The main narration provided by Sarah is generally fine and positively received, and there was a healthy blend of conventionally-styled story advancement with deep-end idealism. There was concerns that Sarah might be portrayed slightly towards the air-head/ clumsy deposition, very much akin to that of Yui Hirasawa, since on many instances Sarah is seen to be sidetracking, even in the midst of dire situations. Although most people agree that Sarah is not a complete airhead since there is evidence of depth in her thoughts. Other concerns include whether her thoughts are realistic as a sixteen year old. And her thoughts, should they be consistently depicted in the same format, may become monotonous by the third episode.
Well to this, I believe that there is a certain set of countermeasures. Personally, I wouldn't plan to stretch the air-head deposition of Sarah beyond the first two episodes. Unlike most fictional depictions, where character traits are set in stone for easy representation and a concrete impression by the reader, I would want Sarah's character to be dynamic. In other words, Sarah learns, and matures as the story progresses. There has been a little hint of her picking up phrases i.e. 'There is a time for everything', and 'awesome' from passing thoughts, to diary entries as habits. While I'll try to make Sarah generally united as a whole (so she doesn't seem to have a split personality if we compare the beginning to the end), Sarah's thoughts and narration will progressively mature- I hope that would fix the problem of monotony, and subsequent maturity balance her currently 'slightly immature' outlook.
Not much as been said about Ami, evidently most readers have relegated her as a side character by the 4th segment, with some observations of her being very layman and practical (she is no-where near idealistic)- on the whole she is cute and flighty. I'll have to work on her role as a 'back-to-earth' and idealism down-toner. But we haven't focused much on her yet, so I am not particularly worried.
Interestingly, a healthy proportion of people actually welcome the prospect of introducing bystanding-characters, or arbitrary names placed on characters as and when needed. Shirlene was well-received, and the inclusion of a group of boys have been observed to bring a sort of realism to the setting that it was a JC orientation and not a class of 3 girls only. I'll try not to expound too much on them though, since the main focus is not on the class.
However, one of the bigger controversies was with Rachael's segment, or more specifically at the character of Rachael. Many people have pointed out that in comparison to the bulk of the story (as seen through Sarah's eyes), Rachael's segment is much emotional, darker, and incomprehensible. Many personal jargons were seen in her segment, i.e. Halcyon theory, Project Re-affirmation, and Threshold Chasms. This had made Rachael's idealistic world a very complex, elaborate and intricate place, but the downside is that one can be easily lost in the process of exploration. The general gist of her grievances with her old class was picked up, but many people felt that that was only a partial reason to her wanting to seek affirmation. It was believed that something else must be contributing to her ending up in such an idealistic/emotional state.
This belief was only enhanced by the most disturbing feature of Rachael's narration- when Rachael addresses herself as two distinctive persons. In the story, I had modeled Rachael to have a corresponding IM character. Rachael would then address her primary self as "I", and her secondary self as "Rach" and "you". This segment has evidently caused uneasiness in certain readers, since it implies that Rachael herself is an unstable and psychotic person, borderline actual clinical dissociative-identity-disorder on the DSM IV. Some concerns on the level of surrealism of her views on the world- if she is paranoid schizophrenic or suffering from psychosis, and the general consensus on Rachael is that she is disturbing, poignant and very idealistic character.
In a way I am satisfied with the general outlook of Rachael has to it's readers, even though they were not exactly objectively positive. And I do not intend to revert her to a character that is 'on par' with Sarah's modelling. Unlike Sarah's segment, where we get a concrete feeling that Sarah is a character bounded to our fictional world such that her character morphs (via learning, assimilation and maturing) to interact with the world at points where she should be, Rachael's segment was never meant to be a segment about her interacting within the world. Rather, it was meant to be her view of the world- and in this respect, the realism of the world is instead morphed to fit the standards of idealism of Rachael's character.
It is in this aspect I want to bring out the full crux of realism and idealism- not in terms of tangibility of concepts to the 'real world', but rather unadulterated form of the philosophical question 'I am, therefore I think' (realism) vs 'I think, therefore I am' (idealism).
Why two characters in one then, on top of the world warped to the mind? I have given quite a fair bit of thought to that question myself- The reasons for such is definitely NOT to torture Rachael's character to evoke sympathy from the reader, or cause confusion so that I may have a hasty exit should I confuse myself. Rather, one of the primary reason is to bring the grave implications of idealism and how it affects realism- Rachael is aware of this real-ideal coupling, and her two sides are created by herself, in her own idealism- they embody her original real self, and the self she has acquired but can never seek understanding from (her ideal self). Throughout the story we will see how she integrates the two halves together, as indication of her own progress towards her goals. Yes, I do not deny that this method of indication is very very warped. But the situation is grave- and skimming over the imaginary friend components will severely hamper the construct of this story.
As for the rating of this story- although there is no violence, gore or sexual scenes depicted throughout, the themes of this story are nevertheless philosophical, unconventional and borderline unwholesome. This is especially evident in Rachael's idealism, as most of the time imperfect, even incorrect representations of the world would be given, which may mislead readers should their personal values not be steadfast. Of course, utmost effort will be dedicated to ensure that the imperfect values be pointed out in the story, and replaced by more wholesome ones. Personally I would give it the highest rating possible- R21, but this story is open for whomever is welcome to contemplate, and of course, seek the living best in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment