Speaking of germ theory, I was surprised to see the reference to hand washing in the chapter, since as far as I'm aware that's also centuries into the future. They might rinse their hands to remove obvious dirt but using soap is far off as far as I know. Typically proper handwashing is credited as a 19th century invention, and looking it up just now I learned that at least in America it wasn't until the 1980s that it started to get promoted to the general public as important, rather than primarily being for doctors and such. Which is rather dismaying lol. I guess this helps explain why as recently as the 2000s I've heard American men insist they don't need to use soap after peeing.

Anyway that sure was a hell of a lot of bread Rachel made all by herself. Could 3-4 cartloads of bread be feasibly made in one day by one person using these intense practices? Should we assume she's got some apprentices of her own just off camera, maybe?

Oh yeah, Missed the handwashing part. As for the bread, the baking process usually only takes a couple dozen minutes at most per batch (most of the work would be advance preparation of the dough), so baking could, in theory get wrapped up quickly enough. There were legal regulations (assize laws) regarding how much bread a baker is supposed to produce per baseline amount of flour (not very sure about the Holy Roman Empire). Because of this, the size of loaves fluctuate based on the determined flour standard, but a medieval bakery (from what I know of England) could easily go through 240lbs of flour in a day, and by the time we have proper census measurements (17th century) we know that it wasn't uncommon to have one bakery for about 500 people with each adult eating about a pound of bread per day. Considering that the baking technology hadn't changed much by that time it isn't unreasonable for Rachel to feed a village. Typically a baker would have an apprentice and a helper to stoke the fire though, but I guess Rachel is just super amazing.

Bullying?: Verdict is still out on whether bullying is happening and/or how bad it is, but I would say that it probably is to some degree, in a badmouthing way at the minimum. Potential escalation timeline (in terms of how "undeniable" the proof of bullying is), from 536-39 showcasing Yura's reluctance to talk about school (but possibly just due to not fitting in well), to 543 being a potential push or similar that'd cause a fall onto her face (or just her falling by herself, as happened exactly on 535, and would also mean that she directly lied in 546, which seems unlikely) to 557 with the girls talking about her (clear exclusion), and last, 564 with a wound on her neck that couldn't have been caused by a fall (though also not a common area to target unless the hypothetical bullies were really violent).

Was under the impression that it was domestic abuse. I think the phone pic on page 558 might be a hint. Also on page 565, there's a scar peeking out from under the uniform next to the neck bruise in the reflection. Also visible on page 570. But it might just be indicative of the restrictiveness of her family situation.

The sea: Both a herald of change and Koma's feelings toward Yura which she won't admit, as they would break the normal. Not just her normal, but also the normal. This feels most evident in the scene with the girls from Yura' school, where Koma comes closest to actually doing something on Yura's behalf and "dirtying her hands", as the sea rises, and she wonders why she would even consider it when she doesn't want things to change.

The sea definitely takes on a symbolic role, but I feel that it is more representative of Koma's feelings of helplessness than of her romantic ones. Reminds me a bit of the feeling of paralysis thematic to James Joyce's Dubliners. The sea is drawn throughout the latter half or so of the oneshot, often as an atmospheric effect (see pages 557 & 565), it's only at the end that the sea is shown as swallowing her whole. I suppose there's a rather dramatic reading that there's an example of synecdoche (totum pro parte), where the collapse of the world is used to refer to the end of their relationship. The fact that Koma's speech bubbles end with her affirming that having Yura by her side is all she could ever ask for lends that interpretation some substance. Very dramatic though. It might be worth noting that Koma doesn't finish that though, breaking up into an internalized scream. So it could be that there's some kind of implied divide between Koma and Yura's feelings. It's possible that Koma thinks her romantic feelings aren't requited and that her wanting to be together is different from Yura's. There's a lot of room for interpretation.

Coward: Koma's inability to join Yura in leaving that world behind and embracing the sea. She couldn't say that having Yura by her side was also all she could ever ask for.

Well yes, but I think that the implication of Koma's 'cowardice' is a little broader than that. It could refer to Koma's unwillingness for their relationship to change, or her unwillingness to interfere with Yura's personal life. It refers I think to all aspects of Koma's stasis. If you recall Koma's conversation with her classmate, Koma lacks the dreams and romanticism her classmate possesses. So it's definitely a developed commentary about Koma as a person, and not an individual accusation by Yura. The author put that in there with consistent intention. I like the word 'stasis' because the word also has the meaning of describing a civil war, so I think it neatly implies Koma's internal struggle, which reaches its apex only after Yura is gone. (From the train of course, I'm sure she's fine). I guess this struggle, is also symbolized by the encroaching sea.

Anyway, just wool gathering. I hope it was somewhat useful.

last edited at Dec 19, 2024 7:56PM

The suggested BGM is really good. Funny that I actually knew both the works. That's a first. Never heard the Nikolayeva recording before, but it's probably my favorite interpretation.

Only read up to chapter two at this point, but I have to say that I'm surprised by the level of research here. It's remarkably accurate. The afterword of chapter one is more or less correct in saying that people treasured cleanliness. Most of the prejudice today comes from slanderous clerical texts (regarding peasants), although germ theory wasn't solidified yet (though there was some understanding of correct protective measures,) and as was glossed over in the after-notes, bloodletting and treatments for scabies, leprosy and the like did occur in bathhouses. By modern standards, that's fairly unhygienic.

Tellingly, while the after-note for clothing in chapter two is correct (though the kirtle was actually less close fitting in the 14th century, that's a 15th century development,) the clothing Rachel is wearing throughout the chapter is anachronistic, and closer to 17th century clothing. The idea of front lacing as in a bodice didn't occur until centuries later, and it's highly unlikely that they'd cut off beneath the breast as in Rachel's garb (because the purpose of the lacing was supportive). (Also the neckline is a bit low-cut.) Given that every other character is dressed normally, it's clearly for titillation.

Nice way to expose your tastes author.