|
Post by azula1 on Jul 24, 2008 9:09:49 GMT -5
I'll have to be brief and quick again. Leaving you with some questions:
No one has yet to convince me that Azula's the baby eating serial killer that tortures and maims because she likes it. Every time I bring up a point I back it up with in show evidence no one has pointed out an episode and character that she tortures. Where is the proof?
If being insane means you like to torture and kill people. I love how Asian Malyasian says that proof of Azula's insanity is that she didn't kill and torture people in the finale.
And if everyone believes that little Azula was beyond help by "Zuko Alone" and Iroh is right to not even bother trying. Then doesn't that make him a bad uncle? Seriously, mental illness is nothing to be treated lightly. If you all believe that poor little Azula is that sick in the head then she shouldn't be scorned, she needed more help than ever. He could've tried something, anything counseling, extra strong tea, psychodelic mushrooms, acupunture. But instead he did nothing leaving little Azula to the tender mercies of Ozai, which didn't at all come back to lightning strike him in the chest did it? I think he could've tried to write her letters while off at sea with Zuko (which I'm sure he didn't) (even now he could try something) but he'd rather be at his precious tea shop.
|
|
Azula's Flames
Avatar Korra
Your banished, and you and you and....
Posts: 1,092
|
Post by Azula's Flames on Jul 24, 2008 9:35:51 GMT -5
Well first off we arent ever going to see any actual torture scenes i this show because its a nick show the creators have to leave little hints for the older fans to pick up on. 'My favourite prisioner used to mention you all the time....' that ring any bells? That was a pretty strong hint at torture. Aswell as that in the flashbacks she is seen enjoying the pain she inflicts on Ty Lee just because she beat her at tumbling and she liked to hurt animals something that is a sign of mental problems.
Even what she does to Zuko through out the first half of Season 3 would be seen as emotional torture.
She has shown she has no qualms killing, Zuko in The Avatar State, Aang in the Drill and again in COD, coming this close to stabbing Sokka in DoBS and then laughing and taunting Zuko as he dies painfully, all this with out batting an eyelid and over the course of the series we have never seen the slightest hint of a conciece, something we may have seen with her 'mother' if it were ever to be put in. Oh and I forgot about the sadist grin she does as her brother is burned and banished because it takes her one step closer to the throne.
As to why Iroh didn't/doesnt try to help her more its because he knows what she is truly like. He helped Zuko find his way because he knew that Zuko was good and new what was right and wrong and suffered for it. I also think that Azula probably taunted Iroh about his failure at Ba Sing Se/Lu Ten and loosing the throne because she did it when he wasn't there but now she's the Firelord's prized daughter she can do whatever the hell she wants stuff she couldn't get away with when Ursa was around to steer her. if she did make snide remarks about that then that is probably the one thing Iroh could never forgive.
|
|
SpiritBender
Buzzard Wasp
Ya tvoy hozyayn!!! (May The Force serve you well...)
Posts: 537
|
Post by SpiritBender on Jul 24, 2008 9:39:54 GMT -5
Iroh knew how to pick his battles. Zuko had a kind heart and potential to be a good ruler with true concern for the people of the Fire Nation and the world as a whole. Azula was a sadistic megalomaniac who would be a tyrant and a holy terror to everyone who crosses her path. Iroh knew who to direct his attention to. `Nuff said!
-- Spiritbender
|
|
|
Post by Fire Lord Azula on Jul 24, 2008 9:41:49 GMT -5
@asian malaysian: The titles aren't gender-specific, but the positions themselves were, until recently. For decades and decades, women were kept from climbing the social ladder. Now that they enjoy the high positions of power that men have cultivated for so long, they see nothing wrong with being referred to with the same terminology as males. If so, we would be seeing a movement to start feminizing those words in some fashion. But it isn't necessary. Though she calls herself "Queen", she also sees nothing wrong with tacking "Lord" on after the fact. Why not "Lady", then? "Lord" is acceptable for women, which was my original point -- and, directing the conversation back to Azula, she's more than happy to call herself that. Personally, I don't see anything inherently wrong with "actress", though if some women prefer "actor", I don't see why we should begrudge them. In such a case, I think people should be called what they want to be called. ----- azula1: I agree that, in most cases, "Lady" is the female counterpart to "Lord"... that's an undeniable fact. However, this isn't the case in Avatar. Azula is the Fire Lord, because that's what Mike and Bryan chose to call her. We can continue speculating on why, or we can simply leave it as-is. It can be argued that Azula wouldn't want to be called "Fire Lady", because of her personality. In any case, she didn't "correct" her father when he mentioned it. Out of his presence, could she not have changed the title if she had wanted to? I would think so. As he became ruler of the world, she would have jurisdiction over the Fire Nation. Every power associated with the ruler of the nation would be hers. She could've said, "I would rather be called 'Fire Lady'," but she didn't. On the contrary: she repeated "Fire Lord Azula" with a huge smile, and threw the title around every chance she got. I think the creators' intent is clear. ----- Fire Lord Azula: I would dispute the notion that HIH the Princess Azula is a tomboy. If you were to turn Azula male in a sort of "gender-swap", very little of her personality would need to be changed for a convincing switch. I'm sure you recall the burning of Iroh's doll in Zuko Alone -- and, subsequently, the way she eyed Zuko's knife. She wanted the knife, a traditionally "masculine" item. As azula1 pointed out a while back, Iroh didn't take the time to get to know his niece, made obvious by this ill-received gift. There's more to being a tomboy than "being boisterous and messy". Not all tomboys are boisterous and messy, in the same way not all boys are boisterous and messy. It would then be visible in other ways: the way they carry themselves, their appearance, and/or their interests. Tomboys are as multi-layered as anyone else, and some do exhibit a feminine side. Azula does, but it's minimal. She enjoys being pampered -- but who with royal status wouldn't? I don't see it as being intrinsically "feminine". Is Zuko feminine because he took advantage of the palanquin ride to Mai's house? That, too, is a form of pampering. Presumably, his hair was washed and combed by servants as well. I can't recall a time I've seen him being shouldered with an "effeminate" label because of this. The situation in which she was raised must be taken into account. For all her pampering, she hasn't been turned into a demure, porcelain doll. Instead, she maintains her aggression in all respects. Her later clothing, the gold-and-black armor, is especially masculine. We can see that, as a young child, Azula wasn't like other girls. Her interests lay in military strategy and furthering her talents in Firebending. No other Fire Nation girl on screen was displayed with such a fascination with war and violence. Those examples are solidly viewed as male interests. Though encouraged by her father, she clearly enjoyed the pursuits for their own sake. ( That's another thing: a gravitation to her father, and him to her. Such behavior is often demonstrated in tomboys. ) In the present day, Azula still obviously carries these interests with her, her skill in such maneuvers expanded to reflect her prodigious label, so she didn't "grow out of them". If you take Azula's core personality ( by which, I mean the personality traits she shows on a consistent basis ) into account, it becomes clear that most -- if not all -- of her definitive traits are commonly labeled as masculine. These are: - aggression - aloofness - ambition - arrogance - assertion - dominance - forcefulness - logic over emotion - powerful disposition - ruthlessness - sadism A few of her other traits are commonly found in both genders. - cunning - perfectionism I'm not suggesting that she's completely devoid of feminine traits; just that they are outnumbered in such a way that the label of "tomboy" is a valid one. The traits which make up her personality are along the line of being masculine or gender-neutral. More often than not, a tomboy's personality entails more than simply "acting like a boy at all times, in every way possible". In many examples exist the various nuances you yourself defend in Azula. It isn't as rigid a definition as meant to be believed. No one has yet to convince me that Azula's the baby eating serial killer that tortures and maims because she likes it. Every time I bring up a point I back it up with in show evidence no one has pointed out an episode and character that she tortures. Where is the proof? To be fair, torture and killing of such magnitude would never be allowed with a rating of TV-Y7. However, such actions can be inferred through her behavior. What happened to the captain in The Avatar State? He failed; he directly jeopardized Azula's plot to take Zuko and Iroh home in chains. After previously threatening to kill him over something out of his hands -- the direction of the tides -- what could've possibly happened to him? The inference is there: she likely killed him. Why Iroh never stepped in remains purely speculatory. In Zuko Alone, Zuko did have his mother, and Iroh probably wasn't in either childs' life much, being that he was waging a war on the Earth Kingdom. Yet, we see an understanding of Zuko in his gift to him: the "never-give-up-without-a-fight" knife. I doubt this episode was the first time Azula spoke so lightly of death, or put down her uncle as nothing more than "His Royal Tea-Loving Kookiness". Though the characters within earshot showed anger at her commentary, they didn't show surprise, leading us to believe that little Azula had harbored such insensitive thoughts for a while. I think you raise a good point in citing Iroh's lack of attention and understanding of his niece. But perhaps he didn't give her a knife because he feared what she would do with it!
