#this isnt a value judgment

[kaurwreck]

I'm sincere when I say I don't know how y'all have the energy to scrutinize Mori treating his successors like they're competent when the Port Mafia's skill users have been culled thrice over within seven years by men who can't act right (Rimbaud, Verlaine, Shibusawa, Gides, Fyodor), and the longevity of the tripartite framework relies on Mori not patronizing who's left.

Especially considering, like, there are foreign military police in modern Japan, British Somaliland appears to still exist, and Ango has seemingly kept Taneda in a medically induced coma for an irreversible amount of time so that he can unilaterally leverage Taneda's fictional authority within a very-historically-real cabinet in the Japanese government that hasn't existed irl since the Meiji constitution.

Like, I'm not asking anyone to engage with media in any other way than the way they enjoy most. It's just. Has anyone else noticed bsd!Russia appears to have annexed bsd!Abkhazia and bsd!South Ossetia.

All of this to say: you don't really have to beat the same dead horses if you don't want to. If you do, then by all means, lay into Equus with your whole chest. But, also. There's a lot in bsd the fandom scarcely, if at all, touches, and the incongruity between the work's layers and worldbuilding and even niche fandom engagement with the material is stark.

[atthebell]

Why do you think Roier and Missa are easiest to understand? I found the same thing as someone who's just learning Spanish, and I wasnt sure if it was because I've watched so much Roier content that it influenced my ability to understand him, or if there's a deeper reason due to some regional accent differences being easier for non-native speakers to understand. I'm curious about your thoughts since you have really good insights into linguistics, but ignore this if it's too much for tumblr lol!

neither of them talk super fast, and imo their accents are fairly easy to understand-- for me, missa is easy to understand bc he's from the north and that region has accents i'm more familiar with, and roier's accent is somewhat neutral although obviously still clearly mexican and he uses a lot of slang. i think that also helps-- roier uses a lot of the same vocab, so if you're still learning spanish, you can pick up that slang and then understand quite a bit of what he's saying because he swears literally five times in a single sentence. they both speak pretty clearly and, additionally, i think most non-native spanish speakers, especially U.S. americans, are most familiar with mexican spanish rather than other dialects. so that's why someone like rubius or spreen is harder for nonnative speakers to understand, unless they're more familiar with spanish or argentine dialects specifically.

for me it's hard to parse bc i understand most of what they all say regardless since i've spoken spanish for so long, but i think rivers is just difficult because she speaks very fast. mariana is pretty easily to understand as well, there's just less for me to say about him tbh idr where he's from and i don't really have a hard time understanding him, i just watch him less than anyone else really.

for quackity, his accent is more noticeable, and his spanish is a little weirder, in that he is so bilingual and if you're not familiar with that way of speaking it can be hard to pick up what he's saying sometimes. this is partially why i wish there were a few more latino americans on the server so people get more familiar with that type of bilinguality-- i think quackity is in a unique position that he doesn't full share with other server members (aside from mouse, in that she is also a latino who lives in the states, although from a content perspective she doesn't do the same kind of bilingual split that q does nor does she stream in spanish), and i would be interested to see more of that kind of diasporic latino experience on the server. that's me rambling and doesn't have to do with accents i've just been thinking about it for a while and i think it would be cool. but yeah q phrases things funny sometimes because he's thinking of the english way of saying something or vice versa, and he is by far one of the most fluently bilingual members of the server, so it's an interesting dynamic for people watching him who aren't super familiar with spanish nor the kinds of calques and things that end up happening with bilingual speakers.

anyway back to your actual questions i do also think exposure does tip the scales lol most of us watch more roier than anyone else and esp for people just learning spanish, you're gonna understand him better than anyone else because of that. which is nice in some ways bc you learn a lot of slang but also if you're going to speak spanish in any kind of non-casual setting please do not talk like roier he is a fucking crazy person who swears so much it's actually unreal

[kaurwreck]

I came into bungou stray dogs blind; I had 0 context and knew nothing about any of the dynamics, plot, characters, ships, etc. I didn't even realize they were literary references until season 3 (other than No Longer Human, which I recognized because Junji Ito adapted it— I didn't even recognize Osamu Dazai as the author).

so, after reading this post, out of curiosity, I dug into my discord archives to see if I could find any of my original impressions of skk — especially since I recall becoming obsessed with them on chuuya's first appearance (but could have been misremembering).

my live reaction to chuuya's first appearance (season 1, episode 9) ("multiple ex-husbands" refers to kunikida, i thought they had divorced energy at the time):

my live reactions to the guild arc revival of soukoku (so, season 2, episode 9) (you can also see I'd re-married dazai and kunikida by then lmao):

this is without any fandom influence. they grabbed me by my throat from the outset.

i actually think the average skk fan pipeline is fucking hilarious. first you see a bunch of people on the internet talking about how canon they are and how they are pretty much a couple and you see a ton of fanart. but then you watch the skk episodes in s1 and s2 and you’re like ok there’s def some tension but they literally hate each other what? where do people get all this shipping from? and THEN you read the lns and you’re like ok holy fuck holy shit. ok there’s smth here. you start reading into it, their relationship is insanely complex and they deeply care for each other but they also had their downfall and nothing will be like it was again even though at some point they were the closest souls on earth, connecting to a level beyond comprehension as true soulmates. and then every time you think about them or re-consume a part of the media they’re in, you read more into them and next thing you know it’s been years, youve gradually but certainly completed your descent into madness and you have a tumblr blog strictly dedicated to these two idiots, and 90% of your mutuals are just as insane about them as you are

[reonnex]

The infantilization of book!Wylan and show!Wylan really needs to be looked at.

