Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist

Archives: 1

Ed's Alchemy

It seems obvious to me that Ed himself doesn't know about his abillity to perform circleless transmutations until he accidentally uses it to boil water for Glacier. However, 64.12.116.14 keeps changing it to say that Ed doesn't reveal this abillity.

Admitedly, I haven't seen the dub... but it's pretty clear in the Japanese version.

I'd revert it, but I don't want to start a stupid Edit War. (Darien Shields 03:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC))

Yeah, Shields is right on this one, just re-watch the episode if you can. Jack Cain 04:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that way in the early episodes, but the truth comes out later when they go see Izumi. Ed is reluctant to have her see him do Alchemy without circles at all. When he does so trying to save the cat, she knows he has seen the gate. He then eventually goes into the big confession (episode 29) about the things that happened at the gate that were not revealed in the early episodes. Until that point, he had not revealed what he had learned at the gate or even that he saw the gate to anyone including Alphonse. That includes both how he was able to do the soul attachment and how he was able to do alchemy without circles. The gate gives the knowledge to do alchemy without circles rather than it being a hidden ability that people discover.

Now if you go back and watch the early episodes again, it seems that he only revealed doing alchemy without circles when there was no alternative. Therefore he was hiding it rather than accidentally discovering it. I'm willing to change my mind if someone can come up with a better explaination.

"But among other things your going to have to explain how the gate didn't gave him the knowledge to do Alchemy without circles, but did give him the knowledge on how to do a soul attachment. (posted by 64.12.116.134, please don't interject comments in between comments, it disrupts the flow of the conversation — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC))

You bring up a good point- however- I think you may be mistaken. Ed first "reveals" his abillity to perform a transmutation without a circle when he boils water for Glacier, which seems completely accidental at the time. Furthermore, I wouldn't say that there was "no alternative" then- he could have easily drawn a circle on the ground, or just left the water cold, since it wasn't essential. It was just coincidence, that he punched his hands together, that he discovered the abillity, which he used later on in the exam. If he had known about it all along, wouldn't he have tried it on the train in episode 5? There were a lot of times then when there was no-one else around, and he could have performed alchemy much more easily by using the circle-less approach.

As for Episode 29, watching it over (subbed), before and after Ed's story, he asks "That's Why, Isn't It?" (after he asks more specifically.) It seems to me that he himself wasn't aware that he'd picked up the circle-less transmutation abillity from the gate, but after a while began to theorise that this was why. The way he uncertainly asks Izumi whether this is the case seems to indicate this to me. (Darien Shields 12:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

No, I haven't seen the whole series, but saying that he chose to hide his ability doesn't make much sense, considering certain circumstances... why was he so surprised when he did it the first time? In fact, in the English version -- if I remember correctly -- when Al asks him how he did it, he says he doesn't know. The fact that he gained the ability to perform alchemy without a circle by looking beyond the gate does not necessarily mean that he immediately knew how to do it. He could have discovered this skill later on. Of course, I have only seen up to episode 31, so I don't know everything, but given the apparently controversial nature of this subject, we can't just decide that Ed was hiding this ability, unless it is specifically mentioned in the anime. You can't make assumptions... So just go with what we actually know instead of continuing this stupid edit war. --Wikivader 03:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've had my say and if you guys want to change it back now, I'm not going to object. As far as the subs on episode 29, I dont agree with the interpetation made. As far as Ed's comments to Al early on, Ed never told Al anything about the Gate or how he did the soul transmutation until episode 29 so there is no reason to conclude that he was telling Al the truth about this skill. I dont think the anime is definitive either way on the question.

We probably shouldn't even go into so much detail about this particular subject, because it seems like it's just a matter of interpretation. And posting one interpretation of the storyline, either way, wouldn't really be factual information... --Wikivader 19:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Overhaul

I'm rewriting as much of this as I can manage to clean it up and make it more concise while still being informational. I've seen the entire series (51 episodes and movie) and read all of the manga to date (in Japanese). I'll try to be done by the end of the weekend. --ACDragonMaster 19:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Changes made so far-

• All the miscellaneous stuff in the beginning is being pruned/rewritten. A lot was redundant or useless, the portions that are relevent will be put in better organized categories.
• Summary deleted and rewritten- we really don't need a play by play, just something to get people started with the idea of the series.
• Characters section pruned- even though there are few truly "minor" characters in the series, we don't need that many on the front page. Also, a lot of the notes are better put on the individual character pages, such as some of the name translation notes. I kept the comment on Bradley's name because that is a very commonly confused thing.
• Tweaking the layout to make things look pretty.

Things to do/in progress-

• Work more on categories, sort miscellaneous info and maybe add things.
• Make a seperate article on the manga? I think this would be useful- that way the main article need only address anime canon, and the manga one could explain the different events of the manga...