|
|
Azula's Flames
Avatar Korra
Your banished, and you and you and....
Posts: 1,092
|
Post by Azula's Flames on Jul 24, 2008 10:03:23 GMT -5
To add a little to that point some might argue that Azula is always seen in full makeup and perfect hair (at least until she banishes every one) but this is all part of her perfectionist out look, everything must be perfect. She also obviously cant do any of this for her self as she becomes disheveled when she banishes her servents. She also enjoys the pampering because she believes, as royalty, she should be worshiped. Our other little tomboy, Toph, hates the pampering because she rejects her status where as Azula relishes in it.
|
|
|
Post by bbblack77 on Jul 25, 2008 14:22:44 GMT -5
az
|
|
|
Post by ♥stephie♥ on Jul 25, 2008 16:28:07 GMT -5
hmm...I believe that Iroh was trying to be a good uncle towards zuko and azula when he was on the battle front. (the doll and the knife?) Azula was already showing signs then of not likeing him, nor anybody and just doing whatever she pleased as long as daddy was pleased with her. Ozai wasn't the type of father whom loved her, he just wanted her to do his bidding, but when he wanted all the glory with no regard for his daughter, it started her demise. But do you guy's remember the flashback zuko had, where azula had zuko's knife and Azulong had 'passed on'? I think she killed him, because shes the one who always looks away and says he died in his sleep. yeah right. Also when we say azula with her friends (mai and ty lee) she was still abusive and controling...I wouldn't want to be her friend, but hey, I think mai and ty lee just kinda wanted to be near her to make her seem normal. Iroh when he came back saw this and made up his mind that she needed to be stopped, when she finally attack him in season 2. thus thats when he really started preparing zuko to fight azula, zuko just didn't realize it. I don't think it mainly the enviorment that effected Azula, for she refused to hang out with her mother, and just wanted to hang out with daddy and try and get some manipulative power. Iroh and Zuko are the only sane ones in royal family! How sad.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Jul 25, 2008 16:50:37 GMT -5
I stand for truth Lord Azula: The fact that a position was traditionally held by a man is no basis of saying that the position itself was gender specific. Otherwise, almost every single job or position outside the house could be traditionally described as such. Aside from that, Ive already said that both "Firelord" and "Firelady" are acceptable terms and I do agree with you on that point. I would stress, however, that in Azula's case, her father determined the designation and not her. In fact, I would hazard to guess that her lack of control over the manner of her appointment (she had originally planned to follow her father in the invasion) may have contributed to her mental collapse. Its clear that she had other issues on her mind far removed from whether she should be called a "Lady" or a "Lord" and was probably too disturbed to rationaly contemplate the matter even if it had been on her mind.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Jul 25, 2008 17:08:49 GMT -5
@ Stephie. I dont think that Azula could have taken on the Firelord at that age or that her father would permit it. Too much was at stake for that. I agree with your view that Iroh had tried to be a good uncle to both his nephew and his niece. Beyond a certain point, a relationship is a two way thing and except from certain low points related directly to his banishment, Zuko had always showed his deep affection for his uncle which was returned. In Azula's case, it wasnt. In anycase, theres nothing to suggest that Iroh was a bad uncle to Azula in the series unless youre willing to put all kinds of wish fufilment obligations as normal duties held by an uncle.
