he is.

J:”Was it that guy who did it? There’s no way a person could do that! If he did it, he must not be human.”

⇒ “Was it that person just now? No, would such a thing be even possible for a human being? And if it was, would they really be a ‘human being’?”

Overall correct but the flow was different. Mind you, 人 can be translated both as “person” and “human being” (among others) depending on the context. Imo this captures the nuance better but YMMV!

N:”I’m here to identify the truth and uphold the law. There was a time when I thought the society had the same goals”

⇒ ”Adapting to the facts [in front of you] and managing yourself accordingly. That’s who I am. There was a time where I mistakenly believed society operated on the same basis.”

This was really hard to translate, especially since the phrase Nanami uses here is rather formal language. I actually checked the official anime subtitles for this one and they went with “I adhere to the facts and judge on that basis”, which I guess is close enough? I’d probably go with it as well if not for the fact that he doesn’t just say 律する but 己を律する (己/onore = I/me in humble language).

Seems like the exact meaning of the phrase is difficult to understand even for Japanese people - there are whole articles out there breaking down the meaning and giving examples of how to implement it in life 8D Anyway, the simplest explanation is “to control yourself”, with further nuance of “enforcing rules on yourself in order to achieve a goal”, “restricting your desires and impulses by your own will” etc.

Thanks a lot, Gege.

Btw, Ino, who respects Nanami greatly and considers him a mentor, actually uses the same phrase, word for word, in ch. 95! (事実に即し、己を律する) That’s how important it is. Also, continuity!

Y:”Let’s do it!”

N:”There’s no need to get excited”

⇒ Y:“Let’s go all out!!”

N:”No, if moderate’s enough, let’s just do it moderately”

They both used descriptors for just what kind of intensity they should approach the mission with. Imo, an important distinction because after they learn the full extent of the situation, Nanami takes back his words from this moment and agrees with Yuuji, going as far as to use the same words Yuuji did here.

N:”I wonder what others would think hearing you say that”

⇒ “I’m sure the others wouldn’t want to hear that from you [of all people]”

So not so much “don’t be rude” as “dude, you’re the weirdest of them all”. Emphasis mine.

N:”What I learned at Jujutsu High is that jujutsu sorcerers are idiots”

& “What I realized while at the office is that work is idiotic”

He actually says “shit” both times lol. If it was just the humour that suffered here, it still wouldn’t be too awful but unfortunately it’s not just that. The “sorcerers are shit” line gets recalled when Nanami’s facing death, trapped in Mahito’s domain, which makes it pretty damn important. It gets translated yet differently by the official release then, too, which further damages continuity I believe Gege intended for this.

”So I took the lesser of two evils. Nothing more, nothing less”

⇒ “If both are shit, then I just chose the one I’m more cut out for. That’s all as far as the reason for my coming back is concerned.”

I mean, if we realllllly insist on watering down everything that Nanami says (as JJK translators apparently did), then the basic meaning was conveyed but the original wording and nuance was closer to what I proposed.

N:”Prove to me that you can be useful in spite of the demon Sukuna inside of you”

⇒ “Give your best to prove that you’re useful despite carrying the bomb that Sukuna is.”

Considering how 2 pages later Nanami tells Yuuji that he’s not the one Yuuji should be proving himself to, it’d have been weird if this is actually what he’d said, wouldn’t it. But Nanami’s nothing if not reasonable, so that wasn’t the case.

Y:”I’m weak and useless. I’ve been hearing a lot of that these days”

⇒ “That I’m weak and useless... I’ve been realising that to a painful extent these days”

“I’ve been hearing it” would imply that someone was actually saying it either to Yuuji himself or to others which he was aware of. (I mean, other than Sukuna.) The original wording doesn’t really hold such connotation.

N:”If you think you’re in trouble, let me know”

Y:”Have some faith in me, will ya? Just a little.”

N:”It’s not about faith.(...)”

Y:”A child? I’d rather be underestimated”.

⇒ N:“If you decide you cannot win, please call me.”

Y:”Aren’t you underestimating me too much?”

N:”This is not about ‘underestimating’ or ‘not underestimating’.(...)

Y:”[Even] being underestimated would’ve been better over being treated like a kid.”

I guess the translators wanted to avoid saying “underestimate” 3 times in a row? Albeit that’s what the original does.

More importantly though!!

N:”I’m an adult and you’re a child. I have the obligation to look after you”

⇒ “(...) It’s my obligation to prioritise you over myself.”

Quite a different nuance, right. Not just “I have to look after you” but “your well-being [life] takes priority over my own”.

N:”Experiencing these little losses is what helps people grow into adults”

⇒ “It’s the accumulation of such small despairs that turns people into adults”

Not that wildly different but despairs (hopelessnesses) >>> losses, y/y. Also “helps” made it sound more positive when it’s both a poignant and at the same time dry statement.

Chapter 20

N:”There are techniques that aren’t affected if revealed to certain enemies”

Those two feel more like separate examples to me. I.e. that there are techniques that aren’t affected if revealed, and there are some enemies that you can afford to reveal your technique to. Could apply simultaneously but don’t necessarily have to, if that makes sense?

“There is a merit to revealing one’s hand and the rules it initiates. You can make your technique even more effective.”

⇒ “It has its merits too. The ‘binding’ of ‘revealing one’s hand’ amplifies the effectiveness of your technique.”

Wild lost “binding” appears! Like I indicated before, it’s the lack of consistency to translating terms that are consistent in the original, that has negatively affected the fans’ ability to understand the basics of jjk techniques and world-building.

[Explaining Yuuji’s divergent fist]

GJ:”But it’s a lot easier said than done for anyone else.”