This isnt a call out, or trying to hate on anyone, just an overall thing I've seen throughout being in this fandom

In the books while Wylan is a child he is also 16. People underestimate him into innocent and even younger. And while he is naive, this does not make him innocent. He has his own morals, own judgment that havent been ripped away from him yet. He is just trying to survive.

People use the "we could wake them up line" a lot snd I agree! But to also look at the full lines as well

Wylan gestured to the guards. "Is it safe to leave them, you know-"

"Alive? I'm not big on killing unconscious men."

"We could wake them up."

"Pretty ruthless, merchling. Have you ever killed anyone?"

"I'd never even seen a dead body before I came to the Barrel." Wylan admitted.

"It's not something to be embarrassed about," Jesper said, surprising himself a little. But he meant it. Wylan needed to learn to take care of himself, but it would be nice if he could do it without getting on friendly terms with death."Make sure the gags are tight."

This isnt him being ruthless. Its him being logical. He is taking what Jesper says to heart. Wake them instead of killing them unconscious becuase Jesper doesn't want to kill unconscious men. Which they do end up tying the soldier to a pole, not killing them!! Him having morals shouldn't contribute to claims of him being innocent.

Wylan is worried about hurting people but will do so if nessecasry to save his friends. We can see this in the show and books. In the show he does not want to make bombs for Kaz, but does so in the end because he acknowledges he has to survive. He is worried about Alby, but goes along with the plan still.

All these are what makes Wylan, wylan. It is his fundamentals, his morals and idels. They are not however claims to see how sweet and innocent he is and how he was corrupted.

Ontop of this, while it is never y it is hevaily implied that Wylan is also autistic. (Also, correct me if im wrong please, but im pretty sure Jack did talk about this.) Autistic people get infantilizated already, and I've had my own fair share of this as well. ( I am autistic and have a learning disabilitiy, as well a speech impedament that I still struggle with.) I have to work harder to make sure people treat me as a twenty year old. Because that is my age, and there is a significant difference in attitude in how people treat me when they know im autistic, and when they don't.

And for Wylan, I feel like its the same issue. While it may not be intentional, ive been people coo over the fact Wylan has done simple tasks or teen experiences. Him having Jesper read to him, getting flustered when talking to him, Wylan not understanding social cues as well as others and taking things to face value.

You can be excited for him and think it's sweet, but to also acknowledge that there is a line between "Thats adorable" and "He's adorable." Wylan is someone who is neurodivergent. He was extrmetly sheltred as a child and was never given the proper tools to help his dyslexia, due to this he has struggles that shouldn't be overlooked or seen as "cute" when he experiences outcomes due to the situation he was in. Whenever he doesn't understand social cues, i.e., "Whos mark." People giggling and saying it's silly or cute when he doesn't understand the cues. That's infantilizating! You are viewing things he struggles with in the lens of watching a child understanding the world. Which Wylan isn't. He is a teenager, no matter the circumstances. His age should be understood.

This infantilization also effects wesper in how people view the two of them. Many people view black people as "older, the man in the relationship, rugged" while the white person is seen as the "women, younger, more innocent."

Infact, I think the show only worsned it for Wylan. As now there are faces to names.

Jack does have a youthful face, but still looks his age. I have a babyface and even now at 20 I look much older then I did at 16. The same goes for Jack. He cant control how he looks but because of his youthful features people only push for this racially hetaronormative mindset more between Wylan and Jesper (Even if its untitional).

Even Kit looks his age as well and has a baby face. He's 29 right now but was in his mid twenties during filming. Season 1 was filmed back in 2019 but due to covid post production got set back, and season 2 was filmed in the beginning of 2022. But why is it only Wylan who is infantilizated? Jesper struggles just as much with his ADHD and trauma as Wylan does.

Jack and Kit are only one year apart, the same in the books but still ive been Wylan be portrayed as the "poor innocent child who was abused." and Jesper as the "he needs to get over his addiction hes a grown man/ he's too mean to Wylan."

In society now so many black teens are seen as adults and treated as such, while white teens are seen as younger and not pushed so hard. The same can be seen for wesper.

Ive even seen people on Tiktok and other socials claim that Jesper was rude to Wylan and abusive. (WHERE???). Both Wylan and Jesper have said things that hurt the other, and they both apologized for it, and get grilled as well. In the show and books they learn and grow. The infantilization of Wylan doesnt hurt just him but plays into racial stereotypes and also microagressions. Why is it that when the white character is calling someone out its "deserved" but when the black character (who might I add had no idea) makes a side comment he is labled as cruel and abusive?

In so many shows and books the black character is usually portrayed as the joker character. Six Of Crows does this as well, which is something important to not ingore. Jesper is seen as the flirty joke character. However the only difference is soc also show more sides to his character by letting him be vulnerable. Letting Jesper show his struggles to the audience as well, how his neurodivergece effects him, letting him dress in skirts and bold colors that step away from the gender norm. So many times in media the black character is just there for shits and giggles, or is used as the villan/antagonist.

It believe its really important to understand this, and to acknowledge if your infantilizating him, or even using microagressions on Jesper unintentionally, then to learn to understand why and to grow from them.

