Category: Q & A

Everyone seems to have their favorites, but the hands-down winner of best English dub of all time pretty much has to go to the Golden Boy OVA:

Doug Smith's Kintaro Oe is an Olympic-level VA delivery, it's hard to imagine anyone approaching or eclipsing this anytime soon. That his expression and intonation fit perfectly with the perverse content and themes throughout the series does make me wonder about the guy a bit…

Though it isn't at the top of anyone's anime lists (though it cracks well into the 97th+ percentile), the "sub/dub" rating ratio for Golden Boy destroys those of pretty much all the "top tens". The dub is so good, in fact, that when the title changed hands from ADV films to Media Blasters, the latter company retained the original dub as part of its release.

The combination of a completely absurd storyline, over the top comedy, perfect VA by the lead and tremendous support throughout the cast, and a clear ratings distinction among "dub" titles make this one worth watching.

More info available on Wikipedia (where else?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol…

What anime are better/just as good with the English dub?

We should know in just a few more months.

My guess? Sasuke.

The thing is, Naruto's superpower isn't the Kyuubi, it's his ability to stare everyone down and make them not only face the mistakes they've made, but to seek out a brighter future and open their hearts. Naruto is one of the best "shonen heroes" – those fighters who constantly seem to turn this week's opponent into next week's ally. Naruto has, thus far, built up a LOT of friends.

The way the plot is moving now, with Kabuto and Madara occasionally making appearances to throw off the reader, but Sasuke has been gone a very, very long time now… Well, let's just say that I think we'll get to see both a definitive Naruto/Sasuke power-level comparison, as well as a final team-up/redemption that allows sasuke to protect/counter Madara's abilities enough to allow Naruto to bat clean up and win the day. That, or the reverse – Naruto will sacrifice himself to save Sasuke's soul, and ultimately everyone else as well.

Who would win in a showdown between Naruto and Uchiha Madara?

In the US, I presume that everywhere will take a credit card, and I back that up with around $100 in cash for those random "just in case" moments.

In Japan, it's basically the opposite – I try to estimate my daily expenses (not including lodging or any sort of "big ticket" tours/tickets/etc), multiply by the legnth of trip, then get that much cash in Yen… Actually, I used to pad that figure by several hundred dollars, assuming I'd run into one of those "gotta have" gift items you can't get back in the US.

(Un?)Fortunately, these days, you can basically get everything you can find in Japan (apart from certain food products) here as well, so I just go off a basic daily food, drink, transport, and sight seeing budget when I'm on vacation, or a slightly smaller version of same when travelling on business.

As a rough guide, imagine how much money you'd need bumming around NYC by yourself, then convert to Yen.

How much Yen should I bring to Tokyo? Should I mostly rely on my charge card where possible?

First, I invite you to check out my answer to the question What is it like to work as a "pusher" in Tokyo's subway system? for some perspective.

Generally speaking:

As humans, we are exceedingly flexible, and we'll tend to adapt in time to whatever the local environment requires, to help preserve our sanity and allow our brains to keep from being distressed constantly. People who ride the subways in Tokyo during rush hour are no different.

For one thing, the overcrowded train stuff happens only during a very limited period of the day, on specific express or commuter-focused lines only. As Tom Spano says, when you need to be somewhere during those specific times, it beats walking! If you need to do it regularly, it beats the likely-outrageous cab fare (not to mention the amount of time either would take to get you to your destination). The rest of the time, the crowding is much less a problem, though that may seem less true in the hot sweaty summer months coming up…

Okay, that aside, why are people willing to tolerate the crowding? Simply put, people in Tokyo, and other densely-populated areas of Japan are:

• quite generally polite and respectful, which makes things easier, and
• have a different concept of "personal space" than most Westerners do.

The latter trait is certainly not exclusive to Japan… Everything is relative! But in Tokyo, where walking down a busy street often means walking in packs of a dozen or more, rather than the 4-5 you might experience regularly in New York, things just simply don't "feel crowded" until you're actually touching other people unintentionally.

As a foreigner, it was a very conscious experience for me to first experience the crush of pedestrians when I landed at Narita… And to notice, day by day, week by week, how little those same crowds affected me, and how much easier it became to see the "holes" in a crowd, if I needed to press through in a hurry without disturbing the general flow of things.

It's an acquired skill and even "taste", if you will… One borne out of necessity given the tightly-packed population. But, in many ways, I grew to vastly prefer it – it kept me far more observant in my daily routine, and made my accommodations (also very small compared to what I was used to in the US) feel downright palatial. So much so, in fact, that I can go back now and stay in Capsule Hotels without really noticing that I'm paying to be a giant sardine.

I know I've strayed a bit from the specifics of subway crowding, but in general our sensory inputs can be tuned up or down (just ask your garbage hauler, or a porn video editor) to suit our need for mental calm, which is one of our greatest advantages as a species.

Why are people willing to tolerate the extreme crowding on Tokyo subways?

I'm having trouble finding an answer that actually addresses the question asked, so here goes:

Marriage ceremonies are, with a few exceptions, affairs based on religious, not legal tradition. Religions tend to have various marital rulesets based on millenia-old problems establishing paternity, inheritance – and to a lesser extent, the preservation of the bride's rights and powers after producing offspring.

If you consider the historical origin of marriage itself as a sales process, the ceremony is basically the equivalent of a contract signing – and most contracts would be useless if they were written as "this holds true until you're no longer feelin' it". Rather, by making it clear that the arrangement was permanent (barring certain fairly common clauses), the gravity of the institution, and the alliances forged and lands distributed as a result could be viewed as much more stable and long-lasting than they otherwise would.

Today, 90% of the original reasons for inter-familial marriage are viewed as relatively unimportant (British royalty and Hollywood dream-couples aside), with love and affection being the popular selection principles. In turn, this makes marriage inherently more of a "couple" than a "families" affair. Romeo and Juliet can get married, and the Montague-Capulet hatefest is free to continue unabated.

Unfortunately, neither established religions, nor the law, have moved as quickly as the modern human heart – which creates the disparity at the core of the question:

On the one hand, the marriage ceremony is (usually) filled with language of permanence at all costs,

While on the other hand, most "functional" marriages are much more complex, and usually based on factors that are never even mentioned during the marriage ceremony.

So, really, it's simple: the reason most marriage ceremonies assume permanence is because the ceremonies are largely cut from old, outdated cloth. Whether or not this is a good thing is another question entirely.

This is not to say that it's impossible to create a ceremony of that is both legal, and more self-aware/modernized to reflect the specific desires and agreements of a given couple. With the widespread availability of "retail prenups", more exotic vehicles like the "Relationship LLC", and the burgeoning availability of non-heterosexual marriage, it seems likely that the problem described in the question will be at least more significantly addressed in the next few decades.

For the record – my personal recommendation would be to subsume all marriage within existing adoption law – allowing for many additional forms of marital constructs in one fell swoop (non-heteronormative, non-monogamous, asynchronous, pure platonic, etc), as well as building in probationary periods, and routine checkins – not simply to police the newlywed, but to assist them in establishing relationships that truly can withstand the many tests of time. This might also make it easier for everyone involved to address the conclusion of a marriage in a less inherently negative/failure-oriented manner.

Why do marriage ceremonies assume marriage is forever, when for many, it isn't going to be?