|
|
|
Post by Princess Azula on Jul 25, 2008 17:30:03 GMT -5
Fire Lord Azula: There's more to being a tomboy than "being boisterous and messy". Not all tomboys are boisterous and messy, in the same way not all boys are boisterous and messy. [/blockquote] I am afraid not, at least in how the word is defined in the English language. The OED does not admit a more expansive or nuanced definition because the term was created to describe a particular sort of person, and once that person began to deviate from the terms of that description then the term would become useless. She enjoys being pampered -- but who with royal status wouldn't? I don't see it as being intrinsically "feminine". Is Zuko feminine because he took advantage of the palanquin ride to Mai's house? That, too, is a form of pampering. Presumably, his hair was washed and combed by servants as well. I can't recall a time I've seen him being shouldered with an "effeminate" label because of this.
[/blockquote] Except historically speaking, such treatment has always been equated with the feminine. When we see Azula in "Return to Omashu," she makes reference to Ty Lee's noble status and asks why she wishes to mingle among uncivilized individuals. She makes use of her royal retinue except when it gets in the way of her objective, and her best friends and agents are female friends she's known since her childhood. This is hardly something that would be appropriate if a simple gender-swap were enacted. Her later clothing, the gold-and-black armor, is especially masculine. [/blockquote] So is Athena's clothing--moreso, because she wears her father's armor and tunic in the Iliad but she's still explicitly femine despite her preference to many masculine warlike traits. Indeed, she could never be called a "tomboy" despite her enjoyment of strategy and battle in its own right. Does that sound familiar? ( That's another thing: a gravitation to her father, and him to her. Such behavior is often demonstrated in tomboys. ) [/blockquote] Oh, come now. Is every Daddy's girl a tomboy, then? That's not a very strong claim. I'm not suggesting that she's completely devoid of feminine traits; [/blockquote] Some of her primary traits are quite feminine, though. Consider her coiffure and her déportment. She clearly behaves as if she went through etiquette school. Further, her use of manipulation is decidedly feminine. It almost seems disturbing that you associate things such as ambition, arrogance, and logic as uniformly male traits--I should think that in the 21st century, a sufficient amount of quite feminine women have exhibited those traits so as to defeat the chauvinistic notion that they strictly belong to the male sphere. More often than not, a tomboy's personality entails more than simply "acting like a boy at all times, in every way possible". In many examples exist the various nuances you yourself defend in Azula. It isn't as rigid a definition as meant to be believed. [/blockquote] Except those nuances are incompatible with being a tomboy. She could not simply swap genders and stay the same--a crucial part of her entire anima is female in nature, as can be easily distinguished by the thematic cue that's used for her. It's deliberately more feminine than the other FN cues.
