Talk:Read or Die

Clarity/Separations Needed

This article mashes together information from the novels, manga, and OAV series--all of which aren't necessarily in canon with each other (the way the manga ends, it cannot be in the same canon as the anime). Although some truths may be carried between them, a clearer line needs to be drawn. For example, the character section on Nancy mentions that "Joker met her in China" but I'm not sure if that's true for the OAV (when Wendy goes over Nancy's credentials with Joker, she doesn't mention her having been hired in China, etc.).

I think it's okay to keep the info on the novels, manga, and OAVs all in this one article is fine, but the article needs to be organized much better. For example, have a section on the novels, with a brief summary and mention which characters appear; then follow it with a section on the manga; then on the OAV.

I'd volunteer but I know next to nothing about the novels, and someone familiar with all three perhaps ought to take the first crack.

DeathQuaker 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Toto Books

> book at a secret, by-invitation-only bookstore, the book is stol

btw. the bookstore does really exist. (but i do not know, if there is realy a secret floor under it, i think >10kg of books where just not enough to get an invitation ;) Elvis 09:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stephen?

What about this Stephen guy who helped design Otto Lilienthal's hangglider? Is he that technician/engineer guy working for the I-Jin? Is he that unnamed guy who said, "You'll never sink my ship with your toy rockets!" Is he one of the I-Jin? If so, then why is he not listed among them?

There was a man named Stephen Wilcox who invented the water-tube boiler, a device for sending water through externally heated tubes. Using combustible gases, the steam was stored above the main engine in a "drum". This design revolutionized steam technology because it allowed large boiler to gain much greater pressure. It was patented in 1867, by him and George Herman Babcock.

Supposed character 'Mata Hari' is a *mistake*!

> Mata Hari: The famous spy, Mata Hari is Ikkyuu's lover. She is

This 'character' listed in the article is a misunderstanding! In the 3rd epsiode (after Yomiko is captured by the I-jin, in the I-jin headquarters) there is a bit of dialog referring to "Mata Hari". However, the I-jin leader is merely making a somewhat joking and indirect remark, commenting that this lover of his is in fact a spy who (like Mata Hari) has been working in 'deep cover'. ;-)

I suppose if no one else will correct the article, I probably should (in my copious spare time, when I get around to it). But I thought I should explain first, so someone won't just think I'm arbitrarily vandalizing their text.

I seem to recall that in the OVA, Mata Hari is listed as one of the I-jin samples stolen. Therefore this identification makes a lot more sense. --81.174.244.104 23:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting.... In indonesian language, Mata Hari (Matahari, actually) means 'the sun'! 202.73.122.227 19:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'd say whoever posted this "mistake" is incorrect, and I'm glad to see the article was not corrected. I just watched the OAVs again, and they make it pretty clear that just as the other I-Jin are clones of famous historical figures, Nancy is a clone of Mata Hari. DeathQuaker 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • DeathQuaker, when you "just watched the OVAs again," did you watch them in Japanese, subtitled English, or dubbed English? I wonder if differences between the three versions might help account for the differences of opinion regarding this? I wouldn't mind seeing brief quotes [brief enough to be legal as "fair use".]

• • • In the Japanese dialogue, you explicitly hear Ikkyuu call Nancy, "Mata Hari." And as for which translation I watched, I checked both dub and sub. DeathQuaker 14:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've overhauled the article, bringing in a lot of material from the novels and removing the "plot summary" section, which seemed superfluous (it only summarised the OVA, and to summarise everything would take far too long). I've reluctantly left the I-jin section of the characters intact, although it goes into too much detail IMO and rather unbalances the page - many of the I-jin are minor characters, and the whole I-jin plot is a very small part of the series. Adding some of the major villains from the novels (Marihara, John Smith, Busujima, etc.) would help balance things.

I've also corrected a lot of the terminology; my versions may differ from those used in various official and unofficial translations, but they reflect Kurata's original terminology as well as I could. (For example, the translation of 紙使い as "paper master" is based on the furigana given to the word on its first appearance, p.35 of the first novel. It appears, from their numerous errors, that the translators for the US anime releases were unfamiliar with the ROD world and did not refer to the novels at all, so I'm not sure their work should be considered canonical here).

Further work is needed to bring this up to scratch. A plot summary of some sort would be desirable, though it would have to cover more than just the OVA. Alternatively, a separate page could be created for the OVA, and the old plot summary and OVA-specific characters moved to it: that would enable a detailed treatment of those without swamping the general topic.

