I'm the one saying that this shit is beyond reason.
He's just being snarky and One Piece is not an high-drama story so it can't be a prose.
I'm the one saying that this shit is beyond reason.
He's just being snarky and One Piece is not an high-drama story so it can't be a prose.
@joekido:
He's just being snarky and One Piece is not an high-drama story so it can't be a prose.
Yeah I know. He's trying to downplay the stuff to end up being right.
He does it a lot by bashing a character, or stressing a trivial point for his perspective to shine.
It doesn't work that way in something about what is a PROSE or a VERSE– it's only one or the other, not "both" since a VERSE is the basic, and a prose is pretty much everything beyond.
What does your professor tell you about one piece AGOG? Or your teacher?
There was one more, as Silvers Rayleigh explains Roger's ability to hear the voice of all things, it also reflects similarity to Luffy's ability where he could understand and hear what others normally didnt.
Haki and Nakama are magic words that can never be translated. The end.
What does your professor tell you about one piece AGOG? Or your teacher?
I don't know… You haven't instructed me about what to do. Please, guide me great Monkey.
my sharp, thin posts fire directly into the eye of your soul
Shakespeare is better in its original Klingon.
Also AGOG, do you really believe that One Piece being Japanese disables our ability to analyse and appreciate it at a deeper level?
Take for instance the Bible. Do you think it is impossible for us to learn, analyse, find symbolism etc within that, simply because it wasn't originally English? What about other countries, can they not enjoy it as English speakers do?
What about great philosophers, Epicurus, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Marx, Malebranche. Do you think that because these are translated that somehow we cannot practically find meaning from them?
It's ridiculous for you to tell others not to even try, because the fact is we ought to try. You can read this for fun and leave it at that, that's fine; I'm not going to put anyone down for enjoying simply for the sake of it.
However, don't you think that we should pose questions to what we are reading? Get significance out of a wider variety of our interactions?
Yes, the context may be displaced. But what context isn't? Do you think that someone in modern day who reads The Taming of the Shrew shouldn't be able to make comments about feminism since that was non-existant in Shakespeare's time? Do you think someone shouldn't be able to critise another culture simply because "you don't understand it"?. The fact is there are no absolute truths in this world, and everything is left to our interpretation. What matters is our logic - our reasoning behind each interpretation.
I'd really be interested to see what you think of this, perhaps I am over-reacting but I think it is a legitimate issue you need to consider in your life.
The reaction to this sort of idea is the opposite of what I thought it would be here. I agree that One Piece is written primarily to be an engrossing story and since the emphasis is placed on the plot progression and characters over the prose itself, it's hard to analyze it as a piece of literature. However, Oda does pack the thing full of allusions, scenes of dramatic irony, foreshadowing, framing, pathetic fallacy, etc, and I think it is pretty interesting to analyze it. Again, Oda isn't adding these things because they're literary techniques and as such they make a story intrinsically better; rather these things are literary techniques because they occur so naturally and almost always help the story convey its message in an interesting way.
I don't know if I support the idea of adding a Wiki subcategory or whatever, I don't know much about the One Piece wiki. I do like the idea of trying to find examples of these, though, and I don't think it's over analyzing the story by any stretch, nor do I believe much of these sort of things are lost due to the translation.
I created a should-be unbaised blog about this subject
Oh and I had to scrap the Nick Simmon blog. Sorry.
@robbybedfart:
Haki and Nakama are magic words that can never be translated. The end.
To be serious I think no matter how good the translator is, a perfect translation in literature, for most parts, is impossible, unless the two languages are somewhat similar. IMO to gain the perfect understandings of the meanings of words like Haki you have to know at least one of those languages: Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Sino-Vietnamese… for similarity in cultures and language systems.
The closest translation to Ha in this case, in my opinion, is Dominative. And ki is ki. Aura would be good. Ki can also mean something a person radiate (mainly the eyes), from which you can feel some of his quality or nature or intention.
Dominative Aura, or Overwhelming Aura, are the best I can think of. Will Pressure would be good too.
Off topic: After reading Y The last man i realized English is pretty sexist, LOL (no offense). Many languages I know have more gender neutral words. While I am typing this on my computress, my sister is praticing swordswomanship kendo. Soon she will gain a power godly goddessly enough to be a protectress of mankind womankind humanity.
EDIT: I agree iwth brennen: http://apforums.net/showpost.php?p=1218725&postcount=1788
Also AGOG, do you really believe that One Piece being Japanese disables our ability to analyse and appreciate it at a deeper level?
Yes.
Take for instance the Bible. Do you think it is impossible for us to learn, analyse, find symbolism etc within that, simply because it wasn't originally English? What about other countries, can they not enjoy it as English speakers do?