Still lots to do, but making progress here! --ACDragonMaster 22:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, done with rewriting the thing. Yes, I know the manga has been completely ignored, I intend to come back and get a seperate article started for that. --ACDragonMaster 23:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

On "taboo" vs "Forbidden Deed"

• It is explicitly written in English under the Japanese words on page 24 of the Perfect Guide 2, "Human Alchemy, the Forbidden Deed".

Taboo implies a social or religious constraint. This is not true for Human Alchemy. Human Alchemy is banned in Amestris by the military. This is mentioned in the manga in various spots. "Forbidden Deed" is the official phrase to refer to Human Alchemy.

--165.21.154.117 00:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please show me the kanji used for it? Because probably the kanji litterally mean "forbidden thing", but normally would be translated as "taboo". The Japanese aren't experts at writing in English. Also, "taboo" IS used in the English-language version of the series, and seeing as this is the English-language article for it, I think we should use that standard. --ACDragonMaster 03:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Taboo is a questionable translation. Other words should be substituted if possible. The translators needed a word and the grabbed taboo, but I dont think its a good one to use very often.

How is it questionable? It is a litteral translation, as far as I recall from reading the Japanese. Not to mention, 'taboo' is the translation used in both the fansub and the official English versions, and the latter *are* done by professional translators. --ACDragonMaster 02:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now I did just grab my manga off the shelf and look up the kanji used. Very clearly on the second page of chapter two, it is this kanji. Do I need to also provide a scan of the kanji to provide more proof, or can we rest this argument here? --ACDragonMaster 02:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The title mentioned in the Perfect Guide 2 is "禁忌の練成、人体練成". Under those words, it is explicitly stated in English as "Human Alchemy, the Forbidden Deed".

Knowing the Japanese language, it follows that one shouldn't go around literally translating according to English dictionaries. Jim Breen's online dictionary isn't the comprehensive source. It is better to find out in Japanese what the terms mean.

禁忌の練成 doesn't translate to Alchemy of Taboo (likewise, Hohenheim of Light is an erroneous translation by taking it literally - senseless especially when you consider how Lyra was shocked at Ed calling his father that). The English term given by Hiromu Arakawa is correct in its translation. 禁忌 isn't only referring to Taboo. Since you seem to know Japanese, I refer you to definition of 'kinki'. For those non-conversant, while it suggests taboo as one of the explanations, it also states that the original definition is "an act loathed and forbidden". It doesn't state that it is only due to social stigmata. Japanese society tends to consider illegal acts and taboos as almost one and the same. However western definiton of taboo suggests taboo is more of a social distasteful act.

In the story by Hiromu Arakwa, it was explicitly stated that Human Alchemy is forbidden by the military. Regardless, as has been previously discussed and agreed, she is the one who is the final authority on the English terms for Fullmetal Alchemist.

Okay, so now we're arguing semantics? I'm game. Basically, we ARE working with the limitations of translating between two different languages. However, a proper translation is almost never litteral, but rather interpretive, preserving the meaning of the original. In the Japanese, the way characters react to the idea of human transmutation implies that not only is it illegal, but it's a deplorable act the thought of which makes most people uncomfortable. This is true in both manga and anime, and I could cite examples from either or both. But anyway, as such, "forbidden" is too limiting a term in English, as it only means litterally that. "taboo", on the other hand, includes the connotations that something isn't just against the law, but that most people are probably going to recoil at the notion of it.

Let's compare, for example, to another felony in Amestris- transmuting gold. This is illegal for obvious reasons- if alchemists kept making gold it would totally undermine the economy for everyone, not to mention seriously threaten the government's control. Therefore, it is highly illegal. However, if an ordinary person were to hear of an alchemist researching that, they'd probably react in shock due to the audacity, but that's about it. There might even be a factor of awe. On the other hand, then, is human transmutation. Why is it illegal? The risk it poses, maybe? Or because people find it "wrong" and deplorable and thus like murder it's against the law? Whatever the reason, it is. However, unlike transmuting gold, if the average citizien heard of an alchemist researching human transmutation, they would probably be shocked and likely disgusted as well. But certainly not admiring the alchemist for it.

Now, these are definitely generalizations, but I'm trying to illustrate the difference- transmuting gold is forbidden, but transmuting a human is taboo. "forbidden thing" does NOT cover all the aspects and implications of human transmutation. The guidebook says otherwise? The guidebook was written by a native Japanese speaker, not a native English speaker. Arakawa herself has made some inconsistancies in the romanized spelling of character names before, and she's extremely good at that compared to other authors I've read before. Long story short, the Japanese version is the authority on the Japanese version. When there is an official English translation available, that is the authority on the English version. Neither is the authority on the other, although if there is for a blatent disrepency in continuity or something, the original takes precedence. This is not such an error, though, but rather an issue of translation. And generally speaking, the pros who're translating it for an English-speaking audience probably know what they're doing better than the ones inserting random English for a Japanese-speaking audience. --ACDragonMaster 04:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised to find statements here proposing native language speakers would be better than non-native speakers. I am sure I am not alone in saying that there are many non-native English speakers who speak and write much better English than many native English speakers. There are many cases of native English speakers who cannot even get simple things correct like "on their own" instead of "on there own", differentiate between "it's" and "its", or even spell "separate" correctly instead of "seperate". Unless there is proof that Hiromu Arakawa consistently mispells and types grammar errors all over her pages, it is presumptive to assume her dictated English terms are in error.

