Yes, there are definitely still some holes. All I'm saying is that enough information is given to us that all fits together that I feel comfortable in assuming that answers to the other questions do exist, even if we never get to see them. A coherent setting that is only partially revealed is different than an incoherent setting where there simply are no answers to the questions the audience has.

In the one case, the author has established a world that just isn't entirely conveyed within the narrative—naturally, a work can't tell everything there is to know about its world, or else it would be a textbook rather than a story. In the other case, the author has abdicated their duty by just throwing in random details with no coherent structure behind them.

A lot of fantasy and sci-manga manga (and stories in other media, especially young adult books and films) have the bad habit of just dumping a bunch of information on the audience out of nowhere. Oftentimes this is done by making an audience stand-in character—someone who doesn't know what's going on or is new to the world, so there's an excuse for other characters to explain things to them, or for they themselves to remark upon things, which provides an excuse for the author to explain them to the audience.

Here there is no character who's new to this world. Everyone we meet knows about beastkin, and there's really no reason for them to discuss their origins or lifespans or whatever. Itou Hachi cheats a bit by throwing in narration like in chapter 3, but other than that we just have to piece everything together ourselves more naturally through observation and inference. This can of course be abused by bad writers who use this as an excuse to just not bother creating a coherent setting and hiding it by hiding information.

Basically, I'm just saying that I trust Itou Hachi that answers do exist even if we never get to learn them. In many works I don't trust the author and accept that the answers aren't given because the author never came up with them in the first place.

I don't want to spoil anything, but I'll say that the social status of beastkin is elaborated upon a bit more in the next chapter, to the extent that I think Itou Hachi did have some kind of plan for this setting, and isn't just making it up as she goes along.

Obviously I can't read her mind, but this does appear to be a consistent element that was just in the background all along, rather than some last minute asspull.

Even starting from Chapter 3, this section was pretty explicit about their subservient nature:

The most distinctive features of beastkin are their animal ears and furry tails. Due to their similarities to humans and their adorable appearance, they are gradually becoming common as companions. From the moment of birth, beastkin are managed by the state, and humans, after a thorough evaluation, can be approved to adopt a beastkin as its master. Thus, until the age of ten beastkin live and study together in an institution where they wait while dreaming of the masters who will one day appear before them.

Note: the line about humans being approved to adopt them says 人間だけ as the subject. I'm pretty sure here this means "humans, and humans only"—beastkin cannot adopt other beastkin.

last edited at Nov 5, 2018 1:10PM

Maybe it's a regional thing but I don't know anyone who wouldn't consider it an awkward thing to say and I'm American. This includes people I know who have actually said it as well. All of them fit into the categories I listed of being socially awkward or being caught off-guard. It's a similar situation to another odd response that happens frequently in manga and webcomics where someone's at a restaurant or a movie theater and the employee they're interacting with says "enjoy your meal/the movie!" and the person replies with "you too!"

Well, there you go. It's probably different in different English varieties then (and I don't just mean American English vs British English, but maybe specific smaller regional variations, or social class or just personal idiosyncrasies).

The "enjoy your meal" "you too!" thing always sounds like a silly mistake to me as well, something that I laugh at if I hear someone else say it, or feel stupid if I'm distracted and say that myself. After all, they're serving you a meal, it's not like they're about to eat. I don't know if I've ever seen this misused in a manga translation, it's just the sort of thing really awkward people do and people on the internet joke about.

But "I love you" "me too" sounds fine to me.

last edited at Nov 5, 2018 10:31AM

Notice how in the original conception the main theme is about social class rather than about “the border between humans and animals.”

I think the border between humans and beastkin is an issue of social class. The "institute" at which Mel and the others were raised seems similar to the kinds of places the US and Australia and Canada forcibly took native children in order to "civilize" them and prepare them for lives of servitude in white society. The government here seems somewhat more interested in preventing abuse than those governments did historically, since it appears there's actually some fear of social services coming and taking Mel away if they feel her master is abusing her. However, that doesn't change the fact that beastkin apparently cannot live without a guardian, be it the state or a master chosen for them.

I found an official summary of this series (specifically, the first volume) on this page. Would a translation of that suffice for use as our own description on the series page?

Incidentally, I believe I figured out what the original Japanese term that is being translated into "Beastkin" is: The aforementioned summary repeatedly uses the term "獣人", which literally translates to "animal/beast person/people".

That summary is very similar to what's written on the back of the first volume. Here's a translation if anyone wants to put it up on the chapter page (I don't know how to change it):

Beastkin, a race similar to humans but with an adorable appearance, are becoming common as companions and partners. A beastkin girl Mel, awaiting a "master" who would one day come to her, is taken in by the beautiful but lonely mistress of a manor. Together they nurture a modest but undeniable happiness. A deep affection is born between protector and protected. In this a gentle and innocent world, a tale transcending the borders between master and servant begins.

