Do the relationship between Grave and Cinderella really warrant the Mother and Daughter tag?
It's not like I can't see the reasoning, but it feels like a stretch.
Like, is Syuen mother to the Matis squad members, too?
The writer for their story said that it was "a story about a mother going the extra mile for her daughter even if it ruins herself", and Grave/Abe has explicitly referred to herself as Cinderella's mother (multiple times) and called Cinderella her own child. It's neither based on "reasoning" nor a "stretch"; that is just what it is in the game.
So, yes, since the premise of their story is explicitly and literally build upon being a mother/daughter relation, the tag is warranted.
Iknowme said: So, yes, since the premise of their story is explicitly and literally build upon being a mother/daughter relation, the tag is warranted.
Then re-add it. It still feels off, to me. But people have been tagging the children versions of Azur Lane units with "mother and daughter" when they are with their adult counterparts. Also using it when little Leonardo da Vinci is appearing with big Leonardo da Vinci in FGO.
I see no problem with tagging Grave and Cinderella as "mother and daughter". But if we consider creator-creation a family relationship, will this affect other pairings or are we gonna go with a case-by-case approach?
About the "mother and daughter" debate, the problem is that some people take things too literally.
Scientists and inventors call their masterpieces their "children" all the time in fiction, it's a sign of affection but it obviously does not mean that the creation is the creator's literal child (although there are exceptions, like with everything).
To draw a comparison - James Marcus called his mutant leeches his "children". That doesn't mean he was literally their father.
About the "mother and daughter" debate, the problem is that some people take things too literally.
Scientists and inventors call their masterpieces their "children" all the time in fiction, it's a sign of affection but it obviously does not mean that the creation is the creator's literal child (although there are exceptions, like with everything).
To draw a comparison - James Marcus called his mutant leeches his "children". That doesn't mean he was literally their father.
You're completely missing the point here. Those examples are creatures, not people. There's plenty of pet owners calling their pets their children, this is the same principle. If the creation is a person and their creator calls them their child then they are parent and child, end of story. This is no different from adoptive parents with their children, there's just the extra step of making the child first.
Leave a comment