So…Is there a certain criteria for asking questions? Do the questions have to be about Pokemon, or do you have a separate blog for those?

There is not, although I occasionally get too busy with my work out here in the real world and forget about them, or leave them to fester for a couple of weeks. I suppose there’s no reason you couldn’t ask me about something unrelated to Pokémon, but the answer may be disappointingly dull (for instance, from time to time people ask me to compare Pokémon with other video games I’ve never heard of, and I have no option but to plead ignorance).

I read your ancient slavery and I admit I didn’t think of it that way. I suppose and I did think pokemon was slavery at its core and could not be argued and that fans were being sort of delusional. I recall another blogger saying, N says goodbye to the main character, she said he puts you in charge to end pokemon slavery in BW or BW2. I guess its more about relative interpretation with different opinions from people much more than I thought. For a cynic myself, it’s hard to grasp their lifestyle

This same person later added: “So those two articles [the articles in question are these ones], I hoped they gave you a laugh. I guess its easy to see trainers as abusive always fighting for profit constantly non stop, cramming the PC with the animals caught forcibly; pokemon who are sadistic creatures with additional Stockholm syndrome. But franchise says otherwise. I treated as unrealistic propaganda. But after reading your past blog, I guess to sum it up, I am looking at it wrong? It feels unrealistic. Don’t hate me man. I remember making Michael Vick jokes too.”

I’d seen the first article before, but not the second. From an analytical perspective there are a lot of problems with them but they’re clearly meant as jokes, and they certainly succeed at that, so I’m not really bothered.

Anyway, I’m glad I’ve given you something to think about. I suppose ultimately for me the question is one of authorial intent, and I think it’s obvious that no-one at Game Freak actually intends Pokémon to be apologistic of animal abuse. Clearly they feel that something is implicit in the way the setting functions which makes it fundamentally different from slavery and animal abuse, which is why I tend to favour reading more into it, and extrapolating the kind of outlook a Pokémon would need to have in order to make the system work. Of course you could go all “death of the author” and say that what Game Freak intends is irrelevant anyway because all that matters is that people can read it as slavery, but I’m really not a fan of death of the author (maybe because, in history, reading a text without considering authorial intent is sheer insanity, and that tends to influence my outlook even when I’m thinking about literature). On the other hand, if you can make a good story out of portraying Pokémon that way, go for it! For instance, I was recently reminded of this comic (slowly progressing and in no state resembling completion, but nonetheless worth every second you spend reading it), which portrays Pokémon training in a much bleaker light than I’m used to arguing for, and as a result is absolutely fascinating. I would almost think that Game Freak avoid tackling the issues head-on on purpose, to allow people more freedom for this kind of darker interpretation, except that they don’t support or even acknowledge fan fiction, so I don’t know.

Who is Michael Vick?

Do you prefer the manga, the show or the games? Do you also think each represent more of a different view? For example manga is darker, show is kiddier.

Well, I don’t really know the manga, although I am aware that it’s a great deal darker than the anime or games. Also I think (?) it’s not actually produced by Nintendo or Game Freak, but sort of authorised by them in some vague and nebulous sense? I admit I don’t really know what the situation is there.

(I wish to point out, because I know someone will bring it up, that when Satoshi Tajiri said of Pokémon Adventures that it “most resembles the world [he] was trying to convey” he was comparing it to other Pokémon manga series, not to the games or anime- that quote has an annoying tendency to get taken out of context)

As for the games and anime… well, to be honest, I don’t know that I see the point in choosing. They just don’t do the same things. I mean, they notionally portray the same world, and I tend to think they’re fairly consistent with each other in their outlook and broad conceptions of what makes the setting work (i.e. ”the power of friendship”), but the purpose of the anime is to tell a story, while the purpose of the games is ultimately to provide challenges in strategy and problem-solving, with the story very much being a secondary concern (sure, the storytelling has been improving a lot recently, but you don’t have to look far to find video games that make it seem downright primitive). You can’t play the anime, and the games can’t tell as good a story or contribute as much to our image of the background world (although again that’s changing). For me they’re two parts of a larger whole.

Are you going to review each Pokemon individually like in Black and White? That’s what I’ve been looking forward to the most, since I love those articles.

Y’know, I would like to, and I’m sure you’re not the only person who wants me to. It took me a better part of a year the first time, though, and I’m not able to post things as regularly or as often as I was back then. I’ll have to think about it. I’ll definitely do something along those lines, but I may have to come up with a more condensed format.