⇒ “It’s not something that can be easily done on purpose”

N:”His physical strength is superhuman. The impact of his hit doesn’t have incredibly strong energy, but it’s still about 20% more than a normal sorcerer. That means his delayed hit comes from his main source of cursed energy. It must be quite annoying for those on the receiving end. Such potential. If he’s able to go out all and combine his full physical strength with a cursed technique…”

⇒ “(...) The initial impact contains little cursed energy but it still achieves 120% of an average sorcerer. And then the actual cursed energy hits with a delay. For those on the receiving end it must be more unpleasant than one could imagine. And he’s got potential for growth, too. If he becomes able to add 100% of cursed energy to a 100% body…”

Uhh, this was a tricky one because on the first read it doesn’t seem that terribly wrong but when you read the original carefully, you realise this and that got lost in translation. My version should be closer to the original meaning.

I:”We’re going to have to ask the murderer about the technique”

⇒ “That’s just something that you can’t know unless you ask the offender about their technique”

Obviously Ieiri wasn’t suggesting to literally ask the murderer.

“However there’s evidence the brain stems were modified. Their consciousness were also modified to create a state of confusion”

⇒ (...) This was probably done to create a disturbance of consciousness... a state of mental confusion”

Slightly different nuance for this one.

Y:”For me, the gravity of death is the same regardless. This isn’t right!”

First sentence is mostly correct but it should’ve been “the gravity of death of another person” (emphasis mine).

Second sentence sounds too mild for what is actually Yuuji being super mad specifically about the way those people were killed? The phrase he uses means something like "This is just in way too poor taste”, “way too vulgar” etc. I guess if you went for a less literal translation, you could say “just too disgusting”/”revolting”.

N:”This matter won’t be taken care of so easily. Let’s do it”

⇒ “Looks like ‘moderately’ won’t be enough here. Let’s go all out.”

This is the instance of Nanami retracting his words and backing Yuuji up by borrowing his own words that I mentioned earlier!

M:”Jujutsu sorcerers brand such entities as “special grade potential spirits” and fear them as much as powerful curses. The fact that they categorize them as such really shows their shallowness”

⇒ “Jujutsu sorcerers register them as “special grade potential apparitions” and remain on alert against them [on alert for their appearance]. The same applies to powerful unidentified curses. That they categorise them as ‘potential apparitions’ just shows how little they truly see.”

It’s not that sorcerers fear them per se but that they (most likely) monitor them and are on guard against them. When followed up by the “what people truly genuinely fear are natural disasters [forces of nature]” conversation, it becomes clear that what Mahito scorns sorcerers for is their short-sightedness for thinking all powerful curses must be born out of people’s imagination, ~urban legends~ etc.

[Junpei asking what Mahito was born from]

M:”Thanks to the hatred spewed between people I was born”

⇒ “I’m a curse born out of the fear and hatred people harbour towards [other] people"

or even

“I’m a curse born out of people hating and fearing people”

Again a quite different nuance. They really shouldn’t have edited “fear” out.

Chapter 21

J:’Don’t you think that whoever first said, ‘The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference’ must be rotting in hell? There’s no way hating people is better than feeling indifferent towards them.”

⇒ “(...) There’s no way that approaching others with evil intentions is better than not interacting [with them] at all”

The first sentence is mostly fine although the original doesn’t include the “is not hate” bit, it only says “the opposite of love is indifference”. The second part is quite different. After all, hating doesn’t necessarily imply there’s any action taken.

“Complicating simple things for the sake of meaning is such a Japanese thing to do”

⇒ “Japanese sure love it - complicating simple answers and gloating in it”

I didn’t like the “for the sake of meaning” bit, imo it’s over-interpreting.

J:”Indifference. That’s what humans should strive for.”

M:”Sounds more like revenge”

J:“Are you saying that I got it all mixed up?”

Junpei’s first line here is fine although interestingly enough he puts it as “a virtue humans should strive for”. Then it’s

⇒ M:“And yet you wish for revenge”

J:”Are you trying to say I’m contradicting myself?”

M:”In this world, only I understand the soul’s composition. I can even transmogrify living beings. Emotions come from the soul. It’s too simplistic to call it ‘heart’. People overthink the things they can’t see. (...)”

⇒ “In this world I’m the only one who understands the soul’s composition. After all, I change the shape of living beings by touching it. Emotions are products of the metabolism of the soul. It’s altogether too mechanical [of a process] to call it a heart. People assign too much value to things invisible to the eye.(...)”

Last one is literally “consider ‘special’ way too much”, simpler wording than what I went with but I tried to make it more legible.

The “metabolism of the soul” phrase is especially vital because Junpei throws it at Yuuji almost word for word when confronted by him at the school after his mother’s death.

More philosophy lessons from Mahito-sensei \o/

“Don’t limit yourself to just being indifferent. There’s no reason to live by such a restricting philosophy.”

⇒ “Don’t allow yourself to be shackled by the ideal called ‘indifference’. There’s no need for there to be consistency in one’s way of life.”

Mahito actually takes the “is ‘consistency’ necessary” stance a few times in the manga, including when he and Getou squabble about the relationship between the body and the soul in Shibuya. A pity about the mistranslation here.

“I support everything you represent, Junpei”

⇒ “I’ll affirm your everything, Junpei”

Imo the act of supporting and the act of affirming while similar aren’t one and the same, hence the change.

N:”Either come alone, or risk bringing Itadori with me. I chose the former, nothing more. He’s still a child, after all.”

⇒ “The risk of venturing [into the enemy’s territory] alone, or the risk of bringing Itadori-kun with me. I simply chose the former. He’s still a child, after all.”

Idk, I feel like cutting out “the risk” from the first option makes Nanami sound more callous? Like Yuuji’s a liability and going by himself is a sounder option. Whereas, it was actually him weighing two risks against each other and deciding that potentially endangering Yuuji is the one he can afford less.

[After Yuuji asks why he doesn’t know important jujutsu related stuff.]

I:”Because Gojou’s your mentor.” ⇒ “it’s because Gojou’s ...”

