Amanchu!

...I have no idea what just happened.

This is as much a diving manga as Grand Blue is.

Re-checked ch 34 ... I had indeed forgotten about that part!

Also, it totally did not click that the girl was the younger version of their homeroom teacher.

Thanks for clarification on those points!

Young Mato sensei really look like Akira : )).

Spoiler

 

Chapters 34 and 3 respectively.

Wait, wait, wait ... what just happened? Peter? Mato? Wha? O.o Were these characters mentioned in earlier chapters and I just forgot about them?

Also, speaking of forgetting things ... I hadforgot how unexpectedly effective Kozue's art style can be for the particular setting the second half of this chapter takes place in.

Katori Mato, she is the homeroom teacher, just because most of time people call her Katori sensei. In chapter 52, I mistook her is Akari E. Ferrari  because her sailor suit, hair down and flooding, until her name is called.

Ah yes,
Amanospace activated...

Spoiler

 

Wait, wait, wait ... what just happened? Peter? Mato? Wha? O.o Were these characters mentioned in earlier chapters and I just forgot about them?

Chapters 34 and 3 respectively.

Sometimes amanchu chapters get super surreal man

Oh...  By the way, I am really enjoying Amanchu (I especially love Pikari), and feel that Amano Kozue is among the greatest of manga authors!

 LOTR was the work of a lifetime and created much of the mainstream fantasy genre though even his works came out of a contemporary popular middle ages magazine pulp fiction culture from the 20s onwards. the shadows of the Two world wars warfare of industrial scale killing and superweapons lie heavily.

Spoiler

is it obvious that I did a quick scramble through as many articles about pre tolkien fantasy as I could in ten minutes? Extended writing is a skill I need to learn, any tips PLG?

"Contemporary popular middle ages magazine pulp fiction culture from the 20s onwards?"  I really have to take exception to that description.  I don't blame you, as I recognize the tone as typical of many of the critics who hated and reviled Tolkien's works with a passion (and some who continue to hate him to this day).  While I agree that Tolkien's experience as a trench soldier in WWI and living through WWII contributed greatly to his work (like Kurt Vonnegut, Ernest Hemingway, and others), the essential guts of the story line do not come from "pulp fiction," but from intimate knowledge of Old English, Finnish, Icelandic, Gothic, and Old German epic poetry.  He wrote the earliest stories of his mythology during WWI, to essentially put a "world" to his creation of the Elvish Language.  His works are written from a Philological point of view (very much out of academic fashion for the last sixty or so years) which believes that language and literature (either oral or written) are inseparable as study disciplines.  Many critics of his work, from the 1950's until the present, have attempted to equate his work to G. A. Henty or Horatio Alger books with swords and armor.  Even if one does not care for his writings, to dismiss them as puerile or as the fantasy equivalent of a Harlequin novel is to unequivocally show one's ignorance.  His academic background was Oxford University (three separate colleges), and he was credited by many, including Seamus Heaney, as the man who pretty much rediscovered the poem Beowulf and brought it to the attention of the academic world.  One of the earliest admirers of his published work (LOTR) was W. H. Auden, an author twice short-listed for the Nobel prize in literature.  Those critics who feel ill at the mere thought of his works enjoy neither the academic nor the literary reputation of Heaney or Auden.

Pratchett was good.  Well, usually.  Not, perhaps, always quite as good as some of his legions of fans would claim--he basically rebelled against various cliches and conventions of fantasy, substituted his own, and beat them to death so hard that by the time he was done his schtick had itself become cliche.  And by the time he'd written a shelf-full, some of the later stuff was a bit phoned in.  But overall his stuff was funny, often interesting, frequently heartwarming.  And the best ones are pretty brilliant.  Good stuff.
Mary Stewart . . . I can kind of respect her stuff, but actually I found it boring.  The Crystal Cave and those?  Nothing much seemed to be happening.  And to the extent that anything was, it had this sort of Arthurian melancholy "doomed to do stuff you gotta do even though it will be pointless in the end" kind of vibe which I don't dig.  But it's not like she was a bad writer.
 
Weis?  Hickman?  Salvatore?  Whatever.

