[COUPLES] Alex and Elle - Will they or won't they?

[Adam_Arnold]

Honestly, I don't like mangas that do that because you feel like you've been dragged along for a crazy ride with no conclusion or catharsis for your feelings. I hope they don't do that with this manga. I don't know how you can have a harem comedy without some kind of shipping involved.

The final volume carries the subtitle of "Happy Endings," so that should be a clue about the ending.

[zingmaster]

Honestly, I don't like mangas that do that because you feel like you've been dragged along for a crazy ride with no conclusion or catharsis for your feelings. I hope they don't do that with this manga. I don't know how you can have a harem comedy without some kind of shipping involved.

The final volume carries the subtitle of "Happy Endings," so that should be a clue about the ending.

So no nuclear winter, huh?

[Peregrin]

Art can be anything you want it to be, and could be as far out from normal as you want it to be.

Indeed. Good art, however, does need some understanding of basic human principles. This seems to me like you're rather a romantic.

... Just... no... Romanticism in art is definitely NOT being as far out from normal as you want it to be. I have no beef with anything else being argued here, but art is subjective. "Good" art is not definite. Opinions on the subject change from person to person. And understanding of basic human principles? You could argue that any endeavor in which something is planned to be liked by and/or sold to people requires this. Define "basic human principles" before you say that art requires them. I fail to see how Andy Warhol's painting of a can of Campbell soup (regarded as "good" art by many) portrays an understanding of basic human principles.

In short, please DO NOT generalize in arguments. It just makes you appear ignorant.

We write to communicate, being truly a writer at heart is not just being someone with a love of words or stories, things that seem almost superficial in the light of the truth, but a love of people.

Camus, Sartre, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Fitzgerald, etc... I'm pretty sure they were true writers. And I'm pretty sure they didn't love much of any of what you mention.

[Adam_Arnold]

We write to communicate, being truly a writer at heart is not just being someone with a love of words or stories, things that seem almost superficial in the light of the truth, but a love of people.

Camus, Sartre, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Fitzgerald, etc... I'm pretty sure they were true writers. And I'm pretty sure they didn't love much of any of what you mention.

Let's not forget about the introverted hermet that is the great poet Emily Dickenson.

[FenixAiur]

Art can be anything you want it to be, and could be as far out from normal as you want it to be.

Indeed. Good art, however, does need some understanding of basic human principles. This seems to me like you're rather a romantic.

... Just... no... Romanticism in art is definitely NOT being as far out from normal as you want it to be. I have no beef with anything else being argued here, but art is subjective. "Good" art is not definite. Opinions on the subject change from person to person. And understanding of basic human principles? You could argue that any endeavor in which something is planned to be liked by and/or sold to people requires this. Define "basic human principles" before you say that art requires them. I fail to see how Andy Warhol's painting of a can of Campbell soup (regarded as "good" art by many) portrays an understanding of basic human principles.

In short, please DO NOT generalize in arguments. It just makes you appear ignorant.

We write to communicate, being truly a writer at heart is not just being someone with a love of words or stories, things that seem almost superficial in the light of the truth, but a love of people.

Camus, Sartre, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Fitzgerald, etc... I'm pretty sure they were true writers. And I'm pretty sure they didn't love much of any of what you mention.

Thanks for posting my thoughts (with better words than I would have done so), specially about the Campbell soup.

As some people in here have mentioned, the "love" for art and its definition for what is "good and/or decent" is subjective. While some people find "The Scream" to be a great piece, others cannot understand why people like it. I fail to see how some impressionist jobs, like "On White II" and "Composition X" by Kandinsky, are considered art, while some others find feelings on it that I probably haven't even heard of.

While life can be considered a cliche, I'm not really sure art falls under the same definition; after all, all ways of expression are called "Art" at least once during their existence.

"Beauty is on the eye of the beholder."

[Peregrin]

For the latter two, we have a complete difference of opinion on the definition. For example, to prove that not all writing needed a love of people, (something I still maintain to be true, there are no words or stories without people, without life there is nothing worth writing, (in a poetical/prose sense, technical writing and books of mathematics are another thing altogether) without people there would be no creativity - another age old argument, does the universe exist and we perceive it, or does the universe exist because we perceive it?) Peregrin cited Camus, Sartre, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Fitzgerald. Three Philosophers, one political philosopher, and a prose author - and Adam added Emily Dickinson as an example, a poet. If you were thinking in the same reasoning as I was, you too would be rather bemused by this, but as you aren't I can see your point. You chose these specific authors and philosophers because they either had negative views of humanity/society or isolated themselves away. Your understanding of the phrase 'loved people' was that all authors had to think humans were the best darned things ever, and become social butterflies because they loved people so much. I can understand, I wasn't very clear.

However, while the first five sometimes had negative views of humanity, and the last was a hermit, they all wrote about humanity. They all portrayed humanity in fullblown reality. Why is Fitzgerald considered by many brilliant? His characters are real, humans can relate to them. Hobbes, Sarte, and Camus viewed humanity negatively, yes, but don't you see? They wrote entire books about humans! They cared enough to criticize them! They had a reason, they wrote because they were humans and it is a natural state to love humans, even if that human is only yourself and your small world! I assumed everyone knew love and hate were the different sides of the same coin, and that coin is involvement, interest, caring! This is a horrible example, but if they weren't, why would some people with negative views of themselves try to kill themselves? Why would they go through great pains (sometimes) to end their own life? Because they care.

That is what great authors have, in my opinion, they care about humanity. Even the isolated Dickinson wrote. about life and love and death - things basely human. (though that isn't the right word, I personally believe that animals feel emotions and understand these things as well, to a lesser extent.) Machiavelli adored humans, he's often put down as a worse political philosopher than he actually was, he valued free will above other things and actually believed little he wrote in 'The Prince', it was mainly to get in favor with the nobility.

I assume by this point that you intended "loving" to imply "having an interest in." As such, this is, to a certain extent, true. However, give me an example of a person's life in which no interest in people was present. Think of it this way: if a writer didn't care about people, who would he write for? It's like having a corporation that doesn't care about money. In short, your argument has shifted from being outright wrong to being a statement of the obvious.

In short: stop generalizing. I'd like to see one concrete example of a relationship working out between people similar to Alex and Elle. Really, you can't assume that one relationship to be more realistic that Alex's and Morgan's. That's called making assumptions. The realism and satisfaction of an Alex/Elle relationship is something that you think, not something that is factual. People are going to think otherwise. If you want to argue your points well, stop generalizing. Until then, your points are no better than ones like "Elle is a b*tch!" In fact, because of the ambiguity, they might even be worse.