I literally dont know how to continue explaining to people that part of the reason Goku decided to stay dead was because Gohan hated fighting.
He didnt know this until cell. He literally had no idea. Gohan NEVER gave any indication whatsoever. Couple that with the fact Bulma pointed out most of people threatening the Earth during that point in time were all people wanting Goku. The saiyans. Frieza. The androids. Doctor Gero. Cell.
All because of Goku. Its not his fault but his very existence consistently put the Earth in danger. He truly believed Earth would be safer without him and therefore, gohan wouldnt be consistently placed into battle.
Because Goku didnt know gohan hated fighting. But once he knew came the very interwoven nature of these threats he brought making his own son fight because gohan felt he HAD to. Not because he wanted to. For goku, protecting the earth always aligned with his own love for fighting. But gohan fought out of necessity, out of the very idea that they couldnt afford to do it without him. He has this power he didnt ask for so he must use it right? Because it would be selfish if he didnt.
But goku... goku thought gohan was like him. Gohan WANTED to return to help fight vegeta. He WANTED to go to namek. He WANTED to stay and fight after piccolo almost died to frieza. Goku didnt see gohan train that first year. Didnt witness what it took to make gohan a fighter. All he saw was his son who now was strong and wanted to join the fight like his dad. And he knows gohan is more powerful than them, knows he can stop cell, FELT IT. Gohan has to defeat cell because no one else can. So he thinks if gohan gets angry enough fighting cell, itll be the answer. Because thats how its always been for goku. And in thirty seconds piccolo makes him realize he's wrong. He doesnt argue back, he listens and concedes and realizes that piccolo is right. And suddenly goku wants to abandon his plan and stop the fight. He made a mistake. He intends to get gohan out. And in the end, he still ended up being right, but it doesnt change what goku now knows. Gohan isnt like him and he doesnt enjoy fighting.
Goku would have NEVER made gohan fight if he thought he didnt want to. You know this whenever adult gohan gets involved in a fight and goku apologizes that he had to. Or when someone suggests gohan for a battle and goku is like nah he's "out of practice," even when they have time FOR PRACTICE. He never wants to force gohan into a situation like cell again. Because cell was a mistake and goku has learned from it. So he never asks Gohan to fight anymore. If Gohan wants in then of course he's in. But he wants his son to be able to choose that. He wants gohan to be HAPPY and if thats not fighting then thats perfectly alright with goku.
So it wasnt just about keeping the earth safe. Or his friends. It was knowing that in the safety of gokus absence, gohan wouldnt have to fight either. There would be less threats, less chances of his son being forced into battle. And sure he also trusted that gohan and the others could keep the earth safe if they had to, but he was banking on the threat level significantly decreasing instead.
And decrease it did. They had seven whole years of peace. Not a single threat. Meanwhile from the moment Raditz shows up to gokus death to cell, it all takes place within the span of FIVE YEARS. The longest they went without a threat was the three year gap spent training for the androids. And they spent every waking moment knowing they were coming.
And then if you look at trunks future... majority of the human population being wiped out by the androids. Majority of gokus friends. His son. All dead. Because of him. Because he defeated the red ribbon army when he was a child. And that very easily could have been their future as well. So Goku does his job in preventing that. He saves all of them. And if hes the only one who ends up dead, well... it doesnt matter. Because they aren't. And he intends to keep it that way. So he stays in otherworld, to keep them safe and to give his son a future that he can choose. If Gohan has to fight, then he can. But at least his father wouldnt be the one bringing the threats to his door.
288 notes
·
View notes
I grew up hearing that to be a good artist you have to be willing to steal and it ain't wrong, Disney stole fairy tales, which the Brothers Grimm also stole. Most modern philosophy cribs the notes from older philosophers and don't even get me started on fantasy writers, fucking no good thieves and low lives, the lot of them! Originality is frankly: a myth.
We are all "standing on the shoulders of giants"
Does this mean wholesale copying someone else's work isn't possible?No, no it doesn't. Does it mean that the line between theft and inspiration is thin as fuck? Yes, yes, it does. I prefer not to er on the side of caution even remotely though. Because there's a certain level of conceit in believing your the ONLY person who writes or thinks in a certain way. I've read some peoples writing and thought "fuck do I have a split personality I didn't notice?" then I'll read something else and be like "I could never." But I'd bet you a thousand dollars someone else could.
I have no idea what your intention was, when you were sending this ask. I’m not gonna change my opinion on copyright because some anonymous user on tumblr doesn’t agree with me.
However, I’m not gonna stay quiet when people are starting to lie on here. Especially when they’re disrespecting my culture and the Grimm Brothers, my darlings, who fundamentally influenced the era of Romanticism (aka the best epoch, argue with the wall) and my country.
First of all, your premise solely consists of “to be a good artist, you have to steal.”
I like questioning things, so let’s start with that. Basically, you’re saying that every good artist has stolen something. I think I have to remind you that every artistic epoch in European history has started because someone tried something new. Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso — you can choose.
They were influenced by politics, their personal lives, traumatic experiences etc. And still, they created something new that changed our culture in retrospect.
Monet, the most important forerunner of Impressionism, got criticised for Impressionism, Sunrise by most art critics of the time.