|
|
|
Post by Fire Lord Azula on Jul 25, 2008 23:35:44 GMT -5
I stand for truth Lord Azula: The fact that a position was traditionally held by a man is no basis of saying that the position itself was gender specific. Otherwise, almost every single job or position outside the house could be traditionally described as such. I was citing positions of authority and physical ability, which were exclusive to men for the longest period. Consider the stigma faced by female police officers and soldiers once they began breaking into those fields. As for CEO's, Presidents, etc.: many people of both genders were, at first, uncomfortable with the idea of a woman holding ascendancy over them. This social attitude has ebbed away with time. Aside from that, Ive already said that both "Firelord" and "Firelady" are acceptable terms and I do agree with you on that point. I would stress, however, that in Azula's case, her father determined the designation and not her. "Fire Lady" isn't a canon term. No character has ever made mention of it; therefore, in a strictly canon sense, it has no basis. It's a title assumed by fandom to exist. Although you're right, I can't see Azula's designation differing at all from her father's. Its clear that she had other issues on her mind far removed from whether she should be called a "Lady" or a "Lord" and was probably too disturbed to rationaly contemplate the matter even if it had been on her mind. Or because it was irrelevant, and the only thing to call her was "Fire Lord". I am afraid not, at least in how the word is defined in the English language. The OED does not admit a more expansive or nuanced definition because the term was created to describe a particular sort of person, and once that person began to deviate from the terms of that description then the term would become useless. "Like a boy", the core definition of "tomboy", can mean a slew of things, including -- and not limited to -- being boisterous and messy. I should think that even boys who follow a rigid gender structure have more personality to them than that. Surely, we've all seen boys who could hardly be called "boisterous" and "messy" exhibit what we would consider a more masculine personality. Except historically speaking, such treatment has always been equated with the feminine. When we see Azula in "Return to Omashu," she makes reference to Ty Lee's noble status and asks why she wishes to mingle among uncivilized individuals. She makes use of her royal retinue except when it gets in the way of her objective, and her best friends and agents are female friends she's known since her childhood. This is hardly something that would be appropriate if a simple gender-swap were enacted. If that truly is the case, I would expect to see people clamoring that Zuko was feminine for taking advantage of the pampering he was given. Yet, I've never come across such claims. What makes it feminine for one sibling and not the other? I should think they would both be held to the same standard. After all, royalty is royalty, regardless of gender. Our arguments seem to boil down to "the enjoyment and pursuit of royal pleasures = femininity". I venture that they're separate entities. I wonder if azula1 would care to share her thoughts on the matter, as she also views Azula as a tomboy. So is Athena's clothing--moreso, because she wears her father's armor and tunic in the Iliad but she's still explicitly femine despite her preference to many masculine warlike traits. Indeed, she could never be called a "tomboy" despite her enjoyment of strategy and battle in its own right. Does that sound familiar? Interestingly, in bringing up Athena, you never make mention of the following, taken from this website: The Greeks favored her because she was a woman goddess of rare quality. Women were never portrayed with the masculine characteristics of Athena, such as her need for dominance and passion for war. This makes her more appealing and puts her in a class above all the rest. By reading both the Ilaid and the Odyssey, one can receive a clear, precise view of Athena. The beginning of this article goes on to discuss Athena's gender ambiguity and trust amongst councils of men. So, yes -- she does sound familiar! Oh, come now. Is every Daddy's girl a tomboy, then? That's not a very strong claim. Nowhere in that quote did I say " all girls who gravitate toward their fathers are tomboys". I was stating that many tomboys do have a tendency to favor their fathers. Not all do. On the flip-side, not all girly-girls gravitate toward their mothers, though many do because of shared interests. In each extreme lies shades of gray, as with most designations. There will always be an exception. Some of her primary traits are quite feminine, though. Consider her coiffure and her déportment. She clearly behaves as if she went through etiquette school. Further, her use of manipulation is decidedly feminine. She's royalty; I would expect her to behave as such. I still fail to see it as intrinsically feminine. Ozai's speech is polite and refined; he displays a very regal, pampered bearing. Like Zuko in the above examples, he has never been