He actually uses a lovely adjective to describe Gojou, which can mean a plethora of things, including: irresponsible, sloppy, lazy, unreliable, careless, perfunctory etc. etc.

Ichiji? Not a member of Gojou Satoru Fanclub.

Y:”This feels like a bad plan”

⇒ “This feels so staged, I don’t like it.”

Lit. “play [perform, read] one's own work”. I think what Yuuji might’ve meant here was that the plan felt dishonest? Second sentence could also be “I don’t feel up for it.”

Chapter 22

M:”Was that some kind of cursed technique?”

N:”What do you mean by ‘some kind’? I don’t appreciate questions that are left open to interpretation”

⇒ “(...) I hate abstract questions that put the whole burden on the other person”

Lit. “that leave it to others”. Other than Nanami being more straightforward with “hate”/”dislike”, I think this was him expressing he doesn’t like people who don’t even try to think for themselves and immediately demand answers from others instead.

“It would be silly to not assume a connection(...)”

⇒ “It would be more unnatural not to assume a connection(...)”

Different wording (unnatural instead of silly), which imo affects Nanami’s characterisation.

M:”The shape of the body will always be dependent on the shape of the soul”

This sounds a bit too passive and generic? Closer to “The shape of the body gets pulled along by the shape of the soul”, which is literally what Mahito’s technique does.

I’m heavily paraphrasing but!

magazine raw scans: ”it's 6:30 PM now and I started working at 11 AM, so I'm going to finish by 7PM no matter what”

official English release:”it's 5:30 PM now and I started at 10, gotta finish by 6”

The time change is so random, I wonder if Gege simply changed it themselves for the volume release. Maybe to bring it closer to the common office job times? Typical Japanese work day at the office begins at 9AM and lasts 8h + 1h break (completely unpaid but compulsory). I guess if Nanami skipped the break then working 10AM-6PM would make it exactly 8h?

The biggest mystery of jjk.

Chapter 23

M:”Even if sorcerers can protect their bodies using cursed energy, they can’t protect their souls”

⇒ “Even if sorcerers can protect their bodies using cursed energy, they [just] aren’t used to protecting their souls”.

So it’s not that they “can’t” as in “are incapable of” and more that there’s never been the need, so they never learned how and aren’t used to doing it. As proven by Yuuji later it’s not impossible.

M:”Overtime? He restricts himself based on time! He was limiting his power until now!”

⇒ “Overtime work? A ‘biding’ based on time! He was suppressing his power by himself until now!”

Another instance where “binding” as a term makes its appearance (it even uses quotation marks) but wasn’t properly denoted by the translators.

M:”A large-scale attack, and he doesn’t care if he gets hit while doing it!”

⇒ “A large-scale attack [done] with the resolve of [potentially] getting killed along with me!”.

The phrase Mahito uses here is 相打ち, lit. “killing [hitting] each other at the same time”. Also, “doesn’t care” and “is prepared/has the resolve” are quite different, aren’t they.

Chapter 24

J:”The way a perfectionist is willing to lay everything out there is beautifully portrayed”

⇒ ”The change in emotions [leading up] to a perfectionist abandoning everything is properly portrayed here”

I’m including this because knowing Gege, it’s not just simple movie talk, and it’s actually foreshadowing Yuuji’s future fate or something 8D

I can’t decide if it’s “abandon” (also “throw out of the window”) or “sacrifice” because the word used can mean either. I’m leaving that to everyone’s interpretation.

“Like I thought, that sorcerer’s nuts!”

⇒ “He doesn’t look it but he sure does reckless things, that sorcerer”

How does "he doesn't look it but (...)" even become "like I thought (...)"? He was laughing at and enjoying the contrast between Nanami's appearance/attitude and his actions/fighting.

M:”My cursed energy is also controlled by my will”

⇒ “The spending of cursed energy too is among things I can supply by myself.”

I’m not entirely sure because it’s a tricky one, so take this one with a grain of salt. But the official release is definitely missing “spending/expenditure” and Mahito isn’t talking about using/manipulating his cursed energy in general but “the amount of cursed energy spent”.

“Mr. Irresponsible Gojou” ⇒ “Devil-may-care Gojou-san”

“Mr. Mature Nanami” ⇒ “The adult of [all] adults Nanami-san”/”the adult above all adults”

I just really enjoy Ichiji and his little epithets, I guess.

J:”Have you ever killed anyone?”

⇒ “Have you ever killed a human being/another human?”

Just putting it out there because imo there's a distinction between “anyone” and “a human being”. Especially considering how much of this arc was questioning what being a human means.

Y:”Um… I mean, the choice to kill will definitely find its way to me”

⇒ "How to put it... once I've killed someone, "killing" would become one of the possible options [to take] in my life".

Maybe the nuance was there in the official release too and I just didn't pick up on it but to me the former makes it sound more like he’s saying "I may still have to kill one day". Whereas the original seems to hold the connotation that if you do something once - even if it’s something as horrible as killing another human being - it becomes easier to do it again in the future because it's a choice you've made before, it's not untouchable anymore.

Chapter 25

[Yuuji expressing his regret over Nanami choosing to go fight Mahito alone.]

"Am I in your way, Nanamin?”

⇒ “Am I a burden [to you], Nanamin?”

A different nuance for this line.

“’My friend died but I wasn’t there because I’m a child.’ I wouldn't do that to you. That said"

⇒ "’My comrade died. But I wasn’t there. Why? Because I am a child.’ I would hate something like that" [to be put in such a position]

And this is just pure mistranslation. The whole “my comrade died but I wasn’t there because I’m a child” line is actually Yuuji painting a possible scenario (he does it with short sentences but the speech is overall polite). What they translated as “that said” was actually a follow-up to that scenario and could be translated as “something like that”.

