I have good memories of learning Japanese, actually. The first one I ever made was in a tiny hotel room in Chiba, with risax teaching me hiragana and basic words from Doumeki/Watanuki doujin. I have to say that since the beginning I've had to force myself to read doujinshi - looking at the pictures is easy, but actually figuring out the words, now, that's hard. But I think that it was compulsively reading Abyss anything every other night during my first semester that made me get familiar with it faster. Recently I was listening to Shounen Onmyoji (massive gap in raw episodes and subtitled ones: Subs 9 Raws 17) and realised I could actually understand parts of it without realising it.
Also one of the new Onmyouji-in-training remind me and risax of Asch. *smirk* And is voiced by Fukuyama Jun.
But there is this indescribable joy when you look at something that five months ago you could not understand, and find you now know every word of it. I find it the most striking when I read farfello's gift - I remember so vividly how I didn't understand it, so the feeling of comprehension now is all the more striking.
Thank you Tales of the Abyss for making me familiar with about 40% of all katakana before I even started the course.
At nescienx's behest I tried the seme/uke quiz during a law lecture, and, well. I typed as a sadistic seme. Which goes to show that I'm a different person when I'm in school. Thinking it must be some kind of fluke, I tried it again, and even at my gentlest, I'm:
Don't Fuck With Me Seme
Take Are you a Seme or an Uke? today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</p>
... And this on a quiz where I said (which is true) that I listen to light and happy pop music, wear canvas shoes, take the bus, and eat ice cream out of a cone. It must have been that part when I laughed when they asked if I'd ever taken advantage of anyone. And here I was thinking that several of the questions had options that weren't evil or cruel enough.
sistaofpeace1 found the second Tales of the Abyss Manga novel! souya located the March 2007 Degenki Maou special - which looks like it's going to have an Ion-and-Arietta extra.
Went over to anyasy's house to try out the PS3 - I must say that just looking at it makes me go all soft and distant with wonder, even if SY does say it looks like a waffle iron. We spent most of the afternoon on FFXII, which is very pretty and exactly the way I wish Abyss had been rendered. To her great horror I decided I liked Vaan, but that is probably due to his Niisan complex and the fact that the Galbana lilies amuse me deeply. It may have something to do with Reks being voiced by Yuri Lowenthal (... that man is everywhere I turn). Then we went for Abyss. >D I always love playing this game with someone who's playing it for the first time - it makes everything new again to me, and it's like I rediscover it all over again. It's much the same when I bring someone around whichever country I'm living in at the moment - the same feeling of discovering the new in the old, of seeing something you see every day for the first time.
This meant I ran off to read, among other things, Balthier/Vaan, Reks/Vaan, and Basch/Asche fic (I've wanted to read that pairing ever since discovering that they existed for chiefly Abyss motivations). ff_press is a recent discovery courtesy of SY and I am still exploring it. >D
And also, for elvaron, in deepest happiness for an extremely fun afternoon: here are more amusing provisions I found in the Penal Code. I must say having a Penal Code that was handed down from Britain and heavily influenced by the Indian Penal Code yields the most amazingly hilarious moments. The amazing thing is that this is all actually applicable law in my country.
Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger, knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z’s benefit. A’s ball gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed no offence.
Z attempts to horse-whip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A, believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horse-whipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide.
Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z’s horses, and thereby causes them to quicken their pace. Here A has caused change of motion to Z by inducing the animals to change their motion. A has therefore used force to Z; and if A has done this without Z’s consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, A has committed criminal force to Z.
A kidnaps Z, intending or knowing it to be likely that Z may be sacrificed to an idol.
10. The word “man” denotes a male human being of any age; “woman” denotes a female human being of any age.
A incites a dog to spring upon Z, without Z’s consent. Here, if A intends to cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, he uses criminal force to Z.
(i) A, a schoolmaster, in the reasonable exercise of his discretion as master, flogs Z, one of his scholars. A does not use criminal force to Z because, although A intends to cause fear and annoyance, he does not use force illegally.
A attempts to pull Z’s nose. Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
And imagine A saying, in court, "But your Honor, he provoked me by stopping me from pulling his nose."
Sometimes I really do wonder which era I'm living in.
If any person under 18 years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication"
... this was unfortunate. D< That said when we say "idiot" in the Penal Code we almost certainly have a legal definition for it that isn't the ordinary meaning of the word.
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
361. Whoever takes or entices any minor under 14 years of age if a male, or under 16 years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
But what if the kidnapper was the victim's lawful guardian? Then you could argue that the offence wouldn't have been committed, as the kidnapper could not have by any act removed the victim from lawful guardianship.
Of course that shouldn't be allowed to fly in court if the parents are the child's lawful guardian and anyone else removed the child.
362. Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.