colored with a feminine label for the utilization of his birthrights, yet one is so quick to say it of Azula! As far as "manipulative = feminine", the show would disagree with you. By that definition, Ozai -- whom she learned the manipulation from in the first place and stands, with his daughter, as the truest example of the word -- must be feminine as well. His efforts to secure Iroh's birthright were crafty, tinged with a certain eloquence, and decidedly non-confrontational, in that he never brought into question his father's authority by issuing a formal challenge. Manipulative; there simply is no better way to describe it. And, yet, this action is never cited as a feminine act. I ask again: why should it be so for Azula? She, who emulates her father ( thought of by many as quite masculine ), is feminine for exhibiting the exact same behaviors? Even their manner of speech is, by some degree, identical. It almost seems disturbing that you associate things such as ambition, arrogance, and logic as uniformly male traits--I should think that in the 21st century, a sufficient amount of quite feminine women have exhibited those traits so as to defeat the chauvinistic notion that they strictly belong to the male sphere. All I'm stating is the coloration given to such characteristics. Personally, I don't believe a man to be inherently anymore "logical" than a woman, and vice-versa. But you will find, even in today's literature, a tendency amongst behavioral analysts to label males as more "logical" than "emotional" in their responses: that is, to say, rationalizing on hard facts as opposed to an emotion-driven response. There are plenty of emotional males and analytical females to rebuff such claims. Azula takes nothing from the "feminine" column and can easily be summed up as all of the traits in the "masculine" column. I was not the one to designate traits based on gender; it's a common practice in the analyzing of human behavior. Do I feel that women are "unable" to be arrogant, ambitious, and logical? Of course not! But however we personally feel about the subject, the truth of the matter is that these characteristics are, to this day, commonly associated with men. To call it "disturbing" is a bit unfair, as it seems more of an attack on my views -- which don't necessarily coincide with that of a behavioral analyst's -- than what can be found in behavioral literature. A girl who prefers video games to outdoor play, Science and Math to English, and shies away from mud puddles can still be a tomboy. A definition need not be so set in stone. Except those nuances are incompatible with being a tomboy. She could not simply swap genders and stay the same--a crucial part of her entire anima is female in nature, as can be easily distinguished by the thematic cue that's used for her. It's deliberately more feminine than the other FN cues. The thematic cue is most likely used because she's a female character, the only front-and-center female Fire Nation character, rather than a perceived notion of femininity in and of itself.
|
|
|
Post by Princess Azula on Jul 26, 2008 18:43:55 GMT -5
"Like a boy", the core definition of "tomboy", can mean a slew of things [/blockquote] Again, that oversimplified definition is not the correct definition of the term as used in the English language. The OED is authoritative--you are taking a far broader reading than the term admits. If that truly is the case, I would expect to see people clamoring that Zuko was feminine for taking advantage of the pampering he was given. [/blockquote] Surely you cannot be serious? You're trying to disprove a claim by pointing out a lack of anecdotal evidence? Our arguments seem to boil down to "the enjoyment and pursuit of royal pleasures = femininity". I venture that they're separate entities. [/blockquote] Pleasure, in itself, is taken to be a feminine persuit, yes. Interestingly, in bringing up Athena, you never make mention of the following, taken from this website:
[/blockquote] Actually, you'll note that the very sentence you quote from me says she has a preference for "many masculine warlike traits." Your link simply repeats my own claim without adding anything new or contradicting it. But were we to take a fuller analysis of Athena, I would suggest that you take a look at her portrayal in sculptural works from the late archaic period through the classical to the hellenistic period. You'll note an increasing feminization of the goddess as her literary development expands, particularly in the odes of Callimachus. To the extent that she's feminine in her original literary appearance, the epics of Homer, you'll note that she takes on the role of "Daddy's girl" in the Iliad--not too much in contrast to Hera, who uses her wifely role to manipulate. In both cases, the usage of familial ties to their advantage is a very female role that is carried on through the millennia. I was stating that many tomboys do have a tendency to favor their fathers. Not all do. [/blockquote] In that case, then, rather than generalizing, you were begging the question. You took it as granted that Azula was a tomboy, so her favoring of her