N:”Being a child is not a bad thing”

⇒ “Being a child is in no way a crime”

I wanted to point this out since the original word’s most common meaning is actually “sin”, which is significantly heavier than just “not a bad thing”. Could also go with a milder “is not something to feel guilty about” here I guess.

G:”How’s the curtain coming along?”

M:”Can’t get in, can get out. This only applies to humans with weak cursed energy.”

⇒ G:”What’s the effect of the ‘curtain’?”

M:“Can't get out from the inside, can get in from the outside. (...)”

Literally the opposite for the curtain’s effect. Emphasis is Gege’s, too! Also Getou’s question was actually about how exactly the curtain in question would work, and not just how it was coming along.

M:”We’ll make them fight and force Yuji Itadori to make a binding vow in Sukuna’s favor”

Just to reiterate, whenever “binding vow” appears, it’s actually just “binding”.

[to part iii (2/2)]

#jujutsu kaisen #jjk #jujutsukaisen #jjktranslation #jjk translation

89 notes · View notes

padme-amitabha · 4 years

Note

Is Anakin and Vader the same person?

I think I have talked about this before but I’ll reiterate the main points.

Of course they are the same person at different points in life. I don’t choose to follow Disney’s interpretation of anything about Star Wars. They hire writers and pay them to write their own fanfiction and interpretation and it’s far from George’s vision so I don’t see any reason to. Only 1-6 movies are canon to me with few exceptions such as 2003 Clone Wars and a few legends material but I’ll always put more emphasis on the movies.

Now from Revenge of the Sith movie we see Anakin become Vader (and by that I mean undergoing a surgery and being put into the suit). While the mask is being lowered we can see the fear in his eyes and his face is still recognizable. Fast forward 23 years and there’s no reason to believe he’s a different person. The only time he talks about his name is when Luke brings it up and he says “that name no longer has any meaning for me” not “I destroyed Anakin” or something similar to that. He is completely right because obviously it doesn’t hold any meaning for him - everyone who called him and knew him by that name (Shmi, Obi-Wan and Padmé) were all dead and his master called him Vader. And he had gotten used to the name in over two decades. Also, Palpatine probably preferred that he distance himself from his past hence referring to Luke as “the offspring of Anakin Skywalker.” Vader wasn’t a personality; it was just a new name he went by and since the mention of his real name brought back unpleasant memories he tried not to think of himself as the same person as a coping mechanism. This is why Vader tells Luke it’s too late for him to redeem himself - because he knows he commited some terrible deeds and hurt his loved ones and he can’t ever take that back. If he wasn’t Anakin, he wouldn’t feel that guilt or remorse for Anakin’s wife and mentor.

It’s the same as Padmé in TPM really - we see Padmé first as Queen Amidala who is a regal authoritative figure and then we see her true self when she’s in disguise.

Anakin winced, then quickly picked up another holograph, this one showing Padmé a couple of years later, wearing official robes and standing between two older and similarly robed Legislators. He looked back at the first holo, then to this one, noting that Padmé’s expression seemed much more severe here. “My first day as an Apprentice Legislator,” Padmé explained.

Then, as if she was reading his mind, she added, “See the difference?” Anakin studied the holograph a moment longer, then looked up and laughed, seeing Padmé wearing that same long and stern expression. She laughed as well, then squeezed his shoulder and went back to her packing.

Anakin put the holographs down side by side and looked at them for a long, long time. Two sides of the woman he loved.

This is from the AOTC novelization and this can be applied to Anakin as well. (More about similarities between Darth Vader and Queen Amidala in this post.) Just like Queen Amidala is really Padmé Naberrie, in the same way Darth Vader is really just Anakin Skywalker.

The reason why he has a different demeanor in OT is mostly due to his age and because he had years to adapt to his new persona. Vader in ROTS didn’t immediately become all stoic and impassive - he got very emotional on hearing Padmé’s death just like he would as Anakin. Vader isn’t some kind of demon possessing Anakin - Vader is Anakin after he has lost everything and he isn’t holding back as he did as a Jedi. It sounds very poetic to state both Anakin and Padmé died on the same day but Anakin truly didn’t though. Anakin lived on for years and died a redeemed man on the death star. The ROTS novelization supports this and it was approved by Lucas so it’s authentic to me.

And there is one blazing moment in which you finally understand that there was no dragon. That there was no Vader. That there was only you. Only Anakin Skywalker.

That it was all you. Is you.

Only you.

You did it.

You killed her.

You killed her because, finally, when you could have saved her, when you could have gone away with her, when you could have been thinking about her, you were thinking about yourself …

I do think it was Anakin who choked Padmé on Mustafar even though some people like to blame it on “Vader”. Anakin was unhinged on Mustafar but even in the beginning of ROTS, he was beginning to show some aggression. Though people complain the first part of ROTS is slow and too much happens in the latter half and he falls too suddenly, that’s not the case. This moment has been building up from the very first movie to the first half of ROTS. The fall isn’t just that one action of attacking Mace Windu, he was gradually falling to the dark side for years starting from his mother’s death and he only made the actual decision in the rumination scene. That’s when he finally sheds a tear and makes the conscious decision to join the dark side.

For the record, I think conflict has always been a part of Anakin Skywalker. The prequels portray him in a negative light, particularly in the last two films. Anakin in the movies is a very, very flawed individual and even meant to be unlikable at times. He struggles with his emotions, he struggles to communicate with others and he struggle to fit in the order. I wouldn’t say he was mentally stable either - he could be unpredictable and his actions depend on his mood. But the movies also show the good aspects of him, especially about people he cared about. He even starts off as a kid with a good heart. The conflict and his flaws cause him to fall to the dark side and his good qualities (like selflessness and loyalty when it comes to family) ultimately redeem him.

