For example, I have a self-identity of being ‘intellectual’ and ‘cultured’ (and a fan of Nietzche, even without reading relatively few of his works) – I cannot not read and respond to this post. To not read nor respond is a legitimate threat to my self-identity, which is a source of my ‘power in the world’ (making people interested in what I have to say, etc.). So despite my lack of recent reading of Nitetzche and my minimal exposure to Slayers I feel compelled to take this post on (regardless of its merits, of which there are).

The product is, a means to write a comment despite a lack of depth in my involvement in the direct subject matter.

Historical criticism, of course, is biggest when you deal with Shakespeare, right now. Luckily the times were well documented enough in stuff other than fiction so people do know what they’re talking about when they do it. I’ve read Shakespeare articles that only mention the play in question at the end; the rest is a survey of historical data.

I’m never sure how far to trust literature as evidence for the reading population’s actual beliefs. There are probably studies by historians, but my teachers have suggested that historians tend to be too trusting when reading literature as that kind of evidence. Then again, that could just be the traditional belief among literary academics that they’re the only people who read closely enough to detect a text’s real meaning(s). (And who’s to blame them? Can’t let all the funding go to the History Department.)

Really nice portrait of morality as presented in Slayers. Regarding the friction between Lina’s mode of thought and the medieval population’s, could we conclude that it is also an illustration of how the overman does not and cannot arise in a judeo-christian mode of morality?

Consider the warrant, “You are under arrest BECAUSE you are Lina Inverse.”. It is basically a charge of acting beyond the Judeo-Christian imperatives, even if the charge is clearly against their utilitarian interest. If we cannot overcome those imperatives, if we cannot undertake the revaluation all values, we can never overcome man in the wide sense. An individual in these circumstances cannot do away with man so easily.

(To take aboard that last point, maybe you will have to make abstraction of SOME of Lina’s traits :D )

It’s an open question, I’m not all that familiar with Slayers. Only watched about half a dozen episodes.

You’re right that Sauron exerts an influence on the One Ring to try to get it back, but Gandalf’s fear, specifically, isn’t taking it to Sauron, it’s that he’ll become a new dark lord — which Galadriel states pretty plainly in “The Mirror of Galadriel” and in the analogous scene of the movie. There’s a corrupting influence in the power aside from Sauron’s active intervention, because it was forged of evil magic and Sauron’s original will to rule over all — which seems, in turn, to make everyone who comes in contact with it, or even lore about it (in Saruman’s case) want to rule as well. Which is why little Samwise Gamgee would have fantasies of ruling the world when he takes the ring from Frodo.

And yeah, I, at least, am a proponent of the idea that a lot of anime/manga/whatever seems to take some driving idea and just quietly let it make the world, rather than making the idea a plot point to worry over. I usually cite Ouran as my example; Bisco Hatori’s ideas of gender, or at least those she wanted to use for Ouran, aren’t talking points for the characters, they’re simply the truths of the world in which they live.