I'm far from extensively read but felt I might chip in a few points of my own.
Pratchett's Nightwatch remains one of my favourite books and despite it being almost a decade and a half since I first read it I still keep uncovering its hidden references. some of the early books were a bit hit and miss but generally funny, he did get into his stride once he'd constructed his own unconventional world and diverse cast of oddballs.
Tolkien was an incredible linguist, and his studies of ancient literature, myths, legends and culture shine through in his works including the creation of several languages most notably Elvish, the shear depth and breadth of his work left an indelible mark on the world of Fantasy. bits of it are a little slow however, LOTR was the work of a lifetime and created much of the mainstream fantasy genre though even his works came out of a contemporary popular middle ages magazine pulp fiction culture from the 20s onwards. the shadows of the Two world wars warfare of industrial scale killing and superweapons lie heavily.

I find Tolkien boring. He is still better that Martin, not as good as Mary Stewart, and no where near Weis \ Hickman and Salvatore snores better that Tolkien writes.

That's just my opinion.  Everybody has their favorites (long live Pratchett)!

Pratchett was good.  Well, usually.  Not, perhaps, always quite as good as some of his legions of fans would claim--he basically rebelled against various cliches and conventions of fantasy, substituted his own, and beat them to death so hard that by the time he was done his schtick had itself become cliche.  And by the time he'd written a shelf-full, some of the later stuff was a bit phoned in.  But overall his stuff was funny, often interesting, frequently heartwarming.  And the best ones are pretty brilliant.  Good stuff.

Mary Stewart . . . I can kind of respect her stuff, but actually I found it boring.  The Crystal Cave and those?  Nothing much seemed to be happening.  And to the extent that anything was, it had this sort of Arthurian melancholy "doomed to do stuff you gotta do even though it will be pointless in the end" kind of vibe which I don't dig.  But it's not like she was a bad writer.

Weis?  Hickman?  Salvatore?  Whatever.

You're a damn fool--all the more so if you're not trolling.  There are people who don't like Lord of the Rings in the sense that it doesn't suit their particular taste.  There are plenty of good books, good movies and so on which I don't enjoy because while I realize they are very good at doing what they are trying to do, it's just not something I enjoy seeing done.  So I don't like them, but I realize they're good.  If that's how someone reacts to LoTR, fine.

 

But people who say it isn't good are just idiots parading their ignorance.  And particularly, anyone who says it is badly written both has an extremely shallow feel for the English language and has not been sufficiently educated in relevant areas to make up for their lack of linguistic instinct.  You should learn your limitations and not make confident pronouncements about matters you do not understand.

The Lord of the Rings is a tale with deep roots, whose writing draws on the whole tapestry of the history of English literature. 

Spoiler

For instance, take the Council of Elrond.  Bunch of talking heads doing exposition, with a bit of argument and politics.  But it is a tour de force, which probably no other writer could have duplicated.  Why?  Among other things, because of the mastery of tone, level of speech and so on.  Most of the characters involved speak in an archaic fashion; most decent writers can pull that off.  But at the Council of Elrond, all the characters spoke in a different sort of archaic idiom and style, that implied many things about their social class, level of erudition, pretentiousness, degree of . . . otherworldliness, and so on.  Boromir the scion of Gondor had a more superficially highfalutin' manner of speech than Aragorn the Ranger, and yet Tolkien was able to convey that Aragorn's understanding was deeper and his place greater with a stripped down, cleaner but older style of diction.  Tolkien could pull this kind of thing off because he knew his Old English and his Old Norse, his Chaucer and his Malory and his Shakespeare and his King James bible, he knew how kings and paupers and poets talked for as long as there have been languages one might call "English".  Not only did he know these things but he had assimilated them, made them his, so all the manners and styles of speech and writing through the history of England were his to command. 

You can see in different parts of the book different kinds of writing, from quite informal and comic, to epic history.  The Shire sections dealing with hobbits and their lives have an almost Jane Austen-like style, full of witty sarcasm about the foibles of society.  Parts of the Siege of Minas Tirith have an elevated, archaic style which brings a grandeur and a feeling of "Yes, this is telling you a history of what really happened" that I have never seen matched.  He could get away with it only because the elevated style rings so true, like he's channeling the ancient historians who wrote like that.  I could go on forever.

In short, you have no idea what you are talking about and are far out of your depth.  Perhaps someday you will learn enough to be able to appreciate what you are foolishly dissing.  In the mean time, you should at least understand that there is much there which you cannot see, and have some bloody respect.

I find Tolkien boring. He is still better that Martin, not as good as Mary Stewart, and no where near Weis \ Hickman and Salvatore snores better that Tolkien writes.

That's just my opinion.  Everybody has their favorites (long live Pratchett)!

Nice Boat.

Definitely amusing to see someone say that and it just means the face value.

Nice Boat.

That chapter ... was ... amazing.