[bookishjules]

i think your reading too far into it. Percy has almost always see himself as less then most people especially Annabeth. It’s part of his insecurities through out all the series. He doest’t see himself as strong smart or powerful. He’s always made jokes about being stupid even tho we know he isn’t and he probably knows he’s not to but doesn’t have enough confidence to admit. He makes himself the punchline of his own thoughts. he always has

same way Annabeth jokes about him being dumb. She know he’s smart but she still jokes. I didn’t like wottg much but I didn’t see percabeth being negativ to each other

ps English isnt my first language and I’m on computer so spellcheck can’t save me. I’m also tired so yea

okay i totally understand where you're coming from, and i don't fully disagree. you're right, percy does feel insecure about certain things. but i think for the most part the things that might be conflated with insecurity are really a good amount of undervaluing himself and his abilities. yes, he feels stupid in school, and yes he has a tendency of making himself the punchline, but when it comes to life stuff or demigod stuff, it's always felt to me like he's more seen himself as not special, which isn't the same thing as inept. it's more of an 'i'm just percy' kinda of feel, if that makes sense. especially as he's gotten older. maybe that's a kind of insecurity idk but it definitely doesn't feel like it would manifest itself in the amount of clear reliance on annabeth to do the thinking he maintains in wottg, especially not at seventeen when he's successfully accomplished many things without her holding his hand and actively led the way as much as she has.

and honestly if it was just that, it might not have felt so out of place. i might have been able to credit all this to that insecurity and been lightly uncomfy but ultimately moved on.. but annabeth. okay, annabeth. annabeth makes jokes, yes. but, like you said, she ultimately knows percy is not an idiot. that understanding does not come across in wottg. she's actually surprised when he says anything intelligent or has good ideas, which is not the expression one would expect of someone who understands percy as thoroughly as she should, or of someone who has been through countless battles and quests etc. with him and therefore seen him in action.

ultimately, to me, wottg reads like annabeth is in charge, while before it always felt like they were on equal footing, except for the times when one or the other had a quest they were leading so the other ceded to their authority for the extent of the quest. and if i'm being honest, it almost feels like percy becomes something like a dog the way he's constantly seeking her approval, not knowing which way to go before receiving her direction, relying on her to be his brain. meanwhile, annabeth almost seems to function like she doesn't need him, and instead of challenging him to walk beside her (bc she values him and wants him to value himself), she readily takes up the guiding role, and in fact keeps him there by interrupting him when he's offering his thoughts or being judgmental about like the one solution him and grover come to when she wasn't with them.

maybe you don't see that as negative, but to me it definitely feels problematic, and not like the team we've known them to be for so long.

[nasty-bog-boy]

critques of antonement that begin and end with briony are so annoying to me because they are so narrow ! the villain isnt a child but society ! robbie never stood a chance because of his working class position ! cecilia would never have persuaded anyone because she is a young woman ! paul marshall is a wealthy man he was always going to win ! the only chance for robbie and cecilia to be together depended on the massive social upheavel of WW2 and them becoming independeant adult ! but WW2 killed them ! briony may have made a life alterting judgment as a child based on her limited knowledge but things quickly spiraled beyond the world of a little girl into edwardian englands morals and values !!!!!

[uwanosorade]

agreed with the posts above and also wanted to add that, while I 100% understand that a lot of it is born from frustrations that neurodivergent people have navigating these interactions, something that makes me feel kind of uncomfortable with the way posts on this website sometimes frame "direct communication is good, indirect communication is bad" is that different levels of directness are considered the baseline of acceptability in different cultures?

It's always a little surprising to me because I will see posts written by white US Americans about how frustratingly indirect communication is in the (white US American) culture around them, and while again I get their frustrations it's kind if funny because most of my coworkers are from Japan, and I hear "American communication styles are very direct. This is because their culture is more individualistic and they don't care about being rude" all the time. I am very bad at being assertive by the standards of US American culture but I worry all the time at work about being 空気が読めない人、気が利かない人. On the other hand, I saw some tags on this post where someone said that asking for things very directly is considered polite in their culture, and they feel that a person tries to ask for something too indirectly is actually the rude one. To a lot of Japanese people typical WASP-y American communication styles are uncomfortably aggressive and pushy, and to a lot of people from other cultures they are frustratingly vague and distant. The baseline is totally different depending on what background someone comes from! So while I get that many neurodivergent people feel frustrated by what feels like the inability of others to communicate clearly, i think learning to handle some ambiguity and indirectness is part of cultural competence, and that's really important if you want to have positive experiences with people from other cultural backgrounds (and help them have a positive experience being around you)

I've seen a lot of "You have to communicate directly/don't expect other people to read your mind" posts going around tumblr lately and while I really do appreciate them because it's a skill a LOT of people need to work on, I do want to remind everyone to please meet people halfway sometimes.

I recently read a story on Reddit about a guy's pregnant wife texting him "I'm craving donuts but we don't have any in the house 😔" and he DIDN'T stop to pick up donuts on the way home from work. Everyone was taking his side because "she needs to communicate" and "he's not a mind reader" and "How was he supposed to know she wanted him to get donuts???" People, ffs, why on earth would she text him that while he was at work if not because she wanted him to get donuts? I was flabbergasted everyone was taking his side. "How was he supposed to know??" What? Like yeah it's true she didn't say "I want you to get me donuts" with those exact words in that exact order but the reason why people get upset if they hint they want you to do something and you don't do it is because they feel like you don't care about them and aren't actively thinking about their feelings. Especially in a marriage or LTR they are in a situation where the assumption is you care about filling the other person's needs.

Someone who loves and cares about someone will get the donuts "without being asked" just because their partner expresses a want or need. That's what someone is fishing for when they say "Aaaah I'm craving donuts 🥺🥺🥺" It's less about the donuts and more about feeling cared for. Sometimes straight up asking "Can you get me donuts?" defeats the purpose.