So I don’t think “Anakin” was the good side of him and “Vader” was the dark side. Vader is Anakin after he has lost everything he cared about and since he is not a Jedi anymore he is no longer required to hold back on anything. Ambition and desire to rule the galaxy is often associated with “Vader” but I think people forget Anakin was just as ambitious and in ROTS being denied the rank of Master deeply upsets him and increases his resentment towards the Jedi. He admitted that he wanted more in ROTS even though he knows he shouldn’t. He also told Padmé in AOTC that he would prefer dictatorship over democracy so it’s not like his ideals changed either. Vader until he discovered he had a son had no interest in ruling the galaxy. Later on he essentially offered Luke the same choice he gave Padmé on Mustafar. From the conversation in AOTC, it seems he’s more dissatisfied with the system and being from a lawless and harsh world he sees dictatorship as the solution. While he doesn’t want to actively take part in it, he wants to enforce the system which is exactly what he does later on (and perhaps he preferred leaving the actual ruling bit to Padmé or Luke). I don’t see Vader as “evil” - I mean the only times he killed people were for failure and he did keep Admiral Piett alive since he proved to be competent. Vader in OT (when Luke isn’t concerned) is just doing his job and punishing inefficient people who aren’t letting him do his job. He only serves the emperor and does his bidding. After Luke rejects his offer, Vader still plans to seek him out but in ROTJ his resolve definitely grew weaker and it’s more like he’s imploring him to reconsider than being forceful.

Anakin as we have seen in AOTC is very much capable of mass murder (and confessed that he felt they deserved it) so should he really be defined as the good side? You could even argue as Vader he killed people for legitimate reasons whereas Anakin killed defenseless people when he was blinded by rage. And even in ROTS he kills Dooku as revenge. I’m not saying Anakin is evil (that would be grossly oversimplying things); I am saying he was a complex character. The reason why he turned out the way he is has already been explored in the prequels but I also believe it’s a combination of nature and nurture. Anakin as a child has a good heart, wants to help others and free the slaves but in TPM script/novelization he lashes out at a Rodian who claims he won the race by cheating, meaning he didn’t handle accusation very well. It might be dismissed as a childish reaction but we see he struggled to control his temper in later years as well. A person has both good and bad qualities and that’s the case with Anakin here, though his negative traits were expressed more. But the prequels are all about exploring his downfall so it was necessary to highlight them.

Anakin to me was never a “hero” who fell to the dark side due to circumstances; he was a complex character who made some hard choices. If the roles were reversed and Padmé was the Jedi with Anakin’s life at risk, I don’t think she would go that far to commit murder. Sure Palpatine is very manipulative but at the same time he understood that it was in Anakin’s nature to be manipulated very easily. You need to have some form of fear, insecurity and resentment in you for someone to utilize them.

I blame TCW, Rebels and the fanboyish Marvel comics for dissociating Anakin from Vader. “Anakin Skywalker was weak, I destroyed him” again makes him very one-dimensional than accepting the fact that people can be morally complex. Not to mention the Marvel comics’ tendency to make him react violently and unnecessarily ruthless to prove he isn’t Anakin drastically reduces his character depth for me. It may also have to do with the fact that movie Anakin was not well-received so they are trying to distance him from Darth Vader, whom fanboys worship. Anakin’s story is incomplete without Vader - he made a choice to embrace the dark side and sacrifice his morality so like the tragic hero he is, he has to suffer and face the consequences for his actions. Similarly, Vader’s story is incomplete without Anakin - without Anakin he is a faceless man. Sure he’s mysterious but without his past we would not know what a complex character he was or sympathise with him.

If Vader wasn’t really Anakin, he wouldn’t have felt remorse for his actions or believe it was too late for him. If he wasn’t Anakin he wouldn’t refer to Luke as his son and if he was so desperate to erase any trace of Anakin, he would have definitely killed Luke as he was a reminder of his past. It was Vader who saved Luke in the end and while it is fine to figuratively say “Anakin was back”, taking it literally undermines his sacrifice. It takes a lot to come back from the dark side, face your demons and after being that way for decades, attempt to redeem yourself when you believe you’re far too gone. He redeemed himself as an old man after a long life full of sorrow and regrets, which also sounds much better than saying “he was evil no longer” and that “Anakin was back”. It makes everything seem black and white and the prequels were essentially all about exploring the gray area. Luke didn’t even know “Anakin” and really where was Anakin when “Vader” cut off his hand? Or fought him? Vader’s inner struggle was between accepting he was far too gone and going on as he did for years, and accepting change, letting it go and forgiving himself for his son’s sake - not a struggle between two personalities fighting to take control. If they were different personalities, Anakin wouldn’t have almost all of Vader’s qualities; he wouldn’t be morally conflicted both as Anakin and Vader. George said the reason why he later replaced his force ghost as a younger version was because he stopped being Anakin after he fell to the dark side and I have to say that’s the only time I disagree with George because Anakin in prequels still had dark tendencies so I do believe Vader never stopped being Anakin hence the original version with the old force ghost made more sense to me and the new version does rob some of the depth from his character. I’m sure George has his reasons - he might have wished to preserve the black and white simplicity of the OT but after the complexity of the prequels, it seems more appropriate for the saga to have a more imperfect, realistic ending. In retrospect, it seems to me they are very much the same person when you study his personality and consider his whole life, which was full of ups and downs.

#ask #my thoughts #anakin skywalker #darth vader

15 notes · View notes

thehuggamugcafe · 6 years

Text

Wammy’s ABCs: B

Aristotle once said: “All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsions, habit, reason, passion, and desire.” All of us could relate to the most obvious of these selections: chance. It was chance that brought us to Wammy’s. Another of these apparent choices are compulsions, habit, and reason–for we all have habitual motions, and compulsions that drive us to act and react, positively and negatively. Reason became our second nature, bit by gradual bit. Logical reasoning, persuasive reasoning, argumentative reasoning, and other such ways to influence others.

I’m sure I needn’t tell you that this isn’t always the case for everyone. Whether they’re charismatic or outgoing, or if they prefer solitude and the quiet melody of their own thoughts, it’s not the same. Everyone is different. It’s just one of the few things that are known and rarely questioned amongst humans nowadays.