I might as well ask too due to the influx of questions recently, few were serious. Two parter. First. how would you treat your pokemon on your journey. Second, how do you think other trainers would treat them? Anime, game, and real world of ours. For example journey includes feeding, training, and interacting. 2nd example is such as a pokemon not meeting training expectations and what would you do with it. 3rd example is methods of bonding. Don’t worry no “sir” from me unlike the other guy.

So, sort of an exercise in roleplay? I can do that.

I think “how would other trainers treat them?” is sort of too broad a question – we can see in the games and especially in the anime that there are a lot of answers! Think of Ash and A.J. in the Path to the Pokémon League, for example, and then compare both of them to Jessie and James. Compare Alder and Giovanni – it’s night and day. The real world would doubtless be even more complicated, because what we’ve seen of the Pokémon world is (or at least seems to be) quite culturally homogenous, which our world isn’t. You could fill a book with that stuff. I can talk about myself, though.

I see Pokémon training as being, in an ideal world, a sort of mutually beneficial contract. The trainer has greater freedom to define the terms of the relationship – the Pokémon’s main options for renegotiating are to refuse orders in battle (which could end painfully) or to leave outright (which, depending on the circumstances, might be undesirable). This makes it the trainer’s responsibility to seek approval from his or her Pokémon before making decisions that affect their relationship and ensure that they have the opportunity to leave on favourable terms, purely as a matter of courtesy. For instance, I recently moved from New Zealand to Ohio – if I were bringing Pokémon with me, a big concern would be making sure that they understood what that entailed and had a chance to refuse. Some things can be assumed – unless they’ve been fighting already that day, I think I can generally expect my Pokémon to be willing to battle. Anything out of the ordinary should really be run by them first, though; if I’m leaving town for a few days, they should have the option to come with me or stay at home; battles with Gym Leaders should wait until they feel ready. Pokémon can’t talk, but they’re pretty sharp by animal standards and seem to understand a good portion of whatever is said to them, so a big part of interaction should involve simply talking to them, learning to read their responses, and getting used to the way they communicate their desires.

My philosophy for training rests on two assumptions: first, that Pokémon work with human trainers because they desire wider experience than they would enjoy in the wild; second, that Pokémon intend, at least in principle, to return to the wild at some point. The first of these, to me, seems axiomatic; the second may well turn out to be false, but I think the healthiest practice is to assume initially that it is true. The way trainers develop their Pokémon’s skills should reflect this. I would see my principle responsibility to be researching techniques and studying the capabilities of different species of Pokémon, and giving my own Pokémon the opportunity to try out many different attacks. I also think that one of the most significant types of ‘wider experience’ trained Pokémon gain is working with Pokémon of different species, so I would place a priority on double battles. Exposure to the human world is important too – look for opportunities to hire them out for things other than battling, like construction for big Fighting-types, or aerial survey for Flying Pokémon. If I had the time and energy, I would prepare food for my own Pokémon, but this is more a matter of preference than any comment on training philosophy – I just like preparing food. Most of any money won in battles or earned for performing tasks should go back to the Pokémon, in the form of food, toys, training equipment or medicine. Pokéballs should be regarded as tools for specific purposes – they can offer protection, facilitate travel, and provide a place to sleep, but the majority of a Pokémon’s waking hours should be spent outside when circumstances permit.

As for Pokémon who don’t meet expectations, I think the most important thing there would be for the trainer to assume nothing – especially don’t assume that the Pokémon is in the wrong. The first thing to try is to look for areas other than battle where the Pokémon might excel (this is one reason it’s good to spend time having your Pokémon working on miscellaneous projects) and figure out what skills it’s using there. It could be the battle style you’re using just doesn’t match up with the abilities your Pokémon is most confident with, and you need to radically change its moveset to something that makes more sense for it. Alternatively, battle just isn’t this Pokémon’s thing (in which case you should try to focus on other pursuits, like contests or non-competitive work), or maybe something just isn’t working in your personal interaction – either way, it might be a good idea to look into trading with someone you know to be a responsible trainer, ideally someone your Pokémon already knows. In short – the point is to work with them, figure out (by trial and error if necessary!) what talents they have, and develop those talents in ways they wouldn’t have the opportunity to on their own.

One detail that I don’t think ever got mentioned in your Create-A-Pokémon project was what Krakentoa’s cry would sound like. I mean, a creature as alien-looking as that would probably make noises so bizarre as to almost defy verbal description, but maybe you could compare it to some other Pokémon’s cry?

(For reference, here’s Krakentoa: http://pokemaniacal.tumblr.com/post/48350352582/presenting-krakentoa-the-deep-flame-pokemon)

Hrm. Good question. I’m sort of thinking a kind of screechy roar, maybe something like Venusaur, with a dash of Rhydon or Nidoking. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Does games treat pokemon differently overtime? Anime was pretty consistent I think although I could be wrong in about being friends. RBY 1st generation pokemon were more like slaves at worst or half willing gladiators at best from what I recall (memory fuzzy). Although to be honest gameplay seems to treat them like it. What do you say dude?

Well, it’s sort of not easy to draw detailed conclusions from the games, because they’re just less detailed on the world-building front (especially the earlier ones, which also suffer from limited characterisation all around), but I don’t think I would describe Red and Blue that way. The rival character seems to act at times as though he sees Pokémon that way, so it’s important to note that callous views of Pokémon training do exist (up to and including Team Rocket) – but Blue gets called out on that, hard, by Professor Oak, who emphatically attributes your victory over Blue at the Pokémon League to your stronger relationship with your Pokémon. The Gym Leaders are pretty vague on all this. Agatha’s position, though, is very interesting – she is convinced that Pokémon are meant to fight, and that scientific or cultural pursuits are a waste of time. There are several ways you could interpret her vehement disagreement with Professor Oak here – it could be that there’s a wider ideological conflict over the status of Pokémon going on in the background, or it could be that Agatha is a relic of a much older tradition of Pokémon training… or, perhaps more worryingly, it could be that Professor Oak is the radical (after all, Agatha does single him out when she describes her training philosophy to you), and is pushing for change in a world that mainly views Pokémon as Agatha does – not necessarily in a systematically abusive light, but more callous overall than later portrayals suggest. I think the subsequent games, particularly Black and White, establish something of a consensus on the matter, but if you want to read Red and Blue alone, as though when they were first released, there’s a bit more room for elaboration if you’re willing to downplay Professor Oak’s authority.

OH GODDAMMIT okay non-eloquent now: boiled down to “I read your TYPE CLASSIFICATIONS ARE HARD posts, think it’s neat how it’s hard to define “ground” or “dark” or “normal” type sometimes yet pokemon fans just /get/ what they mean, this is more of a ‘i had an idea do you think it’s cool’ than a question but do you think the existence of types is expressed somehow through pokeworld culture, perhaps as universal archetypes? the thought of elemental astrology or w/e is funny to me for some reason.

[Context: this question has been sent to me at least once before, but was apparently lost in the celestial aether before reaching my in-box]

Hmm…

I’m trying to think of examples that appear to show something like this. The first thing that comes to mind is the Power of One’s “disturb not the harmony of fire, ice and lightning” maxim, and I suspect legendary Pokémon in general would play a very important part in defining concepts of that kind. It would certainly make sense if they had ideas like this; the idea of ‘basic elements’ is widespread enough in ancient thought. I, of course, am most familiar with the four Empedoclean elements of western thought, and their precedent in Thales’ conjecture that all things were made of water (this is really interesting; basically, Thales’ insight was realising that water is the only substance that can be found in nature as a solid, a liquid or a gas, and suggesting that earth and stone were really just further cooled and condensed forms of ice, while air and fire are further heated and rarefied forms of steam – I mean, he was totally wrong, of course, but it was a fascinating hypothesis), but more interesting in terms of Pokémon is the classical Chinese system of five elements – water, fire, earth, wood and metal. This system has a cycle of relationships of ‘destruction’ reminiscent of Pokémon’s elemental rock-paper-scissors, such as “fire destroys metal” and “wood destroys earth,” but also has a cycle of relationships of ‘creation,’ such as “water creates wood” and “fire creates earth.” If I were trying to construct a history of the Pokémon world, I’d be tempted to place the origins of the type system in one or more cycles like that.

I tend to think that type is something that, in many if not most cases, actually has little to do with Pokémon biology but is a system of classification imposed by humans largely for the purpose of providing a heuristic framework for understanding the ways in which different Pokémon and attacks affect each other in battle – instead of remembering strengths and weaknesses for every Pokémon and every attack you come across, you can memorise a set of general rules that will usually work. If I’m right about that, then it would make sense that the system didn’t simply spring into being fully formed, but had a number of more rudimentary antecedents which failed to describe the abilities of different Pokémon as thoroughly or accurately (maybe they had too few types to account for all the variability, or divided similar Pokémon for superficial reasons). It would further make sense that the earliest of these systems would seek explanations in magic or astrology. Hell, in the case of Ghost-, Psychic- and Fairy-types, they may be absolutely right to do so.

Monster/animal human bonding partnership fictions exist. Digimon, Zatch Bell, Monsuno, Yugioh has it too, even Persona series has something of it with demons. Dragon’s prophet, Even How to train your dragon. But what has pokemon bonding thing that stood out above the rest? Maybe you can even right an article on it, comparing relationships to other series.

Well, I haven’t actually heard of half of those… and I haven’t seen How to Train Your Dragon, or anything past the first season of Yu-Gi-Oh (how do you have a ‘partnership’ with a trading card, anyway? I mean, sure, I can see how that was where Yugi’s ‘heart of the cards’ bull$#!t was heading, and his favourite creature is human anyway, but still, wha?). So, to be honest, an article on that could easily stretch to several months of work.

I do know Digimon, and as far as contrasting that with Pokémon, I don’t know that Pokémon does stand out above it. Obviously the video games are far more numerous and successful but I’m inclined to suggest this has more to do with aspects of gameplay than with anything related to their respective themes of partnership, while as far as the anime goes, Digimon is pretty highly acclaimed for its characterisation, and much as I love the Pokémon anime I have to admit that the first two seasons of Digimon are a good deal deeper, and deal at least as convincingly with the partnership thing.

So I guess my final answer to this question is “eh.”

How about this idea: equippable pokemon. The ability to attach certain pokemon to certain other pokemon for added affects or otherwise. Like a remoraid to a mantine to increase special attack, or equipping a baby kangaskhan (which is an alternate form in this hypothetical game) which will activate its parental instincts and raise its attack, and be required for the baby to mature. They could even retcon evolution methods such as slowpoke’s and magnemite’s with this. Sound interesting?

…hmm.

That does sound interesting.

So, we would be talking about filling an item slot with them, I presume? Let’s see… there’s a very limited number of Pokémon that this would work with, which on the one hand means you don’t get to do much with it, but on the other gets to emphasise the special qualities of the ones who can work together like this. I can imagine the extra programming work being something of a burden, but there’s some neat stuff you could do with it. Obviously all such Pokémon would need to be immune to stealing and switching effects, in the same way as, for instance, Giratina’s Griseous Orb. I’d have an ‘equipped’ Pokémon gain experience with its partner, and possibly have their effects scale based on level or other stats.

Your Remoraid, for example, could add 1/8 of its own special attack to Mantine’s while equipped (to be honest I think you could easily go to ¼ without making Mantine broken – we are spending his item slot here, after all – but let’s be conservative). Vespiquen’s Attack Order, Defend Order and Heal Order could all be changed to require an equipped male Combee, and have their power increase when Combee reaches certain levels (say, Attack Order starts at 50, increasing to 70, 90, 110 as Combee hits levels 20, 40, 60; Heal Order gains the ability to heal status effects at some point; Defend Order starts out just boosting defence by 1 stage, picks up +1 special defence around level 30, then changes to +2 defence at 50, and +2 special defence at 70). And now male Combee actually have a purpose in life!

You could also potentially do some really weird stuff that isn’t immediately obvious – equipping Foongus to Paras or Amoonguss to Parasect, maybe? That could maybe alter Paras’ Effect Spore to add ¼ of Foongus’ level to the percentage change of inflicting sleep (currently 10%). Or Rotom! Rotom could possess Steel-types to give them all the weaknesses, resistances and immunities of a Ghost Pokémon (or, if you wanted to do maybe a more sinister take, give them something like a 50% special attack boost, something really absurd, in exchange for automatically Cursing them at the end of their second turn in battle).

Isn’t there a sword Pokémon in X and Y? (No, don’t answer that; I’ll find out in my own time). Seems like it’d be a natural candidate for something like this.

Evolution might be trickier. Slowpoke to Slowbro is straightforward, but what about Slowpoke to Slowking? If Slowpoke has Shellder in his item slot, how does the King’s Rock come into play? I guess Magnemite would work by equipping one Magnemite to a second (producing a sort of Eviolite-like effect that increases all of your Magnemite’s stats by, say, 20%), and then equipping the second Magnemite to a third, which immediately prompts evolution (if you cancel, the second Magnemite drops back into your party – no nested Magnemites!).

In short – sounds like fun!