Haeleth 17:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Bibliomania

Is she officialy deemed a bibliomaniac? If not then the term bibliophile would be much more appropeate since she doesnt collect books for the sake of having books but to read them (if she is then I feel that should be mentioned then) Johhny-turbo 04:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she is officially deemed a bibilomania. In the official website and the novel both says Bibliomania (in katakana on top of the words 愛書狂), and she does collect books for the sake of having books. She got 2 copies of most of her books. In the novel, one chapter stated that when she buy new released books(instead of buying second handed ones like in the OVA), she buys the first 2 in the pile because she feels sorry for the first book due to other people always use it as a reference only and after reading it a bit, will pick up the second or third, which is less worn out. (due to every one doing the same thing, the first book can hardly be sold.) Also, she sometimes buy another extra copy to fill Donny Nakajima's bookshelf, too, if the book is in the list of books he wanted to find before his death. I cannot think of a good way to write this in better English and add into the article, maybe you can do it. MythSearcher 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Error about Dollar Bills

I saw in Yomiko's decription that the paper in American dollar bills are techincally cloth, not paper. In fact, the paper used in dollar bills is called "rag paper"... which is the oldest form of paper there is.

There is some truth to the description: sixty percent of dollar bill paper is made of cotton, the rest is linen, which lends to the particular texture of American dollar bills. BiggKwell 03:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is true. I've thought of making a suit out of twenties...

a confused reader

I'm sry to say this'll probabaly contribute nothing to the wiki, but i have questions so somebody plz answer them. i just started reading R.O.D. the manga and i was trying to find out more on the anime. anyways all this web surfing hs simply lead me to severe confusion.

1.Did Read or Die start off as a novel(s) or manga b/c the book says the manga was origianlly publ.ished in 2000 which is when the "novels" supposedly were published ? 2.Is there an anime soley modeled after the manga b/c the back of v.3 of the manga has the author talking about watching the dubbing of the anime for "volume three (the manga)? 3.Whats the story behind the "spin-off" manga and whats it called? 4. And finally if you know the answers to my previous Qs how many volumes of Read or die manga are there?

THANX In advance --68.81.88.109 06:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1. novel. The first manga based off of the first novel and then each went their own way.
2. No, none of the anime series were modeled after the manga.
3. Read or Dream. Which is the name of the TV series.
4. 4. novels 11 and 12 is said to be the end of the series.

MythSearcher 09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dokusensha

Is Dokusensha not a word-pun on Kodansha? Someone japanese-reading is requied to verify this. --88.68.38.55 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the only similarity is the word sha(社) in the end, and that is just simply a word meaning an organization. MythSearcher 16:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Characters

Hi all, I'm just going to start a list page of characters from all R.O.D manga an anime and may link off articles like this to it. I think this would be a good idea but if you have thoughts please contact. ætərnal ðrAعon → 09:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Supernatural

I think that R.O.D. is Supernatural not science fiction, they are normal people with special, supernatural skills, didnt see anything in manga, anime or OVA that makes it a science fiction.

Halmstad 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it got steam engines gliders and strange mechanics for starters. I'd say it is soft sci-fi (as opposed to hard sci-fi) and supernatural., the correct terminology is Science fantasy MythSearcher^talk 13:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Chapter list

I've stated a chapter list for Read or Die in my userspace, since I'm too lazy to fully develp a list of chapters ATM. Feel free to expand it as you see fit, I'll move it to its own article when appropriate. —Dinoguy1000 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

MI6

MI6 is very real, very much still exists, and has a very large and somewhat ostentatious building very prominently seen on the banks of the river Thames in Central London. So not 100% sure what is meant by this passage. Have the spies cracked into Wikipedia to erase evidence of their own existence perhaps? I don't read Japanese unfortunately and so I can't check what the quoted reference actually says. I'm a bit confused by the passage as it's written though at present... Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the editor and the author does not know about this, and think it is not real. I gave a direct quote from the novel, and have the source at the back. Notice the paragraph said the editors told him MI6 does not exist, not MI6 does not exist. MythSearcher^talk 11:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you wish to retain the information (it should go imho) I have attempted a re-write. As it was before, this passage could easily mislead casual readers into believing that MI6 is in some way a fictional construct. As any educated person in the western world knows, it isn't. I've rewritten the paragraph to reflect this more clearly. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your rewrite rendered it more original research in any sense. The whole thing is that both the author and editors thought MI6 does not exist in real life, and the editors told the author that it does not exist. The author is confused since other aspects of fictional things are never questioned by the editors before.(This whole story is based on fictional agency and powers) The author decides that fun is more important than accuracy, thus leaving the fictional references in the story.(to him it is fictional, it really does not matter if it exist in real life or not)