They hated Impressionism. They called the pieces unfinished and no one took them seriously. Because they were new, they were revolutionary. Impressionism is about short, thick brush strokes. Impressionism is about expressing your perception of nature and not about an exact representation of it.
And that was new. That was original. Saying he stole it, is discrediting his work. Monet didn’t suffer most of his life, so you can call his art stolen. Neither did Van Gogh.
Yes, they did get inspired by other artists of the time. But they didn’t copy. They did their own thing. They were original. They changed the culture. They enriched it. That’s why they’re great artists. They were brilliant for the time they were living in.
Now, to the Grimms and Disney. Dearest anon, please do some research before you claim that the brothers stole fairytales. They were Germans. And they collected German fairytales because those were usually transmitted orally. (Also because the era of Romanticism started to dig into the fairytales of the Middle Ages but that’s another story).
The brothers didn’t steal anything. Those fairytales belonged to the public. There were hundreds of versions of those, so the Grimms decided to ask around and write down one version.
And guess what, Disney didn’t steal those fairytales either. Because those fairytales don’t belong to one person. They belonged to the people because they were part of German folklore. Disney built a new version and transformed it into animation. Disney’s Cinderella has very little to do with the fairytale of Aschenputtel (or Aschenbrödel, it depends) I grew up with.
Disney created a version of those fairytales.
Just like when the brothers transformed oral fairytales into literary ones. That doesn’t mean they stole them. Stole them from whom? The German people? How can you steal a story that is part of folklore? Those stories belonged to the people. And the collection of this stories, by the Grimms, did as well.
Now, coming to your philosophy point.
You can divide philosophy into four different categories. They’re called Kant’s four questions and basically structure philosophy.
1. What can I know?
2. What ought I to do?
3. What may I hope for?
4. What is man?
Of course, when you’re a philosopher, your ideas will base on this context. Because generally speaking, those four questions make up philosophy. (Obviously, there are other minor categories.)
So, when you’re a philosopher and argue about ethics, are you copying Kant’s question What ought I to do? No. Because that’s ethics. And you can’t steal the concept of ethics. Kant just found a way to describe it, he didn’t invent it.
How can you steal philosophy, by the way?
Philosophy in itself always tries to answer the same questions. Saying a philosopher is copying someone because they have similar views on the world like someone who came before them is in itself illogical.
Am I stealing Socrates’ beliefs when I say, I want to find eudaimonia for myself? Does that also mean I steal the beliefs of Christianity when I believe in god?
A philosopher is made because they’re having their own beliefs and suggest them to the public. Stealing someone else’s work as a philosopher makes no sense.
Additionally, seriously, what did fantasy writers ever do to you? George R. R. Martin and John R. R. Tolkien are so fundamentally different, I don’t even know what your problem is. Martin got inspired by Tolkien, that’s true.
But Martin also focused on showing the grotesque and political aspects of fantasy. In Tolkien’s work, you’re mostly confronted with good and evil. And brotherhood. Lots of brotherhood. Politics isn’t as important as in A Song of Ice and Fire.
I don’t understand why you have to insult fantasy writers? Fantasy which is one of the most popular genres? What did fantasy writers ever do to you? Why are you so mad?? Of course there are gonna be the same tropes in a certain genre? Of course they’re gonna be dragons in fantasy?? That doesn’t mean they’re copying each other.
You cannot copyright tropes. You cannot copyright an idea. Do you want to copyright dragons?
Also, according to you originality is a myth (Who are you? Mark Twain?). I can only remind you of Van Gogh. Or Mary Shelley. Or William Shakespeare. Or Jane Austen. What did they steal? Words? Paint?
“Standing on the shoulders of giants.” This is true in the sense that we’re standing on something other people have built.
We get inspired, yes. But that doesn’t mean we’re copying. Using the same trope of enemies-to-lovers doesn’t mean you’re copying Jane Austen.
And you can be original while being inspired. Since when does one cancel out the other?
Also, stating “We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.” and immediately following that statement with “Does this mean wholesale copying someone else's work isn't possible?No, no it doesn't.” isn’t logical. You’ve already established that wholesale copying someone else’s work is possible. You’ve already mentioned that the Grimm brothers did that.
So, using this rhetorical question isn’t necessary — this has nothing to do with the discussion, it’s just a poor stylistic choice that bothered me.
I do have to agree with you that the line between inspiration and theft is thin. That doesn’t mean you should simply let it slide when someone is creating something suspiciously close to your work.
I prefer not to er on the side of caution even remotely though. What are you trying to say? You’re not cautious? You’re not interested in someone stealing your work? That’s okay. But then I have to assume that you don’t mind stealing other people’s work either.
And finally, no one said they believe they’re the only person who thinks in a certain way. It’s just suspicious when you write a snippet and a few hours later another user posts the same scene with the same metaphors and the same sentence structure and the same alliterations and the same accumulations. It’s suspicious. That’s it.
At the end, I’ll just mention it again because you don’t seem to have gotten my point. I have no problem with people getting inspired by me. What is making me sad is, that people seem to get inspired without trying something new or finding their own style.
I already mentioned that I’m not trying to harass anyone because they’re getting inspired by me. So, once again. I don’t know what your intention was, when you took your time and sent this to me.
68 notes
·
View notes