The Archmage Returns After 4000 Years - Vol. 1 Ch. 48

[MangaDex]

 

[anzuda]

wait... so is everyone in the blake house have grey hair? then how did frey didn't have it before gaining that heart thingie? is it because she took his mother side of the gene?

 

[comeonnow0]

I have TOO MUCH TALENT. Other people hate me because I'M TOO TALENTED. One person reacted badly because I have TOO MUCH TALENT.

I'll be clear. Sometimes the overly talented can be sympathetic. This isn't one of those times. It was one person. Yeah, sire, it was a beloved teacher, but it still didn't sound that bad.

@anzuda He did have grey hair before. His hair is now white after taking in the frozen river.

 

[Damn_Dude]

Noooo fuck fuck fuck, cant that fucking burden leave frey alone??

 

[Y4KIMUR4]

For frick sake! This dog always tagging along isn't she!? I want some solo journey

 

[SerpensR]

Look at these bitches getting upset Frey isn't on a boring solo journey.

 

[Lxminous]

Ay yo red hair best girl time to get flamed

 

[anotherone]

@Lxminous This so much XD
Can't really understand the hate, but I came to expect it in the comments.

 

[Lxminous]

Kids these days don't get tsunderes.

 

[HiAndHello]

Honestly I really love Isabell; she’s actually my favourite character and really doesn’t deserve all the hate.

 

[Tatsumaikyoku]

@comeonnow0 "it still didn't sound that bad." The keyword there is sound. Unless you experienced it yourself, it's hard to say how it impacts the subjects involved. I personally know someone who was in a similar situation(certified gifted with all the tests and experts coming in to prove it.). Loved the subject but got bullied and insulted by his sibling who was jealous of him. Now he hates the subject. Getting insulted and betrayed by someone who you thought you could trust and even looked up to can leave very heavy scars. This is especially true with children who are easily attached and very dependent.

 

[comeonnow0]

@Tatsumaikyoku You missed what I actually wrote. I never doubted that they sincerely and legitimately feel hurt and betrayed. Im sure they truly do.

That is not sympathetic to other people. In my opinion, that isn't sympathetic to readers, or, it should not be sympathetic to readers. I'll give a fairly bad example. Imagine a spoiled child who has been told they aren't allowed to have dessert before dinner. They're legitimately hurt. They're sincerely upset. I do not deny that. It's not sympathetic, though.

I specifically said that's a bad example because I understand that Peruan is not a spoiled child. I'm not trying to insult him in that way. However, I stand by my statement that it is not that sympathetic here, in this particular story.

I don't know all the details of your friend. Your friend could be sympathetic or not. I don't know. Here, with Peruan, it was one comment once. That's a factor in me saying it's not sympathetic.

 

[Tatsumaikyoku]

@comeonnow0 I understand what you wrote. It's fine if you don't find it sympathetic, that's a personal thing since the very essence for something to be considered sympathetic is to be relatable. The problem is your claim for it not to be sympathetic when things like these happen in reality all the time. Someone being discouraged from something because someone they trusted hurt them. You can't just claim that it's not sympathetic for other people because for something to be sympathetic is dependent on an individual, and can't be vouched by someone else.

Edit: grammar

 

[comeonnow0]

@Tatsumaikyoku Some things are less subjective and individual than you think. For example, tastes and preferences for food are individual. However, the vast majority of people do not like the taste of soap. You would be hard pressed to find someone who liked the taste of soap because that is actually a generally shared thing.

I'm saying it is similar here. Very few people would think a spoiled child being told to wait for dessert is sympathetic, for example. I am saying that for similar reasons, Peruan should not be thought of as sympathetic.

 

[Tatsumaikyoku]

@comeonnow0 I'm hard pressed to accept that analogy since being subjective does not equate to sympathy. Sympathy is more than just subjectivity, it's also about experience. Yes all sympathy stems from subjectivity, but just because something is subjective doesn't automatically make it subject to sympathy. In the case of your spoiled child example, you're basing it on wrong standards. Only a spoiled child would most likely understand the feelings of another spoiled child(but not always since experiences do overlap with anyone.) The problem isn't whether who its sympathetic to or for, the problem is your claim for what(or whether something) should be sympathized or not, in which, shouldn't be done.