For B, his main causes were nature, habit, passion, and desire. His nature was that of... something that I am still uncertain of even to this day. He was very unnerving to new arrivals, but the disdain and distrust commonly stemmed from the teachers, staff members, and the other students. He would sit and stare at you for ten minutes straight, unblinking.

Just to see if you’d turn albino and run. Most of us did just that, especially the girls and younger orphans. This didn’t help matters, of course. Roger acted especially cold towards him from the very day he came to Wammy’s, probably due to B’s red eyes that stared at him with nothing more than callous amusement, a note of sneering contempt hanging onto his speech whenever he spoke to the old man.

Habit was also an obvious thing to notice around B. He saw no reason to get to know me, no desire to want to know me either, but he didn’t seem to mind if I sat near him. Not next to him; only R, M, and N were the ones who were granted his silent consent to be near him, speak to him. As I’ve already said: B didn’t mind my silent observations, the occasional skritch of my pen as I took quick notes.

The first of B’s habits that I took immediate notice of was his own quiet surveillance. He could sit and immerse himself, emotionally, into what others were saying, how they spoke to friends, how they carried themselves around rivals and acquaintances. Thirty minutes later he would recite everything, and I do mean everything, ten people said perfectly to himself as he trotted down the halls.

Another habit of B’s was how he always seemed to copy R to a certain degree. Nibbling on his thumb. Slipping his feet out of beaten sneakers, and rubbing the bare soles together in thought. Putting unhealthy amounts of sugar in his coffee or tea. Crouching in an awkward-looking sitting posture in class, outside, on furniture. I rarely saw him go an hour without eating candy or chocolate; I even caught him putting strawberry jam on his ice cream one warm August day.

Suffice it to say: B had many habits, as we all do. I don’t have the luxury of writing them all down, for I never witnessed all of them.

B’s final quirks were his passion and desire—about the three orphans he was on friendly terms with: M, N, and R. The desire to ensure that his friends were happy and safe. The affection that drove him to react negatively, violently, when their safety and well-being was threatened.

I always had the sneaking suspicion that he was passionate about love and perhaps something else, something I couldn’t put my finger on. Maybe he, like many males, was also driven to have children someday. His own flesh and blood that loved him as he would love them.

B stood for before. He came here a day before R did, and thus his alias stuck almost automatically; B was the one who suggested it to begin with, or so I’ve been told by rumourmongers. Roger didn’t bother arguing.

B stood for brilliance. He was brilliant often without trying. Other times he had to work hard, very hard, to achieve satisfactory results. Sometimes that alone wasn’t good enough.

Unlike R who was a natural genius. R, who could walk into an exam and score 100%. R, who only had to take in whatever information that lay before him once, and he’d know it by heart. B strove to remain behind R, always a rank below him. Always one or two marks shy of tying R with first rank, if not becoming the new number one.

It’s possible he held an unvoiced envy of his friend for that. What R achieved so flawlessly, B sometimes worked diligently to get. I think he disliked himself for that–for allowing R to snag first so easily, and that B handed R such an easy victory. This was easily accomplished by intentionally getting a question or two wrong on House Tests. That was another of B’s quirks: he lived for a good challenge.

Reiteration is a terrible habit, but here it is: B’s eyes, his dark red eyes that scorched whenever he dared to look your way, varying in degrees of cold and warmth depending on his mood, and whether or not he knew you. Toleration or intolerance was also a big factor for B. He would usually just stare for a long time—always with those red eyes that seemed to linger on some point above our heads, and he would neither smirk nor smile. Just take note of whatever it was that he could see, but we could not, and walk away.

I once cornered him alone, and dared to ask him what it was that he could see. He told me the name I didn’t remember having. He also mentioned that it wasn’t until his mother died that he knew something else, but what it was, he didn’t say. Not to me, but perhaps he confided in R or M.

He was number two out of everyone, destined for greatness long before he came to Wammy’s. He was not incapable of human emotions, but he possessed an abundant quality of basic ones long before his first birthday. Simple and regular qualifications for an extraordinarily gifted orphan.

B stood for the second-best, second-brightest, the back-up of a back-up plan. Something which I’m sure he absolutely detested. B had no intentions of going into law enforcement. He showed more interest in art-related subjects than complex Physics formulas.

As I mentioned before, there were those among us who felt we were entitled to the greatest mind, the most protected, of a world-renowned investigator. The one who taunted the criminals he hunted from the shadows. The one who we all strove to surpass, to step on, to step over.

Or so we believed.

B began to show acute signs of disinterest in the institution after he and R finished with their graduation ceremony, just a few months shy of turning eighteen; his unvoiced boredom only increased by tenfold after his other two friends graduated. Being number two, this wasn’t a grave concern; for someone who constantly craved a challenge, B became bored quickly and quite often.

However, after three days passed, and he missed a grand total of eight days worth of college aptitude tests and entrance exams, the matter was brought to Mr. Wammy. The stupid, well-wishing adults never did much—if anything at all—before it was too late. Mr. Wammy meant well more than any of our mentors did.

His intervention came too late, however. B had already left the institution long before anyone had even thought to check up on him—and it wasn’t just him that had pulled a disappearing act worthy of Houdini himself; M, N, and R had also vanished. There was never a maximum age to leave Wammy’s House. You either left or you stayed behind. Those that remained at the orphanage became part of the staff, watching over and nurturing the young geniuses that walked or were carried through its doors.

Those who left generally became a part of the criminal system. The ones who commandeered over Wammy’s House kept tabs on all of its graduates and runaways, to see what they were up to, whether for reputable or deficient intentions. B, M, N, and R all left without informing anyone where they were going, and what they would be doing. A thorough search of their rooms yielded no clues, either.