father would then fit in with the trend. However, since the point of contention is whether she is a tomboy, that discussion would be a bit premature, would it not? She's royalty; I would expect her to behave as such. I still fail to see it as intrinsically feminine. [/blockquote] The literary tradition from antiquity has always placed the more cultivated parts of regal behavior in the female camp, regardless of the gender of the person. But while males would learn protocol by experience in court, females would specifically attend etiquette classes--and Azula's refined elocution is on a different level than the others in the show, including Ozai. And, yet, this action is never cited as a feminine act. I ask again: why should it be so for Azula? She, who emulates her father ( thought of by many as quite masculine ), is feminine for exhibiting the exact same behaviors? Even their manner of speech is, by some degree, identical. [/blockquote] Thought of by many? Again, what does it matter? Anecdotal evidence is meaningless, as are blatant appeals to popularity. It does not matter what many people think, or what few people think. Opinions are just that. Ozai, you'll note, did not achieve his position by his conduct in war. He, in fact, undermined his older brother, who was braver by far. Going behind his back and taking advantage like that is an explicitly feminine trait, and again, there is a long literary tradition to prove that conflation in human culture. I cite things that matter--literature tells us what we know of human cultural norms, but the opinions of fans tells us nothing. But you will find, even in today's literature, a tendency amongst behavioral analysts to label males as more "logical" than "emotional" in their responses: that is, to say, rationalizing on hard facts as opposed to an emotion-driven response. [/blockquote] And yet the rational female is not thought of as manly in the literary tradition, but rather, as a particularly dangerous species of woman. We also find that for all of Azula's cold demeanor, she has deep emotional insecurities that drive them. Curious, no? Of course not! But however we personally feel about the subject, the truth of the matter is that these characteristics are, to this day, commonly associated with men. [/blockquote] Ah, I see. It's a matter of interpretation then--as a good deal of literature, particularly the western heritage from the classics, has given such traits to females from the start. It was only their removal in the medieval period that stripped females of a good deal of their power, as it made them less of a threat because they could be considered flighty and more docile. A girl who prefers video games to outdoor play, Science and Math to English, and shies away from mud puddles can still be a tomboy. A definition need not be so set in stone. [/blockquote] To an extent. But when one is arguing about terminology, then there needs to be a hardening of standards. It's all well and good to say she may exhibit some tomboy-like traits, but to call her a tomboy specifically would require a great deal more justification, and that means that the firm definition must be adhered to. The thematic cue is most likely used because she's a female character, the only front-and-center female Fire Nation character, rather than a perceived notion of femininity in and of itself. [/blockquote] That says a lot all in itself, though. Otherwise, why ought she be female? But to expound on that... how much of her traits are different from the Fire Nation norms? Recall the episode where Iroh explains the traits of various nations to Zuko? He says that fire is ambitious in the pursuit of power--so is Azula. He also says that water has a sense of community--witness Katara. He says that earth is strong and of substance--witness Toph. All of them, then, express the archetypal traits of their people. Only one could probably be considered inarguably feminine, Katara, whereas Toph is on the completely other end and Azula lies someplace in the middle. But this is all from a different perspective, removed from the realities of their cultures. If we look at Azula from FN norms, she suddenly doesn't appear so strange. There are female FN goons, after all, and they must have the same traits as the men in order to firebend with them. So if Azula is in-line with the traits of a generally masculine-oriented culture, then we have to normalize are reading based on that. And suddenly, her feminity jumps out a lot more.
|
|
|
Post by azula1 on Jul 30, 2008 18:52:13 GMT -5
Well first off we arent ever going to see any actual torture scenes i this show because its a nick show the creators have to leave little hints for the older fans to pick up on. 'My favourite prisioner used to mention you all the time....' that ring any bells? That was a pretty strong hint at torture. Aswell as that in the flashbacks she is seen enjoying the pain she inflicts on Ty Lee just because she beat her at tumbling and she liked to hurt animals something that is a sign of mental problems.
Even what she does to Zuko through out the first half of Season 3 would be seen as emotional torture.