Also, women are typically socialized to communicate this way because they're punished socially for being too direct. I've heard that people of color, especially black people, often do this too because they're likely to be branded as "aggressive" if they're too direct with white people. So it might be a good idea to be a bit intersectional if we're trying to encourage people to be more direct.

Take the stereotypical example of a wife gets a new haircut and then gets upset that the husband doesn't notice. She's not literally mad at him for not saying the exact words "I like your new haircut." She's upset because she feels like he doesn't look at her and appreciate the efforts she's putting in anymore.

Obviously this will vary widely depending on the nature of your relationship with someone, but especially when it comes to intimate partnerships, there are certain things your significant other should not have to tell you directly. It's probably safe to assume your wife or husband wants a birthday present even if they don't ask for it. It's probably safe to assume your bf or gf would appreciate a valentine's day present or a compliment without them having to literally ask for it, unless they explicitly say otherwise.

This is difficult for a lot of neurodivergent people to learn manually if it's not instinctual and they didn't learn it growing up (lord knows I didn't) and yes, it's true that most people (especially NT people) should learn to communicate more directly. But also, your relationships would probably benefit from learning to read indirect cues and just pick up the donuts on the way home because you heard your wife is craving them. Sometimes what someone wants is for you to think about what they're feeling and what they want and do it without them asking directly. It's up to you whether or not you do that, but sometimes that is asking. I think this is what people generally mean when they say their partner is "thoughtful."

[sabakos]

there's is a certain sense in which a meritocracy is the "fairest" way to evaluate candidates; it is, after all, intuitive that judging people on their ability to perform well rather than other criteria is the most unbiased way to evaluate them! and since fairness is often seen as being unbiased, this makes a meritocratic approach seem like fairness.

but there's another notion of "fairness" where a meritocracy often seems to be patently unfair, that is, someone who has fewer advantages and opportunities to refine their abilities, or even just less natural talent might put just as much time and effort into developing those abilities, and might perform far worse! this is not an equitable approach, and to the extent that "fairness" is understood as equity a meritocracy is not the fairest approach.

and really what this boils down to is what it is we hope to accomplish when we say we value fairness. if merit is solely considered as a neutral evaluation of someone's abilities, with no value judgment attached, then it plainly makes sense to take the unbiased approach. however, if merit is considered as a reward, it might make more sense instead to value equity. or at least to admit that what we care about here isnt really "fairness" but more pragmatic concerns

[violentviolette]

im gonna say something thats gonna make a lot of u real mad but it's the truth and u need to hear it. real recovery starts with ego death.

otherwise u will just continue to stand in ur own way by finding ways to justify and excuse ur own negative and unhealthy behavior

u are wrong. u are the problem. ur behavior and thought process is unhealthy and harmful to u and needs change. u are the only person who can change those things. u are whats standing in ur way. u do not know what is healthy. ur ideas and understanding of others is skewed and incorrect. u are the problem.

in order to get anywhere real and make meaningful progress towards being happier and healthier, u first have to be able to accept those statements without anger, rejection, and shame. because those are not shameful statements. they dont make u irredeamable. they dont mean u deserve to be abused or punished or mistreated. u still have value and worth even when ur wrong. being wrong is not the same as being worthless. everyone will be wrong sometimes, it is an unavoidable part of life

u first have to get to a place where those statements elicit curiousity, not anger or sadness. because u can always change ur behavior. u can always make a different choice. if u control ur behavior and ur behavior is the problem, then u control the problem, u have all the power to fix it. being wrong in the moment never means u cant be right in the future. u can figure out the what and why and how and do something differently next time. u can change and grow if u allow urself

being wrong isnt a value judgment, it's an opportunity for growth

[maxknightley]

'its problematic to play cozy games' isnt a take I thought I'd ever see but here we are

"any critique of a work or genre I enjoy is a value judgment of me as a person, no matter how many times the person writing it says 'I'm not saying Playing These Games Makes You A Bad Person'" is a take I see on a regular basis!

and yet it still annoys me when people repeat it in my inbox

[kaurwreck]

I'm a completionist by nature and had a brief rush of excitement (always dangerous for my bank account) when I saw that these works were going to include those that have never been published in English before. But, upon closer look, there are several red flags with this translation project that are worth noting.

Neither the translator nor editor appear to be native English speakers (based on additional research), and even the Amazon overview could have used some copy editing. (I explain why this may matter for Japanese to English translations below.)

The alphabetic arrangement is also a choice that is worth scrutinizing since the works won't follow the chronology of Dazai's style development, authorial voice, or literary eras; instead plucking each story from its context, genre, and thematic value to place them against each other arbitrarily. This may obscure the meaning and intent of the stories for readers like myself, who rely on those frames of reference for deeper comprehension.

The translator and editor's other titles include books that are closer to marketing concepts pitched by book packagers, like "101 Directors Everyone Should Know" and "The Ultimate K-Pop DIY Book."

The translator's German translations of Osamu Dazai's works were self-published this year on Amazon, and when you search the translator's name, the results return only references to these books and a German-language obituary for an elderly German woman.

The above, taken together with the lengthy number of planned volumes promised in the Amazon overview, suggest the works are likely to be machine/AI translated, maybe with some copyediting. The timing is especially suspicious to me since OpenAI launched GPT-4o in May 2024, the key features of which are tailored to and marketed for machine translation.

This isn't to discourage reading independent translations or translations from non-native speakers, and it isn't to dismiss the immense value of more accessible literature. However, the challenges with translating Japanese to English (and vice versa) aren't merely grammatical but philosophical and cultural.

From Eight Ways to Say You: The Challenges of Translation by Cathy Hirano:

More than grammar, however, it is the differences in writing style that are a challenge for the translator, because these reflect differences in cultural perspective and ways of thought. The most obvious differences between Japanese and English writing styles are organization and tone. My English composition classes in high school taught me that English is supposed to flow in a linear fashion, from introduction to body to conclusion, and that statements should be supported by logical explanations. Even in literature, a book works toward a climax and then a conclusion. In contrast, Japanese composition appears almost circular, and although it has its own logic and organization, it is very different from how I learned to write in school. Whereas in English we stress clarity, in Japanese subtlety is preferred. The Japanese writer dances around his theme, implying rather than directly stating what he wants to say, leaving it up to readers to discern that for themselves. He or she appeals to the reader’s emotions rather than to the intellect, and tries to create a rapport rather than to convince. The Japanese reader, in turn, is quite capable of taking great leaps of imagination to follow the story line. Direct translations of English into Japanese, therefore, often appear crude and abrasive, insulting the reader’s intelligence with their bluntness, while direct translations of Japanese into English are often frustrating to read because they come across as emotional, even childish, and without any point or conclusive ending. Although they may be faithful to what is actually written, this type of translation fails to achieve its purpose because it does not convey the author’s intended meaning. It is worth noting that there is considerable controversy about this issue among translators themselves and among authors being translated. Although translation should convey the meaning, and not necessarily in precisely the same words, there is a very fine line between translating and tampering with or rewriting the original text.

These challenges are especially salient when translating literature:

Literature, however, is another matter, because to both the reader and the author the form is as important as the content. I must strive to remain true not only to the essence, but also to the style and tone of the writer in the source language while at the same time render it in a way that is understandable to someone from a very different culture and way of thinking. It is a balancing act, requiring sensitivity and intuition, a combination of humility, vigilance, and arrogance. I say humility because as a translator I must be willing to accept that the author comes first, and that even if I don’t agree, or think that I can say it better, the author is always right. Moreover, it is dangerous to assume that I understand, and thus I must be constantly vigilant.

...

Arrogance and humility may appear to be contradictory, but I need a certain amount of arrogance to believe that I have the ability to become the author in another language. If, for example, you give ten excellent translators the exact same passage to translate, you will invariably end up with ten excellent, but very different translations. Which one of those is “right”? I am terrified of reading my translation after it has been published because I know that I will find errors, omissions, or things that I would now say differently. I need that arrogance during the translation process to sustain me to the finish. Otherwise I would be paralyzed by doubts.

Typically, translators address these challenges through a three-way consultation process: first consulting with the original language author for more details about the author's intent regarding specific words or concepts within a text, and then consulting with an editor native to the target language culture for suggestions on where additional description could be naturally woven in as briefly and unobtrusively as possible. For works written by late authors, translators will consult academic scholars of the author who are native to the author's language culture or even the late author's friends and family.

The effort undertaken isn't effort wasted; even subtle changes can make an enormous difference in the work's rhythm, tone, meaning, structure, comprehensibility, and voice.

That said, independent translators and publishers are often very good at what they do. Further, not every translator approaches the process the same, or as I've described above. I'm particularly fond of Ryan Choi's Ryuunosuke Akutagawa translations. He considers himself largely self-taught and doesn't have a degree in the field or any academic post. In an interview, he described his process as follows:

In my case, the process of translation inevitably begins as a great big mess. It takes a lot of time for me just to learn how to read whatever it is I’m translating; while reading through something for the first time, I’m already looking up words and references and taking notes and doing a very rough mock-up in English. Only after mastering the original do I feel comfortable leaving it behind and allowing myself—within reason—to drift and work on my words alone. It’s only through this long, laborious process that an authorial voice emerges. I don’t hear the voice from the start. It’s discovered and chiseled over time.

In the same interview, Ryan Choi also spoke to the abstractions inherent in Japanese to English translation and to the version of the work ultimately being received by readers of translated literature:

Written symbols aside, syntactically and morphologically speaking, English and Japanese—relative to each other—are worlds apart, and one of the effects of this distance on the process of translation is the increase in gray space between the two—i.e. the number of defensible interpretations of a sufficiently complex sentence—compared to language pairs whose syntactical structures hug each other more closely.

...

Ask two painters to paint the same scene and you’ll get two remarkably different results. In the end, every translator has their own feel for rhythm and sound, just as every painter has their own feel for color, line, and shade, and a translation too can be judged in more than one way—if a reader has no knowledge of the original language they take the translator at their word and judge the translation on the basis of the text before them, as in the parable of the man in his colorless room, learning of color only through books by people with direct experience of them.

In other words, if you're seeking out translated literature specifically to engage with those authors (who they were, their commentary, their literary voice, where they fit into and how they thought about their era's cultural zeitgeist) and you don't speak the original language, you are placing immense trust in the translator.

It's worth being fussy, measured, and deliberate about the translations you read to understand an author or work; it's the difference between a conversation and hearsay.

Dazai Osamu's Works (Volume 1): The complete works of the Japanese author in several volumes

Translated by Erika Strohbach

In (planned) twelve volumes, all of Dazai's well-known works are published in English. The volumes are organised in the order of the Latin alphabet according to the original Japanese titles.

Many of the works have never been published in English before! A mission to make them accessible to more people.

