On Sat, 8 Jun 1996, Caroline Ann Seawright wrote:

	Wow... Cool!  I just _love_ the truth, particularly as espoused 
by the Book of Ranma.
	What if _I_ see Kasumi as being a latent psychopath?  We've _all_ 

Then that's what you see, not what Takahashi says.

	I'm still not at all clear what the distinction says.  Without 
getting _too_ deeply into sophistry, all I know (and, idneed, perhaps all 
I *can* know) is what I see, and what I intuit from what I see.  

But why do things have to be changed to be totally opposite to the manga
without any reason given?

	OK.. I really think we're not quite communicating here, and I think 
people might be getting bored with this thread (and there are _very_ few 
things which annoy me more than spam).  Let me try to paraphrase my argument:

1.) All we know of Ranma (and Ranma's characters) is, essentially, a 
collection of words and pictures.

2.) We're all potentially very different people, from very different 
backgrounds.

3.) Given 1.) and 2.), we all might take _very_ different things away from 
the story and characters contained within the Ranma series.

4.) Given 3.), there is no ONE RIGHT interpretation of Ranma, and its 
characters.

5.) Given 4.), it is *impossible* to create Ranma characters and plots 
which are truly "Wrong" (with a capital W).

a simple fairy tale and yet, as it turns out, it can also (quite 
legitimately) be read as a mathematical proof.  Authors provide us with 
raw materials -- not finished products.  
	The beauty of metaphor and authorship is that we, as *individuals*, 
fill in the blanks ... and, quite frankly, give the story life.  Most of 
the time this happens only in our heads.  Some times we set what we're 
thinking to words.

But when something goes against the author, and it obviously against what
the author said/wrote, why was it done? What's the point in that, other
than to confuse people?

	Who the hell is to say *what* "goes against the author."  Sometimes 
authors radically change their interpretations of works *several* times 
within their own lifetimes.  Can authors "go against" themselves?  I've 
read two or three different versions of the tortoise scenes in 
_Grapes_of_Wrath_ from Steinbeck himself.  Which one is right and, more 
importantly, does it matter?
	Imagine your own fanfics in two hundred years.  You're long dead, 
and this list is (at best) a footnote in some book.  Your work is 
floating around, and some intrepid lit. major picks it up and interprets 
it -- well outside the context of Ranma, your own explanations, or the 
general atmosphere we live in.  How can that student _not_ "go against" 
your view of your work?  For that matter, how can we know if we "go 
against" Takahashi's own private views of Ranma.  
	The answer, IMHO, is that all we can _ever_ reliably know is the 
text itself.  Everything else is something else.
 

	Then I'll be the first to call you on it.  I don't think Ranma 
and Akane would have actually gone through with consumating their 
marriage.  I think you pulled most of what I've seen out of thin air -- 
starting with the general premise of Ranma.  Moreover, I'm glad you did.

But in my case I aged them by four years and got around the fact that they
wouldn't do anything because they were too young.

	So what?  You've explained _your_view_ of things, but I still 
think you are "going against" Takahashi's characters -- and, again, good 
for you.

for a reason... Putting your own characters into Ranma characters' bodies
just totally negates what Takahashi wrote.

	You still haven't answered my question: _HOW_ did they start 
out?  I know what she draws, and writes, them as _saying_ and _doing_ ... 

*piku* Where was this question?

	It seems to be implicit in everything you've written in this 
thread.  You seem to claim that some Ranma works are just bad and 
confusing (my paraphrase) because they "go against" the one, true Ranma.  
My claim would be that there is no one, essential, true Ranma.

Well... how did they start out? In Takahashi's head. Only she knows all
about them, and if she states that they are this or that, then they are.
Lots of people think that Takahashi 'degraded' Ukyou at the end of the
series, but she was designed in this way, and you can see her getting
desperate from the start, and she declines all through the manga. But 
some people think that she was suddenly degraded because they don't look
at the manga close enough. The characters aren't all 2D, even in the
manga. You have to look at their motives in the manga and use that for
their character. But it's just pointless, after seeing in the manga that
Ranma and Akane ARE in love, even after they say so, and suddenly deciding
that Akane isn't really in love with Ranma. That's totaly against the whole
series, let alone what Takahashi says. Why write something so anti-Ranma
Nibunnoichi?

	How is it that you can get so deeply into Takahashi's head to 
_know_ that she intended Ranma and Akane to live happily ever after.  We 
have a quote saying she intends to see them married -- but, hey, who the 
hell knows if she meant to write a neat-o divorce manga in twenty years?  

	Moreover, it seems blatantly clear to me that you're interpreting 
all sorts of motives that aren't _explicitly_ delineated by Takahashi.  

	It wouldn't hurt to leave a bit more lattitude.  We aren't making 
sausage here, you know...

And it wouldn't hurt to explain the reasons behind obvious character changes,
too.

	Why?  Does it somehow _upset_ you that I wrote a snippet-story 
from Ranma that chronicled something _other_ than the same damned 
saccharine ending that seems to appear in such profusion on this list?  I 
think it's a _good_ thing if people imagine how it could have been that 
Ranma and Akane got that point.  If nothing else, it breaks out of the 
same fan-synthesized formula we seem to be all too familiar with.

Well, it's just like saying 'Takahashi, what you wrote sucks. Go jump off
a cliff because I'm going to screw over your characters.' which is rather
upsetting. Why can't people leave it alone if they don't like it? I guess
people just want to redo things they don't like... But redoing it in a
way that totally disreguards Takahashi's story and characters is just a
little disrespectful.

	That we take time to write something seems to me to be the 
highest form of flattery of all.  I like the series, I like the 
characters, and I like the situations ... and I like to play with them, 
as do many on this list.  

CHL