When his teacher came in and asked him what he was doing, he replied “I’m writing a computer program that will use random numbers to determine the computer’s move in a tic-tac-toe game, so the computer won’t approach the game with any preconceived notions.”

The teacher then wisely replied “But the computer will have preconceived notions. You just won’t know what they are.”

In reality, the computer has neither preconceived notions or randomness. Randomness is only another construct of the human mind used to interpret events. Their meaning is equally worthless.

I have a bag of three marbles: red, green and blue. One person closes their eyes, reaches in, and, after feeling around for a bit, draws a green marble. His choice is ‘random’. A second person reaches in with his eyes open, and, seeing the green marble, takes it intentionally. His choice is ‘preconceived’. Does the significance of the green marble change because one person chose it without knowing its color? Could it not be said that the one who did not look still made a conscious ‘choice’ to pull that marble from the bag, but used a different standard to make that choice? In the end, the interpretation of randomness or preconception makes little difference. The only ‘reality’ is that two people have drawn green marbles. Both are therefore equal.

Author fiat or consensus… neither of these two factors can influence “truth”. The truth is the game. It exists, and we place meaning to it by virtue of our cultures and upbringings.

That being said… the Giygas-as-fetus theory resonates really strongly with me. I don’t actually see Giygas as a literal or metaphorical fetus. Rather, the imagery of something as fundamental as an unborn baby mixed with the imagery of chaotic faces becomes extremely jarring. It’s like a Dali painting where one brushstroke becomes part of two different but coexisting objects. One cannot see both objects at once, and I relate this to why “You cannot grasp the true form of Giygas’ attack”. Giygas’ visual form provides symbolism in both the positive and negative space, meaning that our minds cannot hold both forms simultaneously. Therefore, it conveys the essence of Giygas. We cannot grasp it because to see it in its entirety requires us to rid ourselves of the instinctive symbol recognition that our brains are wired for.

Following that train of thought, then, Giygas’ true nature is meaninglessness. It cannot be comprehended, because comprehension creates meaning. To see and understand Giygas, we must become like him: that is to say, devoid of preconceived notions.

Yes, I’d be happy to contribute. Please let me know when more details surface. Cheers.

I would agree that Sakura’s management of the cards could be seen that way. At one point, Kero tells her the cards that she’s captured like her. They’re often shown dancing around her, something that never seems to happen to Li. Amusing, then, that the ever-androgynous Yue should tend to be cold & distant to everyone, wrapped up in his love for Clow Reed.

As far as appropriating, turning the cards into Sakura Cards seems to serve that purpose for Sakura (also, most of the plot of the second movie does the same). If she doesn’t change the cards quickly enough, they will become useless. As far as the other characters…I will think on this.

It sounds like the anime and manga are quite different, and my only CCS experience is with the latter (I didn’t watch the show when it aired on American TV because, when I was 14, that would’ve been SRSLY GHEY). I think a lot of what you point out here also operates in the manga — the phallic v. yonic symbolism, the patriarchy coming through in certain characters and its subsequent subversion, and so on. And I’m all for magic-as-writing, perhaps needless to say, which is probably productive in every context ever. But, if I’m getting the anime’s direction right (and I may not be), there seem to be two key differences between the two installments in the franchise, and they seem more than a little contradictory. Firstly, I’d say the manga’s subversion of gender roles, and its giving Sakura “feminine writing,” is more overt. Gender really never seems to occur consciously to anyone, even; when it comes to picking objects of affection, everyone is fair game for everyone else (regardless of age, even!). But, on the other hand, the manga’s second major arc essentially consists of — well, I don’t want to say too much, but Sakura’s actions are much more dependent upon men. Her mastery of feminine writing is perhaps subverted. And this is stuff that happens after the Final Judgment bit. I’m horribly clumsy with feminist theory, so I’d be interested to see what you’d think of the manga.

What do you think of the “laugh” itself in CCS? Do Sakura or any of the other characters ever manage to appropriate what’s been turned against them? I’m thinking that Sakura’s kind management of the cards might be a “feminine” turning against the patriarchal rule they’ve suffered under Clow’s control — and would suffer under Li’s. It’s still not quite as juicy as the real laughter of the Medusa, but then Sakura hasn’t really managed to hit puberty yet.