JoJo's Bizarre Adventure - Napkins and Anarchy

PROTIP: Press the ← and → keys to navigate the gallery, 'g' to view the gallery, or 'r' to view a random image.

In the aftermath of Christmas dinner, I have discovered a flaw in Funny Valentine's philosophy Part Seven SpoilerS) (self.Sta submitted 14 hours ago by locustking14 This evening I was pleased to be invited to a parent's friend's house for a lovely Christmas dinner. When it was time to eat, we all took our seats around the table. I was delighted to notice to my left and to my right a folded paper napkin, and while no one else at the table was aware of the significance of the action I brazenly took the napkin to my right The result of my taking the first napkin was underwhelming. Across the table, a grandma who had not noticed my action took the napkin to her left. A few seats to my left was a place at the table that was set but had no one sitting at it. And a few seats to my right was a guy who ended up not picking up a napkin at all. Thus, as my twisting the arm of fate propagated like faling dominoes to my right, when it reached the point where the guy should have picked up his right napkin and did not the impetus of the action ceased. To the grandma's right, two people took their left napkins but then it got to the empty place, which was skipped, and at least one person to my left now had free will to choose whichever napkin they pleased. Because of the guy who didn't take a napkin, there was no clash where the left-takers of the grandma's side and the right-takers of my side met like the waters of two seas colliding, which should have resulted in one person not getting a napkin and having to take it from the empty place In short, I took the first napkin, and anarchy ensued as people completely disregarded the firm law that had been implicitly established My question is then, what would Funny Valentine make of this napkin conundrum? In his extended metaphor in which the taking of the napkin correlates to the establishment of societal norms and social contracts, how can one account for the random variables of the ignorant, apathetic, or absent? For people like the grandma who do not realize the structure of society around them and act on their own against the flow of reason, for people like the guy who consider themselves sufficient without the aid of society and who will turn aside the pressure of conformity, or for people like the absentee who remove themselves from the situation in which social norms dictate proper behavior? How would Funny Valentine reconcile with these mavericks?

View Gallery Random Image

Top Comments

I am AHO Right?

Dec 26, 2016 at 12:00PM EST

Basically, FV was talking about late 1800’s high society, where you could actually expect everyone to wait for the host to act and then have others follow suit. Not so much in today’s relatively egalitarian and socially lax society. So I think FV, blinded by his cause as he is, wouldn’t really accept that and would just blame it on the declining morals of the modern world and cite it as a reason why you need to obey an omnipotent force such as himself, even though, at least in the metaphor, there was no problem doing it another way.

+11

ProJFURY

Dec 26, 2016 at 12:30PM EST

The description of a character who is ignorant and thus doesn't follow the norms and doesn't realize what is truly around him or her is Pocoloco's character and the reason for his existence.

+10

+ Add a Comment