Edit: Typo

 

[comeonnow0]

@Tatsumaikyoku Just to let you know, you have something like four minutes to edit your comment before it shows up as having been edited. If it's for issues like typos, I doubt that anyone would fault you for "changing" your comment. I, personally, would not.

"it's also about experience" Despite how people may think that experiences are often individual, some experiences are actually widely shared. That's because certain things are very common to the human experience, not just the individual experience. Refer back to the taste of soap. You might have someone who has never had soap in their mouth in their life. They know nothing about it. However, if they were to try it even once, they almost certainly would find it unpleasant. That's because of how taste is. Again, yes, taste is generally personal and individual. You might like X while I hate it. Despite the fact that taste is often individual and based on experience, some things with taste are still commonly shared. It's similar here. I'm saying that even though a decision of whether something is sympathetic is usually individual, sometimes, it can be generally accepted and understood by the majority.

Let me say this in a different way. Why? People find things sympathetic *for reasons*. Yes, people can and often do have different reasons. However, a lot of the time, those reasons overlap. I am using what I believe are generally accepted reasons to say that Peruan should not be considered sympathetic. It was one statement one time. He had a lot of praise from other people. He is still gifted. Etc. I explained my reasons before.

Yes, you may have different reasons when you decide whether something is sympathetic or not. However, I am trying to say that for these reasons that many people usually have, he should not be considered sympathetic. Yes, you can still disagree. But then my response is that you're not my intended audience. You have reasons that differ from what I'm saying.

That was all a bad explanation, but hopefully it made some sense.

 

[Tatsumaikyoku]

@comeonnow0 You're missing the point. I am very much aware of what you've said. But regardless of how common an experience is, it will always be interpreted differently, even if it is to a minute degree(p. It's not an issue of whether it's sympathetic for you or whether it is sympathetic for me. It's an issue of you imposing what should and what should not be sympathetic. People can agree with you, but you shouldn't state is as a claim as if you represent some sort of group/faction of a general thought right down to the T of it(in the context of the subject). This is what I'm pointing out from your comment. Regardless of basic facts and reason, you should never ever speak out in behalf of others and claim it to be a representative idea of the whole.

As for the edit thing, I apologize if you found it weird. It's just a courtesy thing I've learned and picked up when it comes to internet postings.

Edit: I forgot to add a "0" on your name when tagging you. Sorry bout that

Edit 2: I just realized that this might come of lectury and brash, and forgive me if it does, but that is not my intention.

 

[comeonnow0]

@Tatsumaikyoku That's nihilistic position. We're talking to each other using the same language. Based on your logic, regardless of how common the understanding of these words are, it will always be interpreted differently, even if it is to a minute degree.

You say you/I should never speak out on behalf of others and claim it to be a representative idea of the whole? By that same logic, you can never speak. Speaking with language, with words, presupposes a common and shared understanding of how those words work.

I didn't mean to say that the edit thing was weird. I was trying to provide a helpful tip if you hadn't known about it. I apologize if it seemed to be insulting in any way.

 

[Tatsumaikyoku]

@comeonnow0 what. . . How is that nihilistic. I just told you to not speak in behalf of other people, that has nothing to do with language. It's just basic opinion etiquette to not represent others without their consent. By definition, Nihilism is "the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated." and from Britannica "a variety of philosophical and aesthetic stances that, in one sense or another, denied the existence of genuine moral truths or values, rejected the possibility of knowledge or communication, and asserted the ultimate meaninglessness or purposelessness of life or of the universe." How in the world did my comment bring you to a nihilistic conclusion lol. Also, it's just a reality that people will always interpret things differently, that's just a part of life. That in no means by itself is bad, it's just something that is.

 

[comeonnow0]

@Tatsumaikyoku The logical conclusion of your position is that language and speaking does not work. I am saying that if we listen to what you say, then logic shows that language does not work.

You said 1) people always interpret things differently, therefore 2) one person should not try to talk about commonly shared experiences.

Guess what language is? Language only works because of commonly agreed meanings. If we go with your words, then the logical conclusion is that language cannot work. Language has no meaning.

I used nihilistic in a colloquial way. I meant that your position is empty and devoid. Your position is logically empty.