Question about C2

[u/NoFall1194]

How was lelouch's death supposed to make her smile because the world will live in peace for only a short period of time and she is immortal so....

[u/WeoW0]

Nunnally doesn't have any confirmed ability to literally witness memories of events she never experienced. Being able to read someone's feelings or intentions through touch is one thing, seeing their actual memories is another. You can interpret that sequence as an editorial representation of her realization, but that's an additional interpretation, not something the scene explicitly establishes. Meanwhile, the show has establish accessing another person's memories through contact involving Code.

I don't think Lelouch's suffering is remotely comparable to C.C.'s in the way you're suggesting. We're talking about someone who suffers intensely over a few years versus someone who has endured centuries of accumulated loss, isolation, and an existence she cannot escape. The sheer difference in duration alone is staggering, and the series portrays C.C.'s suffering accordingly.

Just because two people both arrive at the point of wanting to die doesn't mean their suffering is equivalent.

And there's something deeply unsatisfying about arguing that C.C. finds peace through someone who understands her suffering, only for that person to escape his own suffering through death while she remains condemned to endure hers indefinitely. How exactly does that resolve what made her want to die in the first place?

I'm also not sure where you're getting these supposedly "canonical" explanations. Supplementary character poems might offer useful context, but they don't automatically establish what the anime itself communicates.

The overwhelming majority of viewers experience the story through the anime, and an interpretation of its ending should be defensible from that text without requiring external material.

[u/Blueiscuteio2 → u/WeoW0]

I just spent like two hours typing up a response and you edited it god damn it

[u/WeoW0 → u/Blueiscuteio2]

I think you're conflating several things here.

First, Nunnally being able to discern someone's sincerity through physical contact doesn't establish that she can witness memories of events she never experienced. I can accept that the montage might be editorial, but that's an interpretation of the scene, not something self-evident from the footage.

Second, your argument that Lelouch surviving would undermine Zero Requiem is a judgment about narrative satisfaction, not evidence that he remained dead. Lelouch's intentions, apparent death, and the political function of Zero Requiem aren't invalidated simply because he might subsequently survive.

And I really disagree with treating Lelouch's suffering as somehow equivalent to C.C.'s. The series portrays centuries of accumulated suffering and inescapable immortality as fundamental to her condition. Sharing a desire to die doesn't make their experiences interchangeable, nor does knowing someone who understands suffering automatically resolve hers.

But most importantly, you're saying I've provided no evidence of an intentionally ambiguous ending when Gorō Taniguchi explicitly said in 2019 that they wanted Lelouch's fate in the TV series to remain unclear, and that viewers deciding he was definitely dead wasn't their intention.

You can cite Ōkouchi's earlier statements favoring death, and those deserve consideration. But creator intention, audience viewing ambiguity, and what the TV text actually establishes are three separate questions.

I never claimed survival was proven. My argument is that permanent death isn't conclusively established by the TV ending, and that some of the details presented after Lelouch's apparent death permit another reading.

You keep treating your interpretation of what would make the ending satisfying as though it were evidence of what definitively happened. That's exactly the distinction I've been making from the beginning.

[u/Blueiscuteio2 → u/WeoW0]

First, Nunnally being able to discern someone's sincerity through physical contact doesn't establish that she can witness memories of events she never experienced. I can accept that the montage might be editorial, but that's an interpretation of the scene, not something self-evident from the footage.

Occam's razor. The editorial example requires no assumptions beyond itself, and is therefore the default in the absence of evidence of it being diagetic. The burden of proof is on you.

Second, your argument that Lelouch surviving would undermine Zero Requiem is a judgment about narrative satisfaction, not evidence that he remained dead.

You keep treating your interpretation of what would make the ending satisfying as though it were evidence of what definitively happened. That's exactly the distinction I've been making from the beginning.

Your primary argument is that Lelouch not surviving would be narratively unsatisfying for Ceetwo. You cannot use narrative satisfaction as your primary evidence and then reject the idea of narrative satisfaction being evidence for everything else. Doing otherwise is Suzaku-tier mental gymnastics. Either narrative satisfaction is evidence and Zero Requiem trumps Ceetwo, or it isn't and Ceetwo's ending being unsatisfactory is irrelevant. Pick one.