I suppose that was enough to sound the alarm to whoever it was that needed to know, enough for Mr. Wammy to call an official global search for the missing orphans.

The B who snuck out of his room at night to visit his three friends. The B who lashed out violently when he deemed it necessary, especially when it concerned his three friends. The B who ate sweets on a constant basis. He was gone. Vanished without a trace.

I was told six years after he and the other three left that he took up residence somewhere in Canada, going to an esteemed art college and, eventually, he landed a largely successful career as an artist. He was married to N, and asked R to lodge with them in a fairly large house; M was situated in an equally-spacious condo somewhere not too far away from him. A regular orphan’s dream, but not a Wammy kid’s dream.

B was never your run-of-the-mill orphan, certainly not a normal Wammy orphan either. Sometimes visitors to his house say that they can see two little boys, one black-haired and one blond, playing in the yard. Occasionally they’ll rest on the grassy hill that makes up their backyard, staring up at the crisp blue sky. If they’re lucky they’ll see the black-haired clone of B take his little brother’s hand, and guide him into the art room, admiring their father’s work and him praising them on their own handiwork.

And maybe, just maybe, B’s guests will get to see the ghost of a smile crease his lips.

B once told his friends of the exact hour that he finally got the shade of his mother’s eyes right. It was all he could talk about for the entire day, too.

Of course none of us ever saw him when he disappeared, filtering like a forgotten mist through our minds. It was probably a lie, meant to be fabricated so we’d leave him alone. But if he wanted us to leave him be, why did he leave a portrait of him and his friends behind before leaving?

Some say that if you’ve looked into the eyes of the devil, it’s the last thing you see. Fire burning into your eyes like white-hot coal. Cold hatred. Apathy at its finest.

Me, I know better.

#Death Note #OC #Death Note OC #Wammy's ABCs

2 notes · View notes

mrsteveecook · 5 years

Text

my coworker doesn’t follow her own fragrance ban, my mentor got fired, and more

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. My coworker doesn’t follow her own fragrance ban

I have a coworker who’s sensitive to smells. It’s so bad that our entire office is under a strict “no heavy perfume or scented lotions” rule. The person who’s “sensitive” is so sensitive that she claims to get asthma from strong scents. She has been known to stand over people with her hand in front of her face “gagging” or complaining of migraines from a smell she smells.

Here’s where the hypocrisy comes in. She herself wears a perfume DAILY. And it’s not just a light pleasant aroma that’s barely detectable. Oh no — it’s actually gag-inducing and lingers for a half an hour if she’s used a room for something. She’s hugged me for various accomplishments and then I was stuck with that scent until I walked outside to air it out for 15 minutes.

Is there a tactful way to approach her, because the rest of the building adheres to a rule in place FOR HER, but yet she doesn’t adhere to it.

People who have bad reactions to fragrances don’t always have those reactions across the board — one scent might set someone off while another doesn’t. So the fact that she has at least one fragrance that she knows is safe for her doesn’t mean that she’s misrepresenting her fragrance sensitivity in general (which I think is what you’re implying, based on your language here).

However, if there’s a fragrance ban in your office, she needs to follow it. She might be figuring that it was put in place for her and she knows what will and won’t set her off so she can wear things she knows will be fine for her — but that’s not how this works. There may be others there who need the ban as well but who didn’t think they needed to speak up about it because it already existed … but even if there aren’t, it’s an office rule and she needs to follow it. And really, that’s in her best interests anyway, since otherwise other people will figure they can get lax about it too.

Ideally you’d talk to her directly: “Jane, you’re wearing a scent that I seem to be sensitive to. Can I ask you not to wear it to work, in line with the office rule about fragrances?” But in this case, you sound so frustrated with her (and like you’re longer in a mindset where you can give her much benefit of the doubt) that you’re better off having HR handle it; otherwise this seems likely to go badly. It’s reasonable to ask HR to enforce this kind of policy; just be sure when you talk to them that you frame it as “this is giving me a physical reaction” and/or “can you help enforce this policy?” and not as “Jane is a huge hypocrite.”

2. My mentor got fired and now I’m questioning what she taught me

I started a new job in payroll last July and on my first day got paired up with Jane, a current employee. Jane had been handling most of my job for a few months and also had years of experience with payroll even though she was in a different department here. At the time, Jane was presented as an excellent resource for me to find out about the job and the company as a whole. We even were given an office to share, so she would be readily available to answer any questions that I had. We had many long conversations about her experience and opinions of the company and her input really shaped my impression of my job.

Six months after I started, Jane was fired. Since then, I have heard snide remarks about Jane from others in her department that she was not a good employee.

I have not been able to reconcile the first six months of working with Jane with this new information. Even though I didn’t take all of her advice, I did listen to everything she told me and believed much of it because of her experience. For instance, she told me a particular manager was terrible at his job (a position that she had before), yet I have heard positive feedback about him from others now. Should I forget everything that Jane told me? How should I filter out the good from the bad?

Do what you would do if you’d never had those in-depth conversations with Jane: form your own impressions, based on your own experiences with people, and reserve judgment about people you don’t work with yourself.

It’s possible that Jane’s impressions were all pretty right on. It’s also possible that they were way off, or somewhere in between. You’ll probably have a better idea of how you rate her accuracy once you start forming your own impressions and can check how well they line up with what she told you. You might find you come to similar conclusions, or really different ones. Stay open-minded and see what happens.

One thing to think about though: If Jane was very quick to share negative opinions about others when you started, that’s actually a strike against her. People with good judgment usually don’t rush to dump negativity onto a new hire and will be more discreet. So if looking back, that’s what happened, I’d bring some additional skepticism to bear.

3. My boss cancels our check-in meetings because he has schedule conflicts

I have a recurring 1:1 with my boss every two weeks. More often than not, he’ll cancel or reschedule and just say, “I have a conflict.” I can see his calendar and it’s usually because he’s attending another meeting.

