Talk:Tsukumogami
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the Mythology taskforce of WikiProject Japan, which aims to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of Japanese mythology. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the taskforce page, where you can join the taskforce and see a list of open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
[edit] Moe-chan
Why include this "Moe-chan"? Why do Wikipedia editors seem so obsessed with including anime examples? Most anime are distortions of traditional yokai and are not reliable or accurate sources of information or knowledge by any means. Since it's an established fact that yokai are repelled by electricity, how can an electrical robot device be a yokai? Plus...it's a robot! Robot does not equal tsukumogami.
Shikino 21:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because this is an encyclopedia, and we are required to list examples of same. Regardless of whether or not it adheres to traditional Japanese mythology, she is referred to as such in the anime as a tsukumogami, and thus is listed as a fictional representation of such. It neither qualifies nor endorses her as an "authentic" tsukumogami, but rather simply passes on information.--み使い Mitsukai 13:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but how is this an example of a tsukumogami if it is directly in opposition to the definition of tsukumogami? Just because something is in an anime or manga, or written by a Japanese person, doesn't make it genuine folklore. Moe-chan is not an examle of a tsukumogami. Wikipedia is embarrassing itself, and not just in this one article, by making itself look like it was written by people who get their information on Japanese folklore by watching anime and not doing any real research. Shikino 15:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- First, placing a link that someone needs to register for does not make it easy to prove your point. Second, this does not prove much. Yes, Mizuki Shigeru is a well-known expert on it. But you have to bear in mind: he's talking in allegory, not a literal statement. It simply means that, like with every other place in the world, most of the old traditions have disappeared as Japan takes on a modern face. Additionally, this is folklore, a literary fabric that comes from the people, not from one man himself (otherwise, it'd be intellectual property). No one person can be the expert on the subject (though I will admit, he's as close as they come). Lastly, deploring anime/manga examples...and then using a manga-ka as proof on why manga/anime is wrong is a bit awkward, to say the least.--み使い Mitsukai 17:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary. He is speaking literally, not alligorically. If you'd read the entire article you'd know that he makes it clear that he is speaking literally. He is not talking about yokai disappearing from the imaginations of people, but about the actual yokai themselves being driven away by electricity. He makes this very clear, because the interviewer asks him to clarify. Read the article again, the whole article. And I can't help it if the site requires registration. The proof is there, you just have to make a little more effort. It doesn't make the source any less credible. And indeed this is folklore, not anime study. Yes Mizuki is a manga-ka, but is also a yokai expert and his statement was in this capacity. The statements in question were obviously not about his own creations. No one can be THE expert, you are right, but there are experts. To deny this would be ridiculous. Shikino 18:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- First, placing a link that someone needs to register for does not make it easy to prove your point. Second, this does not prove much. Yes, Mizuki Shigeru is a well-known expert on it. But you have to bear in mind: he's talking in allegory, not a literal statement. It simply means that, like with every other place in the world, most of the old traditions have disappeared as Japan takes on a modern face. Additionally, this is folklore, a literary fabric that comes from the people, not from one man himself (otherwise, it'd be intellectual property). No one person can be the expert on the subject (though I will admit, he's as close as they come). Lastly, deploring anime/manga examples...and then using a manga-ka as proof on why manga/anime is wrong is a bit awkward, to say the least.--み使い Mitsukai 17:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but how is this an example of a tsukumogami if it is directly in opposition to the definition of tsukumogami? Just because something is in an anime or manga, or written by a Japanese person, doesn't make it genuine folklore. Moe-chan is not an examle of a tsukumogami. Wikipedia is embarrassing itself, and not just in this one article, by making itself look like it was written by people who get their information on Japanese folklore by watching anime and not doing any real research. Shikino 15:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It is common on most folklore entries to have a section on the characters appearing in popular media - I think the soluution is a simple one and I'll drop a header in. (Emperor 14:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
