On Sep 16, 6:37Â am, "sanjian"
vt.edu> wrote:> Lee Ratner wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 5:36 pm, David Johnston
block.net> wrote:>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Lee Ratner
>>> They could have made that character Joan of Arc. The reason they
>>> didn't was not for fan service but to throw in a twist.
>
>> Â Â Â No, I disagree. The reason they made Sabre, King Arthur rather
>> than Joan of Arc was to stimulate certain male fantasies, mainly of
>> the ice queen variety. A common fantasy for men is to encounter a
>
> The ice queen need not LITTERALLY be a queen. Â (Saber as a drag queen?)
I know that but in this case, the ice queen was a literal queen.
>> beautiful woman who for one reason or another lost touch with her
>> womanly loving nature and be the person who rekindles that woman's
>> feminine, loving qualities. This would not really work for Joan of Arc
>> because Joan was always acknowledged as a woman. To have Saber pretend
>
> I'm not entirely sure that's exactly true, but I'll have to do some more
> research to be sure. Â None the less, you can still have Joan toss away a
> good deal of her feminimity for her task.
True but not to the extent of what they went with. Joan never
pretended to be a man or boy and always acknowleged and was
acknowleged as a female. Not a really feminine one but a female
nonetheless, so you do not get a complete rekindling of the feminity
that do with Saber as Arthur. I realize another problem with Joan. If
Saber was Joan of Arc some vigorous hand-waiving would need to be done
to get rid of Joan's intense religiosity and I think vow of chasity.
> My guess is they wanted the sword.
>
>
>
>> to be a man and suppress everything feminine about her takes the
>> fantasy to the max.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