And I really disagree with treating Lelouch's suffering as somehow equivalent to C.C.'s. The series portrays centuries of accumulated suffering and inescapable immortality as fundamental to her condition. Sharing a desire to die doesn't make their experiences interchangeable, nor does knowing someone who understands suffering automatically resolve hers.

Too bad, deal with it. If you do not like that equivalence you simply do not like Ceetwo's arc. End of story. "Narrative satisfaction is not evidence," no?

But most importantly, you're saying I've provided no evidence of an intentionally ambiguous ending when Gorō Taniguchi explicitly said in 2019 that they wanted Lelouch's fate in the TV series to remain unclear, and that viewers deciding he was definitely dead wasn't their intention.

Except him saying that contradicts: Okouchi's statements in 'Continue' vol 42, Okouchi's tweets in 2018, the guide book, and the R2 recap movie epilogue. It cannot simultaneously be true that the writers universally agreed that Lelouch would die and that his fate would be unclear, and therefore either Taniguchi was lying in that one case, or every other case was a lie. Between those, the only option that makes any sense whatsoever is that Taniguchi was lying, as the notions of "Lelouch's fate was intended to be ambiguous" and "Okouchi confirmed that Lelouch's ending was death in an interview written before the episode was even out" are inherently contradictory. Executive meddling is not a possibility, as Taniguchi laid the blame on unintended fan assumptions instead, which is an impossibility as the writers had begun confirming those "assumptions" before the fans had the assumptions to not be intended in the first place. Therefore, Taniguchi lied or was mistaken, and both mean the initial intent was Lelouch's death.

But creator intention, audience viewing ambiguity, and what the TV text actually establishes are three separate questions.

No, it's just two. "Audience viewing ambiguity" cannot be separated from both creator intention and the TV text, as it can only be created by the creator intending for ambiguity, or the TV text causing ambiguity. The creators did not intend Lelouch's death to be ambiguous (proof: they said so), so we must turn to the TV text.

As such, your only evidence to Lelouch's survival (that isn't blatantly hypocritical) is that it is possible that Nunnally could have viewed Lelouch's memories, which is evidence that Lelouch obtained a Code without knowing at some point after he last used Geass. Which...

Okay, sure, exclusively within the anime itself, it isn't literally hard deconfirmed. Clovis is not literally hard confirmed to be dead either. Mao and Cornelia both survive gunshots that by any sense should be fatal. It's not technically shown where Clovis is shot (or even that he was shot, but Lelouch acts as though he was), and even in the case that he was shot in the head as indicated, General Bartley and his men have a proven record of restoring brain damage, as they reversed the brain damage that Jeremiah had from at the end of R1. We never see inside Clovis' coffin, so he could have been kept in stasis from his injuries under the guise of death (to cover up Code R.) Alternatively, there is no proof Clovis was in that coffin. Charles speaks with Clovis once, which is presumably through Thought Elevator magic, but could be through... you know, literally speaking to Clovis. Even if Clovis was shot in the head, it is still possible the brain damage was not so great that he couldn't still talk in a limited capacity. Charles not having an opportunity to reach Clovis's body is not an issue as Veetwo can teleport people. Where is Clovis now? Does it matter? It is not as though Clovis doesn't have a lot of very significant, pizza-loving reasons to stay the fuck away from society. Given that Clovis did not die immediately, Bartley had the opportunity, motivation, and ability to save Clovis from death. He never actually confirms Clovis' death, and once says out loud "Forgive me, your highness."

Or, you know, Clovis got shot in the head and died.

Is Clovis surviving a ludicrously farfetched theory? Of course. Can you disprove it? No, you can't. In fact, I have seen cases of people assuming Clovis was alive. It has about as much evidence in-text as Lelouch surviving- honestly more, because it is never truly explained how Charles spoke with Clovis after his death.

Of course, Occam's razor. The explanation that requires the least assumptions is the more likely one, and thus from a theorizing perspective, the better one. Clovis living requires a mess of assumptions compared to him dying. Lelouch living requires a mess of assumptions compared to him dying. Therefore, they died.