Re: [gundam] What next? (Was Re: Even more Tomino interview)


Prabal Nandy (nandy@U.Arizona.EDU)
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:10:38 -0700 (MST)


> > >> Amuro grew up. Char didn't. That's the point of the first Gundam. The
> only in the most technical sense. Amuro did grew up, not as much as
> others around him would want, but he did mostly fullfilled his duty. Char

  Well, he did come to understand what was truly important in real life,
as opposed to war. This is growing up, essencially.

> did not grow up, but since he had set a goal for himself, and then went on
> to achieve it, who has any rights to tell him to grow up? And to grow up
> into what? A even more ruthless bloodthirsty conspirator?

  Problem is, Char _never_ grows _past_ this. He's ALWAYS a suspicious
scheming plotter determined to get revenge on someone, or something.
ANYTHING to give his life some meaning...

> With his immense power, he sought only survival of his own self and those
> few who he cares for. He had very little ideology and in fact doesn't
> particular wanted the war to end one way or the other just as long as it
> does end. Mostly he wants to be left alone.

  Is there something really wrong with this? I mean, don't most soldiers
in war just want the war to be DONE with, regardless of who owns how much
land or territory at the finish? People seem to really come down on Amuro
as fans because of his lack of will to lead a "Brave new Newtype
Revolution", but I think part of Tomino's point is that "There is no point
trying to FORCE people to be enlightened." Gundam, strangely enough, is
about tolerance. Char never comprehends this.

> In our world, Char would be hailed as a hero, ruthless, determined,
> patient, focused and doesn't let wishy washy bleeding heart morals get in
> his way. He understood his own limitation, but also didn't hesitate to use

   A hero, or a monster. It can easily swing both ways, and I tend to take
the latter choice more seriously.

> all of his Newtype faculty to his advantages. He's great at playing the
> system, but also took pleasure at stabbing the final blow at the system.

  The "System"? If NT-ishness is an expression of the connections and
understandings between people, then in effect Char _abused_ the
connections and trust people had with him for the sole purpose of pushing
his bloody agenda of meaningless, ideology-less revenge through. He cared
nothing for Zeon, nothing for Spacenoids, nothing for anyone or anything
but the murder he had set up his life to wage against the Zabis (and then,
Amuro).

> Amuro did the opposite, he rebelled when he had nothing as asset, and when
> later he gained a foothold in life, he did it by selling out to a system
> that treated him as yet another expendable MS pilots.

  What, the Federation? You think the Egalatarianism of the Federation is
_worse_ than the Elitist Zeons? Isn't that what Democracy (Fed) is all
about, as opposed to the archaic samurai-warrior Fuedal system of Zeon?

> Time-wasting-speculative-question-of-the-day: did Bright/White Base and
> Amuro/Gundam make a substantial difference in the Battle of A Bao A Qu?

  Nope. And they weren't _supposed_ to either.

> It could be the action of one man (Char) outweighted those of all the good
> guys in White Base?

  Nope. Zabi was doomed with or without Char. And the 1YW would have gone
on without him. A matter of fact, since it is the _GM_ that won the war
for the Feds, it's really the Gundam's "Learning Computer" that had the
single biggest impact on the course of the 1YW, more so than the WB,
Amuro, Char, or any number of salamis!
                                                                -Probe

-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Feb 27 1999 - 07:37:09 JST