This (Volume One) book contains the stories:

A. Autumn (ア、秋 / A, Aki)

About Love and Beauty (愛と美について / Ai to bi ni tsuite)

Alt-Heidelberg (老ハイデルベルヒ / Alt-Heidelberg)

Rain at Tamagawa - Double Suicide (雨の玉川心中 / Ame no Tamagawa shinju)

My Older Brothers (兄たち / Anitachi)

Aomori (青森 / AOMORI)

Advice(或る忠告 / Aru chUkoku)

Morning (朝 / Asa)

Something Regrettable (あさましきもの / Asamashiki mono)

About "The Last Years" (「晩年」に就いて / "Bannen" ni tsuite)

Handsome Devils and Cigarettes (美男子と煙草 / Bidanshi to tabako)

A Little Beauty (美少女 / Bishujo)

Bizan (眉山 / Bizan)

Chance (チャンス / Chansu)

The Father (父 / Chichi)

The Little Album (小さいアルバム / Chiisai arubamu)

Canis familiaris (畜犬談 / Chikukendan)

Blue Bamboo (竹青 / Chikusei)

Chikyūzu (or World’s Map) (地球図 / Chikyuzu)

Chiyojo (千代女 / Chiyojo)

The Map (地図 / Chizu)

[ophelia16stufff]

Persona 5 Royal MBTI types

made a self-indulgent mbti typing of persona 5 royal characters. i did this by going through different cognitive stacks, and double checking if the corresponding mbti 16 personality types kinda mapped with the actual characters.

so basically, the dominant and auxiliary functions have to be a pairing of the perceiving function and the judging function.

the perceiving function is how the character takes in the world, and the judging function is how the character affects the world.

Nx and Sx are both perceiving functions, Tx and Fx are both judging functions.

furthermore, the introverted and extraverted attribute isnt necessarily about whether the character is an introvert or an extrovert, but rather about the nature of the functions itself.

so if a function is extraverted, it is sourced from the external world. if a function is introverted, it is sourced from the internal world. perceiving and judgmental functions can be sourced from both worlds.

so, these are the interpretations that i have taken about the cognitive functions, that ive treated as the base rules.

Ne vs Ni: connections made from the present environment vs long term understanding of the world

Se vs Si: awareness of material reality vs reality processed by past experience treated as fact

Te vs Ti: objective logic vs subjective logic

Fe vs Fi: objective value vs subjective value

below ive mapped the characters with an MBTI personality type and corresponding strengths and weaknesses that i feel match the character pretty well.

akechi goro - ENTJ || dom - Te || aux - Ni   

Te - Ni - Se - Fi Strengths: Efficient, Self-Confident, Strong-Willed, Strategic Thinker, Charismatic  Weaknesses: Stubborn, Dominant, Intolerant, Arrogant, Poor Handling of Emotions, Cold, Ruthless

kurusu akira - ENTP || dom - Ne || aux - Ti 

Ne - Ti - Fe - Si Strengths: Quick thinker, Original, Brain stormer, Charismatic  Weaknesses: Ego-centric, Dislikes practical matters 

sakura futaba - INFP || dom - Fi || aux - Ne 

Fi - Ne - Si - Te Strengths: Empathetic, Open-Minded, Creative, Passionate  Weaknesses: Self-isolating, Self-critical 

kitagawa yusuke - INTJ || dom - Ni || aux - Te

Ni - Te - Fi - Se Strengths: Informed, Independent, Determined, Curious, Original  Weaknesses: Dismissive of emotions, Overly critical, Socially clueless

takamaki ann - ENFP || dom - Ne || aux - Fi

Ne - Fi - Te - Ni Strengths: Perceptive, Enthusiastic, Excellent communicator, Easygoing, Good-natured, Positive Weaknesses: Unfocused, Disorganized, Restless

makoto - ISTJ || dom - Si || aux - Te

Si - Te - Fi - Ne Strengths: Honest and Direct, Disciplined, Responsible, Practical, Organized and Effective  Weaknesses: Stubborn, Always by the Book, Judgmental 

ryuji - ESFP || dom - Se || aux - Fi

Se - Fi - Te - Ni Strengths: Bold, Positive and enthusiastic, Hands-on and observant, People skills  Weaknesses: Sensitive, Easily bored, Poor long-term planner, Unfocused 

haru - ISFJ || dom - Si || aux - Fe

Si - Fe - Ti - Ne Strengths: Supportive, Reliable, Observant, Enthusiastic, Hardworking, Humble Weaknesses: Represses her feelings, Reluctant to change

sumire - INFJ || dom - Ni || aux - Fe

Ni - Fe - Ti - Se Strengths: Principled, Passionate, Altruistic Weaknesses: Sensitive to criticism, Perfectionistic, Prone to burnout

alrighty, so i did struggle for some of the characters, so ill just drop explanations for the ones that i feel are maybe controversial:

