Oh yeah sure they could have just shown 3 panels with them being poor kids, fighting some hobos and then joining the mercs. But instead they decided to have the whole shebang with le emotional moments and character development just paced like absolute shit cause they had to fit it into one chapter.
But thoughtless imitation and an inability to discern what is actually successful are at play in the telling of this story. Doing something simply because commercially successful series do it is a bad idea, even if one's only goal is commercial success, because that success doesn't prove the success of precisely what is being imitated.
I actually stated Sturgeon's Revelation (albeit not quite as Sturgeon did). The other fellow misapprehended it in dim-witted manner.
At this point, that might be the best solution; but the author could have delivered the back-story in an earlier chapter, or distributed it in pieces through earlier chapters.
Try reading the LNs that these manga are based off of, and you'll see a lot more detail and consideration in them. All too often the manga does not do the original source material justice, sort of like a Ewe Boll licensed movie.
More specifically, he's forced to communicate the same way the original story's Harold communicated; he's not allowed to change the personality of the character he inherited the position of. He is allowed to do whatever he wants otherwise, however, and requires people to read between the lines between action and statement, as you noted here (and shown with the peasant maid and her daughter early on).
From what I know authors with bi monthly releases generally do other work on the side, like doing assistant work or outside income sources, the only ones that can sustain themselves from manga are those that have monthly releases or super popular series.
You're using the term “personality” for something far less than its full scope.
The everyday distinction between word and deed is serviceable in casual discourse, but falls apart under rigorous examination. Acts of expression are still acts, and all acts have an expressive dimension. We are unlikely ever to get a coherent explanation as to why the body of Harold doesn't effect at least petty unpleasantness of other sorts.
No, I'm not. "Personality; a characteristic way of thinking, feeling, and behaving." He himself has his own thoughts and feelings, but he is not allowed to alter Harold's thoughts and feelings, nor his behaviour (his conduct towards others). While he can do things that Harold may never have done, it's still done with Harold's behavioural style first and foremost. Or, in short, he's not allowed to change the personality of the character he inherited the position of (Harold), as I said.
That's being pedantic over discourse to an illogical degree, as my phrasing that people need to, "read between the lines between action and statement" is still correct at the end of the day. He (the soul inside Harold) can do something that Harold may not have done in act, but all the details are done as Harold would have if he had done it originally, with his mannerisms, behaviour, etc. at the forefront, even if it sounds or looks entirely selfish or even downright evil in phrasing or deed, on the surface. It's only when looked into at a deeper level that the dissonance can be seen, as with his inner circle. That is why his planned fiancee loathed him, until she actually looked at the results of what he was doing and the method by which he was doing them by, even down to things like how he had to frame things to tear his parents down rather than to save the people, which is his (not Harold's) inner reasoning.
He does not behave like Harold except in the case of those acts commonly recognized as expressive; so, yes, you are
And I shouldn't have had to explain that point further.
One cannot be logical to an illogical degree. So far, no explanation has been given within the story as to why a distinction which is not fundamental seems to govern the characters choices as if it is fundamental. I was already raising this objection before you decided to engage me in discussion. A residual of the original Harold does not answer the objection.
I already have explained exactly how each point of personality applies with facts backing my statements; just because you want to ignore what I've said instead of rebutting it (which in any debate is considered a sign of failure and acquiescence to said points) doesn't mean you're right.
Correct, but that's because you aren't being logical; "Pedantic; Being overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning, like a pedant." You're caring about trivial things, and not even getting them right (thus, "to an illogical degree"; and to stifle that all-too-obvious soon-to-be-attempted line of address, "illogical; not logical, contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic, unreasoning"). Even in scholarly circles, it is known and accepted that the result of an action is separate from the method of the action in terms of morality and reflection of personality. Being pedantic doesn't mean you're right. In comparison, I am also being pedantic, but logically so. This all has already been explained in the Light Novel (all in greater detail than I have explained above), and touched on in briefer detail early in the manga; and I have explained this above without devolving into the fallacy of proof-by-assertion, as you have been.
When specifically earlier?
If he behaved like Harold then he would have done things such as kill the maid. So, no, unlike your claim that
he's done just that because, as you admit, personality is
The reason that you are writing at such length without addressing the real issue is that you are writing at such length exactly in an attempt to avoid addressing the real issue.
You’re a dumbass
It's been so long since the series was updated that I can't remember absolute specifics of when what was shown where. But I was fairly sure what I was bringing up was already shown/stated directly (not a spoiler) and I was specifically avoiding known spoilers(like the results of the mission, whether it succeeds or fails, the aftermath, what happens in the future, etc)(IIRC, a lot of this was stated before during the visit to father in law for help when making preparations)
Before being used as a device to interrupt a battle and thereby push the conclusion of the battle into a later chapter than its beginning.
If he keeps doing shit like this, I will.
The antecedent for “him” is “the author”, and plainly the readers aren't all in agreement in that case. But perhaps you mean the character in the flasback, and can't imagine putting the flashback in a better place.
We already knew that you were fine with it; the problem is in how you attempt to argue that we should be fine with it.
Nope. Properly apprehended, it's an important point.
No, you're someone who cannot apprehend Sturgeon's Revelation, simple as it is.
Pointless drivel
