On myself
By education, I'm first and foremost a sinologist, though having had enough years of study in Japanese (first to aid my primary studies) to be able to watch most shows in raws and really appreciate the level of translation many fansub groups offer.
By specialisation, I'm a historian and linguist with regard to pre-dynastic China, with a recent interest in pre-modern trade routes.
By interest, I'm a historian, mainly dealing with pre-modern Europe and its connections with Asia, and focusing on pre-modern economics.
By occupation, I'm an editor for an academic publisher, mainly dealing with the field of sinology, and a reviser/terminologist for a translation services bureau, focusing mainly on legal cases in a European context. (So I'd like to be able, in my free time, to finally not mind errors of spelling, grammar and style overly much.)
On messages, friends and clubs
As my work is mainly commission-based, my work days and hours vary greatly. Add to that the fact that I'm a particularly slow writer (and a rambling one at that) and this will mean that I'm often unable for quite longish stretches of time to reply to any message, or only very succinctly.
That said, I try to reply to each and every message or comment I get when able to.
Everyone is free to send a friend request. I don't dismiss random friend requests out of hand, especially not if they're accompanied by at least something of an introduction. Elitist bastard that I am, I generally will have a look at the type of conversations someone has with others and accept or decline based on that.
I will decline most club invites or will be only present as a ghost member, for the simple reason that I'm busy enough as it is. The fact that I have something in my list is not a reason for me to accept an invite to a club focused on that, nor is the fact that I like it if the club in question is little more than an appreciation club. There has to be a purpose and focus to the club for me to accept.
On my ratings
As I learned from my lists, I seem to have a tendency to award lower scores than the average user. This is mainly the result of wanting to have an average rating of 'average'. As such, the default rating will be a 5, only to be deviated from if a show is better or worse than the majority.
I try as much as possible to remain fair and objective when awarding scores, awarding scores for what an entry conveys more than whether or not I liked it.
Someone who feels a sudden need to browse through my lists will most likely note a few inconsistencies in scores awarded, with shows that were mostly alike having wildly differing scores, or scores awarded to shows that they really did not deserve. There are a few reasons for this.
1. Time. The more I watch and read, the more difficult it is to be impressed. Older entries will tend to deviate from the mean more strongly. As I generally can't very well recall these older entries, a general adjustment of them towards the average score seems unjustified.
2. That small difference. Two shows that are overall very much alike may have an element or a focus of attention that really stands out, even if it isn't the main subject of the show itself. If such an element or focus is particularly well (or disastrously badly) done, this may have tremendous effect on overall appreciation, as it may make or break the depicted setting and the suspension of disbelief.
3. Emotional focus. Some shows are simply out to have an emotional effect on its audience. They tend expressly not to pay much attention to brilliance of story or characters and whatnot, but are simply out for the laughs and tears. As such shows generally either work or don't respective to one's own likes and dislikes it is often untenable to even try remain objective, so why do it?
And then, there's Cossette, which I love and to any criticism of which my reaction will be akin to the on-line version of plugging my ears with my fingers and singing out real loudly. Sometimes, one just has to admit that one loves something without a reason and brooks no differing opinions, justified or not.
On my reviews
Someone who is inclined to have a look at all reviews I've written for this site may find that, for all the posturing about wanting to keep my ratings at around 'average', almost all reviewed entries receive a lot of praise and are rated highly. There are two reasons for this.
1. Most of the reviews started out as posts in the Critics and Connoisseurs club, focused on whether an entry is or is not all-round good. Posts on highly rated entries consist of why I believe them to be good and can, therefore, easily be adapted to reviews, but posts on less highly rated ones talk about why they aren't good enough, meaning that elements are evaluated against a bar instead of on their own, making for poor starting points for a full review.
2. The problem of most average entries is that there is so little to say about them, as there is little that distinguishes them from others. Talking about average entries would mostly entail a summing up of what they do not have, defeating the purpose of a review. Genuinely bad entries generally possess more qualities that can be discussed, but are in the main not worth the time and effort to discuss them.
It does have great atmosphere, but I would have to argue that I still think there are better ones in that respect, for example Cossette.
I realize you don't care much for themes- (for example psychology) in anime for it to be good, and that's fine, but I frown when you say that anime is unsuited for it. For whatever reason would it be? In that case the medium of normal live-action movies would also be inproper for experimentation of said human psyche and various issues, which I don't think. There are a lot of successful anime with that feature, Neon Genesis Evangelion, .hack//Sign and Monster as examples. Perhaps this is purely about oppinions so, well, I'll leave it at that. When you say it often gets blurry when anime deals with these kinds of issues, I say that, yes, at times there are shows that do it to confuse you, and that is most likely because it does not know its clear motive and objective behind it itself, but there's also the opposite. What I'm trying to say is the simple notion that there are good things and bad things, in any medium. I hope you understand
On to Noir; in my last message I did the mistake of talking about what it could have been, not of what it is. Oh well, I don't think I should call it mistake, but rather a choice. I think it's good to think about both things - not just one of them. Now, when I see it in that light, I accept it for that, because that's what it is. I don't promote it for it, however. It is so easy for me to simply let my thoughts glide to that "What if...". Especially when you mention its approach of a simple story and scenario, which, yet again, makes me think of what it isn't. But I realize that the mindset of watching something as it is without comparing is the origin of what makes me comparing it... Now I don't know what I'm trying to say, I'm simply thought provoked and rambling. So I'll move on,
Reading your understanding of the Soldats objective makes it clearer to me, though I must say I don't think it was that clear in the show - maybe I'm just a little dense.