kurusu akira

so this guy is heavily debated, and i think he's the character most left to interpretation, therefore maybe being the hardest to type, but i do think i have a solid argument as to why i think hes an entp. entps are quite rebellious, and the whole point of the game and the protagonist of it is to be rebellious. challenging the status quo, refusing to accept that 'this is how things are meant to be' is how he unlocks his persona. hes the character with the biggest rebellious streak, in the sense that he will always be the contrarian. i mean, his final persona is literally a demon lord, shooting the god of control in his face. cant get more rebellious than that, methinks. furthermore, when the PT kinda lose sight of what they are supposed to stand for before the mementos boss and facing maruki, i feel that its canon that joker refuses to accept what society deems as reality. he is the leader, and he decides that the PT decides its own justice- justice that goes against gods made from the wishes of the masses. when it comes to his personal life, one may argue that he has to be a feeling type, cuz of the many confidants hes got. but i think joker is more of a thinking type- hes definitely not a saviour or saint, he makes deals with his confidants. its a give and take relationship, something that both parties initially agree to, before it becomes something more personal. ive also noticed that his responses that are logical counter arguments as opposed to emotional words of comfort, tend to be the best response. many of his confidants prefer challenging words and different ideas of thought, and i think its safe to assume such words are canon, or atleast a facet of his canon cuz i do like to think his crack responses are canon lol. another thing that i feel is entp behaviour is his competitiveness. this is most expressed with akechi, a character that he has intellectual debates with and games where they keep score of victories. i like to think that in the metaverse and in matters related to the metaverse, he leans more into entp behaviour. but outside, he tends to tone it down, which is why its a bit harder to type, but i do think the entp kinda shines through. i disagree with the theory/idea that joker is the mask akira wears in the metaverse. akira is the mask that joker wears in the real world, and the whole point of the true ending when akira removes his glasses is his acceptance of his true self, his reflection that is joker. this is not to say that he is that one dimensional leader character whatsoever, akira is a really interesting 'silent protagonist' with his many masks. also, his mbti type's weakness being ego-centric might seem pretty harsh but keep in mind that the game's bad endings- him accepting both Yaldabaoth's deal and Maruki's deal is pretty much a consequence of that characteristic.

sakura futaba

[TLDR at the end] umm ok being an intp myself, im really surprised by the number of people who have typed her as an intp? hopefully im not wildly incorrect about her being an infp, lmao. but i feel like many people went off by stereotypes to type her as an intp? like the fact that shes very techy and is like a genius hacker, she finds social situations to be quite hard to navigate, her typical intp-ish interests ig are kinda misleading and...dont really have that much to do with her character. i think interests and personality types can be just correlation and not causation. now as to why i think shes an infp, when i looked at the cognitive stacks, i really felt that Fi and Ne fit her. for starters, ill address why i think her judging function is feeling and not thinking. this is simply because of why she decided most of her actions in the game. her starting medjed, her isolating herself after her mother's suicide, her becoming a phantom thief. infact, ill compare it with the actions of another character whose judging function is thinking, with similar circumstances: akechi goro. both characters are prodigies in their own fields - goro being a supernatural assassin at 14, and futaba being the founder of medjed when she was around the same age. both choosing their respective paths for enacting justice. they are both characters who have suffered to being blamed for their mother's deaths, and from child abuse. however, when their methods of personal justice compromised moral values, they reacted very differently. goro chose to sacrifice his morals, while futaba stopped associating herself with the international hacking group she had founded when it strayed from her morals. the difference is in what motivates both characters' decisions. goro chooses to sacrifice his morals of what is good and what is bad, justifies his alarming bad moral choices by his logic that it has to be done to entrust his position as shido's loyal hitman. meanwhile futaba is scared, paranoid and drives herself into suicidal guilt that she an unforgivable person. she is so distraught by the notion that she is an awful person, and condemns herself to lie in a tomb of her own making. a lot of other of futaba's dialogues and actions also just make sense to be of a feeling type. she tries to express her emotions and be empathetic of others. her social awkwardness does not come from intrinsic values, but rather the fact that she is unused to social situations due to abuse. she genuinely enjoys hanging out with her friends, and seeks them actively. TLDR basically, when we consider Tx vs Fx, i think she is less likely to go along with a decision if she doesnt feel right about it, even if its logically correct.

takamaki ann

for ann, i dont think her being an enfp would be wildly incorrect, i just want to explain the reasoning behind her weaknesses. unfocused, disorganized, restless, all come from the rather callous and laid-back attitude she initially has towards modelling. not wanting to be an expert in a hobby is perfectly fine, but ann herself seems to be unsatisfied with her own attitude towards modelling after interacting with mika.

i would be hella surprised if anyone read this, if anyone does, its much appreciated <3

[biggestsimp12]

Hello. I have another request! :D

Can I get Kuroko Kamenaga with a female or male reader that is similar to her? You can choose which, I don't mind. Surprise me. :)

Anyway, the reader could be a foreign student or a transfer one. She/He surprisingly isnt talked about much because She/He's really quiet and closed off. Perhaps the reader is old-fashioned in both her/his lifestyle but also clothing. You could tell by the slightly longer skirt(if female) or more coverage of the reader's form with a longer school jacket(can be applied to both genders)?

To summerize it, a quiet, reserved, and calm reader who is focused on doing her/his responsibilities.

PS. The reader definitely's not as tensed up as Kuroko, which is why when she/He gets close enough with her, the reader tries to help her relax more in private? I imagine the reader taking care of Kuroko while trying to understand her wishes and discomforts and it's so so cute.😭

Thank you again!

Kuroko Kamenaga x reader who is like her --–—

--–—

The reader and Kuroko first met when the reader politely asked her for directions to their classroom. Surprisingly, Kuroko didn't mind helping, and their conversation lasted longer than expected. The reader's calm demeanor and their friendly nature left an impression on Kuroko, and the two formed a small but meaningful friendship. Kuroko found the reader's simplicity refreshing and appreciated their genuine nature, unlike the other peers who often annoyed her.

The reader's calm demeanor and their knack for taking responsibility intrigue Kuroko, and she appreciates the reader's old-fashioned lifestyle and style. In private, the reader takes it upon themselves to help Kuroko relax more, recognizing the stress she carries as the student council vice president. Kuroko finds comfort and care in the reader's presence, appreciating their understanding and willingness to help her unwind. Despite their quiet nature, the reader takes the time to listen to Kuroko's complaints and offers a comforting presence for her.

