First off, I must tell you while I feel that everyone has the right to support the pairing they like, there are some things you wrote that I don't agree with
( ... )
This is why I made absolute sure to use words like "might", "maybe", "could be", and "a possible reason". I wanted to point out that I'm not saying any of those theories about Cloud/Tifa are anything more than just that: personal theories. Everyone has their own way of interpreting a scene. This was mine. :D My only point is that, the fact that Square left so much to interpretation in the first places speaks enough for itself. I agree that commercial reasons were a part of it, but even so, it's telling fans that it's okay to look into other possibilities.
I certainly have no problem with Tifa (I like her a lot!), I just prefer her in other pairings. Like Rufus/Tifa.
I understand what you mean, but the reason you tried to justify the pairing is to convince others, isn't it? That's why I tried to tell you what I thought were flawed in your justification. By knowing what others may or may not accept as a valid point, you can then justify a pairing better, no?
I'm glad you're not offended. ^^ Sometimes people just don't take well to messages like that.
Oh, sorry. I misunderstood your comment. I didn't know you were attacking my "justification". I thought you were simply pointing out the way you viewed those scenes.
Would my manifesto have been more convincing if I had simply ignored the moments I personally viewed to lean toward Cloud/Yuffie in AC? Should I have left them out to avoid possibly offending a Cloud/Tifa fan? Your problem with my manifesto seems to be with the AC section. Maybe you think I completely warped AC to fit the Cloud/Yuffie pairing? Maybe I did. But as itsutsuboshi pointed out, fans of pairings like this one have to basically grasp at straws.
But at least Cloud/Yuffie had a kiss. I've seen way too many pairings who have nothing. And if I see something in AC and personally think "Hmm, that leans toward Cloud/Yuffie!" I'm certainly going to include it in a manifesto.
What seems "illogical" to you seems extremely logical to me. So apparently, not everyone is going to think the same way you do.
Again, please do not put words into my mouth. I never attacked you or your justification. I merely pointed out what I thought could be improved on. If you're not willing to accept my comments, so be it.
I never said you should ignore moments you viewed to lean towards Cloud/Yuffie in AC. What I said was to at least present it in a manner that was more logical and sound.
And yes, not everyone is going to think the same way as I do. But that also means not everyone is going to think the same way as you do.
Okay, I don't understand what gives you the impression that I'm not prepared to defend my pairing "to the very end". Before now, I've honestly never ran into a single person to whom I've had to defend the pairing. What am I supposed to be defending against in the manifesto? I figured I'd just put my manifesto up and then defend my points whenever they were called into question. Just like I'm doing now.
You said: What I meant was that if you're going to justify a pairing, you'd want to try and convince as many people as possible, and the way to go about doing that would be to defend your pairing whenever people point out things they think do not support your pairing.
How am I supposed to do that up there in the manifesto before anyone points out anything that does not support the pairing? I simply don't understand how I can argue something before anything has been said
( ... )
If you wanted to justify a pairing (or anything, for that matter), you lay out evidence. And if there is no hard, sound evidence, you interpret deeper. I agree with that.
However, if you're going to try to interpret something, your interpretation should at least sound logical and rational, even if it may not necessary be correct. In the end, what you're trying to do is convince others, and that's why you justify what you support.
I was just pointing out what I thought was kinda illogical. If your arguments are not sound, not logical, it's not going to be convincing. And that would just make your justification sound really off. Why would you want that?
No offense meant, but this is just my two cents on justifying a pairing you like. I personally don't mind the Cloud/Yuffie pairing, if you're wondering, so this isn't meant to debase the pairing.
On the contrary, I'm not a canon-pairing fan. I don't need to be convinced by cold, hard facts. What I (and others who are not yet into the pairing but may have the potential to be) need in order to be convinced is a logical-sounding argument/justification.
If you base a pairing merely on interpretation, then it's probably not going to be very strong. Why? Because as a fan of a certain pairing, you'd be biased towards the pairing and that would cause you to pick up every little thing and interpret it in the way that aids your justification.
I just think to justify something, you need to be very objective.
That said, I want to stress again: I do not disregard the argument brought forth for the Cloud/Yuffie pairing, nor do I mean to debase them as a couple. Personally, some of the pairing I support do not even interact a whole lot, so I always believe in minute possibilites. *shrugs*
Please do not put words in my mouth. Like I mentioned earlier, some of the pairings I support do not even interact a lot, and the reason why I support them is simple: I just like them. I never said anything about pairings based on only interpretation are weak.
And of course you're not the first person to be biased towards your favoured pairing. Everybody does that, me included. But if you're going to try writing a justification for your favoured pairing, it's always better to be objective (a.k.a. not biased) for a stronger-sounding argument.
If you base a pairing merely on interpretation, then it's probably not going to be very strong.
And then:
I never said anything about pairings based on only interpretation are weak.
Which is it?
Regardless, I think you and I just have different view points on what ship manifestos are all about. You seem to think they are meant to convince the world that MY pairing is the RIGHT pairing. I think they're about explaining WHY I like this pairing and why it works for me personally, and in that way explain what's good and fun about the pairing.
Wow. All I see here is "I dont feel the need to defend the ships I like because 'I just like them', so nope not gonna go into detail on the why or have any evidence other than just 'i like them together, that is all', BUT I hold others to a different standard, I like to annoy other people who ship pairings that I dont by hounding them on technicalities on how they write their support for their fave pairings in their ship manifestos by telling them to defend it better" like omg what a psycho.
Reply
I certainly have no problem with Tifa (I like her a lot!), I just prefer her in other pairings. Like Rufus/Tifa.
No offense taken. We all have our opinions. :D
Reply
I'm glad you're not offended. ^^ Sometimes people just don't take well to messages like that.
Reply
Would my manifesto have been more convincing if I had simply ignored the moments I personally viewed to lean toward Cloud/Yuffie in AC? Should I have left them out to avoid possibly offending a Cloud/Tifa fan? Your problem with my manifesto seems to be with the AC section. Maybe you think I completely warped AC to fit the Cloud/Yuffie pairing? Maybe I did. But as itsutsuboshi pointed out, fans of pairings like this one have to basically grasp at straws.
But at least Cloud/Yuffie had a kiss. I've seen way too many pairings who have nothing. And if I see something in AC and personally think "Hmm, that leans toward Cloud/Yuffie!" I'm certainly going to include it in a manifesto.
What seems "illogical" to you seems extremely logical to me. So apparently, not everyone is going to think the same way you do.
Reply
I never said you should ignore moments you viewed to lean towards Cloud/Yuffie in AC. What I said was to at least present it in a manner that was more logical and sound.
And yes, not everyone is going to think the same way as I do. But that also means not everyone is going to think the same way as you do.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
You said: What I meant was that if you're going to justify a pairing, you'd want to try and convince as many people as possible, and the way to go about doing that would be to defend your pairing whenever people point out things they think do not support your pairing.
How am I supposed to do that up there in the manifesto before anyone points out anything that does not support the pairing? I simply don't understand how I can argue something before anything has been said ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
However, if you're going to try to interpret something, your interpretation should at least sound logical and rational, even if it may not necessary be correct. In the end, what you're trying to do is convince others, and that's why you justify what you support.
I was just pointing out what I thought was kinda illogical. If your arguments are not sound, not logical, it's not going to be convincing. And that would just make your justification sound really off. Why would you want that?
No offense meant, but this is just my two cents on justifying a pairing you like. I personally don't mind the Cloud/Yuffie pairing, if you're wondering, so this isn't meant to debase the pairing.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
If you base a pairing merely on interpretation, then it's probably not going to be very strong. Why? Because as a fan of a certain pairing, you'd be biased towards the pairing and that would cause you to pick up every little thing and interpret it in the way that aids your justification.
I just think to justify something, you need to be very objective.
That said, I want to stress again: I do not disregard the argument brought forth for the Cloud/Yuffie pairing, nor do I mean to debase them as a couple. Personally, some of the pairing I support do not even interact a whole lot, so I always believe in minute possibilites. *shrugs*
Reply
And I'm fairly certain that I'm not the first person to write a manifesto and be biased toward my pairing of choice.
Cloud/Yuffie is based on a mixture of interpretation (AC) and hard evidence (the kiss). I wanted to present both sides in the manifesto.
Reply
And of course you're not the first person to be biased towards your favoured pairing. Everybody does that, me included. But if you're going to try writing a justification for your favoured pairing, it's always better to be objective (a.k.a. not biased) for a stronger-sounding argument.
Reply
And then:
I never said anything about pairings based on only interpretation are weak.
Which is it?
Regardless, I think you and I just have different view points on what ship manifestos are all about. You seem to think they are meant to convince the world that MY pairing is the RIGHT pairing. I think they're about explaining WHY I like this pairing and why it works for me personally, and in that way explain what's good and fun about the pairing.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment