>>122968855 If you're a fan of RotK, just about every adaptation does something different and is worth trying out. They're not really in direct competition with each other.
>>122968803 That's a standard architectural style of the Chinese hall, which really didn't change much throughout the ages. It's not specific to the Qing, though it does seem the artist was heavily influenced by it when drawing it.
>>122968985 Well it's shown if you read so I'll put it in spoilers the palace is simply part of a dream from the two main characters, and everything in that dream is over the top and has a lot of symbolism, though I personally have not understood the relevance of mirroring the Forbidden City yet.
>>122969577 It's not about knowing how the plot will generally develop, but appreciating the author's "commentary," if you will, on the original novel.
To give a more understandable analogy, you can still enjoy movies like Shrek or Austin Powers without being familiar with fairy tales or James Bond films, but you'd derive more enjoyment from knowing them beforehand. Don't let that stop you from enjoying it though if you are already, I'm just saying.
>>122966702 Watched episode 6 of the Three Kingdoms Drama earlier today actually. I've had it sitting on my harddrive for the last 6 months and haven't touched more then an episode a month until earlier this week. I'm trying to pick it apart, but I still can't help but get bored or zone out mid episode, sometimes splitting my screen between 4chan and the show. It'll pick up soon I hope, because I really like a lot of what its doing, but I just really really don't give a shit about it right now.
>>122969903 Moss Roberts translation is the best. With the other dynasties, it's more about reading regular history books. You could always read stuff like Water Margin, but that's more about outlaws fucking around instead of any large-scale warfare or dynastic struggles.
>>122970044 The TV series sort of starts in an odd place, when Dong Zhuo's already taken power and you hardly know much about the motives of any character. In the novel at least, you have the whole yellow turban rebellion and more reader-friendly introduction to Liu Bei & bros. which helps you get interested.
>>122969577 Beyond the commentary, a lot of it is how the author fills in the gaps of the records and novel, trying to 'make sense' of everything while still keeping it in that wuxia over the top format that makes it more of an epic than a documentary.
Hence why a constant reminder that history is written by the victor, how nobodies might have been stronger than Lu Bu but just died off before they could shine, etc etc. It constantly questions how the novel plays out and tries to make the characters more human even if their abilities are above human.
It also has a much deeper understanding and portrayal of the culture and politics at the time, but obviously RoTK wouldn't have that because it was written for the sake of propaganda; to encourage the masses to be loyal to the state. Even if the original author of the novel wanted to be critical he wouldn't dare have done so because the purpose was to make everyone sheep not make everyone think for themselves.
>>122970172 Well I already am familiar with a handful of the major players in Three Kingdoms from Musuo and supplementary material (haven't gotten around to reading the original yet), so I know shit like how Cao Cao is an asshole and Guan Yu is a Mary Sue, but nothing going on has really drawn me in. Though a few scenes have been pretty great, mostly featuring Cao Cao or Liu Bei BTFO Yuan Shao and the Rebellion. Sun Jian has also been pretty cool the last few episodes, but goddamn is it slow.
>>122970270 Most people's depiction in historical records amounts to no more than one line pointing out when they got their ass kicked. That doesn't mean they were just given the right to command tens of thousands.
>>122970264 Uhh, I'm not sure why you think RotK is some sort of state propaganda, considering the author never held any sort of government post and his work was never reviewed or censored by the official state government, not to mention he mostly incorporated already popular folk tales about the 3 kingdoms period and put his own touch here and there.
>>122970485 >people at the time did not trust the government >rotk comes out and sucks Shu's dick because MUH BENEVOLENCE MUH LOYALTY >thinking the government would be dumb enough to have their connection to the author shown in public so everyone knows it's just propaganda instead of an entertaining novel
>>122970823 There's a difference between doubting primary source records and completely making up theories without any sort of basis at all.
There's also the fact that the benevolence and loyalty angle could have easily been pushed with any of the other characters, especially Cao Cao, and there are known variants from the Tang period which portray Liu Bei as the villain. There's no reason why the early Ming government would suddenly decide to favour Shu over Wei, Wu, or Jin, or even take an interest in an obscure writer who never really rose to fame or power during his liftetime.