獣人, like many terms from myth or fantasy or fairy tale, has no "true" translation. It means different things in different scenarios. For example, the "beastmen" in Gurren Lagann are 獣人, but it can also refer to werewolves, or bigfoot, or other supernatural hybrids like that. Personally, I don't think I ever would have thought of "beastkin" as a translation on my own, but it's what the original translator of the series used, and it's as good as any other, so I just stuck with it.

last edited at Nov 5, 2018 7:14AM

I'm kind of getting the impression that this is the final stage of maturity for beastkin. Have we ever encountered or even heard of an adult beastkin? Or male beastkin for that matter? Presumably they must exist, unless they reproduce through parthenogensis or are the offspring of some unholy union between human and animal.

Maybe they just naturally stop developing when they're at the level of a 12-year-old child (both physically and mentally) in which case it would make a lot of sense for there to be a law against human-beastkin romance, since any sexual relations with a beastkin would consequentially be child abuse.

I originally kind of thought that the setting either wasn't really thought out or was just a vague excuse for the animal-ear-loli X onee-san plot to happen. But as human-beastkin relations become a major plot point and more details are revealed, I wonder if there isn't more to it than that.

last edited at Nov 4, 2018 9:09AM

Oh, I actually just watched that. It's a good scene, it makes a nice contrast with him murdering two guys in cold blood shortly after.

I'm just saying that I've seen enough people bitching about how "me too" is actually incorrect (as opposed to just awkward or insincere) that I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and say that in some variety of English I've never encountered, if you answered "I love you" with "me too" people would be genuinely confused as to what you meant.

Edit: sorry, I can genuinely discuss grammar and what "correctness" means in language all day.

last edited at Nov 4, 2018 8:56AM

Well, I could be wrong. By "diligent research", I meant "5 minutes of googling", so there's bound to be some inaccuracies in my method.

The response "me too" may seem awkward to "I love you", but it isn't really and no, not because only fairly socially awkward people say it. It works as an informal response such that the person is saying "me as well" to the statement "I love you" which has been generalized. So, even though they're saying "me too" they're actually meaning "I love you as well".

From my diligent research on the topic I have determined that substantial number of English-speakers find "me too" a perfectly appropriate response to "I love you", while others think it's ungrammatical. So to some extent, I believe the question of whether it's a good translation depends on what variety of English you speak. In some dialects or sociolects, it might be a fine answer in any circumstance, while in others it would sound awkward in most circumstances, and in others yet would be wrong in any circumstance. So there might be some cases where the translation isn't wrong or bad, it's just that the translator's English is a little different from the English you know (though of course there are also cases where the translator don't know English good or makes a careless mistake).

Personally, if I said "I love you" to someone and they said "me too" I'd know exactly what they meant: "I too love you." I doubt that anyone would actually misunderstand and confuse the meaning for "I love me too". Someone might say that as a joke, but it's not a serious interpretation of the statement. However, in some circumstances, saying "me too" would come across as insincere.

Advice on usage: when your significant other is feeling vulnerable or uncertain and says, "I love you," in a desperate or plaintive tone do not answer with "me too."

last edited at Nov 4, 2018 6:32AM

"I love you!"
"Me too!"

Is there some quirk of Japanese that makes that sound less weird in Japanese or something? Cause it seems to be an extremely common translation but it's also a really strange thing to say.

好き！
私も！

I guess it might be a little too literal, maybe "I love you too" would be better. But the "me too" answer isn't uncommon in English. I've heard people speak like that, and I'm sure I've said that myself, though it can definitely seem awkward when you think about it.

Edit: though now that I think about it, Chidori's awkwardness in answering might make "me too" a more accurate translation in this case.... I'll just give myself the benefit of the doubt and assume that's what I was going for when I wrote this down.

last edited at Nov 1, 2018 2:25PM

I think Yoshida-senpai was the girl who gave Chidori the chocolates and that she's similar to the poly girl from AnoKiss who gave flowers to everyone and thats why she says that her love isn't the same as her love.

Yoshida is the girl who's dating Abe. They're mentioned here, they just happened to start dating the same day Chidori and Nanoha did. Igarashi is the one who gave the chocolates to Chidori. She has no relation to Yoshida (as far as we know).

All we know at this point is that Igarashi and Chidori have some sort of history—Chidori was in love with her but felt betrayed and avoided her, and that's why she cut her hair. She didn't confront her until Igarashi gave her the Valentines chocolate, and then she went and returned the chocolate to her.

last edited at Nov 1, 2018 1:31PM

I liked the premise but this is just fucking stupid. Nothing makes any sense. It's like a child scribbled this story and then a drunk artist tried to draw it.

You know, the reason cuts in your mouth hurt so much is because your mouth is a nasty place full of germs. If you just use mouth wash, then the infection dies and they heal no problem.