Kuroko can't help but admire the reader's manner of dressing, as their clothing is always elegant and appropriate, both within the school grounds and beyond. The reader's adherence to tradition pleases Kuroko, as it aligns with her own values of decorum and responsibility. She admires how the reader carries themselves with grace and simplicity, and finds their traditional style refreshing compared to the modern and flashy clothing she sees on a daily basis.

Kuroko finds that, out of all the peers around her, the reader best understands and compliments her nature. Their calm demeanor, focused attitude, and responsible approach towards life align with Kuroko's own values. The reader provides a comfortable space for Kuroko to express herself without judgment and offers a steady presence that helps calm her thoughts. It's in moments like this that Kuroko understands the value of having a soulmate who mirrors her own characteristics and supports her like the reader does.

--–—

[mothric]

I apologize, in my blind rage I forgot about the word "foal" and indeed my horse knowledge in general. however as not all horses are ponies I still maintain the distinction matters.

I also forgot to mention Ken Goodman doesn't think dyslexia exists

So now we know why reading comprehension is piss poor: the education establishment refused to listen to linguists and neuroscientists about how learning to read an alphabet actually works.

[37q]

i think that "but shaking my head to signal that i disagree" meme could start a good conversation about discipline and performance. like this isnt a rational holistic integration of values greater than yourself its a recuperative moral theater. this isnt some revolutionary hegemony youre just building a nu panopticon. falling into line just means more judgment and more conformity and more social control. and when your fear of persecution outgrows your desire to walk the walk you lose the ability to put radical change into action let alone conceptualize a social upheaval that doesnt just affirm your psychological comfort and lifestyle status quo

[mbti-notes]

hi, i've been having some issues with Fi vs Fe, especially when I think of Aang in ATLA. I know he is typed as ENFP including by you. and i can understand the Ne dom view but the Fi is so confusing. I thought Fi was internal moral/values and doing what someone thinks is right according to themselves but in the show Aang kept saying stuff like 'the monks taught me revenge isnt good' etc. it always seems like his morals come from others in this way and not from himself? how does it work?

This confusion is common for newbies. It sounds like you're reciting a simplistic and stereotypical description of Fi that doesn't tell you anything about the many possible ways Fi develops in real people or how it actually operates in response to real world situations. There are several problems to address:

1) Applying imprecise and/or incorrect definitions: Fi is basically using your subjective feelings to make value judgments. That's all. It doesn't determine exactly what your moral beliefs will be or whether your moral belief system is valid. To understand how people come to adopt and justify their moral beliefs, you have to introduce the concept of moral development. Moral development and personality development are separate, though they have a complicated relationship.

In short, you're conflating cognitive functions and moral development because you haven't really understood what cognitive functions are and how to define them properly.

2) Not distinguishing well between cognition and behavior: How old is Aang? Physically and mentally, he's a preteen (10-12). Preteens do not have a well-developed auxiliary function, nor would they be very far along in their ego and moral development. He hasn't had the time and life experience required to develop a sophisticated awareness and nuanced understanding of his feeling life. Thus, with his "primitive" Fi, he only knows when things don't feel right, at best.

On top of immature Fi, a preteen isn't capable of refined moral reasoning, either. He doesn't yet possess the necessary intellectual tools for articulating his moral judgments and decisions. Thus, when pressed, what else can he do but call up some words from his mentors and teachers, as all children do at that stage of moral development? He's picking and choosing their moral arguments as necessary to help explain and justify his own strong but fledgling moral instincts.

Additionally, remember that people fall into inferior grip when they have too much difficulty coping with stress, and he was pretty much under constant pressure to carry out his mission efficiently. He's not repeating what authority figures taught him because he likes to and he takes personal pride in possessing authoritative knowledge (high Si). Rather, he's only doing it during times of moral confusion when he sees no other method of grounding himself (compensatory Si).

Grasping for scraps of old knowledge and/or remnants of one's old self when feeling lost is a sign of inferior Si and it happens when Ne doms are under stress. They easily get tangled up in trying to reconcile the disconnects between past, present, and future. Don't forget that his case is quite extreme because there is a gap of over a hundred years in his knowledge of the world.

In short, you're only looking at what he does (behavior), but you haven't understood WHY he's doing it (cognition). This is a common pitfall in type assessment. You need to understand The Why, otherwise, you run the risk of taking behavior at face value and then getting misled by crude stereotypes.

3) Not accounting for the whole functional stack: The reason he was frozen (in time) for so long was mainly because he was running from his responsibilities. If I recall correctly, this was a recurring theme and related to the developmental challenge he had to meet in order to grow and mature as a character.

Resisting duties and responsibilities aligns perfectly with the ENFP tendency to take dominant Ne to extremes and resist the call to develop auxiliary Fi in adolescence, eventually leading to Te loop and Si grip issues. Other functional stacks wouldn't fit as well. For example, if he was ESFJ, he would be taking Fe to extremes and have difficulty developing Si, eventually leading to Ne loop and Ti grip issues. Is there any evidence to support this reading? Not that I remember.

All of the functions of the stack have to fit properly. Are you using the evidence to discover the right stack, or are you trying to twist and force the evidence to fit the stack you want? Many people prefer to start with a hypothesis and then look for confirming evidence. The problem with this approach is that it tends to overlook better possibilities as well as important counter-evidence. My method of type assessment is more neutral in giving fair consideration to all 16 types at the start, then gradually narrowing it down through examining counter-evidence (see the Type Spotting Guide).

In short, you're trying to isolate and identify a particular function without taking into consideration its exact stack position, how it relates to the other functions in the stack, and how its expression is influenced by individual developmental factors.