I will try to get a metaphor of this, say, I wrote a secret agent story with some magical aspects, and parodied the British library(I know this exist, but for the metaphor let's pretend I don't) and paper masters in R.O.D in it, someone told me that the British library and paper masters does not exist, but said nothing about the magical aspect in my story. I would be fairly confused on the comment as well. It does not matter if those are fictional or not, the fact remains that something I think is fictional is challenged over but other fictional aspects are not makes it confusing. MythSearcher^talk 14:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The original paragraph as written stated implicitly that this organisation is not real - "the editors gave no comment on other fictional items before..."; "The parodies are kept in the novel anyway since the author feels that the priority should be fun more than accuracy..". It is real. The re-write now reflects this whilst retaining the original meaning, which you feel to be encyclopaedic. It isn't original research to clarify a blatantly untrue statement presented as fact, per numerous Wikipedia policies ad infinitum. The whole passage is not brilliantly written or very clear in meaning, to be honest, although I do not seek to denigrate your work if it was you that contributed it initially. It's unfortunate that the quoted reference is in Japanese and very few of us on .en can actually read it to get a flavour of what the point actually is. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it was originally a direct quote, if it should be rewritten, the statements about it being real should be outside of the quote. It would be common sense to state MI6 still exist outside of the quote, but changing the quote itself to reflect it is quite out of the question. MythSearcher^talk 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the editors might refer to this: SIS OR MI6. WHAT'S IN A NAME? directly quoted Although 'MI6' fell into official disuse years ago. so officially they are not MI6 anymore, it is SIS. MythSearcher^talk 17:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The official name is indeed the "Secret Intelligence Service" or MI6. Here's a job advert (written by them) from today's paper [1]; here's a selection of stories from the BBC [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Here are excerpts from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, including "MI6" (search on that term) [8], [9], [10]. Here is the official website of the British foreign intelligence service, at MI6.gov.uk [11] (there is a mirror at sis.gov, as you have already seen). If you want more (certainly thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions?) corroboratory references, please do say.

"Greece" is officially called "the Hellenic Republic". Does that mean that Greece does not exist? I think not, and with respect, your argument is completely ridiculous.

I cannot accept from the phraseology and style (see the original paragraph here) that it was a "direct quote", not least since the tenses are confused. And if it was a quote, where are the quote marks, or where is the block quote formatting, per English grammatical rules and per the WP MoS?

Please insert quote marks around what you say to be the directly quoted portion and I will then edit and improve the paragraph as required. I have made some basic edits to bring the grammar into line with proper English usage, with deference to the fact that your first language may not be English. I will make further modifications once you have clearly demarcated the quote from your own prose, and ideally provided a word-for-word translation here that would enable non-Japanese speakers to grasp the meaning of the paragraph. Currently, neither the meaning nor the phraseology is clear. Badgerpatrol (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter if their website url or ad got the name MI6 or not,(BTW, MI6 is the mirror and the official site is SIS per []http://www.intelligence.gov.uk/agencies/sis.aspx here) what matters is that in an official statement, it claims that it fell into official disuse years ago, and the editors might refer to that when they say it does not exist any more. I am not going to comment on if the editors does not know SIS exist or they knew MI6 changed their name or not, that is totally OR and let's not talk about that anymore. I am just going to stick to the fact that they said MI6 does not exist in real life(anymore)(Note that the original Japanese sentence itself can either mean MI6 does not exist in real life or MI6 does not exist in real life anymore) and the author believed it but chose to stick with fun instead of accuracy. This is the whole purpose of the section, it is about how the author chose what to write and include parodies of Bond movies, not about if MI6 exist or not. If you want the directly quoted translation of the words the author said, here it is: "After I have sent in the manuscript, the editors send back a message criticizing “MI6 does not exist (anymore)” "That is irrelevant. If talking about Britain and Spy, it should be James Bond, then Bencolin and Intelligence. These are non-separable even if you try to cut them apart. None of them could be out of the picture. Thus, they exist in this world is the way it should be. I have used it before as well." I replied immediately without thinking. And of course, after going back home, I am troubled by my lack of knowledge. Well, after 2 minutes of troubled thought, (I come to conclusion that) if it gets to this, the special agency(of the British Library) and Dokusensha both does not exist anyway. From now on I will keep writing R.O.D without fearing about my lack of knowledge for the sake of the mysterious story, I have decided that the main concern is how interesting the content is, and that is the top priority. I have decided on that and satisfied with myself, so I went to take a bath and slept for the day."

The important part is actually the last part, where the author decides to focus on how interesting the story is, instead of sticking to real life in the fictional story. MythSearcher^talk 21:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So in fact you are now saying that what you originally had written in this article was NOT a direct quote, since the word-for-word translation that you provide above is NOT what was written. I will re-write appropriately when I get the time. As for your MI6/SIS confusion - I've stated the situation clearly above, there's nothing more to say on that subject. If you don't know now, you never will. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you intend to include irrelevant casual talk into the article? Yes, I have shortened the quote for the important parts, which is editors said MI6 doesn't exist and the author is confused but chose to stick with fun instead of accuracy, but the meaning is still the same in the original section, in which would be much more accurate than having a bunch of persistent claiming of MI6 does exist stuff inside the quote itself. You can decide yourself if you think MI6 exist or not in real life, I don't care, it got nothing to do with this article, the fact is the editors think it does not. The official site claimed MI6 fell into official disuse years ago. You can ignore that part and get as many source as you can, I trust what I see on the site. It might be wrong, but it is official. MythSearcher^talk 11:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you've clearly missed the point and don't know what you're talking about. What you have currently written is not a direct quote, and I will rewrite it later today so that it actually makes sense. Regards, Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

At least the sentence I was talking about is directly quoted from the original paragraph. MythSearcher^talk 12:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

External links in reference

It seems that all R.O.D external links to viz media are broken. Has I do not know what those sources were exactly linking to I'm posting this note.--Myric (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Does wayback machine help? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 18:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)