As for her having some inconsistencies? The only I recall having some sort of inconsistency would be Lin Yao's name being spelt as Ling Yao on one past occasion (Lin Yao is used consistently ever since then). It might not even be a mistake since Xing and Amestris have different languages, and the Amestris officer might be operating on improper assumptions (Arakawa showing how different langauges can be wrongly interpreted). After all, one only look at our own real lives in seeing this, how 'Japan' got to be called that instead of 'Nihon', and the various mangling of Chinese terms and names by the English (which don't even come close to the pronunciations).

It is also speculative to conclude that Human Alchemy is following our definition of taboo. Is there any proof that the people of Amestris actively condemn Human Transmutation? Most of their shock at the Elrics' actions seem more in shock of them daring to commit such a crime. Anything about it touching on religious overtones is said by Cornello in a religious town considered as far removed backwaters (they don't even know much of alchemy). What is definitive whether manga or anime, is that we know the army has forbidden some acts of Alchemy. In any case, this is all moot since the newer story overview has a clearer and different description.

Fano Plane

Fano plane Look familiar? Hackwrench 03:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

So transmutation circles happen to use geometric designs, so what? Coincidence, nothing more. --ACDragonMaster 03:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

But this is part of the central symbol that is in the opening, and alchemy in the show is supposed to be a science. Hackwrench 14:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Its a good observation. The geometry and the symbols of the different circles in series have meaning (see Edward's modification of the philsopher's stone array in lab 5), but there isn't anything that can be used to make conclusions about what the meaning might be and it should not go on the main page. I've thought about creating a page on the different transmutation circles in the anime. If such a page is ever created, speculation about the Fano plane could go there.

Character representation

Does anyone think that the characters are symbolic to various groups in real life?

When you think about it, some of the characters seem to emulate various groups. Take for instance the Homoculli. Could they represent a form of Illuminati, a group of conspirators who cause chaos and discord for their own purpose in which relating to the anime, the desire to become human? Then you have the Ishbal, which is derived from [Ishvara], a Hindu philosophical concept of God. Could the Ishbalans be a representation of the Eastern world which is struggling to find peace with the West? What about the military? Could the military represent the Western world, used as a puppet for the Illuminati that used them to further their agenda by creating the Philosopher's Stone, and critized for policing the world?

There is alot of parallelism in this series that is worthing thinking about.

--Bushido Hacks 06:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The military are a fairly clear representation of, well, the real-world military mindset, which attempts and ultimately fails tragically to offer adequate means for uniting different people with different worldviews so that they may all contribute for a greater and valid cause. I do not see any particular reason to associate the Homunculi with the Illuminati or the Ishbalians with any specific culture or religious concept. Maybe you could offer some more evidence. Luis Dantas 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Elric Brothers vs. Elric of Melniboné

I was wondering if the surname of the Elric bothers is based on the Elric novels by Fantasy-author Michael Moorcock. Maybe its worth researching.

Greets,

Maverick Hunter 09:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Elric of Melnbone articles mentions the Elric brothers from FMA... personally, I've never heard of it. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Elric is a rather complex character. It is possible to find something relating to him in most any fantasy protagonist. The most significant resemblances to Edward and Alphonse's family may be their tendency to deal with enchantments with terrible prices. Also, both varieties of Elrics display an alarming tendency to lose companions to terrible fates. Luis Dantas 23:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Indelible Sin

There is a hidden comment on the page that claims

DO NOT CHANGE THIS SONG TITLE. INDELIABLE SIN IS THE OFFICAL ENG. TITLE LIKE IT OR NOT. And if you don't like it, use the discussion board DO NOT CHANGE THIS SONG TITLE. INDELIABLE SIN IS THE OFFICAL ENG. TITLE LIKE IT OR NOT. And if you don't like it, use the discussion board.

Where is evidence that "Indeliable" is the official English title? "Indelible sin" gets far more hits on Google than "indeliable sin" (by an entire order of magnitude), and indeed, the top hit for "indeliable sin," at the time of this writing, is this very Wikipedia page. Unless some evidence can be provided that "indeliable" is the official English spelling, I'm changing this. —Lowellian (reply) 14:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not well versed at this at all, but I recall one anon contributor changing both the song name and the comment's name at the same time... this diff (AOL proxy, so no accountability). The change was fine. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 16:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)