Yes, no language compares to the Original Version of the Bible. Furthermore, the original is always referred to by every literal "professional" that interprets it, not the English/ Spanish/ etc. versions.
What about great philosophers, Epicurus, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Marx, Malebranche. Do you think that because these are translated that somehow we cannot practically find meaning from them?
Ditto. We can't get the full meaning unless we read it in their native tongue– which hones the meaning of each words.
Trust me, Latin words are far more informative in their original language than when transformed into English. Same with Marx and so on...
It's ridiculous for you to tell others not to even try, because the fact is we ought to try. You can read this for fun and leave it at that, that's fine; I'm not going to put anyone down for enjoying simply for the sake of it.
To disrespect the work by blatantly adding incorrect content– do so if you please. Again, I don't believe you can even do this correctly unless you understand every single part of the language-- the puns, etc.
However, don't you think that we should pose questions to what we are reading? Get significance out of a wider variety of our interactions?
Creating a database of information to be presented as "research" isn't the same thing as what you'd be doing with this incorrect attempt to follow English translations of a Japanese work… You're just sugarcoating the whole book, and reading 4Kids dub to the people. Unless you can reference the Japanese text, it's pretty pointless.
Yes, the context may be displaced. But what context isn't? Do you think that someone in modern day who reads The Taming of the Shrew shouldn't be able to make comments about feminism since that was non-existant in Shakespeare's time? Do you think someone shouldn't be able to critise another culture simply because "you don't understand it"?. The fact is there are no absolute truths in this world, and everything is left to our interpretation. What matters is our logic - our reasoning behind each interpretation.
I strongly agree on the bold. You ought to never do that, never!
As for The Taming of the Shrew– depending on what sort of "feminism" you're trying to go on about-- it's not a good example for this reference. Old(er) English isn't "false" the only issue is that Shakespeare often decided to make up words, which we can't exactly define the meanings behind them.
Your logic is "wrong" if you want to do it without respect to the original-- you don't get it yet, right?
I'd really be interested to see what you think of this, perhaps I am over-reacting but I think it is a legitimate issue you need to consider in your life.
I'm puzzled what you were trying to do: help make my point stronger, or the fact that you failed to impress me..?
Interesting points there AGOG but a scholar such as yourself shouldn't make such mistakes, Shakespeare's plays are written in Middle English not Old English
this is Old English
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning!
ðæm eafera wæs æfter cenned,
geong in geardum, þone god sende
folce to frofre; fyrenðearfe ongeat
þe hie ær drugon aldorlease
lange hwile. Him þæs liffrea,
wuldres wealdend, woroldare forgeaf;
Beowulf wæs breme (blæd wide sprang),
Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.
from Beowulf
brief note: this letter "þ" is "thorn" the coolest letter there ever was, and is used to represent "th" it was later misunderstood to be a stylized y, hence "ye" for "the" and "you" for "thou"
æ is long e as in demon, right?
as far as I now yes I am not up on pronunciation lol
the point of my comment was though if you (AGOG) are wrong on the little stuff how can we accept the big stuff.
as far as I now yes I am not up on pronunciation lol
the point of my comment was though if you (AGOG) are wrong on the little stuff how can we accept the big stuff.
LMAO!!
You've got some nerve, but do try so… Do try. Point is strengthened, not weakened... :happy:
Edit:
There, I fixed the problem there, thanks though. I hope you get the idea from there...
We aren't missing anything but tiny jokes and a few clever puns, all of which are not important to the overall One Piece message and idea.
AGOG is a dumbass.
For the most part, no, One Piece is not lost in translation. There are small exceptions though, but as long as we keep that in mind, there shouldn't be a problem in translating anything in One Piece (haki and nakama included, but again, need side notes)
There may also be references to Japanese myths/pop culture that westerners do not get, but again, not a big problem.
Btw, Jerk Disease, no need to state the obvious.
We shouldn't be rude with the dumbasses. Everyone is child of the Sea.:happy:
@Sea:
We shouldn't be rude with the dumbasses. Everyone is child of the Sea.:happy:
This Sea must be a real whore. No offense, but that's where logic took me.
This Sea must be a real whore. No offense, but that's where logic took me.
Thank, son, I will report that to my ruler The ruler of the Sea, Edward Newgate.:happy: That line above was stated by Whitebeard himself.
We were in the contest: "Who will have more children" And I won.
p/s:
Your user title should be: "R.I.P Fire Fist Ace" or "R.I.P Magma-fisted Ace".
Umm… Pardon?
Are you trying to say that my ideal, Perona, is yours????
I know it's already been posted, but seriously it works.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnePiece
Umm… Pardon?
Are you trying to say that my ideal, Perona, is yours????