>>122970942 No, that's... I don't know what the fuck that is. Don't read that. As far as I know, Moss Roberts' version isn't available online, only the Brewitt-Taylor translation is, which is okay, but reads very differently from a modern novel, which is the style that Roberts emulates.
>>122970961 Yes there is, because early Ming was struggling and they wanted to be portrayed as underdogs. Why the fuck would you make Cao Cao the good guy when he's not even a Liu? You'd be giving the message that it's okay for someone not related to the imperial family to run the show.
If you picked Wei, Wu, or Jin, none of those would work because they are all based on succeeding Han which is still usurpation. Shu was the naturally closest depiction to being loyal to the state, so why wouldn't they pick it?
>>122971067 I see its not even available online. Thank you for your help and saving me from wasting more time. Found the paperback for 29€ which is still acceptable but comments said its thin paper printed in China oh well.
>>122971172 >Cao Cao is Murphy-Shackley >Liu Bei is Jeffery-Lewis >Lu Bu becomes motherfucking Bullard-Lundmark
>>122971212 Because whether Liu Bei was a legitimate member of the imperial family was always in question and he could have been just like many of the other upstarts that the founder of the Ming dynasty fought for the control of the empire. Meanwhile, it's very easy to portray Cao Cao as a benevolent leader in the model of King Wen of Zhou, as he refused to become emperor all his life when it was only so easy for him to do so.
In any case, what you and I are arguing about doesn't even matter because at the end of the day, there's no real basis from which to assert that RotK, at least the original Luo Guanzhong's version, is nothing but state propaganda.
>>122971287 Except there were plenty of facts contradicting with the US's supposed motive for the Iraq invasion, unlike your claims, which is the equivalent of saying the recent Charlie Hebdo shootings were an inside job.
>>122977056 Are you so dumb as to be completely oblivious how historical research actually works? That you can't just make up wild theories and use the excuse, "B-b-but they were all just lost in time!" It's not about having incontrovertible evidence that could hold up in a modern court of law, but you have to have reasonable grounds for whatever suspicion you have. Considering how little is known about Luo Guanzhong's life, there's no room to reasonably claim he was a propagandist working for the Ming government. You could make the case that later writers and translators working in the Qing dynasty had an interest in doing so, but that's not what you're arguing.
God, you just get dumber and dumber every time I reply to you. I don't even know why I bother.
>>122977257 The point is if you're gonna argue against such, you can't even claim the source material is correct in the first place. This whole excuse of primary versus secondary is silly considering there's so many gaps in the records it wouldn't even make sense if you took it word for word.
>>122977284 I never claimed the conspiracy was true. I was merely pointing out how it holds equal merit to something you can't prove back then. Can anyone prove all the Qin technology of crossbows disappeared somehow within 400 years and was no longer mass produced nor researched again during 3 Kingdoms? No, you can't. It's all guess work.
I respected that the 1994 show is a bit easier to follow, especially showing the lead-up to the Peach Garden Oath, but I found it so much less accessible as an outsider who, at the time, knew relatively little about RotK. The production quality was just so poor, it really is unfortunate.
>>122977384 I don't even know what the fuck you're trying to say anymore, it almost sounds as if you think I'm arguing about the historicity of the fictional novel that is RotK, but look at your own post right here >>122970264
>obviously RoTK wouldn't have that because it was written for the sake of propaganda; to encourage the masses to be loyal to the state. Even if the original author of the novel wanted to be critical he wouldn't dare have done so because the purpose was to make everyone sheep not make everyone think for themselves
And now you say you were never claiming your conspiracy was true? Please stop being retarded.
>>122977455 I'm talking about the records, not the novel. Everything recorded in history back then was easily subjected to censorship and such, and unlike the Roman Empire there weren't a lot of material evidence left behind. Lu Bu could have been a a fictional character for all we know and everyone played along.
>>122977496 It was my take on it, just like how many people believed Jesus was not the son of God and was merely a person who knew parlor tricks. It should be obvious to anyone with common sense, but if you're gonna argue against it through scientific evidence then there's nothing to say, might as well keep arguing about theories about why the Dinosaurs went extinct.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.