Oh, Debbie, what a wonderful essay! I think it answers the essay question perfectly. It puts into words everything that I'm thinking, and can't get to coalesce.
I know the Hueco Mundo arc has had ample Ichigo and Orihime panel time, with no Rukia in sight, but I just don't get where the IchiOri crowing and the IchiRuki alarmist tendencies are coming from. I'm really not trying to be a brat here, either (honestly!) but when you have to make up facts and assumptions to be read "in between the lines" to make your version of a story work, odds are your logic is flawed. Many of the IchiOri arguments hinge on all these between-the-lines assumptions they've made, that are, in many cases, diametrically opposed to what's been stated and shown in the actual manga story. They then just take certain scenes and manipulate them based on those assumptions to fit their preferred conclusion. They employ just about every logical fallacy in the book.
In contrast, many of the IchiRuki arguments, as you've illustrated amazingly here, are based on what actually happened in the story. Ichigo actually said this, Rukia actually did that. Orihime actually thought this and said that. Kubo actually wrote that. You're supposed to take what in fact was written and use that to analyze and make assumptions, not the other way around.
I do also wonder whether or not they actually believe everything they say as well - both the arguments for IchiOri and the arguments against IchiRuki. I believe they love what they love, and hate what they hate, and that they would like to see what they love come to pass. I do believe that.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-05-15 03:12 am (UTC)I know the Hueco Mundo arc has had ample Ichigo and Orihime panel time, with no Rukia in sight, but I just don't get where the IchiOri crowing and the IchiRuki alarmist tendencies are coming from. I'm really not trying to be a brat here, either (honestly!) but when you have to make up facts and assumptions to be read "in between the lines" to make your version of a story work, odds are your logic is flawed. Many of the IchiOri arguments hinge on all these between-the-lines assumptions they've made, that are, in many cases, diametrically opposed to what's been stated and shown in the actual manga story. They then just take certain scenes and manipulate them based on those assumptions to fit their preferred conclusion. They employ just about every logical fallacy in the book.
In contrast, many of the IchiRuki arguments, as you've illustrated amazingly here, are based on what actually happened in the story. Ichigo actually said this, Rukia actually did that. Orihime actually thought this and said that. Kubo actually wrote that. You're supposed to take what in fact was written and use that to analyze and make assumptions, not the other way around.
I do also wonder whether or not they actually believe everything they say as well - both the arguments for IchiOri and the arguments against IchiRuki. I believe they love what they love, and hate what they hate, and that they would like to see what they love come to pass. I do believe that.