She has shown she has no qualms killing, Zuko in The Avatar State, Aang in the Drill and again in COD, coming this close to stabbing Sokka in DoBS and then laughing and taunting Zuko as he dies painfully, all this with out batting an eyelid and over the course of the series we have never seen the slightest hint of a conciece, something we may have seen with her 'mother' if it were ever to be put in. Oh and I forgot about the sadist grin she does as her brother is burned and banished because it takes her one step closer to the throne. So much to talk about where to begin: No torture because it's on Nick is a weak excuse. Have you ever seen Disney's "Hunchback of Notre Dame"? In it Judge Frollo gives tips about how to torture prisoners "You have to wait a bit after whipping a prisoner once, (pause then deliver the next lashing) it stings much more" You don't see the actual torture, but the audience knows he knows his business or "Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker" which was just on CN this weekend. In it The Joker captures and tortures Tim Drake's (child) Robin- Robin is depicted as strong and heroic until captured and strapped to a gurney by the Joker (for 3 weeks) it's not shown what the Joker does to Robin. But the Joker said he did terrible things to him that eventually made Robin break and tell all of Bruce Wayne's secrets before ending up a miniature crazy Joker. It's chilling what happened in that movie. So don't say that it can't be done on a kiddy show, it can. However I don't think Azula had to torture Suki at all to get any info out of her. The GAang has consistently shown themselves to be collosally stupid and incompetent. I can just see Suki doing this when the Kyoshi Warriors got captured. Suki: You'll never get away with this!!! My boyfriend Sokka's a friend of the Avatar! He'll rescue us. He's in Bai Seng Sei right now! He's the smartest guy in the world! He'll defeat you. We're guardians of the route to Bai Seng Sei. You can't do this to us. You'll never get in. Azula: Oh really? Tell me more! Azula wouldn't have to do anything but sit back and let Suki blabber mouth on and on. As for knocking over Ty Lee when they were playing together as kids. Do you know how many children that age do that? That bit was one of her more "normal" signs of behavior. Even if we discount the Zuko things for right now. Zuko and Azula's conflicts are much more complex. Of course she has no qualms about fighting the Avatar. She's the head of the FN and he's the enemy. There's a war going on. Aang doesn't pull any punches when it comes to throwing tanks over the sides of mountains why should she pull punches in dealing with him? Sokka finally sent 2 FN soldiers to their deaths in the finale, did he feel badly about that? On the contrary, I think he's proud of himself and will gladly tell the story of how he did it to anyone who'll listen. Why is it okay for him to be proud of himself and his pleasure at being a "good warrior", but if Azula gets pleasure out of seeing a well excueted plan come together she's sadistic?
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Jul 30, 2008 19:28:15 GMT -5
Well first off we arent ever going to see any actual torture scenes i this show because its a nick show the creators have to leave little hints for the older fans to pick up on. 'My favourite prisioner used to mention you all the time....' that ring any bells? That was a pretty strong hint at torture. Aswell as that in the flashbacks she is seen enjoying the pain she inflicts on Ty Lee just because she beat her at tumbling and she liked to hurt animals something that is a sign of mental problems. There is a possibility that Azula never spoke to Suki again after capturing her and I doubt Suki would have mentioned Sokka to Azula. Tye Lee could have told Azula that Sokka was involved with Suki (He told her so when she was dressed as a Kiyoshi warrior, remember?). Azula was just distracting Sokka with that statement and -say it with me- Azula always lies. Otherwise, I have no argument with your notion that Azula is one sick puppy.
|
|
|
Post by azula1 on Jul 31, 2008 15:50:39 GMT -5
New Question:
"The Beach" had flashbacks to Royal First Family going on vacation to Ember Island showing Zuko, Azula, Ozai, Ursa, Iroh, & maybe Lu Ten. But Iroh and Ozai hate each other! Why would they ever go on vacation together?
Maybe Iroh went for Lu Ten's benefit. Lu Ten was probably a teenager then with Zuko being very little and Azula being a toddler. He could've been like Zuko and totally friendless at that age.
Or
Maybe Azulon ordered Iroh to go with Ozai. Maybe he knew they hated each other and wanted them to get along.
Or
Maybe Azulon went on vacation with them too! The Fire Lord and his Princes and his grandkids! Wouldn't that be fun!
Is it possible that Ozai & Iroh got along at some point? Their behavior seems to alternate between hatred at worst (never having anything nice to say about each other, stealing the throne etc) and indifference at best (neither visited each other in prison (as far as we know) not even to rub it in!). Of course they're not close because of the 20 year age difference.
But their relationship is far worse than Zuko & Azula. Say what you will, but Azula has reached out to Zuko and Mai and Ty Lee more than they've reached out to her (wait, no Ty Lee reaches out to Azula plenty- she's the only person to ever hug her). People may say that Azula wants nothing to do with anybody and would be happier alone but I think she really does want to have a relationship with her family.
|
|