Then, was Altena intending to create the "justice" of the old ways, as they were originally doing? If that is the case, then I was far off, hehe.
As just a friendly reminder I wouldn't want you to get the impression that I'm trash-talking it, as I'm not hating it, I rather liked it, but not objectively and I didn't like it as much as you. I can really relate to loving something new, but that happens rarely nowadays, why is that? I guess the general feel for production of good aesthetics are worsening these days. I actually would like you to rewatch it, just for fun, haha I feel so forceful when I say that. It might feel the same it might not, it's unpredictable, I can only say that I've rewatched a show that I love, strangely enough that show Requiem For Phantom, after 4 times of rewatching, it's starting to lose its spice. Oh well.
For starters, I would have to say that I'm glad they decided make this with a more dramatic touch than its predecessor in its genre, because it was something quite new, which is always good. The show itself led to a dissapointment to me. It started out promising and intriguing, and I was hoping for psychological themes of for example guilt, remorse and the essence of killing in human nature to be explored by the character's, as I am for every girls with guns anime I come across, but it hasn't been handled well and I don't think Noir is an exception for that. Instead they went for the plot which I think was pretty vague. The biggest problem I had was the motives and desires of The Soldats.
Their motive was basically, as I understood it, to be some kind of reflection to man kind, and act as cruel as they think it is. Which I think is bullshit, to put it bluntly, just a bad excuse. And them wanting to rehash the old ways also felt irritatingly pointless due to it. I mean, why?.
Correct me if I'm wrong, that is to say, if I have misunderstood something in context of the anime, because as I saw it it's not really a great show, as it is too messy. I see your point about presenting old european conspiracies with the right atmosphere, but I don't think that's enough to make it stand out, plus I think there are other titles that does that too.
I have to agree with episode 82 being the saddest, simply seeing Yang kick the bucket in such a humble manner (a shot through the mid thigh) felt like a depressing end to a legend. Although the show couldn't have had it in any other way since him dying in battle would have been too cliche, it was too much suffering to go through for the viewer.
Finished Toll the Hounds, which is a good thing because the last hundred pages or so were neat, and a bad thing because I have nothing to read on trains now. SO MANY TRAINS.
Anyways, yeah, can see where you were coming from with there being too much focus on individuals' importance in this one, but it did feel like a bit of nice change of pace after the last three (not as good as the last three though, of course). Felt quite a bit like the first, but not as weird as that one was. Appreciated almost every character ending up in one of two places by the end, rather than splayed across a continent like in House of Chains.
Having Kruppe and Pust in the same book really should never happen. Or, once again, Cutter and Nimander. This is feeling a bit too much like House of Chains again, way too many damn characters. For every chapter with Karsa (yay!), Samar and Traveler or the Bridgeburners (the three left now...), there's a handful of others to wade through. Not all bad, granted, but still feels so scatter shot.
And speaking of Cook, thinking of making either Black Company, or getting caught up with Song of Ice and Fire after finishing this Malazan thing (I'll leave the new books for later), and if the marines are Erikson taking from Black Company, than that sounds like an endorsement.
Ah, that's helpful. Been mentioned a few times that Darujhistan is one of the biggest cities on the planet, but never mentioned how big that was. Toll the Hounds has started off alright, lots of old faces I was starting to miss (Gruntle! Duiker! Cut- no, shit, Cutter is still being whiny and awful), and Darujhistan is still a neat place. And the promise of more Shadowthrone, Cotillion and their Hounds is always appreciated.
That being said, yeah, lack of any armies is a bit troubling. At least House of Chains had the Fourteenth and Army of the Whirlwind shambling around. And no Andii. Goddamn Nimander. All we need is Paran circa Gardens of the Moon and Memories of Ice to be alongside Cutter and Nimander to complete the Holy Trinity of self-pity.
Always thought the Malazans felt like a modern army being shoved into a medieval setting, what with their focus on explosives-armed sappers and mobility/flexibility based marines. Plus magic, of course.
More or less how I assumed it would, even if I was still holding out for something bigger than a few sidesteps. Still makes Cripply look like a horribly inept Big Bad (if he's even supposed to be one anymore, I'm not sure). Pretty let down with how little came of all the build up with Icarium and his machine. Saving it for later, I guess.
Really liked this one though, up there with Deadhouse Gates and Memories of Ice, I'd think.
I was actually pleased that he did survive, but I can't quite put my finger on why. I know that over the whole of the story, he was the character that I found myself being drawn to more and more, again, I am not sure why. Yes, he was a devoted husband. Yes, he was an honorable man. Yes, he and Evangeline chose to raise Reuenthal's son. And, yes, he was most loyal to Kaiser Lohengramm. Perhaps it's because of all of that! And, he is the only one of the original 4 who survived. Even with the addition of Oberstein bringing the group to 5, he just seems to stand out. And....I think he is a better father figure for Alexander than his own father would have been.