It's a literary technique.
Get on topic.
I know it's already been posted, but seriously it works.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnePiece
Most of it seems dumb to me.
Perona is a part of the topic… So, it seems you ought to relate more towards the topic than you currently do...
I was reading this thread and was surprised at the lack of actual relevance to the topic at hand. What was supposed to be "let's discuss the literary techniques" became "let's discuss why one piece should or should not be a literary piece of work".
So, i'll just write what i feel Oda has attempted with literature. Please do feel free to criticise where you feel i've made a mistake. I am no literature expert, but please bear with what i have to say.
That is to say, if we are to believe that Luffy is the man who will become the Pirate King, that is to say the Strongest Man in the World, then Blackbeard is foreshadowed to be the man who will achieve the same in a very different manner. We get the sensing, just from this simple scene alone, that Blackbeard is going to be Luffy's arch-nemesis in time to come. And indeed he has, if recent chapters are anything to judge by. I believe this technique is known as "Juxtaposition".
The way Oda uses old enemies powers, like Crocodile's Sand powers to escape, and Mr. 3's powers to evade Magellan's powers, is a form of "Irony", as common a technique as it may be.
"Flashforward" was used in Zoro's fight against Ryuuma, also Brooke's Shadow.
Oda uses "Pathos" to appealing to readers' emotions when dealing with Luffy's crisis when he loses his nakama and later on, Ace.
There are probably a bunch out there I haven't yet noticed, but these are some. As mentioned above, please feel free to dispute.
We are complaining because someone wants to make a super collaborated project to define all literal terms that are used in OP. This someone also doesn't seem to care if his "stuff" are not as accurate as he initially asked for; giving respect to the natural language.
With that, a bunch of whining started and the bickering ceases to end…
So AGOG, you're a believer in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis then?
So AGOG, you're a believer in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis then?
To some extent, you could say "yes" …
We are complaining because someone wants to make a super collaborated project to define all literal terms that are used in OP. This someone also doesn't seem to care if his "stuff" are not as accurate as he initially asked for; giving respect to the natural language.
With that, a bunch of whining started and the bickering ceases to end…
We're looking at literary techniques.
@JERK:
AGOG is a dumbass.
I was reading this thread and was surprised at the lack of actual relevance to the topic at hand. What was supposed to be "let's discuss the literary techniques" became "let's discuss why one piece should or should not be a literary piece of work".
So, i'll just write what i feel Oda has attempted with literature.
And what is literature?
- Let's first start with the the main antagonist of One Piece: Blackbeard. I always found that Blackbeard's introduction very interesting. At the very first instance we see him, he was at a bar, sitting right next to Monkey D. Luffy, our main protaganist. There, he and Luffy squares off in their first match: over food! BB claims that they "cherry pie tastes so good i wanna die!" while Luffy says the exact same thing, only replacing the word "good" with "bad"! The same happens with the drink, only in reverse. Here, I believe that Oda was attempting, through the use of comedy, to produce a foreshadowing of the type of man Blackbeard is going to be. His characteristic is almost parallel to that of Luffy's, with extremely opposite tastes!
So? It's a mini-effective thing that some people will pick up on.
1. This sort of thing is pretty commonplace.
2. It doesn't really have any sort of major resonance aside from ADVERSARIES LOL.
3. Why should we waste time catalouging this?
- The way Oda uses old enemies powers, like Crocodile's Sand powers to escape, and Mr. 3's powers to evade Magellan's powers, is a form of "Irony", as common a technique as it may be.
See all three points above.
- "Flashforward" was used in Zoro's fight against Ryuuma, also Brooke's Shadow.
2,3
- Oda uses "Pathos" to appealing to readers' emotions when dealing with Luffy's crisis when he loses his nakama and later on, Ace.
Are we seriously going to call "sympathy 4 character" a technique?
To some extent, you could say "yes" …
Good, it's a rediculous theory and you're a rediculous person.
@JERK:
And what is literature?
So? It's a mini-effective thing that some people will pick up on.
1. This sort of thing is pretty commonplace.
2. It doesn't really have any sort of major resonance aside from ADVERSARIES LOL.
3. Why should we waste time catalouging this?See all three points above.
2,3
Are we seriously going to call "sympathy 4 character" a technique?
blah blah blah.
Look, the point of this forum is to find out what techniques are used, and not debate on whether a certain technique used is "commonplace" or "deserves to be used". I don't care if the technique is commonplace, or if it deserves to be mentioned. A technique used is still a technique used. This is just a contribution to the OP's intentions. All 3 points you mentioned are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Seriously, is there anyone up for real intellectual debate here? Apforums is just so rife with trolls these days.
blah blah blah.
