/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>45876412
Another question comes down to how strict is the linux Yukari installed? Some of the works with her depicts her as a retard that can't do anything not explicitly spelled out, like a real program. Then you have others like PCB and TH19 which has her making her own judgements. It's not at all consistent.

>>44827606
>"Nuh uh every character in that source is lying"
You get people like that because some sources contradict each other and nobody is satisfied with "well it's a retcon from ZUN" as a reason. It could be as simple as people not liking the changes, so they tune out the things they don't like and still feel fine about it since what they liked is/was canon. Granted some anons here are retarded and only accept their own viewpoint and reject all others, but they want to make sure you also have their viewpoint. This is where we get the "Grim" vs "Cute" sokyofags. Someone has to be wrong, but the one that is lies is conveniently the one you sourced. Though I think we can all agree that anything penned by Aya isn't exactly the most credible.
I understand their viewpoint because I was a 40kfag once upon a time and the unreliable narrator trope was overused to the nth degree, far more than ZUN's used it. That being said, there's a grain of truth in everything, but where do you go when there's a dozen different depictions of the same character or event? Case in point Reimu who is often used as evidence towards ZUN using the trope because her character is all over the place. Arguments about Ran in particular are the most interesting because most of the evidence used is from canon, and both interpretations obviously contradict. Whether that's because of retcon, the unreliable narrator, ZUN gives too much artistic liberties to the mangaka, or that ZUN simply can't write well enough to resolve the disparity between show vs tell? It could be all of them.
>canonfags shit it up by citing ZUN art in a discussion about relative sexiness
In short anons here are too autistic and cant read the room.

>>44710623
didn't we just have one?