Two in one, revisited
This time, I will end with a more serious, pressing issue because what you use as end material is usually what is impressed into someone's mind. Therefore, I will talk about Fate/Stay Night first. DO NOT SCROLL DOWN UNLESS YOU DON'T MIND SPOILERS (like me).
Now that I have spoiled myself with the synopses of the original Fate graphic novel, I can only say one thing--Shiro is BADASS. When I read the different scenarios it basically read like this: 1). Shiro's true power is actually this, which makes him badass 2). Shiro has another power that makes him kick metric tons worth of ass 3). Shiro is even more powerful and can kick so-and-so's ass like it were nothing (the only drawback is that Shiro is now an asshole). If you read the previous post, you would have learned that Archer (Rin's servant) is actually Shiro from the future. Since all the servants are supposed to be legendary heroes (Berserker is Heracles whereas Saber, oddly enough, is King Arthur), this clues you in to how much ass Shiro whips in the end. (It also makes sense that Shiro is Archer, since Shiro is a former kyudo-ka. What doesn't make sense is how he grows a foot taller and gets a bad tan). I now feel sorry that I thought of this series as a glorified version of Pokemon in which the Pokemon attempt to kill the trainers. I also feel sorry that I doubted Shiro and wrote him off as a typical Gamma Guy like all the other male leads of harem anime. (I haven't watched Tenchi Muyo and I frankly don't care to).
The only problem now is how the anime will turn out. It must be a task indeed to consider which scenario and ending to write into the show. Somehow, I think they must find a way to reveal the bombshell secret of Archer's identity no matter what scenario they choose (since after all, this is a one-shot thing and you hope your shot counts).
Now is the serious part. I spent the past several days languishing in despair over my essay. Now that I have three days left (including today), I now feel a sense of strange euphoria. I always seem to have that moments before a critical assignment is due or before a test starts. But before diverting myself to this endeavour, I did what all good essay writers do when making an essay from a piece of written work: SIT DOWN AND EXAMINE THE DOCUMENT, DAMMIT. I have also constructed, in my head, an alternate plan of attack in case I am ultimately dissastisfied with my current work (or more appropriately, if my TA is dissatisfied). Good essay writing, like good science, follows this maxim:
"If my approach fails, I must abandon it and construct a better one."
(Strictly speaking, this is a hypothetical imperative rather than a categorical one, if you would forgive the Kantian vocabulary. But in the middle of this gmish of responsibilities, I am also trying to internalize some readings). My previous approach was thus: Thesis (Candide holds an element of Leibniz's views but ultimately is more compatible with Bayle). Counterargument (Candide rejects Leibniz). Refutation (Candide holds this part of Leibniz). Further topics (Candide's views are better understood in the concept of Bayle, because etc.). The problem I have with this approach is that it seems to have two counterarguments that nullify each other and renders any discussion of Leibniz utterly useless (i.e. Candide doesn't reject Leibniz, but he doesn't affirm Leibniz that much really, so I wasted two pages of my effort and several minutes of your life).
This is another approach, but I may reject this one as well. You will see why further. Thesis (Candide is more like Bayle because etc). Grounding for argument (What is Candide's final understanding?). Comparison to Leibniz/Counterargument. Comparison to Bayle/Refutation and explanation why this is more satisfying. The reason why this fails in my mind is the inherent risk of plot summary, especially where explaining Candide's understanding is involved. Plot summary is just one of many ways to pad an essay. Padding an essay is much like padding a bra--it gives the illusion of substance where there is none.
In the end, rather than rejecting my previous approach, I think it would be better to refine my approach and think of a more satisfying counterargument.
Now that I have spoiled myself with the synopses of the original Fate graphic novel, I can only say one thing--Shiro is BADASS. When I read the different scenarios it basically read like this: 1). Shiro's true power is actually this, which makes him badass 2). Shiro has another power that makes him kick metric tons worth of ass 3). Shiro is even more powerful and can kick so-and-so's ass like it were nothing (the only drawback is that Shiro is now an asshole). If you read the previous post, you would have learned that Archer (Rin's servant) is actually Shiro from the future. Since all the servants are supposed to be legendary heroes (Berserker is Heracles whereas Saber, oddly enough, is King Arthur), this clues you in to how much ass Shiro whips in the end. (It also makes sense that Shiro is Archer, since Shiro is a former kyudo-ka. What doesn't make sense is how he grows a foot taller and gets a bad tan). I now feel sorry that I thought of this series as a glorified version of Pokemon in which the Pokemon attempt to kill the trainers. I also feel sorry that I doubted Shiro and wrote him off as a typical Gamma Guy like all the other male leads of harem anime. (I haven't watched Tenchi Muyo and I frankly don't care to).
The only problem now is how the anime will turn out. It must be a task indeed to consider which scenario and ending to write into the show. Somehow, I think they must find a way to reveal the bombshell secret of Archer's identity no matter what scenario they choose (since after all, this is a one-shot thing and you hope your shot counts).
Now is the serious part. I spent the past several days languishing in despair over my essay. Now that I have three days left (including today), I now feel a sense of strange euphoria. I always seem to have that moments before a critical assignment is due or before a test starts. But before diverting myself to this endeavour, I did what all good essay writers do when making an essay from a piece of written work: SIT DOWN AND EXAMINE THE DOCUMENT, DAMMIT. I have also constructed, in my head, an alternate plan of attack in case I am ultimately dissastisfied with my current work (or more appropriately, if my TA is dissatisfied). Good essay writing, like good science, follows this maxim:
"If my approach fails, I must abandon it and construct a better one."
(Strictly speaking, this is a hypothetical imperative rather than a categorical one, if you would forgive the Kantian vocabulary. But in the middle of this gmish of responsibilities, I am also trying to internalize some readings). My previous approach was thus: Thesis (Candide holds an element of Leibniz's views but ultimately is more compatible with Bayle). Counterargument (Candide rejects Leibniz). Refutation (Candide holds this part of Leibniz). Further topics (Candide's views are better understood in the concept of Bayle, because etc.). The problem I have with this approach is that it seems to have two counterarguments that nullify each other and renders any discussion of Leibniz utterly useless (i.e. Candide doesn't reject Leibniz, but he doesn't affirm Leibniz that much really, so I wasted two pages of my effort and several minutes of your life).
This is another approach, but I may reject this one as well. You will see why further. Thesis (Candide is more like Bayle because etc). Grounding for argument (What is Candide's final understanding?). Comparison to Leibniz/Counterargument. Comparison to Bayle/Refutation and explanation why this is more satisfying. The reason why this fails in my mind is the inherent risk of plot summary, especially where explaining Candide's understanding is involved. Plot summary is just one of many ways to pad an essay. Padding an essay is much like padding a bra--it gives the illusion of substance where there is none.
In the end, rather than rejecting my previous approach, I think it would be better to refine my approach and think of a more satisfying counterargument.
posted by Ingemar | 10:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home