I'd give anyone who tries to forcibly decide what's the best for me a wide wide berth. Emi gets a lot of downvotes because she's doing all these things without ever talking it out with the other party who is directly affected by this: Yuu. It's not good behavior. It most certainly is not a BFF thing. It's selfish. It's all about Emi's feelings, but she didn't consider what Yuu might need. You can be selfish, but you also need to consider what your actions' effects on other people. Keep in mind, Emi's been doing this thing for years. Time is indeed a factor. People mature and learn from experience with age. What did Emi learn? Nada. I already get plenty frustrated when I read mainstream titles where the main protagonist does not mature one bit at all hundreds of chapters later. That's one of my biggest no no when it comes to a story.

I feel like the part you hate is kind of the whole point of the story. Eimi has acted selfishly for years, hasn't learned anything, hasn't matured at all, but Yuu has and now she's turned the tables on her. After years of being trapped by Eimi's selfishness, now Yuu's making the calls. And apparently she's decided that she wants Eimi, and isn't going to accept no as an answer.

It's a lovely story where the two characters cannot resist the pull of their emotions, fall into destructive behaviors, and by the end, when they end up together, they sort of deserve each other, but in different ways. It's a classic tale of a love that, rather than being doomed to fail, is doomed to succeed.

Here’s a question that I mean sincerely—is this one worth it?

Are we dealing with subtle, or just vague and underwritten?

Can’t make up my mind just yet.

I think this story contains everything necessary for a reader to reach the natural conclusion. Eimi's behavior throughout speaks for itself, and then in the last chapter her thoughts (especially regarding holding hands) betray her true feelings far better than her repeated mantra. The little bit of symbolism with the toy is just confirmation.

A work that is so open to interpretation that multiple stories could be read into it as equally valid is vague. To me, this manga conveys a singular story where certain details need to be inferred. I wouldn't even call it "open-ended". The ending has everything necessary to know what will happen next.

Pretty sure Yuu is commenting on her complex relationship with Eimi—on the one hand, she feels trapped by Eimi's meddling in her personal affairs, but on the other hand she's secretly happy about Eimi's obsession with her.

That's an interesting thought, since it's Emi who talks about love feeling painful and suffocating, while Yuu is happy to force it on Emi, if it gets her what she wants. At the same time, Emi's actions definitely put more obvious constraints on Yuu, so she is the one we'd expect to feel trapped.

For most of the story, Eimi's the one who deliberately attempts to isolate Yuu by targeting any rivals in love. Yuu clearly resents her to some degree for stealing all of her potential boyfriends. But Yuu clearly still cares about Eimi or she would have cast her aside. And in the end there is the reversal, where Yuu decides she's in love with Eimi and forces her feelings upon her for a change, and Eimi is still unable to accept her feelings.

Or that's one interpretation, it could also be the case that Eimi is just a really obsessive friend who can't let go, and at the same time someone who's never fallen in love. But I think it's more likely that Eimi loves Yuu and can't admit it. I think there are a number of hints that point in that direction.

???

That protagonist line reads like it belongs to Emi's though? Unless Yuu decided to start doing inner monologue in 3rd person all of a sudden. Did the original read differently?

I've looked at the original Japanese, and that line is definitely Yuu's thoughts. Just like rest chapter 2, those pages are from Yuu's perspective.

For more details, the line reads: けれど　親友に泣きつく私　そのときは主人公だった. "Cry to" is an intransitive verb taking the indirect object "best friend", and that verb phrase forms an attributive clause modifying "I", which acts as the subject (this is consistent with the previous sentences, where "I" was the implied subject). For a phrase-by-phrase translation, you'd get something like "but I, crying to my best friend, at that time was the protagonist," or more naturally, "but when I cried to my best friend, I was the protagonist". I'm not an expert by any means, but I think "I who cries to my best friend" has to be identified with "protagonist".

The line is linking back to the previous line about how Yuu's unceremonious rejection felt like a failure of a shoujo manga. So I'm pretty sure Yuu is commenting on her complex relationship with Eimi—on the one hand, she feels trapped by Eimi's meddling in her personal affairs, but on the other hand she's secretly happy about Eimi's obsession with her. It makes her feel validated to have such a cute and popular friend so fixated on her and her alone. So those lines are consistent with the rest of chapter 2 and the developments in chapter 3.

last edited at Oct 29, 2018 8:18PM

https://safe.yuri-project.net/res/22774.html

I've translated 3 and someone says they're working on it.

last edited at Oct 29, 2018 5:53PM

Can't stop thinking about that one scene in Re-Animator.

That was pretty good. Even though Eimi wasn't ready, Yuu went ahead and made a move for her.

Well, looks like someone's caught feelings.

I know, I know ... but just imagine how disgusting this would be as het ^^;

It'd still be funny if it was het.

I know that's the whole point. I'm just saying I empathize with crested ibis here.

I was a child who said "r" and "l" as "w". So "lion" and "Ryan" were both "wian". But just because you can't pronounce the difference between two syllables doesn't mean you can't distinguish them.

This is just beautiful.