Urasekai Picnic - Vol. 10 Ch. 58 - The Whispered Voice Requires Self-Responsibility V

[Oeconomist]

I'm genuinely flabbergasted by this. Nobody else uses the word in the way that you do, and you should not be surprised when people misinterpret what you are saying.

I just provided a citation to the contrary. And notice the example use by the cited source; it is exactly as I also use it, creditting the mangaka as such for creating the characters and situations. (It actually makes no explicit reference to illustration.)

Nobody else uses the word in the way that you do

You're plainly, utterly wrong.

 

[Tsalnor]

I just provided a citation to the contrary. And notice the example use by the cited source; it is exactly as I also use it, creditting the mangaka as such for creating the characters and situations. (It actually makes no explicit reference to illustration.)

You're plainly, utterly wrong.

This is what you said:

Nonsense. To the extent that the mangaka follows the novel, the novelist is one of the mangaka. To the extent that an editor directs the path taken by a manga, the editor is one of the mangaka. And only to the extent that someone adapting a novel into a manga is free to deviate from the novel, is that adapter actually the mangaka. If you're concerned to defend an amanuensis, don't mistake him or her for something else.

This is an awful definition of mangaka that, as I said, nobody will agree with. And you backed it up by twisting a simplified, incomplete definition of the word you found on an English dictionary.
Again, don't be surprised when people keep misinterpreting your words when you insist on using them incorrectly! Just because it's "technically" correct according to one definition you found on one dictionary doesn't mean that's how people actually use the word.

 

[Oeconomist]

This is an awful definition of mangaka that, as I said, nobody will agree with.

It conforms exactly to the definition from Oxford Languages.

And you backed it up by twisting a simplified, incomplete definition of the word you found on an English dictionary.

I didn't twist anything; I proceeded in a straight line from the definition.

a simplified, incomplete definition of the word you found on an English dictionary

And so here you want to insist that the dictionary is wrong. You don't make a rational case for its being wrong; you just verbally stomp your foot. And are we really supposed to imagine that the dictionary using “creates” rather than “draws”, and using an example referring to characters and to situations and not explicitly to illustrations rather than simply to illustrations was simplification?

don't be surprised when people keep misinterpreting your words when you insist on using them incorrectly

The problem is people who mistake assumptions for knowledge, and misinterpret words when used correctly, and especially people who grossly overcommit, such as you.

Just because it's "technically" correct according to one definition you found on one dictionary doesn't mean that's how people actually use the word.

I didn't cite some random guy on the Internet (which is the only standing that you have here so far). Oxford Languages is responsible for the most comprehensive and authoritative dictionaries of the English language. (And, please, spare us the cheap scare quotes.)

 

[sastra]

It conforms exactly to the definition from Oxford Languages.

Semantics. And a bad one at that. You're using an Oxford definition, The dictionary for english languages to base your argumentation on. They're not necessarily the absolute authority for a japenese word. Sure, you can argue that it's an absorbed word, from japanese absorbed and used into english. But the fact that it's a japanese origin term still stands. Thus, the better authority for that is the japanese definition of it. And as you can already guess (and already know, presumably), the Japanese dictionary, the japanese population, and the international masses in general, defined the term "mangaka" as specifically the artist and only the artist.

But enough about these irrelevant red herrings. Let's talk about your main point of "argument".

Instead of taking swift action when the situation is time-critical, the MC subvocalizes a monologue,

How so? Which "subvocalization" that hinders the "swift action" the MC should've taken? Which page and what's the reason that you deem such "subvocalization" as unnecessary?

 

[Oeconomist]

Semantics.

Semantics was exactly the issue that Tsalnor chose to argue in the first place, you sophist.

You're using an Oxford definition, The dictionary for english languages to base your argumentation on.

The sentence to which Tsalnor objected was an English-language sentence.

Sure, you can argue that it's an absorbed word, from japanese absorbed and used into english. But the fact that it's a japanese origin term still stands.

Virtually every word in the English language originates in another language. Even when forms are left as found, definitions often change.

Which "subvocalization" that hinders the "swift action" the MC should've taken? Which page and what's the reason that you deem such "subvocalization" as unnecessary?

Did you notice the word “instead” in what I wrote? I have no objection to the MC subvocalizing as she acts to disable her opponents. But she didn't act, instead she subvocalized.

 

[KanoeYuuko]

I'm here because I saw there were quite a number of comments in this chap and wanted to see what others think of this chap. Never would I ever expect to find an all-out war about the definition of "mangaka" here instead.
That's deep I gotta say. In any case, I still think you should be mindful of your words and be respectful of others' opinions when leaving comments.

 

[huhgque]

wish this arc finish quickly

 

[SetsugoKioshi]

I want this bitch to do what the black guy with the lightnings said.

 

[Beckendorf]

I suppose theres some chance of the woman with the magic voice being "too crazy" or whatever for the eye to work, (though frankly I have significant doubts about that, considering she's not like "Satsuki" levels here) but when the followers enter the room, why not just blast them all with your eye of instantaneous vegetablification? After the goons are all turned into mush its one highschool girl vs a college woman. And if the eye does work on her, great, it just means all of them are dead and you can walk on home.

This is kinda the problem with giving the MC a oneshot weapon against everyone else, because you wonder "wow why didnt she just use it here against the one threat which it clearly would have worked on".

I mean come on, they ALL piled in through a single doorway WHILE Sorawo was looking at them, even if you argue that she can only target one person at a time (which admittedly is pretty likely, though unproven), it seems like it takes barely moments to instantly incapacitate a person, so you target the voice girl, then just glance over everyone else while concentrating on them. Bam. Instant dead cultist group, and youre free to go home.

The other argument I suppose is that you could say Sorawo DOESNT want to turn them all into vegetables, but considering her previous beliefs about cults and what she is implied to have been planning on doing to the last cult she was near this is probably out of character for her not to be willing to kill them all.