I’m an associate level employee but not new to the workforce (had a career change), so I’m not wide eyed and frightened to make mistakes and speak up like many of us were right out of college. I do understand managers get called into other priorities. But corporate culture also made me sit through a course on micro-aggressions and suggested that when people do things like this, they are basically saying “you’re less important than this other thing.” I don’t think it’s that extreme, but I’ve only been on his team for six months and I would think he’d want to do a bit more to help me feel acclimated, included, and comfortable. He often reminds me that he has an open door policy, which is fine, but he also agreed with me from day one that 1:1’s are a good way to check in.

Am I overreacting? Over-thinking? Or am I in good standing to say, “When you reschedule our biweekly check-ins so casually, it makes me think that 1) you can’t manage your own time so you can’t manage me, 2) you are making me feel alienated on this team and 3) I don’t trust you have time for me”?

I wouldn’t say it like that, but it goes along with that fact that I’m not brand new to the workforce: I have less patience for managers who can’t seem to manage and I don’t know how to politely say what I need anymore. The other wrench is that in six months I barely have any work assigned to me, so the 1:1s aren’t really necessary other than a forum for me to say that I’m waiting for work and doing my best to stay busy. I don’t have a reason to visit him otherwise (open door policy) so I feel I personally need these scheduled sessions to check in.

Your take on this is way more aggressive/negative than it needs to be, to the point that it’s slightly alarming.

By all means, if you want to meet with your manager more regularly, tell him that! It’s fine to say, “We’ve been canceling a lot of our 1:1s and I’d really like to make sure we meet regularly. Can we make a point of rescheduling for the same week if you need to push it back?” Also, when he cancels, you can reply with, “Can we reschedule for tomorrow afternoon?” or “When is good for you to reschedule?”

But seeing this an indication of disrespect or an inability to manage his own time or you is reading way too much into it, and is way too adversarial. Frankly, if you don’t have a lot of work going on (which is a separate issue), it’s not surprising that he figures there’s not a lot to meet about (you acknowledge in your letter that they’re barely necessary!), and he’s probably relying on you to speak up if you do need the meeting that week.

The lack of work is a legitimate concern though. If you haven’t already, I’d address that head-on, say that you really want to do the work you were hired for, and try to find out what’s going on and when that’s likely to change.

4. My coworker keeps texting me about non-emergencies

I work at a small nonprofit that’s recently experienced a lot of staff turnover. When I was helping to onboard two new admin colleagues, I explained that my work email doesn’t forward to my phone once I’ve left the office but that they could have my cell phone number so they always had a way to get in touch if there was an emergency after hours or on weekends.

One of them has only texted once, with something both time-sensitive and important. The other texts me regularly on my day off, or early in the morning and late in the evening on work days, about things that are work-related but not even close to being emergencies. At first I tried not responding to non-emergency texts that came on my day off, but got more texts and an in-person “are you getting my texts? I’m not sure if they’re going through.” I explained that they’d come in while I was busy with other things, which took priority because it was my day off.

The last time I got a text before 7 am, I replied, “Let’s talk about what to do about the problem when I get to the office.” Which worked for that day, but hasn’t stopped the bigger issue of getting woken up by work texts. My colleague is retired and working for us part-time, while I’m newly married and work 50-hour weeks. I mention this not as a judgment or competition, but because I expect that she may have more mental/emotional space to devote to our organization outside of our set work hours. (This dynamic, though, also makes addressing this more complicated — I’m in my mid-20s, but have been at this job for years and have a relatively senior position on our small staff. But I feel like a little kid around her, and don’t know how much of that is me feeling self-conscious about my youth, and how much of it is me actually being treated like I’m more junior here than I am.)

I like her! Do I just ignore texts that come in at all odd hours? I’ve tried subtlety in explaining that any work that *can* wait for office hours will have to wait for office hours, but to no apparent success. If I have to have a more direct conversation about this, what do I say?

Stop with the subtlety and just tell her directly! You can be really matter-of-fact about it: “I apologize if I wasn’t clear when I gave you my cell number. It’s for emergencies only. Please always email me rather than texting, unless something is true an emergency like (example) or (example).” That it! She might feel a little embarrassed to realize she’s been doing it wrong, but so be it — a little embarrassment isn’t the worst thing in the world, and there’s no getting around that if you want this to stop.

Then if you get another non-emergency text, ignore it until you’re back at work, at which point you can say, “Like I said, please do not text me unless it’s an emergency. Instead, please email me about things like (latest example).” And if it still continues: “For some reason we’re having trouble straightening this out! I really don’t want work texts unless it’s an emergency, so going forward I’m not going to respond to texts until I’m back at work.”

You’ve been expecting her to pick up on hints — which would work with many people. But it’s clearly not working with her, so you have to be more direct.

5. Will I look like a jerk if I clean my new office’s disgusting kitchen?

I recently started a new job and the office is less than glamorous, which is usually the nature of my job. However, the shared kitchen space is disgusting — and everyone seems ok with that. The microwave isn’t cleaned — like it REALLY isn’t cleaned, there are food crumbs all over an old tablecloth, and the room just smells like dust.

Do I come across as a jerk or someone who thinks they are better than those existing in a gross space by discreetly cleaning out the appliances I intend to use to heat up lunch once in a while? I’ve been trying to tackle small stuff while I heat up lunch when nobody is in there, so I am being discreet so as not to come across as uppity while I am new and forming a reputation.

It’s unlikely that people will think you’re expressing contempt for them through cleaning; if anything, they’re likely to appreciate someone is cleaning, or they might feel mildly embarrassed (sometimes when someone new arrives on the scene, you suddenly realize what your office must look like to a newcomer’s eyes).

I wouldn’t go in there with a mop and cleaning bucket and wipe down all the walls or anything, but wiping out the microwave and sweeping crumbs into the trash aren’t likely to come across as Making A Statement.