And interestingly, it seems that the Amanchu anime's OP animated the diving entry portions from this chapter. Quite nice!

The art of Kozue is incredible once again - that scene of Pikari and Futaba around the small depth marker was ... incredible.

Thanks so much for the release!

It's so relaxing and make me happy whenever i read this

You're a damn fool--all the more so if you're not trolling.  There are people who don't like Lord of the Rings in the sense that it doesn't suit their particular taste.  There are plenty of good books, good movies and so on which I don't enjoy because while I realize they are very good at doing what they are trying to do, it's just not something I enjoy seeing done.  So I don't like them, but I realize they're good.  If that's how someone reacts to LoTR, fine.

 

But people who say it isn't good are just idiots parading their ignorance.  And particularly, anyone who says it is badly written both has an extremely shallow feel for the English language and has not been sufficiently educated in relevant areas to make up for their lack of linguistic instinct.  You should learn your limitations and not make confident pronouncements about matters you do not understand.

The Lord of the Rings is a tale with deep roots, whose writing draws on the whole tapestry of the history of English literature. 

Spoiler

For instance, take the Council of Elrond.  Bunch of talking heads doing exposition, with a bit of argument and politics.  But it is a tour de force, which probably no other writer could have duplicated.  Why?  Among other things, because of the mastery of tone, level of speech and so on.  Most of the characters involved speak in an archaic fashion; most decent writers can pull that off.  But at the Council of Elrond, all the characters spoke in a different sort of archaic idiom and style, that implied many things about their social class, level of erudition, pretentiousness, degree of . . . otherworldliness, and so on.  Boromir the scion of Gondor had a more superficially highfalutin' manner of speech than Aragorn the Ranger, and yet Tolkien was able to convey that Aragorn's understanding was deeper and his place greater with a stripped down, cleaner but older style of diction.  Tolkien could pull this kind of thing off because he knew his Old English and his Old Norse, his Chaucer and his Malory and his Shakespeare and his King James bible, he knew how kings and paupers and poets talked for as long as there have been languages one might call "English".  Not only did he know these things but he had assimilated them, made them his, so all the manners and styles of speech and writing through the history of England were his to command. 

You can see in different parts of the book different kinds of writing, from quite informal and comic, to epic history.  The Shire sections dealing with hobbits and their lives have an almost Jane Austen-like style, full of witty sarcasm about the foibles of society.  Parts of the Siege of Minas Tirith have an elevated, archaic style which brings a grandeur and a feeling of "Yes, this is telling you a history of what really happened" that I have never seen matched.  He could get away with it only because the elevated style rings so true, like he's channeling the ancient historians who wrote like that.  I could go on forever.

In short, you have no idea what you are talking about and are far out of your depth.  Perhaps someday you will learn enough to be able to appreciate what you are foolishly dissing.  In the mean time, you should at least understand that there is much there which you cannot see, and have some bloody respect.

You sure sound euphoric.

Snowman Aria-shashou!!!!

best girl strikes again

...I get the feeling her last guess was 生徒 (student), but they just converted it to romaji without translating it for some reason.

In any case, it may be midwinter, but it looks like spring has already come for Katori-chan?! Was kind of funny that she didn't even consider herself a possibility though.

@brahmaputrastt: read before answering, you don't address a single point of what I state. Also, so much racionalizing must hurt your head. @purple library guy: i can be a snob, but your tastes are shit. Both harry potter and LOTR suck hard (not even trolling here) even the hobbit, a tale for children, is much better written. If you want to give a try to well written fantasy I'd start with Ende.

You're a damn fool--all the more so if you're not trolling.  There are people who don't like Lord of the Rings in the sense that it doesn't suit their particular taste.  There are plenty of good books, good movies and so on which I don't enjoy because while I realize they are very good at doing what they are trying to do, it's just not something I enjoy seeing done.  So I don't like them, but I realize they're good.  If that's how someone reacts to LoTR, fine.

But people who say it isn't good are just idiots parading their ignorance.  And particularly, anyone who says it is badly written both has an extremely shallow feel for the English language and has not been sufficiently educated in relevant areas to make up for their lack of linguistic instinct.  You should learn your limitations and not make confident pronouncements about matters you do not understand.

The Lord of the Rings is a tale with deep roots, whose writing draws on the whole tapestry of the history of English literature. 

In short, you have no idea what you are talking about and are far out of your depth.  Perhaps someday you will learn enough to be able to appreciate what you are foolishly dissing.  In the mean time, you should at least understand that there is much there which you cannot see, and have some bloody respect.