Look, the point of this forum is to find out what techniques are used, and not debate on whether a certain technique used is "commonplace" or "deserves to be used". I don't care if the technique is commonplace, or if it deserves to be mentioned. A technique used is still a technique used. This is just a contribution to the OP's intentions. All 3 points you mentioned are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Seriously, is there anyone up for real intellectual debate here? Apforums is just so rife with trolls these days.
You're a fucking moron if you don't get the point of people debating the validity of the entire project in the first place, and just slope into some lazy bullshit with accusing any form of dissent "trolling".
Crying like a bitch over this is the very antithesis of intellectual debate.
And so is pointlessly pointing out standard structural elements in a pulp story.
Don't even talk to me about creating discussion. You can't touch me on it. Let alone most "trolls" on here.
sigh…
Seriously, anyone?
Listing techniques is intellectual debate? When did that happen.
sigh…
ok, my apologies if i sounded rude just now. I certainly didn't mean it, and i certainly don't mean to argue with anyone for a reason so small.
My only question is, what's with all the hate? It's just a topic for discussion, and what the original poster intends to do with all the replies he receives really is his own business. If he succeeds, good, but if he fails, then it's his own fault. Why try to find fault where it doesn't help anyone at all?
What I mean by "debate" is whether the techniques i claimed that Oda used really is considered a literary technique, or maybe it could be termed differently.
Stuff like " all this is pointless" never really passed as a real point in an argument... I mean, it's not that i'm saying you can't comment so, it's just i don't see why you have to convince everyone the same. Do you like, have an innate desire to see people fail right from the start? I say, let the bugger have a go if he wants to. If you don't think it'll work, just watch it fail, you don't have to have a hand in it. You'll never know if you had then not interfered, he might actually have succeeded, right?
I hope i'm making some sense here. Do feel free to point out where my thought process has gone wrong.
you seem to think bad discussions turn themselves off
!
you seem to think bad discussions turn themselves off
Where this discussion is headed, i wish it were so.
But yes, I do believe that bad discussions kill themselves eventually. The only questions being how so, and after how long.
But some good discussions die off pretty prematurely too. Sad.
But yes, I do believe that bad discussions kill themselves eventually. The only questions being how so, and after how long.
five billion years
You should post your views in the "next crewmate" thread.
Ugh should i even ask why? What the hell is up with you people that you must talk to me in such an ill manner?
I didn't do anything!
Ugh should i even ask why?
But yes, I do believe that bad discussions kill themselves eventually. The only questions being how so, and after how long.
I'd have thought you'd have wanted to see empirical proof that bad discussions can live forever. No?
What the hell is up with you people that you must talk to me in such an ill manner?
sigh…
Ugh should i even ask why? What the hell is up with you people that you must talk to me in such an ill manner?
uGszS-AasPk
Enjoy your stay.
that was a gay finishing move.
He has a strong join date so you have to play a more decisive youtube video. You still have much to learn young swordsman
sigh…
ok, my apologies if i sounded rude just now. I certainly didn't mean it, and i certainly don't mean to argue with anyone for a reason so small.
You don't close Pandora's Box.
My only question is, what's with all the hate? It's just a topic for discussion, and what the original poster intends to do with all the replies he receives really is his own business.
So shut up and stop talking for him. Especially when we know Joe ten times better then some lurker account.
If he succeeds, good, but if he fails, then it's his own fault. Why try to find fault where it doesn't help anyone at all?
Never criticize anything!!!! It's is mean and unproductive!!!! I'm a literal baby who has only just beenn born!!!
What I mean by "debate" is whether the techniques i claimed that Oda used really is considered a literary technique, or maybe it could be termed differently.
Things you don't get to decide:
-what is or isn't up for debate
-what is or isn't debate
Stuff like " all this is pointless" never really passed as a real point in an argument…
The question "why" is the most important question of any in any scenario. If you don't have your why established don't do anything.
I mean, it's not that i'm saying you can't comment so, it's just i don't see why you have to convince everyone the same. Do you like, have an innate desire to see people fail right from the start?
No you dumb nancy, I genuinely think this is a bizarre wronghead venture encouraging a stunted understanding of creative writing techniques.
What the hell is the deal with people who immediatly discount negative things as being utterly motiveless and without credibility?
I say, let the bugger have a go if he wants to. If you don't think it'll work, just watch it fail, you don't have to have a hand in it. You'll never know if you had then not interfered, he might actually have succeeded, right?
You're not even making any sense. Succeed at what? Fail at what? You're not even talking about the scenario in question. Just throwing random words at it.
I hope i'm making some sense here. Do feel free to point out where my thought process has gone wrong.
As I recall you said this the first post then threw a tantrum the next. Look forward to tantrum 2.
Go back to lurking.