-
-
-
- How can we be so sure that Moe-chan was electrical? Been made in the 19th century, I would have thought she was just a wind-up doll. When in a sequence Su-chan is repairing her, what we see in her insides are rope and dented wheels, nothing suggested electricity to me (no cables, for example). However I only understand the English translation, not the original japanese, something may have been lost in translation. Besides, I find it difficult to accept that Moe-chan could be just a robot. She has abilities far beyond what can be built nowadays, like really making sense in a conversation, let alone what could be built in the 19th century. It seems likely that her behaviour is due to some kind of magic. Zeycus 21:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hello I am going to revive this discussion over a year after the fact. Disregarding all this electricity business, I looked at the character's description and um, she sounds much more like an ordinary anime robot than a tsukumogami to me. So...identified as a tsukumogami by who? The artist who draws the comic, or the fans? If it's the former I can understand her being in the article. If it's the latter, no. Since it sounds like it's the latter, I'm removing her. If it's the former, you can revert. Kotengu 小天狗 10:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Moe Chan does not appear in the manga, only in the anime. The word tsukumogami is explicitly used in it. I do not understand japanese, so I quote here the english subtitles:
- Motoko: A hundred years... A Tsukumogami?
- Su: Tsukune chiken patty?
- Sara: That sounds good!
- Motoko: That's Tsukumogami! If cared for 99 years, possessions such as tools or dolls can come back to life in their 100th year. A supernatural... monster... of a sort.
- Moe Chan does not appear in the manga, only in the anime. The word tsukumogami is explicitly used in it. I do not understand japanese, so I quote here the english subtitles:
-
- Therefore I feel it should be reverted. But before I would like to know if you agree.--zeycus 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Since in fact it is not the fans, but the anime creators who used the term tsukumogami, I take you agree with the reversion.--zeycus 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Merging
I have to say, don't merge the other shorter articles with this one. This is on tsukumogami as a category of yokai or obakemono; the other two are on specific types. No one is suggesting merging oak and cedar into the tree article, are they? Shikino 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm unsure about some of the others that are red linked at the moment but Karakasa certainly deserves its own entry and I can't see any really reason to merge it - Tsukumogami is just a rather broad class of creatures and the individual types have different attributes. Any arguements for merging are probably more likely to arguements to expand the current entries instead. (Emperor 14:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
-
- Keep Karakasa should definitely have its own entry. (although the name should be changed...) MightyAtom 03:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- no reason to merge them - unless you were to merge "penguin" and "wren" to bird.--K.C. Tang 10:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- on the other hand we understnad that there may be not much to write for each tsukumogami... perhaps each entry would comprise of only one or two sentences... the questions are: are those entries expand-able? if not really, are "super-short" entries acceptable on Wikipedia?--K.C. Tang 01:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- no reason to merge them - unless you were to merge "penguin" and "wren" to bird.--K.C. Tang 10:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Karakasa should definitely have its own entry. (although the name should be changed...) MightyAtom 03:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No merge - I think super-short articles are acceptable if they are branches off of a categorical article like this one. Since there is a Wikiproject that fully encompasses these articles, I think separate articles will be the "clean" way to go. -- Emana 07:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Connection to other legends
I'm not quite satisfied with this article because it doesn't seem fully linked to some other Japanese legends -- but I lack the knowledge to do it properly. The RPG book GURPS Japan seems to identify finely-made objects that have "souls" as tsukumogami, but the definition here only encompasses objects that are just plain old. The GURPS definition seems mixed up with the legends of willful swords made by the smiths Masamune and Muramasa -- see Masamune#Legends_of_Masamune_and_Muramasa and Muramasa -- and with those of enchanted calligraphy done by the monk Kobo-Dashai aka. Kukai. (That reference doesn't seem to be in the WP article, but is discussed at length in Lafcadio Hearn's Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan.) Is there a good way to mention the similarity of the concepts without OR? -Kris Schnee (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
